Until the law suits come crashing down. You have to be really deep into the pockets of the telecom companies to argue that broad band access isn't a mission critical utility in 2015.
Guys don't you know the government is just gonna shut down the internet now? Or end free speech or something? Probably make us all use Bing I bet #NoNetNeutrality
@Kevin They used a kill switch in Cambodia at least once. Many years ago I was on the internet at 1am and I got an email asking me what the "booming" was - radio and TV were off and the fools trying to overthrow the government (unsuccessfully in the end) didn't know enough to shut down the internet. AP news had no idea when I called them. BBC had it posted. So I emailed back to let my friend know what was happening 2 miles away from him. When this happened again a few years later those people knew enough to shut down the internet too.
According to the horror stories they will now charge you for streaming music/videos against your bandwidth cap...for those with free streaming this could be a major bummer.
We were presented with 2 options when there was a 3rd, don't put the internet under corporate or governmental oversight/control. This was a no win scenario for those of us enjoying the current freedoms of internet existence. There's nothing neutral about governmental oversight, the term net neutrality in this case is marketing, not reality. Ok, rant over.
@denboy Voice of reason. There was room for some action but they went almost full authoritarian. I expect to see numerous smaller ISPs giving up and selling out to the monsters, or just being regulated and costed out of business.
I think this is a horrible thing. It's very short sighted and ultimately political (by people who really don't understand how the internet works.)
I'm not saying there isn't a problem with some (OK, many) ISPs, but making them utilities isn't the right solution - at least not for the "customers" (aka all of us.) The problems typically exist on a local level, not a national one. There are plenty of places in this country (with decent local governments) that have fantastic internet options.
There simply isn't going to be the profit motive that has previously existed. And without that profit motive, our infrastructure expansion just came to a screeching halt.
We are most likely going to see what we've seen with government healthcare intervention: Lower service for everyone with higher costs for most and lower costs and improved availability for a VERY select few.
@bakerzdosen I'm not so sure. I suspect that internet expansion will still carry on just as it has. The rules don't really change much from the ISP's view. It mostly means that they won't be able to double-dip by charging both the end-user and the edge provider.
@bakerzdosen I'm typically very libertarian about such things, but when you say some or many ISPs, the reality is most ISPs. This is because ISPs have been essentually granted regional monopolies that are government sanctioned. There is no "real" competition in something like 70% of the country. Even Comcast made a point in their appeal to allow the merger that merging with TWC wouldn't impact anything becasue they "don't compete in a meaningful way with TWC". Think about that. The two largest ISPs don't compete with each other. A certain political party (of which I was a member until recently) likes to harp on the fact that this will somehow harm innovation. No. There is currently no innovation in this space. Becasue there is no competition, the only "innovation" is squeezing more money out of customers. In my (very large) metropolitan area we have two choices. Cox and Century Link. In other words, one choice for broadband. That's it. Century Link tops out at about 10Mbps. Which is good for... not much. Because of this, when I have an issue with Cox's service, it can take them a few days to get to me. If I could switch to another provider, I kinda feel like they would have better customer service and not charge be $70 a month for my internet connection. This regulation is sorely needed.
@bakerzdosen And I completely disagree with the profit motive statement. When they busted up AT&T in the 80s, profits continued to climb, but the competition increased customer choice and prices went down.
@Headly Awesome video. Appropriately disturbing. One of the best things I ever did was drop cable--and in the current media landscape, I can't imagine going back. Sadly, we still have to deal with the same assholes for broadband.
@Headly I suppose we will see. To me it's a local issue, not a federal issue. I have a hard time believing "more laws" is the answer. If it screws up my internet, I'll be pissed to say the least.
@joelmw I guess I'm fortunate. While we don't have two "broadband" providers by the current definition of broadband, we have Cable at 30/4, DSL at up to 18/2, and a couple of wireless (not cell, more like WiFi with big antennas) giving around 5/1 or so. Not perfect, but adequate for many tasks. This is a fairly small city though, just barely scraping at the bottom edge of the definition of city.
@kazriko Those "wireless (not cell)" providers are most likely microwave. I wish I'd had some choice at my last address in Portland. The only service I could get was Comcast. CenturyLink kept trying to get me to switch to DSL, but I was outside of their service area. FIOS was 30 feet away, but they were forbidden to cross over into Multnomah County. Having no choice of Internet providers is more common in big cities than in small ones. Public officials in larger cities take payoffs from telecom companies to make sure that they retain the monopoly.
@ChunkyBitz Well, given that the one we used to be on, GVTCI, was using essentially high end WiFi gear, they were 2.4ghz, right in the microwave oven band. I'm not sure what the newer ones are using, but it could be one of the lightly licensed bands in the 4-5ghz range. 2.4ghz has gotten really noisy since then. I'm definitely not a fan of local government granted monopolies, and think that we really need legislation to break that sort of thing up. The one positive to me was that they did break some of those regarding state laws concerning municipal internet systems.
I'm pretty excited that the FCC decided on these rules rather than the previous two drafts, which were inherently flawed. It'll be interesting to see whether or not the FCC can hold on to these rules. I don't want to see a repeat of 2010.
@techdude9 scariest line to me : "broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices."
the "legal content" part seems too close for comfort to censoring. All we need to do now is define certain types of speech as illegal and it can be censored. Probably won't happen soon, but we're one step closer...
@daveJay No. it's the opposite. it says may not block legal content. it doesn't say shall block illegal content. and in the context of the proposal, illegal content isunderstood to be copyright infringement and child porn.
Streaming companies have won the battle, but I believe consumers will ultimately lose the war.
Sure, the big ISP's can no longer hold Netflix or Hulu traffic hostage and charge those companies a premium for bandwidth. BUT... they CAN charge consumers a per-MB fee for data usage.
Wireless companies have been doing that for years. In fact in my market at least, Cox Gigablast internet comes with data caps and overage fees. Perhaps they saw the Net Neutrality writing on the wall?
@Headly ABSOLUTELY AGREE. Not long ago we had a nearby community choode to provide its own broadband internet service to the community because there was no big provider in the area. The "TWC law" as its called by most forced them to cut it off because if TWC ever did expand into the community they couldn't compete with the government utility. the community still has no broadband service.
I thought this was all good - anything against Comcast - guess I'm learning a lot from this thread. Work is keeping me extremely occupied, but I'm looking forward to learning all of your different takes on the ruling.
@Milest Nope, I'm just informed on the facts and I'm not a knee-jerk guberment hating libertarian. I suppose you think that if we got rid of all regulation and just let the market decide everything we'd all start farting rainbows and every day would be steak and blowjob day? For the record I thing the ACA is a horrible piece of legislation and I contacted my congressman on numerous occasions with my concerns. But then on the other hand we have douche nozzles like Ted Cruz calling net neutrality "obamacare for the Internet" and lots of uninformed fox news viewers sucking it up...
I can appreciate folks’ concerns about government regulation, intervention and control, truly I can. But the thing I’ve never understood about the “libertarian” perspective is what’s the preferable alternative? Does anyone actually think we can trust the mega corps (or even their lesser siblings) in the absence of government oversight? Isn’t the problem already that Big Business exerts too much influence?
Yes, I understand that some of that is exerted through Government itself, but at least there we have some form of representation. And, no, I don’t think consumerism is better than our representative democracy.
It seems to me that if you remove the (ideally, “our”) agency of Government, what we have left is feudalism and, in any case, a more outright form of plutocracy.
Our representative democracy may be broken, dysfunctional and corrupt, it may get things wrong most of the time, but I still find it preferable to a laissez-faire free-for-all.
Attention RNC. You people have completely gone off the rails since the early 80's I used to be a republican, because I believe in personal responsibility, light touch regulation, maintaining competitiveness in the corporate space, and fiscal responsibility. This used to be the platform of the Republicans, but no longer. And these ideas used to be implemented with common sense, but no longer. Light touch regulation doesn't mean no regulation. Right now what we have is government sanctioned monopolies that use the lobbying process to maintain said monopolies. I view regulation as the last resort, but in this case regulation is clearly called for. But to you, RNC, that is COMMUNISM! Net Neutrality and Title II will stifle innovation you say. Bullshit. Innovation is currently being stifled in the telecom space because there is no need to improve anything except the bottom line, because of said regional monopolies. So kindly take your free market idealogical argument and shove it up your ass. It's bullshit. You know it and we know it.
@joelmw in a truly free market you don't need to "trust mega corps". In a free market, monopolies do not survive. What we get with government regulation of the Internet is a government-sanctioned monopoly. Alias crony-capitalism.
There is no such thing as a "smart government". The market is smart and wins every time if we let it.
@RedOak As long as governments have existed there is no such thing as a truly free market. It is impossible to have a 100% free market in a democracy. Categorically impossible. In all of recorded history it has never happened on any material scale. So while I mostly agree with you from a pilosophical perspective, what you suggest is impossible. And when you have companies like the water company, power company, cable company that have to install and maintain billions of dollars woth of infrastructure, you will not have competition. It is not feasible for 10 cable companies to compete in a city, each with their own unique infrastructure. This is why I support municipal owned last-mile utilities. The city owns the connections from central hubs to homes and businesses. The provider
@RedOak The provider delivers services from their central offices to the hubs. This allows multiple companies to compete to provide services and provides choice and price relief to consumers. Imagine if you had even 2 water companies in your city, each with their own infrastructure. Imagine the cost. In order to have competition where large infrastructures are required you have to have government involvement. Otherwise you get the fucked up shitty mess we have right now with broadband. No competition. Shitty service. Insane prices. Free market types like competition, right? Phoenix is a city with a population of 4.3 million people. Show me the free market success that allows for broadband competition in Phoenix. I double dog dare you.
@Headly But it doesn't take a perfectly free market to take down a monopoly or any bad actor. And the Internet is not a utility. And we don't need any specific number of "cable companies" as you call them to have a competitive market. In many communities we have done it to ourselves by granting local access monopolies. Our community has three large Internet providers and they are brutilizing eachother pricewise. ($20 for 15 Mbit, $30 for 30 Mbit)
@Headly and by limiting yourself to "cable companies" you too tightly frame competition. When the big players get too big, raise prices too high, or abuse their customers, they fall. Unless they are protected by the government - as with this crazy FCC ruling. Other technologies, if allowed, keep the "cable companies" honest..... Perfect example: Cable TV services - they're getting murdered by competition via innovation: streaming media.
@Headly and even if you don't believe competition will keep the big players honest... We can use the government you so like to keep them honest with existing laws. The FTC has something called fair trade and disclosure. Internet providers not disclosing how they are manipulating their services will get sued by the multitude of trial attorneys. There already a multitude of laws on the books to keep "bad actors" under control.
@joelmw The preferable alternative for libertarians is to get rid of the root cause of the limited competition in most areas of the country. The fact that local governments have signed contracts with the internet providers giving them a monopoly in their area. Only one telephone provider allowed, and it's the one the local government says can be there. Only one cable provider allowed, and it's the one local government says can be there.
@Headly: "The internet is absolutely a utility". . . by that thinking you likely belive the airlines is are a utility. The Internet has mulitple paths, potential alternatives, and plenty of room for innovation and competition, including delivery mechanisms that leave Verizon and Comcast in the dust.
Big government, regulation happy, innovation choking intervention has been proven time and time againt to fail. That lovers of this FCC vote would so willingly subject the Internet to the whims and stupidity of un-elected govt bureaucrats is ignorant.
FCC: Title II . . . "Don't worry, we don't intend to implement all 1,000 ma bell era regulations, trust us." Intenet taxes coming your way...
@RedOak last i checked they didnt have to build sky highways for planes to travel on. I'm checking out of this debate. You clearly have not read the proposal, and are clearly opposed to any regulations, not on merit, but because government.
@Headly You're quickly rising in the ranks of my favorite conservatives. I think the mutual appreciation for band Rush (in this context, one has to be careful with that name) helped, but, darnit, you make sense to me.
@joelmw I used to consider myself an conservative, but no longer. My conservitive friends think I'm a progressive, and my progressive friends think I'm a conservative. I don't fit in a box. I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose free will.
@RedOak This is true. However, at the end of the day all the packets need to be able to get to all the points on the internet, This requires peering and interchange. You can't have wireless internet without the "backbone" and all the interconnects. Otherwise you'd have a standalone network. This is the FCC using a light touch to do their job. BTW, the neutrality requirements that were in place in 2010 were fine. You have Verizon to thank for rattling the bear cage. THe courts told the FCC that the only way they could enforce neutrality was Title II. Verizon couldn't leave well enough alone. So thanks, I guess?
To no one in particular. I'd rather not get into an angry back-and-forth about alternate models of the economy and politics. I kinda like that this is a space where that's at least kept mostly under the surface.
And I've mostly said what I'm gonna say and will just add this: I don't think I've ever seen or heard of the scenario cited, where the free market just works, all on its lonesome, to do the right thing. Surely it happened somewhere? I can on the other hand list numerous examples where the market has done the wrong thing. So, in the absence of specific examples, all of this high-minded talk about the grand wisdom and justice of Free Market sounds a lot like delusional utopianism to me.
I don't see anyone here denying that there are problems with the government or that there are monopolies propped up by the government. Again, though, what does an alternative look like?
There's always gonna be someone in charge. Someone and something will always step in to fill the vacuum. It won't be the Market; it'll be an individual or mob within that market. Getting dirty old, big bad Government out of the way won't eliminate corruption, graft, hegemony or monopoly. It won't get rid of people grasping for power and doing everything that they can to hold on to it. It won't magically make things more just or equitable.
I'll say this, too, on idealism. I don't have a problem with it per se. Indeed, I'll own my idealism and accept that every instance of its incarnation has been imperfect. I believe in the promise of democracy and the power of cooperation. I don't hold capitalism or competition as core values (though I am willing to accept that they are necessary and that they can have functional roles in civil society). I believe in humanity and human striving, but not as the expression of a Darwinian dog-eat-dog struggle for supremacy or a brutal fight for mere survival and basic sustenance. I believe that we are capable of great things precisely when we choose (as we are quite capable of) to transcend the profit motive and see the problems that confront us as something more than a zero sum game. I'm that guy and I'll happily own that. And what I've decided at the very least, is that that's something I'm far more willing to commit to than anything I've ever heard come from the mouth of those who insist that Government is the great evil.
@joelmw The market only factors financial costs, and only those that are immediate in most cases. Never ascribe to evil that which can be explained by incompetence and self interest.
@joelmw desiring less govt intervention doesn't seem to be "high-minded" - wanting more govt intervention seems to be "high-minded".
You're not looking very hard if you're not seeing examples of the market working. It is all around us, everywhere, every day.
The market always wins. Always. You only have to let it happen rather than interfering with it.
Big examples where anti-market interventionists clamored for govt intervention but where it was not needed: General Motors last century was thought to have too much market control, IBM with its Personal Computer, even big Cable TV (the TV portion). . . The Soviet Union, even Chinese communism is getting eaten from the inside by market power.
I suspect what you really detest is crony capitalism, not market forces. I too detest crony capitalism. Our country has a crony capitalism disease. The only way out is improved economic education of voters.Market forces are brilliantly magical and automatic. They sort out inefficiencies and properly pick real winners. Market forces don't know politics. Kmart, Office Max, and Chrysler (at least twice) sucked and the market resolved those problems. . . Unless the govt interfered.
Our Govt already has the tools to enforce market abuse.(Unfair trade practices, anti-competitive practices, monopolistic practices). We do not need more regulations, laws, and rules in our squirrels nest of govt.
Be careful what you ask for. This is not going to be good in the long run. Somebody is going to have to pay for more bandwidth to keep streaming Netflix. If not the company it will be the consumer
@readnj, this is what Google is trying to prevent and this also why they had to get their hands dirty and becoming an ISP (Google Fiber), which I'm pretty not making them any money. Current ISPs are trying their best to increase their revenue by screwing everyone. A quote from Google, "Some Internet service providers currently cap data downloads at 250 GB per month. You can download that much data on a 1 gig connection in about 33 minutes. Good thing there is no limit on your data downloads with Google Fiber!"
@readnj internet rates could be prorated baised on usage. Which is reasonable. And this is coming from a guy who has gone over 250GB of use in a month.... multiple times. Did you see that story about TWCs 97% profit margin btw?
I completely agree that there is lack of competition between ISP in most location. Like in my area, I only have either Optimum Online or Dial up internet, which mean no matter what happens I have to stay with Optimum Online. I just wish Google will find a way to advance their Google Fiber technology to my area, this way it will force stupid company like OOL to at least try to improve their services and not only increase my internet price every year.
@servas Yeah, the local government franchise system completely sucks. Most city and town governments only allow a single telephone, and single cable provider within their city limits, which severely limits your options for broadband. They should make a law that ditches those antiquated rules, or at least creates a couple of new categories of fiber providers so that we have a chance of up to 4 providers in an area competing.
Once again, the underlying issue is vastly ignored. Lobbyists will eventually be the downfall of the world.
We can make as many laws as we want, but until lobbying is declared illegal (and businesses are not people, I don't care how many times I fucking hear someone say it), we will continue to have laws that allow businesses to rape consumers.
I have no objection to a capitalist economy. I do, however, have an issue with businesses buying votes and controlling the government.
@capguncowboy that is so true lol. I saw the interview from CNBC with the lawyer that represents broadband companies. According to him, "wait till this case go to senate / congress, then we will have the proper decision", immediately I think that they will use their lobbying muscle to force their will. What an ahole
@capguncowboy basically this. the definition of capitalism has been warped into some kind of frictionless vacuum for generating revenue and shareholder profits with no regard for economic or societal impact. likewise, the definition of socialism has been warped, but if I say that word too many times I'm going to have to be scrubbing red spray paint off of all my posts ._.
@capguncowboy As long as you have a large government that picks winners and losers, you are going to have lobbyists who try to steer the outcomes. No huge, bloated government making all the rules, nobody to lobby to.
(Title 2 for the internet. Another big government solution for a problem created by government regulations. Net Neutrality is great, but Title 2 is a terrifyingly awful tool to try and assure it. No matter how light a touch they say it'll be now, it's like them saying income tax would be temporary, and limited to 1% of your income.)
@unixrab look at other utilities. Electricity is a public utility that is run by private business. In some places water is privatized and it works well.
@xEBRONx derp. watch out! the guberment is comin' fer yer internets and yer shine! Better round up Bo and Luke and get up in them hills to the hidey hole.
I haven't read too much on it yet but I'm pretty sure all of the major points people wanted for net neutrality ended up getting taken out. So now we're left with government regulating the Internet.
@Headly I've yet to find the actual ruling. Would you be able to provide a link? All I have to go on is hearsay from websites. From what I've gathered, they scrapped loop unbundling which translates to no increased competition since you can't share infrastructure and some other things.
Edit: found a 4 page overview and eh. Nothing really spectacular in there.
@Trailmix Depends on how you read it. All Title II really does is give them the authority to do things. Then there are these points: 1. No blocking, no throttling and no prioritization - those are huge. Ensuring access to poles, conduits and right of ways is huge. No rate regulation, no forcing contribution to the USF and No new taxes of fees. Also huge. Seems like a win for everyone except the carriers. And bases on my bank statement they've been winning for 30 years. So fuck 'em.
@Headly Realistically the throttling and such hasn't been happening so it's more precaution than anything. If you think about it, why would they want to do this? The poles and conduit access is a valid point. I think you're off point on being excited about no rate regulation since that means the government won't tell the carriers what prices they can charge. And as far as no new taxes, that's just the government saying that they won't add any more (no real impact).
@unixrab Firstly, from my understanding, it's not actually 300 pages. It's a lot less than that and most of the pages are reference material. Secondly, the reason we don't have the text lies squarly on the shoulders of the republicans who didn't get their way and basically pulled a Cartman.
@unixrab "...it could take weeks before the final rules are published, the official said. That’s because the two Republican commissioners, Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly—who oppose net neutrality of any sort—have refused to submit basic edits on the order. The FCC will not release the text of the order until edits from the offices of all five commissioners are incorporated, including dissenting opinions. This will depend on how long the GOP commissioners refuse to provide edits on the new rules."
@Headly OK... be that as it may..."from what you understand" at least you admit you have zero idea what is in those 300 pages - that the 2 R's opposed and the 3 D's overruled and passed - Everyone knows what Title II says... no one knows what the 5 FCC boardmembers passed. no one - Now say it. "I don't know what they passed in the 300 page Internet Regulation act" ;-)
Now I have a deal to make with you: Imma screen print our little discussion and in like 5 years we come back here and post again... I'll admit if things are hunky dory and the Internet is more awesome, more free, less regulated and we all have supperdeedooper high-speed access... I will TOTALLY admit you were right.... .... but... if things aren't better... or they're worse...things cost more... more regulations on blogs and ecommerce and (gag) full-blown nationwide sales-tax on all internet purchases... then you'll admit I was right and you'll vote R for any FCC board positions... ..oh wait... FCC board positions aren't elected...they are appointed.... we don't even get a say in what they've done/do. Oh well...you get my point!
@Headly one could argue that the 3 D's "threw a tantrum" by passing the mysterious rules...I wish it would have been unanimous (or required unanimity), but the 3 (President appointed) D's went partisan on it.
@daveJay So if I post a rubuttal from the Huffington Post. Will the two posts annihilate each other in a firey city leveling explosion? The Blaze isn't exactly a trusted unbiased source of information. And Mark Cuban is... Mark Cuban. And his first statement out of the gate is utter hyperbolic bullshit.
@daveJay No. I'm taking issue with his bullshit explanation of prioritization. "“If net neutrality is taken to its logical extension … if there’s no priority for television and it’s just part of the open Internet and delivery, your traditional television, watching the evening news, it’s over,” Is a complete red herring. Digital TV is NOT internet access. I don't know about you, but my digital TV works witout my cable modem and doesn't count against my caps, and watching HD TV on multiple TVs does not impact my internet usage. Different service and different class of service on the same wire.
@Headly it remains to be seen how it fleshes out. I know as my brother in law is an installer of u-verse, TV Is bits and byyes just like the Internet is. There's no difference
Long overdue, and unfortunately it will be even longer overdue from being help up in the court system for the next few years.
@hallmike ..or "held up".
@hallmike If by held up you mean being held hostage by telecom lobbyists...
Until the law suits come crashing down. You have to be really deep into the pockets of the telecom companies to argue that broad band access isn't a mission critical utility in 2015.
Guys don't you know the government is just gonna shut down the internet now? Or end free speech or something? Probably make us all use Bing I bet #NoNetNeutrality
@Moose Plus, now Netflix has to be so slow they'll render movies in ASCII art.
@editorkid That would be pretty cool, tho.
@editorkid
@Moose
@Moose on a serious note, the U.S. government does indeed have a "kill switch" to shut down the Internet.
That's the advantage of having so few telecoms and media outlets allow it to happen. But of course, they wouldn't really use it.
@editorkid @Moose @ACraigL Here's Star Wars rendered in ASCII http://www.asciimation.co.nz/
@Kevin They used a kill switch in Cambodia at least once. Many years ago I was on the internet at 1am and I got an email asking me what the "booming" was - radio and TV were off and the fools trying to overthrow the government (unsuccessfully in the end) didn't know enough to shut down the internet. AP news had no idea when I called them. BBC had it posted. So I emailed back to let my friend know what was happening 2 miles away from him. When this happened again a few years later those people knew enough to shut down the internet too.
According to the horror stories they will now charge you for streaming music/videos against your bandwidth cap...for those with free streaming this could be a major bummer.
We were presented with 2 options when there was a 3rd, don't put the internet under corporate or governmental oversight/control. This was a no win scenario for those of us enjoying the current freedoms of internet existence. There's nothing neutral about governmental oversight, the term net neutrality in this case is marketing, not reality. Ok, rant over.
@denboy Go say "Meh" on the product thread too early and you'll see the dystopian effects of corporate control over the Internet.
@editorkid
@editorkid did you mean to say control over the property they own and manage? sounds crazy.
@denboy Voice of reason. There was room for some action but they went almost full authoritarian. I expect to see numerous smaller ISPs giving up and selling out to the monsters, or just being regulated and costed out of business.
Well, I suppose I'll go ahead and dissent here.
I think this is a horrible thing. It's very short sighted and ultimately political (by people who really don't understand how the internet works.)
I'm not saying there isn't a problem with some (OK, many) ISPs, but making them utilities isn't the right solution - at least not for the "customers" (aka all of us.) The problems typically exist on a local level, not a national one. There are plenty of places in this country (with decent local governments) that have fantastic internet options.
There simply isn't going to be the profit motive that has previously existed. And without that profit motive, our infrastructure expansion just came to a screeching halt.
We are most likely going to see what we've seen with government healthcare intervention: Lower service for everyone with higher costs for most and lower costs and improved availability for a VERY select few.
@bakerzdosen I'm not so sure. I suspect that internet expansion will still carry on just as it has. The rules don't really change much from the ISP's view. It mostly means that they won't be able to double-dip by charging both the end-user and the edge provider.
@techdude9 Here's one example I suppose: http://hyperborean.liberty.me/2015/02/17/why-in-the-midst-of-success-ive-decided-to-leave-the-us/
@bakerzdosen I'm typically very libertarian about such things, but when you say some or many ISPs, the reality is most ISPs. This is because ISPs have been essentually granted regional monopolies that are government sanctioned. There is no "real" competition in something like 70% of the country. Even Comcast made a point in their appeal to allow the merger that merging with TWC wouldn't impact anything becasue they "don't compete in a meaningful way with TWC". Think about that. The two largest ISPs don't compete with each other. A certain political party (of which I was a member until recently) likes to harp on the fact that this will somehow harm innovation. No. There is currently no innovation in this space. Becasue there is no competition, the only "innovation" is squeezing more money out of customers. In my (very large) metropolitan area we have two choices. Cox and Century Link. In other words, one choice for broadband. That's it. Century Link tops out at about 10Mbps. Which is good for... not much. Because of this, when I have an issue with Cox's service, it can take them a few days to get to me. If I could switch to another provider, I kinda feel like they would have better customer service and not charge be $70 a month for my internet connection. This regulation is sorely needed.
@Headly
@bakerzdosen And I completely disagree with the profit motive statement. When they busted up AT&T in the 80s, profits continued to climb, but the competition increased customer choice and prices went down.
@Headly Awesome video. Appropriately disturbing. One of the best things I ever did was drop cable--and in the current media landscape, I can't imagine going back. Sadly, we still have to deal with the same assholes for broadband.
@Headly I suppose we will see. To me it's a local issue, not a federal issue. I have a hard time believing "more laws" is the answer. If it screws up my internet, I'll be pissed to say the least.
@Headly will net nutrality do anything to fix this?
@WTFhqwhgads No - unfortunately being an asshole is still legal. I don't really get why people do that. Ignorant I suppose.
@joelmw I guess I'm fortunate. While we don't have two "broadband" providers by the current definition of broadband, we have Cable at 30/4, DSL at up to 18/2, and a couple of wireless (not cell, more like WiFi with big antennas) giving around 5/1 or so. Not perfect, but adequate for many tasks. This is a fairly small city though, just barely scraping at the bottom edge of the definition of city.
@kazriko Those "wireless (not cell)" providers are most likely microwave. I wish I'd had some choice at my last address in Portland. The only service I could get was Comcast. CenturyLink kept trying to get me to switch to DSL, but I was outside of their service area. FIOS was 30 feet away, but they were forbidden to cross over into Multnomah County. Having no choice of Internet providers is more common in big cities than in small ones. Public officials in larger cities take payoffs from telecom companies to make sure that they retain the monopoly.
@ChunkyBitz Well, given that the one we used to be on, GVTCI, was using essentially high end WiFi gear, they were 2.4ghz, right in the microwave oven band. I'm not sure what the newer ones are using, but it could be one of the lightly licensed bands in the 4-5ghz range. 2.4ghz has gotten really noisy since then. I'm definitely not a fan of local government granted monopolies, and think that we really need legislation to break that sort of thing up. The one positive to me was that they did break some of those regarding state laws concerning municipal internet systems.
Long but very worth looking at.
@Teripie Spot on.
@Teripie this is perfect for the people that dont know what an ethernet cable is...
@Teripie
@nay71 No, that's what she wished.
I'm pretty excited that the FCC decided on these rules rather than the previous two drafts, which were inherently flawed. It'll be interesting to see whether or not the FCC can hold on to these rules. I don't want to see a repeat of 2010.
By the way, for those who don't know what we're talking about, here's a short (4-page) summary of the changes:
Click me
@techdude9 scariest line to me : "broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices."
the "legal content" part seems too close for comfort to censoring. All we need to do now is define certain types of speech as illegal and it can be censored. Probably won't happen soon, but we're one step closer...
@daveJay No. it's the opposite. it says may not block legal content. it doesn't say shall block illegal content. and in the context of the proposal, illegal content isunderstood to be copyright infringement and child porn.
Streaming companies have won the battle, but I believe consumers will ultimately lose the war.
Sure, the big ISP's can no longer hold Netflix or Hulu traffic hostage and charge those companies a premium for bandwidth. BUT... they CAN charge consumers a per-MB fee for data usage.
Wireless companies have been doing that for years. In fact in my market at least, Cox Gigablast internet comes with data caps and overage fees. Perhaps they saw the Net Neutrality writing on the wall?
@ruouttaurmind The fundamental issue is no competition.
@Headly ABSOLUTELY AGREE. Not long ago we had a nearby community choode to provide its own broadband internet service to the community because there was no big provider in the area. The "TWC law" as its called by most forced them to cut it off because if TWC ever did expand into the community they couldn't compete with the government utility. the community still has no broadband service.
I thought this was all good - anything against Comcast - guess I'm learning a lot from this thread. Work is keeping me extremely occupied, but I'm looking forward to learning all of your different takes on the ruling.
They can't build a website so lets give them control of the Internet. Sounds like a good idea, lemmings.
@Milest With all due respect, you don't sound like you have a fucking clue what you're talking about. Signed, a lemming.
@Headly Thanks, Heady. You seem like a nice welfare recipient.
@Milest Nope, I'm just informed on the facts and I'm not a knee-jerk guberment hating libertarian. I suppose you think that if we got rid of all regulation and just let the market decide everything we'd all start farting rainbows and every day would be steak and blowjob day? For the record I thing the ACA is a horrible piece of legislation and I contacted my congressman on numerous occasions with my concerns. But then on the other hand we have douche nozzles like Ted Cruz calling net neutrality "obamacare for the Internet" and lots of uninformed fox news viewers sucking it up...
@Milest Also, lemmings don't commit mass suicide by following other lemmings off a cliff. That myth was started by a big company in one of their documentary films... http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=56
@Milest "control of the internet" LMGDMFAO I didn't expect this kind of stupidity here on meh. Thanks for setting me straight.
@Milest Granted I'm making an assumption here, but you seem like the sort of person who says "sheeple" as well. lol
I can appreciate folks’ concerns about government regulation, intervention and control, truly I can. But the thing I’ve never understood about the “libertarian” perspective is what’s the preferable alternative? Does anyone actually think we can trust the mega corps (or even their lesser siblings) in the absence of government oversight? Isn’t the problem already that Big Business exerts too much influence?
Yes, I understand that some of that is exerted through Government itself, but at least there we have some form of representation. And, no, I don’t think consumerism is better than our representative democracy.
It seems to me that if you remove the (ideally, “our”) agency of Government, what we have left is feudalism and, in any case, a more outright form of plutocracy.
Our representative democracy may be broken, dysfunctional and corrupt, it may get things wrong most of the time, but I still find it preferable to a laissez-faire free-for-all.
@joelmw Here's something I posted elsewhere
Attention RNC. You people have completely gone off the rails since the early 80's I used to be a republican, because I believe in personal responsibility, light touch regulation, maintaining competitiveness in the corporate space, and fiscal responsibility. This used to be the platform of the Republicans, but no longer. And these ideas used to be implemented with common sense, but no longer. Light touch regulation doesn't mean no regulation. Right now what we have is government sanctioned monopolies that use the lobbying process to maintain said monopolies. I view regulation as the last resort, but in this case regulation is clearly called for. But to you, RNC, that is COMMUNISM! Net Neutrality and Title II will stifle innovation you say. Bullshit. Innovation is currently being stifled in the telecom space because there is no need to improve anything except the bottom line, because of said regional monopolies. So kindly take your free market idealogical argument and shove it up your ass. It's bullshit. You know it and we know it.
@joelmw in a truly free market you don't need to "trust mega corps". In a free market, monopolies do not survive. What we get with government regulation of the Internet is a government-sanctioned monopoly. Alias crony-capitalism.
There is no such thing as a "smart government". The market is smart and wins every time if we let it.
@RedOak As long as governments have existed there is no such thing as a truly free market. It is impossible to have a 100% free market in a democracy. Categorically impossible. In all of recorded history it has never happened on any material scale. So while I mostly agree with you from a pilosophical perspective, what you suggest is impossible. And when you have companies like the water company, power company, cable company that have to install and maintain billions of dollars woth of infrastructure, you will not have competition. It is not feasible for 10 cable companies to compete in a city, each with their own unique infrastructure. This is why I support municipal owned last-mile utilities. The city owns the connections from central hubs to homes and businesses. The provider
@RedOak The provider delivers services from their central offices to the hubs. This allows multiple companies to compete to provide services and provides choice and price relief to consumers. Imagine if you had even 2 water companies in your city, each with their own infrastructure. Imagine the cost. In order to have competition where large infrastructures are required you have to have government involvement. Otherwise you get the fucked up shitty mess we have right now with broadband. No competition. Shitty service. Insane prices. Free market types like competition, right? Phoenix is a city with a population of 4.3 million people. Show me the free market success that allows for broadband competition in Phoenix. I double dog dare you.
@Headly But it doesn't take a perfectly free market to take down a monopoly or any bad actor. And the Internet is not a utility. And we don't need any specific number of "cable companies" as you call them to have a competitive market. In many communities we have done it to ourselves by granting local access monopolies. Our community has three large Internet providers and they are brutilizing eachother pricewise. ($20 for 15 Mbit, $30 for 30 Mbit)
@Headly and by limiting yourself to "cable companies" you too tightly frame competition. When the big players get too big, raise prices too high, or abuse their customers, they fall. Unless they are protected by the government - as with this crazy FCC ruling. Other technologies, if allowed, keep the "cable companies" honest..... Perfect example: Cable TV services - they're getting murdered by competition via innovation: streaming media.
@Headly and even if you don't believe competition will keep the big players honest... We can use the government you so like to keep them honest with existing laws. The FTC has something called fair trade and disclosure. Internet providers not disclosing how they are manipulating their services will get sued by the multitude of trial attorneys. There already a multitude of laws on the books to keep "bad actors" under control.
@Headly Bottom line: this FCC vote is bad news. For everyone except the existing big players with access to millions of federal lobbying dollars.
@RedOak The internet is absolutely a utility. Anything that requires that kind of infrastructure is a utility by definition.
@RedOak Remind me how Comcast & Time Warner were impacted in the least by any of those things before this ruling?
@joelmw The preferable alternative for libertarians is to get rid of the root cause of the limited competition in most areas of the country. The fact that local governments have signed contracts with the internet providers giving them a monopoly in their area. Only one telephone provider allowed, and it's the one the local government says can be there. Only one cable provider allowed, and it's the one local government says can be there.
@Headly: "The internet is absolutely a utility". . . by that thinking you likely belive the airlines is are a utility. The Internet has mulitple paths, potential alternatives, and plenty of room for innovation and competition, including delivery mechanisms that leave Verizon and Comcast in the dust.
Big government, regulation happy, innovation choking intervention has been proven time and time againt to fail. That lovers of this FCC vote would so willingly subject the Internet to the whims and stupidity of un-elected govt bureaucrats is ignorant.
FCC: Title II . . . "Don't worry, we don't intend to implement all 1,000 ma bell era regulations, trust us." Intenet taxes coming your way...
@RedOak last i checked they didnt have to build sky highways for planes to travel on. I'm checking out of this debate. You clearly have not read the proposal, and are clearly opposed to any regulations, not on merit, but because government.
@Headly You're quickly rising in the ranks of my favorite conservatives. I think the mutual appreciation for band Rush (in this context, one has to be careful with that name) helped, but, darnit, you make sense to me.
@Headly just like there are many paths to fly and ways to transport, there are many paths and alternatives on the internet.
@joelmw I used to consider myself an conservative, but no longer. My conservitive friends think I'm a progressive, and my progressive friends think I'm a conservative. I don't fit in a box. I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose free will.
@RedOak This is true. However, at the end of the day all the packets need to be able to get to all the points on the internet, This requires peering and interchange. You can't have wireless internet without the "backbone" and all the interconnects. Otherwise you'd have a standalone network. This is the FCC using a light touch to do their job. BTW, the neutrality requirements that were in place in 2010 were fine. You have Verizon to thank for rattling the bear cage. THe courts told the FCC that the only way they could enforce neutrality was Title II. Verizon couldn't leave well enough alone. So thanks, I guess?
@RedOak Forbearance is a real thing. It's the law. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/Forbearance
/ damnit, "the band"
To no one in particular. I'd rather not get into an angry back-and-forth about alternate models of the economy and politics. I kinda like that this is a space where that's at least kept mostly under the surface.
And I've mostly said what I'm gonna say and will just add this: I don't think I've ever seen or heard of the scenario cited, where the free market just works, all on its lonesome, to do the right thing. Surely it happened somewhere? I can on the other hand list numerous examples where the market has done the wrong thing. So, in the absence of specific examples, all of this high-minded talk about the grand wisdom and justice of Free Market sounds a lot like delusional utopianism to me.
I don't see anyone here denying that there are problems with the government or that there are monopolies propped up by the government. Again, though, what does an alternative look like?
There's always gonna be someone in charge. Someone and something will always step in to fill the vacuum. It won't be the Market; it'll be an individual or mob within that market. Getting dirty old, big bad Government out of the way won't eliminate corruption, graft, hegemony or monopoly. It won't get rid of people grasping for power and doing everything that they can to hold on to it. It won't magically make things more just or equitable.
I'll say this, too, on idealism. I don't have a problem with it per se. Indeed, I'll own my idealism and accept that every instance of its incarnation has been imperfect. I believe in the promise of democracy and the power of cooperation. I don't hold capitalism or competition as core values (though I am willing to accept that they are necessary and that they can have functional roles in civil society). I believe in humanity and human striving, but not as the expression of a Darwinian dog-eat-dog struggle for supremacy or a brutal fight for mere survival and basic sustenance. I believe that we are capable of great things precisely when we choose (as we are quite capable of) to transcend the profit motive and see the problems that confront us as something more than a zero sum game. I'm that guy and I'll happily own that. And what I've decided at the very least, is that that's something I'm far more willing to commit to than anything I've ever heard come from the mouth of those who insist that Government is the great evil.
@joelmw The market only factors financial costs, and only those that are immediate in most cases. Never ascribe to evil that which can be explained by incompetence and self interest.
@joelmw desiring less govt intervention doesn't seem to be "high-minded" - wanting more govt intervention seems to be "high-minded".
You're not looking very hard if you're not seeing examples of the market working. It is all around us, everywhere, every day.
The market always wins. Always. You only have to let it happen rather than interfering with it.
Big examples where anti-market interventionists clamored for govt intervention but where it was not needed: General Motors last century was thought to have too much market control, IBM with its Personal Computer, even big Cable TV (the TV portion). . . The Soviet Union, even Chinese communism is getting eaten from the inside by market power.
I suspect what you really detest is crony capitalism, not market forces. I too detest crony capitalism. Our country has a crony capitalism disease. The only way out is improved economic education of voters.Market forces are brilliantly magical and automatic. They sort out inefficiencies and properly pick real winners. Market forces don't know politics. Kmart, Office Max, and Chrysler (at least twice) sucked and the market resolved those problems. . . Unless the govt interfered.
Our Govt already has the tools to enforce market abuse.(Unfair trade practices, anti-competitive practices, monopolistic practices). We do not need more regulations, laws, and rules in our squirrels nest of govt.
Be careful what you ask for. This is not going to be good in the long run. Somebody is going to have to pay for more bandwidth to keep streaming Netflix. If not the company it will be the consumer
and not necessarily the ones watching Netflix. it will be all consumers.
@readnj, this is what Google is trying to prevent and this also why they had to get their hands dirty and becoming an ISP (Google Fiber), which I'm pretty not making them any money. Current ISPs are trying their best to increase their revenue by screwing everyone. A quote from Google, "Some Internet service providers currently cap data downloads at 250 GB per month. You can download that much data on a 1 gig connection in about 33 minutes. Good thing there is no limit on your data downloads with Google Fiber!"
@readnj internet rates could be prorated baised on usage. Which is reasonable. And this is coming from a guy who has gone over 250GB of use in a month.... multiple times. Did you see that story about TWCs 97% profit margin btw?
I completely agree that there is lack of competition between ISP in most location. Like in my area, I only have either Optimum Online or Dial up internet, which mean no matter what happens I have to stay with Optimum Online. I just wish Google will find a way to advance their Google Fiber technology to my area, this way it will force stupid company like OOL to at least try to improve their services and not only increase my internet price every year.
@servas Yeah, the local government franchise system completely sucks. Most city and town governments only allow a single telephone, and single cable provider within their city limits, which severely limits your options for broadband. They should make a law that ditches those antiquated rules, or at least creates a couple of new categories of fiber providers so that we have a chance of up to 4 providers in an area competing.
Once again, the underlying issue is vastly ignored. Lobbyists will eventually be the downfall of the world.
We can make as many laws as we want, but until lobbying is declared illegal (and businesses are not people, I don't care how many times I fucking hear someone say it), we will continue to have laws that allow businesses to rape consumers.
I have no objection to a capitalist economy. I do, however, have an issue with businesses buying votes and controlling the government.
@capguncowboy You might be interested in Lawrence Lessig's rootstrikers movement then, and his current efforts.
@capguncowboy that is so true lol. I saw the interview from CNBC with the lawyer that represents broadband companies. According to him, "wait till this case go to senate / congress, then we will have the proper decision", immediately I think that they will use their lobbying muscle to force their will. What an ahole
@capguncowboy why mess with tradition!?
@capguncowboy they have to ignore it, otherwise where will they get their spendin' money from?
@capguncowboy basically this. the definition of capitalism has been warped into some kind of frictionless vacuum for generating revenue and shareholder profits with no regard for economic or societal impact. likewise, the definition of socialism has been warped, but if I say that word too many times I'm going to have to be scrubbing red spray paint off of all my posts ._.
@Lotsofgoats Yes. This ^ exactly. They can paint me red too, comrade (maybe that doesn't help?). Anyway, preach it. :-)
@capguncowboy As long as you have a large government that picks winners and losers, you are going to have lobbyists who try to steer the outcomes. No huge, bloated government making all the rules, nobody to lobby to.
@jseay65 but we have orgs lobbying precisely so the government continues to refrain from regulating really obvious business abuses, so... yea.
@jseay65 There will always be someone in charge and there will always be someone pandering to them.
@joelmw Because people.
@joelmw the less power the people in charge have, the less that pandering matters.
Overrated.
@phatmass I would cite Sturgeon's Law but when it comes to the internet, 90% seems low.
Lets hope it's not a double-edged sword...
(Title 2 for the internet. Another big government solution for a problem created by government regulations. Net Neutrality is great, but Title 2 is a terrifyingly awful tool to try and assure it. No matter how light a touch they say it'll be now, it's like them saying income tax would be temporary, and limited to 1% of your income.)
@kazriko
Oh....the FCC is going to oversee the internet rather than the NSA? What does Al Gore, inventor of the internet have to say about this?
@eeterrific http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
I say... give it a chance... Look at the success of the Postal Service and the IRS and the VA! Gov oversight rulzzz
@unixrab don't forget Amtrak and Team Sexual Assault ¯_(ツ)_/¯
@unixrab look at other utilities. Electricity is a public utility that is run by private business. In some places water is privatized and it works well.
So much ignorance on this. Read and learn. http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0204/DOC-331869A1.pdf
@Headly Hey, that was the same thing I linked earlier. Great minds think alike. =)
Have fun turning the US into North Korea
@xEBRONx I hope I get some job behind the scenes because I'm lousy at singing, dancing, and flipping over those huge cards.
@xEBRONx derp. watch out! the guberment is comin' fer yer internets and yer shine! Better round up Bo and Luke and get up in them hills to the hidey hole.
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/dont-call-them-utility-rules-the-fccs-net-neutrality-regime-explained/
The truth shall set you free.
@Headly "... unless you're an ideologue."
I haven't read too much on it yet but I'm pretty sure all of the major points people wanted for net neutrality ended up getting taken out. So now we're left with government regulating the Internet.
@Trailmix Then you didn't read ANY of it.
@Headly I've yet to find the actual ruling. Would you be able to provide a link? All I have to go on is hearsay from websites. From what I've gathered, they scrapped loop unbundling which translates to no increased competition since you can't share infrastructure and some other things.
Edit: found a 4 page overview and eh. Nothing really spectacular in there.
@Trailmix Depends on how you read it. All Title II really does is give them the authority to do things. Then there are these points: 1. No blocking, no throttling and no prioritization - those are huge. Ensuring access to poles, conduits and right of ways is huge. No rate regulation, no forcing contribution to the USF and No new taxes of fees. Also huge. Seems like a win for everyone except the carriers. And bases on my bank statement they've been winning for 30 years. So fuck 'em.
@Headly Realistically the throttling and such hasn't been happening so it's more precaution than anything. If you think about it, why would they want to do this? The poles and conduit access is a valid point. I think you're off point on being excited about no rate regulation since that means the government won't tell the carriers what prices they can charge. And as far as no new taxes, that's just the government saying that they won't add any more (no real impact).
@Headly but the actual 300 pages have not been released No one knows what's in it
@unixrab does this remind anybody of the ACA secrecy?
@unixrab Firstly, from my understanding, it's not actually 300 pages. It's a lot less than that and most of the pages are reference material. Secondly, the reason we don't have the text lies squarly on the shoulders of the republicans who didn't get their way and basically pulled a Cartman.
@unixrab "...it could take weeks before the final rules are published, the official said. That’s because the two Republican commissioners, Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly—who oppose net neutrality of any sort—have refused to submit basic edits on the order. The FCC will not release the text of the order until edits from the offices of all five commissioners are incorporated, including dissenting opinions. This will depend on how long the GOP commissioners refuse to provide edits on the new rules."
@BigBalzac Not even close.
@Trailmix Actually, it has happened...
CAn you find the point on the graph where netflix capitulated and wrote comcast and verizon big checks?
@Headly OK... be that as it may..."from what you understand" at least you admit you have zero idea what is in those 300 pages - that the 2 R's opposed and the 3 D's overruled and passed - Everyone knows what Title II says... no one knows what the 5 FCC boardmembers passed. no one - Now say it. "I don't know what they passed in the 300 page Internet Regulation act" ;-)
Now I have a deal to make with you: Imma screen print our little discussion and in like 5 years we come back here and post again... I'll admit if things are hunky dory and the Internet is more awesome, more free, less regulated and we all have supperdeedooper high-speed access... I will TOTALLY admit you were right.... .... but... if things aren't better... or they're worse...things cost more... more regulations on blogs and ecommerce and (gag) full-blown nationwide sales-tax on all internet purchases... then you'll admit I was right and you'll vote R for any FCC board positions... ..oh wait... FCC board positions aren't elected...they are appointed.... we don't even get a say in what they've done/do. Oh well...you get my point!
Here's the URL for a few years from now:
@Headly one could argue that the 3 D's "threw a tantrum" by passing the mysterious rules...I wish it would have been unanimous (or required unanimity), but the 3 (President appointed) D's went partisan on it.
@unixrab The R's were probably worse. The only thing I hate more than a conservative is a progressive.
Interesting analysis from Mark Cuban. Watch the video at the bottom: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/24/watch-mark-cubans-surgical-takedown-of-net-neutrality-and-why-he-says-everyone-should-hack-themselves/
@daveJay So if I post a rubuttal from the Huffington Post. Will the two posts annihilate each other in a firey city leveling explosion? The Blaze isn't exactly a trusted unbiased source of information. And Mark Cuban is... Mark Cuban. And his first statement out of the gate is utter hyperbolic bullshit.
@Headly you're taking issue with his statement that "the net has worked" ? While using said net to say that
@daveJay No. I'm taking issue with his bullshit explanation of prioritization. "“If net neutrality is taken to its logical extension … if there’s no priority for television and it’s just part of the open Internet and delivery, your traditional television, watching the evening news, it’s over,” Is a complete red herring. Digital TV is NOT internet access. I don't know about you, but my digital TV works witout my cable modem and doesn't count against my caps, and watching HD TV on multiple TVs does not impact my internet usage. Different service and different class of service on the same wire.
@Headly it remains to be seen how it fleshes out. I know as my brother in law is an installer of u-verse, TV Is bits and byyes just like the Internet is. There's no difference
@daveJay are you ok with prioritization of broadcast TV?
Here is a nice short piece on what happened (and more importantly, what didn't happen): The FCC Did NOT Make the Internet a Public Utility