FCC Begins Teardown Process on Net Neutrality

[GhostVol]

So riddle me this, if Comcast can make $ by charging the end user more for the data, why would they throttle Netflix? Netflix would become sort of like a partner in this scenario, not a competitor.

Maybe I am conflating the two, but from the perspective of the ISP, they don't care where the $ comes from, they just want to be compensated for bandwidth.

Because they can hold Netflix data "hostage" in order to force Netflix to "pony up" more money whilst already being compensated for that data from the end-user. It's called "double-dipping" and is another revenue stream for Comcast to take advantage of.

BTW, most throttling is not actually throttling. It's just that ISPs bent over backwards providing fast lanes when they weren't obligated to do it, and then they stopped doing it. That often gets mischaracterized as "throttling".

I'm calling BS, hijinks, AND shenanigans on this one. It's the very definition of throttling.

And, make no mistake about it, the only "bending over" is going to be done BY ISPs of the end-user. The only question is what is the consumer going to be bent over while fat stacks of cash are extracted from their pockets.

 

[n_huffhines]

Because they can hold Netflix data "hostage" in order to force Netflix to "pony up" more money whilst already being compensated for that data from the end-user. It's called "double-dipping" and is another revenue stream for Comcast to take advantage of.

But why shouldn't they be able to do that, theoretically speaking? Lots of businesses double dip. When I go to a Phoenix Suns game, I am paying to get in there and then I am paying for a beer and the beer company is paying the Suns for the location. The Phoenix Suns are double dipping! Will somebody please step in and stop this?!

 

[GhostVol]

But why shouldn't they be able to do that, theoretically speaking? Lots of businesses double dip. When I go to a Phoenix Suns game, I am paying to get in there and then I am paying for a beer and the beer company is paying the Suns for the location. The Phoenix Suns are double dipping! Will somebody please step in and stop this?!

For the simple reason that you are consciously making the decision to go to the Suns game. No one is forcing you to go to the game. Going to the Suns game isn't a necessity...... Having access to the internet these days is. And if you think being able to schlep over to the library (when it's open) and using one of their computers is "internet access" you're fooling yourself.

And Comcast is, for many if not most, the only game in town.

*had to remove the last sentence, I had confused you with the OP*

 

[n_huffhines]

For the simple reason that you are consciously making the decision to go to the Suns game. No one is forcing you to go to the game. Going to the Suns game isn't a necessity...... Having access to the internet these days is. And if you think being able to schlep over to the library (when it's open) and using one of their computers is "internet access" you're fooling yourself.

And Comcast is, for many if not most, the only game in town.

*had to remove the last sentence, I had confused you with the OP*

The library isn't the only other option for most people. If you live in a place where you only have 1 option, that sucks, but you are choosing to live in a podunk place. You want to have what I have in Phoenix, without having to pay for it. Either move, or deal with throttling, if the problem ever actually happens to you.

There is no reason for the feds to be regulating my internet in Phoenix because you are scared of what might happen in Bucksnort. You are asking the government to grow, act, and restrict economic activity when it only potentially benefits* people that are making a conscious decision not to live in a place with access to better technology alternatives.

*I think it will hurt you in the long run

 

[GhostVol]

The library isn't the only other option for most people. If you live in a place where you only have 1 option, that sucks, but you are choosing to live in a podunk place. You want to have what I have in Phoenix, without having to pay for it. Either move, or deal with throttling, if the problem ever actually happens to you.

There is no reason for the feds to be regulating my internet in Phoenix because you are scared of what might happen in Bucksnort. You are asking the government to grow, act, and restrict economic activity when it only potentially benefits* people that are making a conscious decision not to live in a place with access to better technology alternatives.

*I think it will hurt you in the long run

You think people have the ability and wherewithal to simply pick up and move whenever they so choose? Theoretically, true...... IRL, however? Hardly.....

There are.... what? app. 350 million people in the US? What do you think your beloved Phoenix would look like if every single one of them decided to move there? My guess is you'd be outta there like you head was on fire and your *** was catching.

 

[n_huffhines]

You think people have the ability and wherewithal to simply pick up and move whenever they so choose? Theoretically, true...... IRL, however? Hardly.....

Yes, they do. If they want to move badly enough. If uneducated people who don't speak the language and are not welcome can sneak into our country with no money and move to whatever city they want, then I'm pretty sure Americans can, too.

Look, I would live in Costa Rica if internet wasn't a problem. It is, so I live here. We can't have everything that we want.

There are.... what? app. 350 million people in the US? What do you think your beloved Phoenix would look like if every single one of them decided to move there? My guess is you'd be outta there like you head was on fire and your *** was catching.

You're missing the point and you don't have to live in Phoenix....there are lots of places with internet options. So many.

Look at it this way.

My Dad grew up in Farmington, NM. He never had a bagel until college. At some point, Farmington got its first bagel joint. If it was ****ty, they dealt with it, until the market could support two bagel options.

It's the way the world works. You are trying to **** with the natural order of things because you think the world is unfair. Well guess what? The government does not create fair solutions and you are introducing force because you see yourself as a victim who has to turn to the nanny state for protection....

...if this fairly describes you, then do it on the local level and leave others alone.

 

[LouderVol]

Yes, they do. If they want to move badly enough. If uneducated people who don't speak the language and are not welcome can sneak into our country with no money and move to whatever city they want, then I'm pretty sure Americans can, too.

Look, I would live in Costa Rica if internet wasn't a problem. It is, so I live here. We can't have everything that we want.



You're missing the point and you don't have to live in Phoenix....there are lots of places with internet options. So many.

Look at it this way.

My Dad grew up in Farmington, NM. He never had a bagel until college. At some point, Farmington got its first bagel joint. If it was ****ty, they dealt with it, until the market could support two bagel options.

It's the way the world works. You are trying to **** with the natural order of things because you think the world is unfair. Well guess what? The government does not create fair solutions and you are introducing force because you see yourself as a victim who has to turn to the nanny state for protection....

...if this fairly describes you, then do it on the local level and leave others alone.

in this case letting the companies double dip is the fair solution?

going to your analogy of beer at a BB game, it probably costs 8 bucks for a miller. Yeah, that sounds great. all you are doing is taking already high prices and allowing them to charge more for less service.

 

[volinbham]

The current iteration of the net-neutrality debate is not really about an “Open Internet” or free speech or even apple pie; it’s about whether government should be permitted to expand its power and encroach on private actors’ due process protections. At stake, in other words, is whether an administrative agency should be permitted to re-write the law — especially when it does so simply to fit a political agenda.

Pretty much.

People conflate the generalized notion of net neutrality with the mechanisms used via Title II and flip out when someone suggests it's not the best regulatory solution to get the desired, generalized result.

 

[GhostVol]

Let's come at this from a different perspective..... Might be a bit long but should be worth the read.

Let's imagine that there's this really cool and froody guy out there that has a sports related forum that's wildly popular. Let's call this really cool and froody guy Freak. Yeah, that's good name for him!

Now, Freak runs his little forum on servers served by the DCHT (Dewey, Cheatham, & Howe Telco). Things are running along swimmingly both for Freak & DCHT (who, by the way, reported record breaking profits every year for the last few years and even assured their investors that neither Title II nor NN would interfere with profits in the foreseeable future). Now enter <ominous music> n_huffhines.....

n_huffhines says "We don't need no stinkin' Title II or NN regulations for the ISPs! They say they won't throttle or mess with data in ANY way!" even though it's been demonstrated time and again that they have multiple times in the past. And *poof* those regulations disappear!

Now, over at DCHT, the main man (let's call him B.F. Fink) decides that they need to open a new revenue stream and sees that Freak's little forum is quite popular. Mr. Fink calls up Freak and says "You've got yourself a pretty good deal going on there Freak. It's so nifty, gee-whiz, neato-keen that we're gonna give you (out of the goodness of our hearts) the bandwidth to service 1000 (that's right I said 1000) members at any given time! But, because it's so hard to keep any more bandwidth than that running reliably we're gonna have to charge you $500 a month to support each additional 1000 members." Now, that claim has, in the past been shown to be demonstrably false but DCHT is standing by their statement.

What's poor Freak to do? He's got 3 choices, none of them good!! He can do nothing and hope that his membership is OK with being able to access his forum in a hit or miss fashion, he can pay the money without charging his members, or he can charge a subscription for access to pay off DCHT..... Poor Freak. Decisions, decisions......

Doing nothing will cause members to eventually stop coming since they can't know whether they'll be able to get in or not. Option 2 simply removes money from Freak's pockets. What will Mrs. Freak and the l'il Freaks do without? Option 3? All the members refuse to pay and the wonderful forum dies.......

But, what's this?? DCHT has been charging all the members for access to the forum in the FIRST place? How DASTARDLY!!!! They've worked out a way to make money coming and going!!!!

Now, let me ask you this question...... WHO benefits in the scenario above? Freak? No, no...... He's at the least out a lot of money. The forum members? Nope!! They're either out money or the forum is gone!! The only winner here is <drumroll>

THE ISP!!!! Yay and huzzah!!! The company that already has all the monies wins!!! How dare the little guy get in their way because they want MOAR!!!! And the really cool thing about it? The little guy HAS NO CHOICE WHATSOEVER!!!

......unless he moves to Phoenix, AZ, that is.

 

[volinbham]

You think we'll have to wait long for the comcast lobbyists that have sunk millions into defeating net neutrality to try and make that back off of the backs of content creators and consumers? LOL.

The regulation levels the playing field. Can you explain why you believe this will result in more competition instead of being a bigger hurdle for start ups?

It is a massive hurdle for ISP startups. Let's say I want to start an ISP specifically built for text communications - by limiting (or favoring) text comms I can provide a lightning fast and very inexpensive connection service. However if I'm force to accept all forms of data and not charge different rates for different user classes then I cannot offer my specialized service.

In effect, the Title II treatment virtually guarantees the big ISPs will dominate the market and we are at the whim of this oligopoly for the pipeline. Any number of innovations at the small, niche level of ISP is locked out due to the burdens imposed by Title II.

So innovation will move at the pace of the industry giants who will do incremental at best improvements.

 

[volinbham]

Also, theoretically Title II doesn't prevent discriminatory pricing for classes of users. So the large ISPs could charge more to Netflix if they charged the same increased rates to all companies like Netflix.

 

[GhostVol]

In effect, the Title II treatment virtually guarantees the big ISPs will dominate the market and we are at the whim of this oligopoly for the pipeline. Any number of innovations at the small, niche level of ISP is locked out due to the burdens imposed by Title II.

This is only due to the exclusion of local loop unbundling. The lines have been paid for (many times over, in fact) through municipalities granting a great many tax breaks to the detriment of the communities involved.

Title II classification with LLU would solve a great many of the problems of competition in the marketplace (and was, I believe, the direction things were headed).

Quit allowing the telcos dictate the final mile.

 

[GhostVol]

Yes, they do. If they want to move badly enough. If uneducated people who don't speak the language and are not welcome can sneak into our country with no money and move to whatever city they want, then I'm pretty sure Americans can, too.

Look, I would live in Costa Rica if internet wasn't a problem. It is, so I live here. We can't have everything that we want.



You're missing the point and you don't have to live in Phoenix....there are lots of places with internet options. So many.

Look at it this way.

My Dad grew up in Farmington, NM. He never had a bagel until college. At some point, Farmington got its first bagel joint. If it was ****ty, they dealt with it, until the market could support two bagel options.

It's the way the world works. You are trying to **** with the natural order of things because you think the world is unfair. Well guess what? The government does not create fair solutions and you are introducing force because you see yourself as a victim who has to turn to the nanny state for protection....

...if this fairly describes you, then do it on the local level and leave others alone.

And I think your grasp of the situation is simply "Regulation Bad". If you think this fairly describes you I'd suggest further education on the matter.

Look, monopolies have proven time and again that when they have the opportunity to screw someone with no choice they will. No competition leads to abuse. Title II w/out LLU and NN are simply the FIRST step toward remediation of the situation.

No competition can arise because of the massive capital outlay in running more and more cable when cable is already there that can support competitive companies. Never mind the incumbent ISPs that are making competition impossible through lobbying for laws to prevent it. See Google Fiber.

 

[Quaint88]

Fast lanes aren't what's going to "ruin" the internet. It's the throttling of high demand sites that Comcast wants a pound of flesh for. If they can shake down pornhub and netflix for providing high demand content, while at the same time sell us more and bandwidth for higher prices (as it is now) - they make more money.

Guess what happens to the price of your netflix subscription when Netflix has to pay comcast more? I assure you, your 9.95 subscription will not remain $9.95.

As you said, the net neutrality rules as they are now don't protect against that situation. True net neutrality would (by not allowing edge providers to purchase interconnections), but I think that would lead to massive bottlenecks when ISPs stop providing interconnections that they aren't allowed to be payed for. That innovation along with CDNs really allowed the streaming video service industry to take off. I believe that if we really had gone to a neutral Internet in 2015, it would've been such a disaster for streaming video that the public outcry would've prevented the idea from ever gaining any serious steam again.

If the net neutrality isn't a problem now - why are they trying to dump net neutrality regulations?

Follow the money - from your wallet to Comcast.

It's not just the net neutrality rules that are being rolled back. The plan to reclassify ISPs as utilities (and hold them to the extra privacy requirements that come with that classification) was part of the same initiative. Both were pushed by big Internet companies, and together they punish owners of Internet infrastructure by holding them to more stringent privacy rules (why not just implement those rules for all Internet companies if consumer protection is so important?), forcing them to rent their lines to competitors at government controlled rates, and having the government oversee the management of their own networks.

I come at it from the angle that, if I own something (and am allowed to own that something), then I should be in control of it. I should decide whether someone else can use it, how much I charge, and how it's used. If I had the foresight and capital to buy Internet infrastructure, and the big Internet companies had lobbied the government to erode some of my ownership rights while adding regulations that didn't apply to them, I would be fighting pretty hard to make the pendulum swing the other way, too.

If all capitalism has to offer in this instance is a natural monopoly, then public ownership may be the way to go, but a decision needs to be made rather than the government legislating into existence a middle-ground to ownership. If the regulatory environment had continued as planned, I don't see why any company would purchase Internet infrastructure. They could just rent it at a controlled price indefinitely and leave the ISPs holding the bag when the technology changes.

 

[Quaint88]

It is a massive hurdle for ISP startups. Let's say I want to start an ISP specifically built for text communications - by limiting (or favoring) text comms I can provide a lightning fast and very inexpensive connection service. However if I'm force to accept all forms of data and not charge different rates for different user classes then I cannot offer my specialized service.

In effect, the Title II treatment virtually guarantees the big ISPs will dominate the market and we are at the whim of this oligopoly for the pipeline. Any number of innovations at the small, niche level of ISP is locked out due to the burdens imposed by Title II.

So innovation will move at the pace of the industry giants who will do incremental at best improvements.

Unrelated to NN, but I read that another hurdle to ISP startups is the fact that the banks do not assign any value to fiber optics in the ground. That means it can't be used as collateral to borrow funds needed to complete the network or expand it. The land can be used as collateral, but a lot of fiber is under public property.

 

[n_huffhines]

in this case letting the companies double dip is the fair solution?

There is no "fair" solution. There is only a solution that is best, and I'm saying let the market sort it out.

Get "fair" out of your head. The world is not fair.

 

[n_huffhines]

And I think your grasp of the situation is simply "Regulation Bad". If you think this fairly describes you I'd suggest further education on the matter.

Unnecessary regulation is bad. Net neutrality is a cure looking for a disease.

I studied regulation for 4 years in college and have read lots of books about economics in my personal time. What reading do you suggest?

Look, monopolies have proven time and again that when they have the opportunity to screw someone with no choice they will. No competition leads to abuse. Title II w/out LLU and NN are simply the FIRST step toward remediation of the situation.

Monopolies get market power through regulation. This is what "croney capitalism" means.

No competition can arise because of the massive capital outlay in running more and more cable when cable is already there that can support competitive companies. Never mind the incumbent ISPs that are making competition impossible through lobbying for laws to prevent it. See Google Fiber.

This is just not true. Competition is a thing, just not maybe where you live. Wait a little while. Or again, go through local channels, not the federal government. If you want to freeze internet infrastructure in time, regulation is a great way to do it.

 

[GhostVol]

There is only a solution that is best, and I'm saying let the market sort it out.

And, ordinarily, I'd agree with you. When there is COMPETITION. And there is NONE in this field. And it has been LEGISLATED that there be none.

See Chattanooga EPB.

Look up the backlash from the incumbent telcos against One Touch Make Ready laws.

 

[Quaint88]

There is no "fair" solution. There is only a solution that is best, and I'm saying let the market sort it out.

Get "fair" out of your head. The world is not fair.

Do you think the market is sorting it out? How do you see the market moving past the natural monopoly it seems to have sorted itself into? I don't see a solution in the near future. Even if WiFi gets to the point where it has a huge range with good speed, the antennas will still have to be located within a certain physical proximity to the user. Even if squeezing in WiFi towers for several different providers isn't an issue, I would expect network interference to be after a certain point. It seems we won't have a solution until quantum data transfer is a reality, which looks to be decades off if even possible.

 

[VolStrom]

Yes, they do. If they want to move badly enough. If uneducated people who don't speak the language and are not welcome can sneak into our country with no money and move to whatever city they want, then I'm pretty sure Americans can, too.

Look, I would live in Costa Rica if internet wasn't a problem. It is, so I live here. We can't have everything that we want.



You're missing the point and you don't have to live in Phoenix....there are lots of places with internet options. So many.

Look at it this way.

My Dad grew up in Farmington, NM. He never had a bagel until college. At some point, Farmington got its first bagel joint. If it was ****ty, they dealt with it, until the market could support two bagel options.

It's the way the world works. You are trying to **** with the natural order of things because you think the world is unfair. Well guess what? The government does not create fair solutions and you are introducing force because you see yourself as a victim who has to turn to the nanny state for protection....

...if this fairly describes you, then do it on the local level and leave others alone.

Just a question. Why would you want to live in Costa Rica instead of the US?

 

[n_huffhines]

Just a question. Why would you want to live in Costa Rica instead of the US?

Because I can afford beach front property. Have you been there? Tons of ex pats there

 

[n_huffhines]

Do you think the market is sorting it out? How do you see the market moving past the natural monopoly it seems to have sorted itself into? I don't see a solution in the near future. Even if WiFi gets to the point where it has a huge range with good speed, the antennas will still have to be located within a certain physical proximity to the user. Even if squeezing in WiFi towers for several different providers isn't an issue, I would expect network interference to be after a certain point. It seems we won't have a solution until quantum data transfer is a reality, which looks to be decades off if even possible.

Be careful what you wish for.

The most infamous manifestation of crony capitalism during these days was Ma Bell. One company, the former iteration of AT&T , locked arms with the federal government to create a legalized telephone monopoly. Ma Bell was regulated like a utility, and for decades the industry (consisting of one company) languished in mediocrity. Americans were held hostage to lackluster service and even required to rent their phones from the telephone company. These clunky devices only performed analog voice calls and everyone avoided long distance dialing because of its outrageous expense.

https://www.forbes.com/2009/12/11/b...s-reform-opinions-contributors-paul-ryan.html

 

[VolStrom]

Because I can afford beach front property. Have you been there? Tons of ex pats there

I know a lot of people move there when they retire. If you prepared for retirement poorly I suppose that's an alternative.

 

[n_huffhines]

I know a lot of people move there when they retire. If you prepared for retirement poorly I suppose that's an alternative.

So you're going to be buying 3,000 sq feet on the beach in La Jolla when you retire, big shot?

Costa Rica's beaches are so much better than in CA. Also, the people who aren't tired of tourists are the salt of the earth.

 

[midnight orange]

And I think your grasp of the situation is simply "Regulation Bad". If you think this fairly describes you I'd suggest further education on the matter.

Look, monopolies have proven time and again that when they have the opportunity to screw someone with no choice they will. No competition leads to abuse. Title II w/out LLU and NN are simply the FIRST step toward remediation of the situation.

No competition can arise because of the massive capital outlay in running more and more cable when cable is already there that can support competitive companies. Never mind the incumbent ISPs that are making competition impossible through lobbying for laws to prevent it. See Google Fiber.

Name a monopoly that isn't government created or assisted.