Have We Already Lost The Battle For Net Neutrality? (Op Ed)

Status
Not open for further replies.

tomc100

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2008
166
0
18,680
0
Net neutrality sounds like a good idea but when the federal government gets involved with it then it is subject to abuse like every other federal regulation. It's better to keep the federal government out. The solution is to have more competition and more ISP instead of allowing a monopoly between Time/Warner and Comcast. Or the government can create their own ISP instead of wasting it on useless foreign countries and illegal aliens.
 

qlum

Honorable
Aug 13, 2013
195
0
10,690
1
Lets Just hops the EU does't mess up the dutch neutrality now that Nelie is gone.

<<Watch your language please>>
 

The Ginger

Reputable
Mar 31, 2014
99
0
4,660
21
As soon as you "start to think that the FCC is just putting off the inevitable – the end of net neutrality" then they win. We cannot stop fighting this.. Its not the FCC that's postponing the end of net neutrality.. its ISP's postponing free global internet.

EDIT: Maybe "free" was the wrong word.. -- "postponing cheap, globally available internet."
 

Daniel Hitchcock

Reputable
Nov 24, 2014
1
0
4,510
0
tomc, that's the problem--there will be no competition since there is no way the infrastructure can support multiple cable companies. Same reason why there is one set of roads, one gas line, and one electrical grid. What would happen suddenly electricity costs climbed to a Dollar a kW/hr, or if gas and water prices double and there was a toll to even leave your driveway? That's the point-- that can't happen since they are classified as public utilities, and the goal of the FCC is to establish the internet as such. This shouldn't be a partisan issue (thanks, Ted Cruz).
 

dovah-chan

Honorable
Feb 5, 2014
1,339
0
11,960
236
What exactly do these companies need all of this money for if they aren't upgrading their infrastructure and providing quality customer service like they should be? Are they just burning it or something? I guess its either advertising or promotional events and paying their poor indentured serv- I mean employees.
 

BulkZerker

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2010
846
8
18,995
2
Well a good starting point would to make states resend their local laws making it prohibitive to be a startup tellcom.

And maybe forcibly fracturing the "baby bells" even further.
 
Nov 24, 2014
1
0
4,510
0
If you think the Internet is 'threatened' by citizen organizations (private business) that have to provide a product that people are willing to freely pay for, wait until the Government gets involved. Nothing good will come of the FCC even knowing about the Internet.
 

haftarun8

Distinguished
Jun 20, 2006
83
0
18,630
0
Daniel Hitchcock you are absolutely correct!!! I have no idea why most people don't understand this...tomc100 you say you don't want Federal regulation but you want healthy competition without monopolies...you do realize that the only way to guarantee the latter is to implement federal regulation that prevents monopolies and gives incentives that spur healthy capitalist compeition?! You won't magically get that any other way. CEO's are way too greedy and have way too much money and power...why would they ever give that up unless they had to under federal law?
 

Farrwalker

Distinguished
Apr 24, 2006
73
0
18,640
2
The author states:
"The issue is that the ISPs shouldn't charge the content providers in order to give them equal access." This is conclusory statement and not stating the issue.
More properly worded the issue is:
Whether the ISPs should charge the content providers in order to give them equal access.
Avoid using negatives when you can.

This leads to another question:
Who is better suited to determine access to the internet the companies who built and own the internet infrastructure at the cost of billions of dollars, or a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats?

One issue that is ignored here is where does the federal government get the power to interfere in private enterprise? The internet infrastructure was built predominantly with billions of dollars of private investment. The internet is not public property.
 

The Ginger

Reputable
Mar 31, 2014
99
0
4,660
21
The internet cords themselves might not be public property, thats not what this is about.. Its the Bits that travel through them that we are trying to make public. Very much un-like most of the other first world countries who have free wifi covering most major cities and internet speed 4x-10x faster than ours for less money is the issue we're facing in the US..

Having Time Warner and Comcast Merge would be like letting one single power provider own half the US infrastructure for electricity like Daniel suggested... We're just heading in the wrong direction.
 

SessouXFX

Distinguished
Nov 5, 2011
292
0
18,810
10
With this government, has it not been proven yet, that you must watch the other hand, while they attempt to pull the wool over our eyes? Seen it with their "healthcare" act, among other things, liek the missing e-mails supposedly being gone, only to be found a few months later. 30,000+ E-mails. That's why seeing this issue being supported by this President is concerning...what is he trying to pull behind the scenes?
 

Treello

Reputable
Nov 24, 2014
1
0
4,510
0
I work for a small start up ISP, that is owned by a much larger company, and we have spent several million dollars already and do not have many customers. We expected this, we know this would happen, but still it is insanely expensive. I do believe all bits should be free. The issue as an ISP that we run into is over subscription. Back in the day before netflix and streaming you would buy a 10 Mbps package but in reality you would only used sub 1 Mbps. So what ISP's do is oversell the pipe because a majority of the time its okay. Now that streaming has come people are using their bandwidth by 5 to 10x what they used to and the infrastructure can not handle it. ISP's then need to upgrade their infra. Well thats extremely expensive and to lay more fiber, copper, there is an extreme amount of political bs to get through. So it takes a lot of time. The short term solution to this is to make someone else pay for it and throttle traffic so that everyone is getting decent service.

This issue is extremely complicated. I understand why ISP's want/need to create fast lanes to generate a revenue source for upgrading. It is expensive and for anyone who thinks becoming and ISP is a get rich quick scheme is sadly mistaken. I also dont want the FCC telling me how to run my network.

However I do believe that the internet should be open. My company operates this way with a consent from the customer for QOS for things like VOIP and Alarm systems. This will affect everyone its an extremely important topic. We just really need everyone to understand both sides and make an informed deccision.

EDIT- I would like to add that this is a very small snipet of my opinion on the matter and will not be expressing how i feel i want it to go one way or another i just want people for net neutrality to understand for smaller isp's there is a reason for it.
 

blaint

Reputable
Apr 30, 2014
13
0
4,520
1
Farrwalker, either your ignorance is staggering, or you are yet another corporate shill of the telecoms in place on Internet forums seeding misinformation. By no stretch is it accurate to claim they have built the Internet or its infrastructure. Literally hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks have been dolled out from the government. By and large the promises made were not even delivered by these criminal corporations. I simply cannot fathom what sort of dream world you live in by saying the Internet is not public property when even the very means of delivering it traverses public territory. The internet is a combination of public and private and now they want to take a bigger slice.

These telecos exist as they do now because we put them there and allowed them to become what they are. We cannot allow them to CONTROL OUR INFORMATION based upon their own unregulated criteria.

If you are ignorant, get a clue. If you're a lackey, shut up.
 

Nilo BP

Honorable
Aug 24, 2013
31
0
10,530
0
I think I just don't care anymore. No matter how badly and how consistently the government screws up, the sheeple still want more of it. Regulatory capture is right in front of your noses - you're whining about it RIGHT NOW, FFS - and in the same sentence you call for more regulation???? I give up. If that doesn't cause any cognitive dissonance, nothing ever will.
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
2,344
0
19,960
50
some screwed up thinking going on here in this article. wheeler who was a telecommunications executive and also lobbyist and appointed by obama who promised not to appoint lobbyists, but then appoints the entire FCC board full of them ( they have 5 year terms and are no all obama appointees) well... the cable and telecommunications industry did brib..... i mean donate alot of money to buy...i mean elect obama, they are getting their moneys worth from their minions on the FCC who have done everything possible to avoid reclassifying ISPs as public utilities which would subject them to the rules set forth that the supreme court said the FCC could not enforce on a NON public utility. basically 2 supreme court justices came right out and flat out said this that wheeler had to either classify ISP's as a public utility or admit he can't do anything due to this non public utility classification.

the supreme court backed in a corner, this cable lobbyist and telecommunications executive; with only one solution and put a noose on his neck, the public is the executioner so if there's no large public out cry the trap door is never going to be sprung and wheeler hung out to dry twisting in the wind so to speak.

the supreme court made specific inquires as to why these ISP were receiving public money in subsidies and tax breaks and access to public property to lay their lines for a non public utility service, wheeler refused to comment or gave obscure answers and answers that had nothing to do with the question in order to save him and his white house master who was always out playing golf specifically during this inquisition.
 

Christopher1

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2006
663
2
19,015
5
Well a good starting point would to make states resend their local laws making it prohibitive to be a startup tellcom.

And maybe forcibly fracturing the "baby bells" even further.
Rescind, not resend. Telecom, not tellcom.
If your grammar was a little better, I would take you more seriously on this issue even though I highly disagree with your PoV on this subject.

The fact is that the rules that are in place at the local level are there so 'fly by nights' do not get involved in these markets who are 'there one day and gone the next' with the dollars of people who signed up with them.
 

jankeke

Distinguished
Dec 16, 2011
134
0
18,680
0
It always baffles me how blind partisanship makes people say stupid things and are willing to let net neutrality die just because this or that president happens to be in the white house.

ANY additional costs (Netflix paying for fast lanes) is ALWAYS paid by the end consumer. I can't believe some of you are willing to bend over and get ass-raped with a jackhammer even deeper just because you think Obama is suspicious to you and this is hiding some sort of scheme. Seriously ?

How come we got an excellent infrastructure in Europe and we pay lower prices for it ? Maybe you should ask the ISPs what the hell they are doing with the billions they are raking in.

Capitalism is a good thing but for it to work you need competition. Monopolies are NOT sound capitalism, it's closer to communism. But some of you are willing to accept that in the name of free enterprise but they forget free enterprise dies the minute monopolies form.

I hope we will never be subject to this kind of BS here in Europe and I sincerely hope you keep your net neutrality.

 

Christopher1

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2006
663
2
19,015
5

I hate to bring this up but better me than someone who would be less nice about it: Europe is MUCH smaller than the United States is in the real world. Only about 1/3rd to 1/2 the size of the United States.
So, we get monopolies because the 'economies of scale' thus far are punked by Americans not being cluster in a few small areas but being spread out over near the entire nation, even in the middle of bumbleep nowhere.
So, we have natural monopolies appear because of the lack of the one thing that could fix those natural monopolies: LINESHARING. What Canada used until very recently to fix their issues with a lack of competition.
 

jankeke

Distinguished
Dec 16, 2011
134
0
18,680
0
@Christopher1
First, sorry for the tone of my first comment. I was pissed off about this situation in the USA. USA should on level with Europe, Korea and Japan when talking about internet service.

Yes, Europe is far smaller and more densely populated (a bit more than 500 million). But monopolies could also arise here if we didn't have strict laws and regulation to prevent this. (Microsoft and others can sing you a song about it ^^).

As I understand, the very few big players can prevent new players from entering the game thus eliminating any new competition that would force them to offer a better service. But this will not change because of how your polotical system works : big companies lobbying (corrupting?) law makers to their advantage. Sadly.
 

vidfreek

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2011
28
0
18,530
0
The problem I have with ISPs is the fact that many still hold exclusive rights to their "area" and competition isnt allowed to come in. I have a local cable provider for my ISP and I have no other choices outside of much slower DSL. Comcast isnt around me, Verizon Fios cant come in, its just suffocating. I have no choices and since my ISP is the ONLY one anywhere in this area to start capping our data limit, its even worse. I'm an avid console and PC gamer plus a cord cutter that uses Netflix and Amazon Prime A LOT. With the digital downloads of games going up in the 60 gig range, you can imagine how fast I burn through my 450 gig cap. I also pay double what I did a year ago to get that data limit yet my speeds are about the same and the issues of peak times and slowness STILL happen even though they are curbing everyone on purpose to supposedly make it better for everyone. I've had the same quality of service since they instituted data caps that I did before everything was unlimited. One bad download of a 60 gig game and I have to download it again. I shouldnt be punished, having to pay double and possibly triple on bad months for downloads, for embracing a digital world. No other provider around me in other counties have data caps like this, but since they are a monopoly in this area with no one like Fios to come in and compete, I have no choice but to pay the fees so I can do what I want to with the "public" internet.

Unfortunately other things need to happen outside of Net Neutrality to combat this garbage from Private ISPs, Net Neutrality is great and I fully support it but its something separate unfortunately and the issues I have with private monopoly ISPs is completely different and also needs addressed
 

vidfreek

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2011
28
0
18,530
0
Also, data limits shouldnt even be an issue at all, capping data does nothing for your network. Consistent speeds is what you are paying all this money for to keep everyone going, how does downloading more data than someone else effect your network? I get everyone hopping on and getting max speeds that ISPs promise, probably isnt going to happen at peak user times but making me pay more to just download more bits makes ZERO sense and IMO, is a big fat lie to get more money that they obviously arent using to help out their infrastructure, even though they keep telling me they've spent millions upon millions to improve their network, well other ISPs have done the same thing yet wouldnt be capping my data if I had access to their service
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS