Rules Of The Internet Now Complete In A Convenient 583-Page PDF

[bit_user]

All very common sense points that would make anyone go "well duh of course". Which means that lobyists will start bying up goverment officials to neutralize this in the guise of "this will stop advancement and will be bad for free market".

START?!? The telecoms lobby has been one of the biggest for decades. They've been fighting specifically this type of change, on those & other grounds, since before anyone ever coined the term Net Neutrality.

No offense, but for a mod on tech news site, I'd think you might've seen a few articles about this over recent years and months. That said, please don't ban me.

 

[falchard]

I think Wikipedia on Net Neutrality has the most balanced discussion in this topic. If you read both sides I think its clear to see why people opposed to Title 2 ISPs are right on this subject. Many of them are economists, engineers, and people who develop out the internet infrastructure. This is against primarily politicians, advocacy groups, and groups that benefit from Net Neutrality rules.
Probably the most condemning thing about how we are now approaching ISPs is the comparison to Europe. Despite the size and population density of the US, development of its internet infrastructure far outpaces Europe with a Utility Style ISP network. Only in countries with limited regulatory practices like parts of Asia does the United States lose in internet infrastructure development.

 

[bit_user]

Probably the most condemning thing about how we are now approaching ISPs is the comparison to Europe. Despite the size and population density of the US, development of its internet infrastructure far outpaces Europe with a Utility Style ISP network. Only in countries with limited regulatory practices like parts of Asia does the United States lose in internet infrastructure development.

That's nuts. From everything I've heard, comparable countries in Europe have far better networks than the US.

And this is supported by the fact that whenever I'm torrenting, some of the fastest peers tend to be in Europe, despite having to cross transatlantic cables.

 

[bit_user]

I think Wikipedia on Net Neutrality has the most balanced discussion in this topic. If you read both sides I think its clear to see why people opposed to Title 2 ISPs are right on this subject. Many of them are economists, engineers, and people who develop out the internet infrastructure.

It's all a question of what's the alternative. The main problem with net neutrality is that it treats all destinations as though it costs the same to reach them.

From an economic perspective, a better model would be to pass the costs on to the peers. But that shouldn't be done selectively, as was beginning to happen with toll roads. And it needs to be done fairly and transparently, so that consumers can make informed choices and are in control.

But an option like that wasn't on the table. Maybe we'll eventually move to something like that - who knows?

This is against primarily politicians, advocacy groups, and groups that benefit from Net Neutrality rules.

Now you're off the deep end. Look, net neutrality came about because ISPs were abusing their power and demonstrably hurting both consumers and businesses that couldn't afford the tolls they were charging. It's not just a limited consortium of special interests.

Why do you think there was such public outcry? People get it (most of us, at least). That's why.

 

[falchard]

Should take the time to read reports and opinions before making brash decisions. Its difficult to find comparable European Countries. Most European Countries have double the population density. Its a lot easier to deploy in an urban setting than a rural setting. About 20% of the top 100 fastest cities are from the US because of this. Like I also said, the US, UK, and S.Korea invest the most into its internet infrastructure per capita. Despite the size of the US, 90% of the population has access to 4 or more ISPs. Given countries with similar populations densities, the US significantly outpaces them. Compared to the fastest European Countries, the US is within 1 mb/s on avg speeds according to Akamai.

There seem to be 3 major points of interest towards the recent FCC rulings. 1st is net neutrality and not letting corporations dictate traffic. 2nd is Title 2 and allowing a regulatory arm on the internet. 3rd is the best means in deploying an internet infrastructure.

To me the idea of net neutrality is moot if you can fulfill the conditions of an unregulated environment with an equal opportunity for competitors to enter a market. When you have competition, you have the ability to switch carriers. You also have the ability to enter into poorly treated regions and snatch consumers. When you have these choices, metering no longer becomes and issue. Back in 2008, Comcast began to start metering heavy users because they could not throttle Bit Torrent connections anymore. They no longer do this due to public backlash. When you have competition in the field its much easier to make a company feel the effects up public backlash. Even when you are the biggest regional ISP in the nation. Similarly issues with Netflix on Verizon and Comcast were resolved in short order due to the public backlash. To me the problem net neutrality solves had already been solved within the marketplace. After all who would want to buy into such a shitty company like Comcast when you have a choice. In other countries with stricter regulatory practices, they start to have something far worse. They have censorship of porn or anti-government speech.

Now if you found that argument to be weak, how would changing broadband providers to Title 2 utilities solve it? It pretty much ignores the 1996 act passed by congress which in large part allowed the internet to explode in the US. It makes entering the ISP market require FCC approval in addition to the current regulatory hurdles. FCC approval is a much slower process as they have already proven on numerous occasion in regards to freeing RF spectrum, switching to digital, and even these net neutrality rules. Switching companies to Title 2 also does not prevent the very practices you decry against unless you forgot before the internet you paid a metered service for phone. Title 2 regulation also severely slows down the progress of switching the entire communication network in the US to IP.

The last part I wish to talk about is the best means in deploying broadband. The biggest barrier to entry in the broadband market are local municipalities. They have high right of way rates, a lengthy approval process, and typically require additional free services to public buildings. Even when the company can meet those requirements, they still may be denied to service a region. What Google was able to do in Austin and Kansas City is bypass many of these hurdles that other companies face by having that very public method for deployment. If these same municipals offered every company the same benefits they would allow more competition in a region. This is already happening in some parts of the country like parts of Virginia with a relatively low population density. However, according to reports that are in that Wikipedia article is the argument that a good portion of these new competitors simply would have trouble complying under Title 2 and vague guidelines like they may choose to ignore certain rules.

On fair and transparency, that to me is a very weak point because the Obama Administration has taken that very notion and shit all over it. An administration that strived to be the fairest and most transparent, just happened to be one of the least fair and least transparent. However, if I had a coice on who I can seek to be fair and transparent, I always lean to private companies who are at the mercy of customers.

 

[bit_user]

To me the idea of net neutrality is moot if you can fulfill the conditions of an unregulated environment with an equal opportunity for competitors to enter a market. When you have competition, you have the ability to switch carriers. You also have the ability to enter into poorly treated regions and snatch consumers. When you have these choices, metering no longer becomes and issue. Back in 2008, Comcast began to start metering heavy users because they could not throttle Bit Torrent connections anymore. They no longer do this due to public backlash. When you have competition in the field its much easier to make a company feel the effects up public backlash. Even when you are the biggest regional ISP in the nation. Similarly issues with Netflix on Verizon and Comcast were resolved in short order due to the public backlash. To me the problem net neutrality solves had already been solved within the marketplace. After all who would want to buy into such a shitty company like Comcast when you have a choice.

This is an utterly hollow argument. The marketplace does not work when the consumer has so few options and the barriers to entry for competitors is so high.

First, you claim competition solves the "toll road" problem, but with a small cartel of ISPs, sites can be forced to pay tolls to all 3. And from a consumer's perspective, if only one site is sluggish isn't usually a big enough reason for them to switch especially when they have no idea whether it would be any faster if they did. So, what happens is that companies which can't pay the tolls simply die out. That's hardly a competition-friendly world.

As for bittorrent throttling, to my knowledge, I've seen my seeds get cut off as recently as a couple years ago. I don't torrent frequently - mostly OS distros and whatnot - so I have limited data points, but there's no way they ceased throttling in 2008. Just no way. They eventually said they would stop, when caught red-handed, but that happened several times and they just kept doing it.

And as a consumer, if your ISP drops you because you're a data hog, you'd better hope there's another ISP in the area you can use. Otherwise, you're without net (or have to use something expensive and even worse, like cell). From an ISP's perspective, they don't want data hogs. They'd much prefer to shift all their highest-cost and most problematic users to their competition. The marketplace doesn't solve this problem. Perhaps it could, if there were enough of these people and they had sufficient means for a separate fee structure, but Comcast doesn't seem to think so, as it would rather just solve these problems by throttling users and dropping them.

Now if you found that argument to be weak, how would changing broadband providers to Title 2 utilities solve it? It pretty much ignores the 1996 act passed by congress which in large part allowed the internet to explode in the US. It makes entering the ISP market require FCC approval in addition to the current regulatory hurdles.

The telco act of '96 failed, utterly. Nearly all of the ISPs founded under it had gone out of business by 2000. The telco lobby killed it through dragging their feet on their obligations under the act, and getting Congress to undermine it with subsequent regulation.

So that's basically a non-consideration.

The last part I wish to talk about is the best means in deploying broadband. The biggest barrier to entry in the broadband market are local municipalities.

I'm not concerned about that. If the local populace wants new infrastructure, they can elect mayors and city councilors that will facilitate it, such as in the examples you cited.

On fair and transparency, that to me is a very weak point because the Obama Administration has taken that very notion and shit all over it.

WTF? I thought this thread was about the new FCC rules!

My point was that we actually get to read the FCC rules and petition Congress to pass new laws or to the FCC directly, if we don't like them. A lot of people like to complain about the fact that a government bureaucracy is behind this, but I think the FCC is a lot less broken than Congress. And I think by removing Congress from the process, the it's less tainted by politics and political favors. If Congress wrote these rules, the doc would be at least 10x the size to accommodate all of the loopholes added for the benefit of their campaign donors.

 

[ceh4702]

I want to see the FCC ty to enforce these rules!

 

[Fr33Th1nk3r]

The internet is a utility I agree. This isn't "under the dome" nobody should control the water well.

 

[TNT27]

Roads are a utility? Other countries (Australia), and in some places within L.A. putting roads in the hands of private companies, it improved traffic flow, and revenue, and it also kept taxes from going up.

 

[Wisecracker]

"...Despite the size of the US, 90% of the population has access to 4 or more ISPs."

When you make stuff up, it calls into question any other argument you try to make ...

 

[TNT27]

maybe 4 or more plans from 1 isp.

 

[falchard]

I never said what kind of ISP. I can name 5 in my area right now. Cox, ATT, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint... Seriously, you guys do not look at the big picture here.

 

[catswold]

You guys can cheer and chant and call the rest of us "shills," but that won't change the inevitable outcome. We will all pay for this pointless exercise in pseudo-democracy.

Nobody here has said the existing system of governance in the US is perfect. But it certainly did produce one outcome we consider positive.

It's easy to find faults with the current system, but at least there's some transparency and control ultimately rests in the hands of the people. That's the difference between the government deciding what's fair, vs. leaving it upt to corporations.

With that said, if you have a better solution, I'd like to hear it.

Sorry, that's simply naive. Do you really believe that the government is responsive to the will of "the people?" Really? 2/3 of the American people opposed Obamacare when it was passed and a strong majority still oppose it. If the government is truly responsive to the will of the people, why do we have Obamacare?

We have government departments passing rules all the time that negatively affect individuals or groups of citizens in response to special interest lobbying. They do so quite often over the protests of those citizens. It is always couched in the language of doing so, "for the good of the people," when most often it is for the good of a special interest group.

Private corporations can be controlled through legislation and also are subject to consumer pressure--usually far more responsive than a government bureaucrat who only answers to his immediate superior, is protected from termination for incompetence by his union, and who is probably spending his time looking at porn anyway.

You want more and better choices, end the local and national monopolies for Comcast, AT&T, and the other providers (local monopolies are generally legislated in by municipal governments), lessen regulation, and allow competition. You'll get faster, better service with more innovation.

The DOJ and the courts could break up the monopolies, if legislation can't be passed.

 

[Kadathan]

It would be great if they could break up the ISP monopolies, since, despite what some people are saying, cell service 3g, 4g is NOT a broadband provider(and suffers serious data caps) leaves us with little to no option when it comes to choosing an ISP. Moreover, signals crossing the country are subject to clogged datacenters so the problem isn't always even local. But I'm not sure it's as easy for the FCC to end all these monopolies as it was to try for net neutrality.
Would freeing up the lines to competition do a better job than "Free Internet"? I would say almost certainly. But I'm not going to begrudge what we currently have been given, since the worst that can happen(as far as I can see, who knows) is municipalities are capable of competing with the ISPs at least. Does government often do a bad job? Yeah, it does, not going to argue with you there. But many people don't know what a good job when it comes to net access looks like. So if it ends up being access to comcast or to Govcast, then so be it, hardly worse than the current internet stagnation providers we have.

 

[Fr33Th1nk3r]

I never said what kind of ISP. I can name 5 in my area right now. Cox, ATT, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint... Seriously, you guys do not look at the big picture here.

People that live out in the country usually can only pick one. Comcast.

 

[ceh4702]

I never said what kind of ISP. I can name 5 in my area right now. Cox, ATT, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint... Seriously, you guys do not look at the big picture here.

People that live out in the country usually can only pick one. Comcast.

My sister lives out of the range of cable coverage and uses Hughes Net. Some kind of satellite service. It is only slightly better then dialup.

I have a friend who is kind of out there in the sticks and he is a Ham radio Operator. He was able to mount a directional wireless antenna on his Ham radio tower and get wireless service.