FCC Begins Teardown Process on Net Neutrality

#51
#51

I'm not wishing, just discussing. Do you see a path to improved competition in the near future, or do you just trust the market? I definitely see net neutrality as something that will make things worse. My knee-jerk reaction to socializing the "last mile" is that it's not a solution either, but the status quo isn't great, so I'm at least open to discussing the idea.

Are natural monopolies accepted as a fact of life under Libertarianism?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#52
#52
I'm not wishing, just discussing. Do you see a path to improved competition in the near future, or do you just trust the market? I definitely see net neutrality as something that will make things worse. My knee-jerk reaction to socializing the "last mile" is that it's not a solution either, but the status quo isn't great, so I'm at least open to discussing the idea.

Are natural monopolies accepted as a fact of life under Libertarianism?

Natural monopolies only exist for a short time, in the scheme of things. They get staying power by getting into bed with government.

The only natural monopoly I know of in US history that actually had market power for a prolonged time was ALCOA, but that's the exception to the rule.

The question really boils down to, are you willing to accept a monopoly for a short time or accept regulation forever (and likely still end up with monopolistic behavior)?

I don't think the internet is broken. I don't know specifics on how companies are trying to improve on infrastructural challenges. I imagine that would be proprietary information. I just know that it's the nature of technology to get better over time. Is there any area of tech where this is not true? If so, we'll probably find that government is heavily involved (like the case with Ma Bell).

Has anybody here been throttled?
 
Last edited:
#53
#53
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.

why do you think the big companies are the ones pushing this? They are just doing it to charge more money. you may not be a fan of big government but you are a fan of big corporations who own the big government.

and you were the one complaining about the government not creating fair solutions, not me. I am just pointing out that big business will also not create a fair solution so your argument to keep government out is invalid on that point.
 
#55
#55
Natural monopolies only exist for a short time, in the scheme of things. They get staying power by getting into bed with government.

The only natural monopoly I know of in US history that actually had market power for a prolonged time was ALCOA, but that's the exception to the rule.

The question really boils down to, are you willing to accept a monopoly for a short time or accept regulation forever (and likely still end up with monopolistic behavior)?

It would be easier to accept that the situation is temporary if there were an end in sight, but I realize there may really be no better way.

I don't think the internet is broken. I don't know specifics on how companies are trying to improve on infrastructural challenges. I imagine that would be proprietary information. I just know that it's the nature of technology to get better over time. Is there any area of tech where this is not true? If so, we'll probably find that government is heavily involved (like the case with Ma Bell).

I don't think the Internet is broken either, but it is disturbing to see Internet infrastructure ownership trending towards fewer and fewer companies.

Has anybody here been throttled?

It would be impossible to tell throttling from a natural bottleneck, but I doubt it. If ISPs wanted to hurt streaming video services, all they have to do is stop offering interconnections to their CDNs and let the network bottlenecks do the throttling. Interestingly, that would be more "neutral".
 
Last edited:
#57
#57
I don't think the Internet is broken either, but it is disturbing to see Internet infrastructure ownership trending towards fewer and fewer companies.

The thing about that is Net Neutrality has tons of support right now, even though it's never really been a problem. If a free internet does result in big problems, then NN will pass with flying colors. It will be so easy.

I say wait until it's a real problem. What's wrong with that?
 
#58
#58
The thing about that is Net Neutrality has tons of support right now, even though it's never really been a problem. If a free internet does result in big problems, then NN will pass with flying colors. It will be so easy.

I say wait until it's a real problem. What's wrong with that?

The bolded is mine. And that's where you are wrong. The ISPs have taken advantage in the past before NN, would have if not for NN in the present (but that's gone because of your Rep vote) and they will in the future (if NN stays gone).

To think otherwise is just to bury your head in a Randian marketplace will "sort it out" kinda thing. A Randian marketplace won't work if there is no competition.

The problem is that you won't acknowledge that a monopoly will screw consumers whenever it can.

See: Every f**cking place Google Fiber showed up. Prices went down. Service went up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#59
#59
The thing about that is Net Neutrality has tons of support right now, even though it's never really been a problem. If a free internet does result in big problems, then NN will pass with flying colors. It will be so easy.

I say wait until it's a real problem. What's wrong with that?

"Let the marketplace sort it out" is a wonderful idea IF THERE IS A MARKETPLACE!!! There's not one..... You're at at the mercy of your ISP in most cases.






.......unless you live in Phoenix, AZ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#61
#61
The bolded is mine. And that's where you are wrong. The ISPs have taken advantage in the past before NN, would have if not for NN in the present (but that's gone because of your Rep vote) and they will in the future (if NN stays gone).

What are you talking about? What was the internet like 2 years ago? Was it so bad? It was pretty much the same as it was last year. I can't tell the difference. Can you? What changed for you?

The problem is that you won't acknowledge that a monopoly will screw consumers whenever it can.

The good news is they can't do it "whenever". Just because they have market power doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. They are after profit maximization, and they still have to provide a beneficial service to maximize a profit....unless the government gets involved. With cronyism, almost any level of service can be sustainable.

See: Every f**cking place Google Fiber showed up. Prices went down. Service went up.

Not sure what the point of this is? I have acknowledged several times that competition makes things better. The irony here is you are pointing to a market solution to the problem while simultaneously arguing that we can't just trust the market to solve it. Do you have any examples of government actually improving things? Where did service get cheaper/better in the last 2 years because of the government?
 
#62
#62
What are you talking about? What was the internet like 2 years ago? Was it so bad? It was pretty much the same as it was last year. I can't tell the difference. Can you? What changed for you?



The good news is they can't do it "whenever". Just because they have market power doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. They are after profit maximization, and they still have to provide a beneficial service to maximize a profit....unless the government gets involved. With cronyism, almost any level of service can be sustainable.



Not sure what the point of this is? I have acknowledged several times that competition makes things better. The irony here is you are pointing to a market solution to the problem while simultaneously arguing that we can't just trust the market to solve it. Do you have any examples of government actually improving things? Where did service get cheaper/better in the last 2 years because of the government?


Nope...... Stay in your little Randan world that will fix everything. Sorry..... that shiz doesnt work
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#64
#64
Do you have any examples of government actually improving things? Where did service get cheaper/better in the last 2 years because of the government?

I'm going to ask you to cast your mind back to the early days of the internet. It may be hard for you to do because of your age since I don't know how old you are but take my word for it because I lived through it and it's a perfect example of what could be because it's what was. And it's what was BECAUSE of Title II and common carrier regulation!

Obviously, you don't remember the days of dial-up internet when you got a CD in the mail at least once a week inviting you to ditch AOL or Compuserve or whatever ISP you had in favor of something else. THAT was competition. It caused AOL and others to move away from a you get X number of hours free then a by the minute charge for internet access because newer startups were offering unlimited access for a flat fee.

Title II and Common Carrier rules allowed for ANYONE that was willing to set up the necessary equipment to enter the internet service marketplace. When given access to the material infrastructure to provide service BY TITLE II AND COMMON CARRIER REGULATION there was a huge proliferation of dial-up companies ready to give you access to the internet.

Didn't like the one you had?? Simply enter a different phone number into your modem and sign up with another one. It was LITERALLY that simple! I must have gone through 6-10 of them in the 90's alone. Did any of those fly-by-night startups hang the phone lines that they used? NO! They were given access to them by Title II regulation.

Then along comes cable internet access that allowed for high bandwidth access. And companies that built the infrastructure lobbied for laws to protect their investment. An investment that has been paid for many times over by tax breaks and regulatory monopoly. They have since shown that they don't have the greater good in mind for society only their own bottom line.

It's time to treat them like the utility they have become.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#65
#65
Thank God we no longer have dial up. It was useful for email and chat rooms and that's about it.

So you're saying that ISPs got into bed with government and the solution is more government?

You literally just followed up an example of the market improving things with an example of government cronyism. What side are you arguing again?
 
Last edited:
#67
#67
The GOVERNMENT invented the internet. DARPA. Net neutrality is quite obviously a good thing for consumers and for the American people--which of course is why Republicans/conservatives who are flunkies for big business do not like net neutrality. I'm always amused by conservatives who complain about the government but seem to have no problem getting screwed in a 100 different ways by corporate America. Red-staters--average folk, often poor folk-- vote for Republicans who do EVERYTHING they can to heap hardship on average Americans. It's kind of crazy, AIN'T it? The Obama administration installed a regulation that mandated that financial services firms work in the best fiduciary interest of their clients. There is a history of financial firms/advisors making trades and putting clients in high-cost /high fee funds that benefit the firm and advisor more than the client--who would me and you. What did the GOP do a few weeks ago? Axed that regulation, of course. The GOP is systematically axing anything and everything that might interfere with corporations ability to bilk consumers, or pollute the land, etc. Wages, drug prices, net neutrality, family leave, you name it. Medicare is a very good thing (even if its administrators were very slow to crack down on rampant fraud)--and yet some conservatives would love to get rid of it, privatize it, which would simply mean that a lot of elderly people would stop getting care. People who vote for Republicans--eh, they're a curious lot.
 
#68
#68
This is not an answer to my question and suggests you are losing the argument and now desperate.

Or maybe enough adult beverage had been consumed to make someone appropriately annoyed at obvious demonstrations of willful ignorance.

The fact that you (or anyone else for that matter) think Comcast et.al. will be good and devoted trustees of the open internet and NN simply because they say they will is leaps and bounds beyond ignorance, willful or otherwise. It's outright (and, and quite frankly, frightening) stupidity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#69
#69
Or maybe enough adult beverage had been consumed to make someone appropriately annoyed at obvious demonstrations of willful ignorance.

The fact that you (or anyone else for that matter) think Comcast et.al. will be good and devoted trustees of the open internet and NN simply because they say they will is leaps and bounds beyond ignorance, willful or otherwise. It's outright (and, and quite frankly, frightening) stupidity.

You're not even talking about things I'm saying and calling it a "fact".

I assume you're not drunk anymore. Have an answer to my question yet? You're still avoiding it.
 
#70
#70
You're not even talking about things I'm saying and calling it a "fact".

I assume you're not drunk anymore. Have an answer to my question yet? You're still avoiding it.

I have laid out for you, in a logical and cogent fashion, the reasons why NN and Title II regulation are needed. With examples.

Now you're just trolling.

And, if you in fact truly don't understand the necessity for these regulations, re-read my posts. I'm tired of repeating the obvious for your amusement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#71
#71
I have laid out for you, in a logical and cogent fashion, the reasons why NN and Title II regulation are needed. With examples.

Now you're just trolling.

And, if you in fact truly don't understand the necessity for these regulations, re-read my posts. I'm tired of repeating the obvious for your amusement.

Non answer, once again. What a surprise. You can't even tell me how NN improved anything the last 2 years, yet somehow you think you've explained why we need it. You're delusional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#72
#72
I hate the corporate takeover of the net for advertising purposes. I watch a video on the local news website about a small child drowning and I must first endure a viagra commercial for 22 sec., and these commercials are getting longer not shorter.
 
#74
#74
This helps understand the issue

Some traffic - file transfers and webpage renderings, for instance - are delay insensitive while others (video, audio, and voice calling) are extremely sensitive with quality impacted in tens of milliseconds of delay. Because some traffic *must* have priority over others, some providers will require some priority for at least some traffic. You want this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#75
#75
I'm going to ask you to cast your mind back to the early days of the internet. It may be hard for you to do because of your age since I don't know how old you are but take my word for it because I lived through it and it's a perfect example of what could be because it's what was. And it's what was BECAUSE of Title II and common carrier regulation!

Obviously, you don't remember the days of dial-up internet when you got a CD in the mail at least once a week inviting you to ditch AOL or Compuserve or whatever ISP you had in favor of something else. THAT was competition. It caused AOL and others to move away from a you get X number of hours free then a by the minute charge for internet access because newer startups were offering unlimited access for a flat fee.

Title II and Common Carrier rules allowed for ANYONE that was willing to set up the necessary equipment to enter the internet service marketplace. When given access to the material infrastructure to provide service BY TITLE II AND COMMON CARRIER REGULATION there was a huge proliferation of dial-up companies ready to give you access to the internet.

Didn't like the one you had?? Simply enter a different phone number into your modem and sign up with another one. It was LITERALLY that simple! I must have gone through 6-10 of them in the 90's alone. Did any of those fly-by-night startups hang the phone lines that they used? NO! They were given access to them by Title II regulation.

Then along comes cable internet access that allowed for high bandwidth access. And companies that built the infrastructure lobbied for laws to protect their investment. An investment that has been paid for many times over by tax breaks and regulatory monopoly. They have since shown that they don't have the greater good in mind for society only their own bottom line.

It's time to treat them like the utility they have become.

How many utility choices are offered to your home location? Health insurers?

Ethically it's hard to make a case that companies should open their store to allow competitors use of their facilities, which is what TII did.

Wireless and powerline broadband is the likely future of ISP edge access. Until then, I don't see NN is needed, or was.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

VN Store



Back
Top