FCC Announces Plans To Repeal Net Neutrality

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 minutes ago, Howard Roark said:

If you have no other choice, that is a monopoly not monopolistic. ISP have this position because they were given it by government entities, not because they dominated their competition. 

Technically they weren't "given" it.  Other companies could come in and compete if they wanted to.  But they don't "want to."  Magically, most companies choose to divvy up the map and not compete with one another in over 50% of the country.  It benefits them all by allowing them to charge higher rates in those areas.  

It's almost certainly collusion, but it's hellaciously hard to prove.

[Howard Roark 195]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It's questionable whether such a move would actually work the way it was intended though.  The streaming content segment is extremely competitive right now and even a slight increase of a dollar or two can send customers off to a competitor like Hulu or Amazon Prime video.  Netflix publicized the hell out of the move trying to get pressure Comcast, but ultimately they can't deliver their product to the end user except through whatever internet pipe the people have.  Comcast is massive compared to Netflix.  They had all the leverage (customers who mostly have no where else to go).  Netflix had very little.

 

AT&T eventually gave in.  But it was a sign of what providers will attempt to do if given the chance.  The cellular service market is a whole lot more competitive and free than the cable and broadband internet market is.  97% of the country can easily switch to another provider with little friction.  My iPhone can literally work on any of the four major carriers without having to get a new one from that provider.  If everyone had four major cable/broadband companies to choose from where they live, maybe this would be a moot point.

But they don't, so it isn't.

 

ISP market would also be a great deal more competitive if government got out of the way.  The dangers of NN (as I pointed out) is companies will try to use NN to block competitors. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, Howard Roark said:

ISP market would also be a great deal more competitive if government got out of the way.  The dangers of NN (as I pointed out) is companies will try to use NN to block competitors. 

Nothing the government is doing is preventing the ISP market from being more competitive.

And Net Neutrality can't be used to block competitors.  The LACK of it can though.  If everyone's traffic is treated the same, then companies compete based on providing the better product for the right price.  When you're allowed to prioritize some traffic over others, or make it so that some kinds of traffic are only available on tiers that cost more, then the ISPs get to favor their own offerings over that of competitors.

[Howard Roark 195]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Nothing the government is doing is preventing the ISP market from being more competitive.

Really?  So why is no one entering that market, it certainly sounds lucrative. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Just now, Howard Roark said:

Really?  So why is no one entering that market, it certainly sounds lucrative. 

I just told you.  The pattern over the last 10-20 years has been for cable companies to carve out service areas where they end up being the sole provider for years if not indefinitely in over 50% of the country.  All the while, the FTC continually allows bigger cable companies to buy smaller ones or mergers between major players, so the footprint of their monopoly markets spreads.  

The reason is fairly obvious - try to stretch the amount of time where they all get to enjoy pricing without competition as long as they possible can.  All the cable companies win because they aren't in price wars with each other.

[Strychnine 1,802]

Just now, Howard Roark said:

Really?  So why is no one entering that market, it certainly sounds lucrative. 

 

That is simple.  Building a metropolitan broadband network is very expensive, logistically complicated, and time-consuming.  Cable companies and phone companies inherited the basic infrastructure for their broadband networks from their previous services, in the form of existing coax cable and phone lines.  Any viable competitor has to build the whole thing from scratch.  That is a lot of money and time for an upstart to spend before they see any worthwhile return.

[AU64 10,122]

23 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

That is simple.  Building a metropolitan broadband network is very expensive, logistically complicated, and time-consuming.  Cable companies and phone companies inherited the basic infrastructure for their broadband networks from their previous services, in the form of existing coax cable and phone lines.  Any viable competitor has to build the whole thing from scratch.  That is a lot of money and time for an upstart to spend before they see any worthwhile return.

That's true if you are going to duplicate an already obsolete system....and who wants to do that?    In my view, what scares off investors in any endeavor related to infrastructure is the possibility that government will come in and change the rules...or just throw up road blocks that increase the cost.  An example that comes to mind is a toll road project near Charlotte...investors are on hand, work is being done and even now there are lawsuits galore opposing or delaying it in the name of "consumer protection".   

Seems that in a good part of the developing world modern communication systems are being establish without near as much fixed asset investment and that could happen here too if government did not try to protect the existing enterprises by various means...usually involving red tape and regulations.      

As for the basic issue.....I accept I don't know the Xx and Os as well as many here but what I see is an industry group trying to get the government to protect or work against their competitors...and using the argument of "consumer protection" to justify the government involvement.     To me at least, this is not about technical issues but instead about a philosophy of government.....and maybe in this case...the government picking the winners and losers. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

16 minutes ago, AU64 said:

That's true if you are going to duplicate an already obsolete system....and who wants to do that?    In my view, what scares off investors in any endeavor related to infrastructure is the possibility that government will come in and change the rules...or just throw up road blocks that increase the cost.  An example that comes to mind is a toll road project near Charlotte...investors are on hand, work is being done and even now there are lawsuits galore opposing or delaying it in the name of "consumer protection".   

There has been a regulatory threat that would affect investment in infrastructure of basically zero over the last twenty years.  Large providers have been able to gobble up smaller competitors, and large companies merge with other large companies, thus reducing competition for years.  This is a bogeyman that doesn't exist.

 

Quote

Seems that in a good part of the developing world modern communication systems are being establish without near as much fixed asset investment and that could happen here too if government did not try to protect the existing enterprises by various means...usually involving red tape and regulations.      

Any specific examples as it pertains to cable and broadband you can cite to show this is what's been happening here?

 

 

Quote

As for the basic issue.....I accept I don't know the Xx and Os as well as many here but what I see is an industry group trying to get the government to protect or work against their competitors...and using the argument of "consumer protection" to justify the government involvement.     To me at least, this is not about technical issues but instead about a philosophy of government.....and maybe in this case...the government picking the winners and losers. 

What industry group?  And how are they trying to work against their competitors?  They simply want the playing field to be level for everyone.  The government isn't picking winners and losers, they are just trying to keep that power in the hands of millions of end consumers making their own decisions instead of in the hands of an increasingly smaller but more powerful group of broadband providers.

[homersapien 11,367]

Net Neutrality Is Dead. Here’s What The Experts Are Saying.

https://futurism.com/net-neutrality-dead-experts-comment/

No More Equal Rights For Data

In a 3-to-2 decision on December 14, 2017,  the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal the rules that regulate how internet service providers (ISPs) connect us to the world wide web. Termed “net neutrality,” these rules ensured that companies like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast couldn’t charge more for higher quality service or block certain websites.

In short, they helped guarantee equality for all voices and prevented censorship.

With net neutrality in place, ISPs had to treat all data — no matter what the content was, who owned it, or who created it — passing through their networks the same. But with this repeal, which rolls back regulations passed under the Obama administration in 2015, high-speed internet is no longer a utility regulated by the federal government. Now, providers can prioritize the content and data from companies that pay more, shifting them to the proverbial internet “fast lane,” while smaller companies that can’t afford higher costs are left behind with slower streaming speeds.

Futurism asked experts in business and media, and active voices in the media, to weigh in on what the death of net neutrality means. Here’s what they had to say.

Nicholas Economides, Professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business:

What happened today was that the FCC allowed ISP to collect money for putting people in the so-called “fast lane.” Suppose I’m Microsoft. AT&T will come to me and say “if you pay us this much, we’ll put you in the fast lane.” But the thing is, the “fast lane” isn’t faster than before. If companies don’t pay, providers just put them in a “slower lane.”

The effects are going to be horrible. Big companies like Microsoft, Google and Amazon will be able to pay. But smaller, innovative companies won’t. They’re the growth engine of the U.S. economy, these smaller companies, and they’re going to slow down.

In my opinion, this is blackmail that will be imposed on any business that sends content information through the internet, and the FCC has allowed this blackmail to be legal. The regulators have been taken over by the very industry they’re trying to regulate.

Venky Narayanamurti, professor of technology and public policy at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and Harvard Kennedy School:

The Internet service providers (like Comcast, AT&T) are often in the content business and have potential conflicts of interest.

The problem of net neutrality is an important one, but cannot be solved without congressional legislation on the rules for ISPs and their regulation. Until that is done, we will be in perpetual court battles, either with ISPs or with content providers and/or the public.

Above all, the laws need to protect the average consumer of the internet and the small innovators and startups, who should not be squelched by big brother.

Florian Schaub, professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Information:

I expect that consumers will either see a decline in available services or an increase in costs, and content providers and online services will have to enter into expensive agreements with ISPs. This will not happen overnight but rather as a slow creeping process.

Consumers should watch how their ISP responds to this over the next months and years. They should watch for changes in terms of service and privacy policy, and file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission when they consider the behavior either deceptive or unfair.

The notion that competition between ISPs will ensure open and cheap access to the internet is just wishful thinking on part of the FCC given that, in most parts of the United States, people have no choice from which ISP they get their internet connection.

Blake Reid, professor at the University of Colorado Boulder Law School University:

While much of the discussion today is focused on what will happen in the short term now that the FCC’s rules have been repealed, I am much more worried about the long-term consequences of the Commission abandoning its long-standing commitment to an open internet, which has persisted (at least in a de facto sense) for the entire history of the commercial internet.

Battles will be fought in court, in Congress, and in the 2018 and 2020 elections that likely will forestall aggressive non-neutral practices in the short term. But if the approach adopted by the Commission today stands in the long-term, I fear tremendous harm to the economic, technological, and democratic pillars of our society that now have their foundations in free and open access to the internet.

Aram Sinnreich, professor at American University School of Communication:

Without federally-enforced net neutrality, internet service providers are not only empowered, but actively encouraged to exercise discriminatory oversight of the internet traffic they carry. What this means is less competition, higher prices, and less incentive to innovate or improve services. The internet we have known for the past two decades — where the low barrier to entry encourages a multiplicity of voices and a collective endeavor to push the bounds of what is possible — will now be replaced by a system that maintains the status quo and benefits giant corporations at the expense of everyone else.

Free speech and privacy will be the collateral damage, as the ISPs become able to block encryption, censor dissent, and pick and choose winners and losers. Unless Congress overturns this ruling, the effects will be to further degrade American democracy and pollute the public sphere.

 Libby Hemphill, professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Information:

One aspect of the ruling that hasn’t been discussed much is ISP caching. Caching means that ISPs, like Comcast, can store content and deliver it from their networks instead of directly from the original content provider.

ISPs may want to do this for really popular content, for instance. What it means for consumers is that if you want to access popular content, you can get it fast. What’s been popular lately? Misinformation. So, potentially, misinformation and click bait gets cached and served fast, while authoritative reporting remains uncached and slow. That’s not good for consumers or for our democracy.

Harsha Madhyastha, professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan:

The FCC’s new order is troubling to some extent because if you allow ISPs to create fast lanes and allow paid prioritization of certain kinds of traffic, you wonder if only the big players like Google, Facebook, and Netflix will be able to deliver good performance to users, and a mom-and-pop startup from someone’s garage in the Silicon Valley will be unable to compete with these big players.

But, on the flip side, it’s, in fact, desirable that ISPs should not have to be completely neutral at all times, for example when they have to cope with congestion within their networks. So, I don’t think the new order will be the last word on this issue. The open question is how to draw a clear boundary, in legal terms, between what forms of differentiation should be allowed and what should not be allowed. Even from a technical standpoint, it’s pretty hard.

Roger Kay, technology market analyst at Endpoint Technologies Associates, Inc. 

When we allow an industry to divide us into castes, it allows them to make the experience bad for everyone. First class people don’t want to meet other’ eyes. Some people become jealous of others’ privileges. These social dynamics are likely to play out in internet domain as Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T benefit from them.

[homersapien 11,367]

Apparently, there are several people on this forum who are suffering from cognitive dissonance on this. It comes from elevating the political dogma  -"free markets" - to a position of divine truth which completely disregards human nature. 

Ayn Rand has become the new God.

[Howard Roark 195]

1 hour ago, Strychnine said:

 

That is simple.  Building a metropolitan broadband network is very expensive, logistically complicated, and time-consuming.  Cable companies and phone companies inherited the basic infrastructure for their broadband networks from their previous services, in the form of existing coax cable and phone lines.  Any viable competitor has to build the whole thing from scratch.  That is a lot of money and time for an upstart to spend before they see any worthwhile return.

https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

DESPITE PUBLIC, POLITICAL, and business interest in greater broadband deployment, not every American has high-speed internet access yet (let alone a choice of provider for really fast, high-capacity service). So who’s really to blame for strangling broadband competition?

While popular arguments focus on supposed “monopolists” such as big cable companies, it’s government that’s really to blame. Companies can make life harder for their competitors, but strangling the competition takes government.

Broadband policy discussions usually revolve around the U.S. government’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC), yet it’s really our local governments and public utilities that impose the most significant barriers to entry.

GAME OF KICKBACKS

Deploying broadband infrastructure isn’t as simple as merely laying wires underground: that’s the easy part. The hard part — and the reason it often doesn’t happen — is the pre-deployment barriers, which local governments and public utilities make unnecessarily expensive and difficult.

Before building out new networks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must negotiate with local governments for access to publicly owned “rights of way” so they can place their wires above and below both public and private property. ISPs also need “pole attachment” contracts with public utilities so they can rent space on utility poles for above-ground wires, or in ducts and conduits for wires laid underground.

The problem? Local governments and their public utilities charge ISPs far more than these things actually cost. For example, rights of way and pole attachments fees can double the cost of network construction.

So the real bottleneck isn’t incumbent providers of broadband, but incumbent providers of rights-of-way. These incumbents — the real monopolists — also have the final say on whether an ISP can build a network. They determine what hoops an ISP must jump through to get approval.

This reduces the number of potential competitors who can profitably deploy service — such as AT&T’s U-Verse, Google Fiber, and Verizon FiOS. The lack of competition makes it easier for local governments and utilities to charge more for rights of way and pole attachments.

It’s a vicious circle. And it’s essentially a system of forced kickbacks. Other kickbacks arguably include municipal requirements for ISPs such as building out service where it isn’t demanded, donating equipment, and delivering free broadband to government buildings.

SO WHAT ABOUT GOOGLE FIBER?

But the story changes when ISPs have enough leverage.

In Kansas City and Austin, local governments wanted Google Fiber more than they wanted kickbacks. So they expedited the permitting process, gave Google rights-of-way access for little to no cost, and allowed Google to build-out selectively — i.e., in neighborhoods where consumers actually expressed demand.

It also helped that these local governments had less leverage because the states of Kansas, Missouri, and Texas had streamlined video franchising laws so a provider need only get one license for the entire state. “t’s clear that investment flows into areas that are less affected by regulation than areas that are dominated by it,” observed Milo Medin, Google’s Vice President of Access Services, in summarizing the lessons of Google’s Kansas City experience in Congressional testimony.

When even well-established companies like Google are deterred by such barriers to entry, is it really surprising that there aren’t more competitors jumping into the broadband market? As Medin pointed out, “just imagine the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises.”

So far, everybody has benefited from clearing regulatory barriers for Google Fiber. And many more will benefit as local governments relax their regulations to make new entry feasible for Google Fiber and other new entrants. Even if it’s just the potential to expand, Google Fiber exerts competitive pressure on cable. (Remarkably, cable’s sharpest critics don’t even mention Google Fiber and other fiber companies in portraying cable as a permanent monopoly.)

Yet in this seed of success lies the potential for a new competition-strangling problem: What if local governments lower barriers for some competitors  — like Google or their own public utility service — but not others? Local politicians and regulators could then take credit for new high-speed broadband without giving up the exorbitant fees and other kickbacks they can force incumbent providers to pay today.

The real bottleneck isn’t incumbent providers of broadband, but incumbent providers of rights-of-way.

But selectively clearing barriers won’t let broadband competition flourish either.

WHAT’S THE SOLUTION THEN? OPEN ACCESS

The ‘open access’ term gets thrown around a lot as code for creating artificial competition among resellers of a monopoly service at government-controlled rates. There’s no better way to kill incentives for building out or upgrading new networks.

But ‘open access’ really means promoting easy, inexpensive and open access to publicly owned rights-of-way. Because broadband competition can work — if localities would just get out of the way.

Google showed in Kansas City, and now in Austin and Provo, just what can happen if local governments work with — instead of against — broadband providers to bring high-speed broadband to their citizens. Medin explained that “part of the reason we selected Kansas City for the Google Fiber project was because the city’s leadership and utility moved with efficiency and creativity in working with us to craft a real partnership.”

In return, Kansas City got a fiber network it couldn’t possibly afford to build on its own — or maintain. Municipalities like Provo, Utah that thought they could afford to build their own public fiber network found they couldn’t afford to run it. That’s why Provo, Utah sold their fiber network to Google for just $1.

This is the best kind of public-private partnership: By removing regulatory barriers, local governments can let the private sector deploy broadband. That’s far better than borrowing money (which taxpayers will eventually have to repay) to build lumbering public broadband utilities that have no incentive to keep costs down.

What if local governments lower barriers for some competitors — like Google or their own public utility service — but not others?

Furthermore, by granting open access to their rights-of-way, local governments can drive competition and innovation in broadband infrastructure overall. After Google announced their plans for Austin, AT&T promised to follow suit — but only if they got “the same terms and conditions as Google on issues such as geographic scope of offerings, rights of way, permitting, state licenses and any investment incentives.”

Some called that hypocritical, but the fact remains that we, they, and other broadband providers do need tech-neutral deregulation. Because broadband providers have repeatedly tried to deploy network infrastructure, but gave up when cities and states demanded excessive rights-of-way fees or slowed the approval process to a crawl. Even when ISPs succeeded in building new networks, they were often delayed by lengthy lawsuits.

Promoting broadband deployment to all Americans therefore requires that local governments expedite rights-of-way approvals and charge only to cover maintenance costs (like the cost of digging up a street to lay fiber).

Even the FCC knows this. Recognizing that securing access to publicly owned infrastructure is difficult, time-consuming, and a turn-off to investment, the FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan called on governments at all levels to “ensure that network providers have easier access to poles, conduits, ducts and rights-of-way.”

Local governments have become used to thinking of rights-of-way as revenue streams. But they’re missing the bigger opportunity.

Yet very little has changed in three years due to utility lawsuits; outdated definitions in the Telecommunications Act; uneven deployment of the FCC’s pro-competition rules across the 50 United States; and the looming threat of state and local government lawsuits against streamlined rules.

Localities are scared of losing revenue, but those revenues are really hidden taxes that are ultimately borne by broadband users.

Politically, open access won’t really happen until local governments realize they’ve been thinking too small and too short-term; they’ve become used to thinking of rights-of-way and franchising concessions as revenue streams. But they’re missing the bigger opportunity: promoting broadband as a basic ingredient of economic growth — and growing their tax base.

If we really want more ISPs building better broadband, let’s start by not making it so damned hard to build. The key to promoting broadband competition is streamlining the process for anyone who wants to build a network.

The game of kickbacks benefits only incumbent providers and local politicians. The game of networks benefits us all — because the battle for customers will drive prices down, improve service, and force everyone to keep innovating.

[Howard Roark 195]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Apparently, there are several people on this forum who are suffering from cognitive dissonance on this. It comes from elevating a political dogma "free markets" to a position of divine truth which completely disregards human nature. 

Ayn Rand has become the new God.

Apparently, there are several people on this forum who are suffering from cognitive dissonance on this. It comes from elevating a political dogma "government regulations" to a position of divine truth which completely disregards human nature. 

Karl Marx has become the new God.

Funny how that works isn't it. 

[AUDub 11,147]

Just now, Howard Roark said:

Apparently, there are several people on this forum who are suffering from cognitive dissonance on this. It comes from elevating a political dogma "government regulations" to a position of divine truth which completely disregards human nature. 

Karl Marx has become the new God.

Funny how that works isn't it. 

Wow you are so clever. You should do stand up. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, Howard Roark said:

Apparently, there are several people on this forum who are suffering from cognitive dissonance on this. It comes from elevating a political dogma "government regulations" to a position of divine truth which completely disregards human nature. 

Karl Marx has become the new God.

Funny how that works isn't it. 

Except it doesn't really work in reverse, because unlike people clamoring that free markets are the solution and gov't regulations are the devil, no one here is making the case that gov't regulations are some general, broad-based solution to every problem in a capitalist system.  The people aren't making sweeping generalizations that "when in doubt, regulate."  Some of us have even said there is nothing wrong with a general tendency to avoid regulation so long as it is balanced by some nuanced thinking and ability to see that in some specific situations, some regulation is needed.

[homersapien 11,367]

25 minutes ago, Howard Roark said:

Apparently, there are several people on this forum who are suffering from cognitive dissonance on this. It comes from elevating a political dogma "government regulations" to a position of divine truth which completely disregards human nature. 

Karl Marx has become the new God.

Funny how that works isn't it. 

I've never heard of anyone expounding "government regulations" as political dogma, much less a "divine truth".

I think you just dreamed that up.

 

[Strychnine 1,802]

39 minutes ago, AU64 said:

That's true if you are going to duplicate an already obsolete system....and who wants to do that?    In my view, what scares off investors in any endeavor related to infrastructure is the possibility that government will come in and change the rules...or just throw up road blocks that increase the cost.  An example that comes to mind is a toll road project near Charlotte...investors are on hand, work is being done and even now there are lawsuits galore opposing or delaying it in the name of "consumer protection".   

Seems that in a good part of the developing world modern communication systems are being establish without near as much fixed asset investment and that could happen here too if government did not try to protect the existing enterprises by various means...usually involving red tape and regulations.      

As for the basic issue.....I accept I don't know the Xx and Os as well as many here but what I see is an industry group trying to get the government to protect or work against their competitors...and using the argument of "consumer protection" to justify the government involvement.     To me at least, this is not about technical issues but instead about a philosophy of government.....and maybe in this case...the government picking the winners and losers. 

 

What I stated holds true for an in-ground broadband network based on any system, whether it be coax cable, phone lines, or fiber optic.  Trenches must be dug, aerials must be run, and cabling of some sort must be laid.  Of course, that is not as simple as drawing a map and sending out crews.  Every potential market has its own challenges, whether they be geographical, complexity of working with population density, political, or all of the above plus others.  Metropolitan broadband wireless would have the same issues, plus some of its own specific ones, and satellite is not even in the discussion.  Any new broadband provider faces the immediate challenges of tremendous cost, no short-term return, and well-entrenched competition.  It is not an enterprise or environment welcoming to new competition and investment.  That is unfortunate, but it is the reality, and it is not likely to be altered soon.

Most importantly, it is beyond the scope of this discussion as Net Neutrality had nothing to do with that.  It was not intended to address, in any way, the lack of or abundance of ISP competition.  Net Neutrality simply existed to ensure that ISP's in the United States provide consumers with equal access to all lawful content.  Perhaps the free market, government regulation, or even both get around to providing an ISP landscape with real choices and competition.  The FCC's actions in 2015 were only put in place to eliminate ISP's ability to be predatory in the meantime, an ability that ISP's had clearly demonstrated needed to be curtailed.

[AU64 10,122]

Enjoyed the discussion TT, Brad, BB and Stryc and nice to have an exchange where nobody resorted to calling the other an idiot just because they don't agree.  Well almost everyone was civil which on this forum is pretty good I guess. 

I learned some good stuff and interesting to get viewpoints from the other side and seems we just come at the regulatory stuff from different points of view.  I've followed this closely enough to know that there are smart people on both sides of the issue and they all have good reasons for what they have concluded about it....some based on their experiences and some based on political philosophy I guess. . The arguments y'all have put forth make a whole lot more sense than those worrying that women will no longer have access to abortions if the rules are dropped.   At least we kept it to business and competitive issues that were worth considering.

Thanks...

[homersapien 11,367]

26 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Enjoyed the discussion TT, Brad, BB and Stryc and nice to have an exchange where nobody resorted to calling the other an idiot just because they don't agree.  Well almost everyone was civil which on this forum is pretty good I guess. 

I learned some good stuff and interesting to get viewpoints from the other side and seems we just come at the regulatory stuff from different points of view.  I've followed this closely enough to know that there are smart people on both sides of the issue and they all have good reasons for what they have concluded about it....some based on their experiences and some based on political philosophy I guess. . The arguments y'all have put forth make a whole lot more sense than those worrying that women will no longer have access to abortions if the rules are dropped.   At least we kept it to business and competitive issues that were worth considering.

Thanks...

Just like to point out that post is not exactly consistent with your previous posts in this thread.     Just sayin'.  

[Howard Roark 195]

15 hours ago, Strychnine said:

 

What I stated holds true for an in-ground broadband network based on any system, whether it be coax cable, phone lines, or fiber optic.  Trenches must be dug, aerials must be run, and cabling of some sort must be laid.  Of course, that is not as simple as drawing a map and sending out crews.  Every potential market has its own challenges, whether they be geographical, complexity of working with population density, political, or all of the above plus others.  Metropolitan broadband wireless would have the same issues, plus some of its own specific ones, and satellite is not even in the discussion.  Any new broadband provider faces the immediate challenges of tremendous cost, no short-term return, and well-entrenched competition.  It is not an enterprise or environment welcoming to new competition and investment.  That is unfortunate, but it is the reality, and it is not likely to be altered soon.

Most importantly, it is beyond the scope of this discussion as Net Neutrality had nothing to do with that.  It was not intended to address, in any way, the lack of or abundance of ISP competition.  Net Neutrality simply existed to ensure that ISP's in the United States provide consumers with equal access to all lawful content.  Perhaps the free market, government regulation, or even both get around to providing an ISP landscape with real choices and competition.  The FCC's actions in 2015 were only put in place to eliminate ISP's ability to be predatory in the meantime, an ability that ISP's had clearly demonstrated needed to be curtailed.

Like I said before, it is not the intention of NN I have the problem with, it is the unintended consequences.  There is a very strong possibility and likelihood it would be abused.  I trust the corrections of the market over government regulations.  Regulators can easily be corrupted. I also strongly believe the government should eliminate monopolies not support them. 

[Howard Roark 195]

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

I've never heard of anyone expounding "government regulations" as political dogma, much less a "divine truth".

I think you just dreamed that up.

 

When the solution is always more government control it is certainly a political dogma.  Your point is a distinction without a difference. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

25 minutes ago, Howard Roark said:

When the solution is always more government control it is certainly a political dogma.

Could you point to where anyone is making such an argument?  Especially anyone in this thread?

 

 

[AU64 10,122]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Just like to point out that post is not exactly consistent with your previous posts in this thread.     Just sayin'.  

Not sure what you mean.....but I will say that the folks explaining their positions made far more sense than the people defending NN in the national media with their hysterics and "end of the world as we know it" type of arguments.  Maybe they figure people won't take time to actually think about it so rather than convince them with information and logical arguments, they just try to scare the s*** of them instead.  I  appreciate the thought that went into comments by posters above even if I don't share their conclusions. 

I still feel that the "consumer protection" argument is a red herring and it's mostly about business, profits and money......all of which is fine with me since I was in that world for a long time.   And I can't object to any business group trying to defend it's position when government is ...or might....take action that has a negative effect.  Still...I prefer a market solution...not a government solution.  

We never quite got to the point of arguing "what constitutes a monopoly" and I think that's a factor in the argument too and one the NN people should be pursuing since there are laws on the books on that subject.

[homersapien 11,367]

20 hours ago, Howard Roark said:

Really?  So why is no one entering that market, it certainly sounds lucrative. 

There are new content providers and new businesses entering the market continously. Doing away with net neutrality will greatly limit, if not halt that altogether.

 

https://www.incomediary.com/where-14-of-the-top-internet-businesses-were-started

Where 14 Of The Top Internet Businesses Got Started

By: Michael Dunlop     Topics: Get Inspired     More posts about: Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin

Today I decided to show everyone where 14 of top internet businesses were started. It shows you that you don’t have to start with an office etc.  A good number started from dorm rooms and their bedrooms with just a laptop – so stop dreaming and start achieving!

When I started my first internet business I was still at school and was only 15 years old. I would work from any where possible to make my dream of becoming a millionaire young a reality. I would work from school, my bed room, internet cafes and even at friends houses.....

[homersapien 11,367]

2 hours ago, Howard Roark said:

Like I said before, it is not the intention of NN I have the problem with, it is the unintended consequences.  There is a very strong possibility and likelihood it would be abused.  I trust the corrections of the market over government regulations.  Regulators can easily be corrupted. I also strongly believe the government should eliminate monopolies not support them. 

How exactly would net neutrality be abused?  Hypothetically speaking.

I am beginning to think you don't understand NN either.

[homersapien 11,367]

On 12/16/2017 at 7:23 AM, AU64 said:

A government solution  in 2015 to a problem that did not exist... Another useless regulation down the drain....well done.

This is what I was referring to.  This reflects zero understanding of NN and what doing away with it signifies.