DescentBB

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) vowed Monday to eliminate net neutrality rules recently enacted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), referring to the regulations as a "government takeover of the Internet."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/01/g ... eutrality/

article wrote:"Right now, freedom and free expression are under attack by a power structure in Washington populated with regulators who have never set foot inside a radio station or a television studio," Rep. Boehner said during a speech at the annual National Religious Broadcasters convention.

"We see this threat in how the FCC is creeping further into the free market by trying to regulate the Internet," the congressman continued. "Network neutrality, they call it. It's a series of regulations that empower the federal bureaucracy to regulate Internet content and viewpoint discrimination. The rules are written vaguely, of course, to allow the FCC free reign."

This is absolutely the most disingenuous and intellectually dishonest thing I've heard come out of any politician's mouth, on any side of any aisle or political spectrum, ever.

Free markets work best when there is a level playing field. That's why the Internet has been so successful so far, and why we see so many small startups making it big every year. If I come up with a great new idea for an Internet service, then all I have to do is pay for the outbound bandwidth to my customers. Once I pay to send my 0's and 1's over the Internet, then they are treated the same as everyone's, and they aren't discriminated by origin. My 0's and 1's are treated the same as even Microsoft's, even though they are a much larger company than me. This is neat, because I can even compete with Microsoft! I just have to pay for my bandwidth, just like how Microsoft has to pay for their's.

Some people assert that ISP's like Verizon and Comcast want to change this, that they want to create a tiered Internet where service providers bid to be placed on different levels of service. Depending on which tier you're in, your 0's and 1's will receive different discriminatory treatment by that ISP. Microsoft has a lot of money, so they will pay off all of the ISP's to get preferred treatment for their 0's and 1's. I can't afford to outbid them though, so now my 0's and 1's get substandard treatment. How am I supposed to compete against Microsoft when everyone will get their 0's and 1's more quickly and mine more slowly! ★■◆●!

It's easy to see who the winners would be here. Monopolies, entrenched markets, and of course the ISP's. It's also easy to see who the losers are. Small businesses and Web startups.

This is the problem that Net Neutrality supporters seek to address. Supporters say that the ISP's shouldn't be able to discriminate 0's and 1's based on who or where they come from. Once I pay to send my 0's and 1's over the Internet, then I'm done. They have to be treated the same as everyone else's.

One problem with Net Neutrality is that it seems to be trying to address a problem that doesn't presently exist. There doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence that ISP's actually want to start accepting bids for a tiered Internet anytime soon. But Net Neutrality supporters (and I) would argue though that we should preclude them from even starting.

The FCC's current Net Neutrality proposal getting shot down wouldn't really mean anything. The 'rules' are paper thin, full of loopholes, don't apply to wireless at all and generally don't require anything that all the incumbents weren't already doing. In short they are completely meaningless because they don't even protect the consumers from gigantic telecoms just doing whatever they want.
See:
Comcast leveraging their massive user base to demand more money from Level3/NetFlix.
Apple & the iPod/iPad/iPhone & app stores (one of the greatest threats to 'net neutrality').
ESPN3 and their streaming deal with ISPs that pay up.
How your cable TV package works (if you didn't cancel it like we did because it was retarded paying that much for TV that we hardly ever watched).

Rather than crafting some irrelevant net neutrality proposal that doesn't do anything; the FCC should address competition by fully re-classifying ISPs as common carriers and by forcing line sharing which has worked fantastically well in every country that does it. Line sharing means that instead of Verizon/AT&T or Comcast owning the network, the public owns the network and Verizon/AT&T/Comcast only maintain and sell access to it.

funny, Krom.

The idea of ISP's charging companies for distribution priority (or at all) and then turning around and charging the user for service reminded me a lot of the cable model: collect money from the networks to air, from the consumer to watch, and from the advertisers to put up ads....

I canceled cable. It upsets me that I can't watch the Flyers without signing up for 200 channels. It will upset me when the DBB slows to a crawl because it can't buy priority.

I like the idea of line sharing, though it smacks me a bit of socialism. These days, I think internet service should be treated more like the rest of the utilities out there, though.

There has to be a better model out there. There must be some company out there with a great scheme out there that doesn't rape all of the parties involved that just needs good exposure to take off. Something like clear, or the like. (Clear strikes me as just another scam, though.)

heh. the internet being treated like any other utility.

then you can get charged per GB.

oh, wait.

Businesses already pay per GB.

I don't know, usage charges don't scare me. (maybe they should) I don't see myself as a heavy user. If I had to pick between equal access with usage charges and ISP's cutting deals with providers for priority/access, I'd choose the former, because that way I don't have to get locked into some ISP's "package."

I tend to look at it somewhat similarly.

Regarding service cost, I'm content to let the debate between 'flat-rate' and 'usage-based' just play out in the market. (Personally, I don't see usage-based service ever working in the residential market.)

However, I completely support Net Neutrality in terms of ensuring traffic doesn't get tiered or access-restricted.

The long and the short of it is for the average individual in North America, there is a distinct lack of competition that makes overage charges bad for the consumer. Telco's would make more money on that while not doing anything to improve service in rural areas.

They never would want a pure per idem charge-that would force them to be neutral just to cover operation.

Before someone comes on with the argument of "whats wrong with an ISP trying to make a profit?": There is nothing wrong with trying to make a profit. But there is something wrong with sacrificing the customers, the quality of service, the long term health of the network, and the entire economy in order to maintain ever growing profits.

In order to maintain these rising profits, the ISPs have already cut network upgrades, outsourced customer service to foreign countries (or eliminated it entirely), laid off parts of their local work force, and now when they are all but out of things to cut they look for ways to make the same or less service more expensive...

There is nothing wrong with making a profit, but why is it exactly that it has to always be bigger than previous month/quarter regardless of the long term cost?

snoopy wrote:Businesses already pay per GB.

I don't know, usage charges don't scare me. (maybe they should) I don't see myself as a heavy user. If I had to pick between equal access with usage charges and ISP's cutting deals with providers for priority/access, I'd choose the former, because that way I don't have to get locked into some ISP's "package."

ISP's pay on average four cents per GB.

and if you watch youtube a fair bit, play games online a fair bit, transfer backups to an online backup site, you're considered a heavy user.


and the ISP's would LOVE to get hundreds of bucks every month out of you for that.

Here are a couple fun ones fresh off the press...

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Broa ... ors-112995

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Time ... ard-113002

Ferno wrote:

snoopy wrote:Businesses already pay per GB.

I don't know, usage charges don't scare me. (maybe they should) I don't see myself as a heavy user. If I had to pick between equal access with usage charges and ISP's cutting deals with providers for priority/access, I'd choose the former, because that way I don't have to get locked into some ISP's "package."

ISP's pay on average four cents per GB.

and if you watch youtube a fair bit, play games online a fair bit, transfer backups to an online backup site, you're considered a heavy user.


and the ISP's would LOVE to get hundreds of bucks every month out of you for that.

I'd be happy to pay 5c per GB.

You're right. I'm not okay with per-usage charges in the absence of price control, because then the consumer gets charged whatever the ISP's want. Hence my comments about internet being treated more like other utilities- because the price are kept low for utilities (artificially or not) and networks are shared (I can buy my power from XYZ company, and only pay PECO for delivery, not service). That's actually why I think that the cost/use model has potential for traction- your average user can probably save money, and someone out there can probably make a lot, to rent cable's coax, pay them a negotiated per GB price, and charge customers a slightly higher per GB price. The problem is, the cable/phone companies aren't force to share when it come to internet services the way that they are when it comes to voice/picture.

Side note: look up comcast sports net philadelphia & the terrestrial loophole. For years, there was one place to get Flyers/Sixers/Phillies coverage: Comcast cable. Now, you get to choose between Comcast cable and Verizon Fios. The FCC loophole that allowed them to refuse to share with satellite companies was closed about a year ago, and there's still no indication that satellite providers will have access to CSN anytime soon. Talk about anti-competitive tactics... which is what net neutrality is essentially about.

snoopy wrote:I'd be happy to pay 5c per GB.

At the same speed an ISP gets it, sure

Comparing the internet with utilities falls completely apart when scrutinized.

You can't compare the internet with water, simply because there is only so much water that's held in a reservoir.

Can't compare it to power either because power is created using a finite resource.

Natural gas? finite.

Data from the internet on the other hand is infinite. you can have one original on a server and on the next machine a hundred thousand copies of that original file. And yet, the ISP's want to charge for those copies. It's simply a way to make money out of nothing.

Besides.. there are no provisions for people to use less at all. it's a set amount per month whether you use one gig a month or fifty.

Considering the internet is useless, as in, it doesn't even exist without the individuals that make up the net.... the argument that it belongs to everyone therefore the government can protect us from the greedy actually works for me.

“It's simply a way to make money out of nothing.”

Yea…I’m sure AT&T runs its infrastructure with a perpetual motion machine connected to a generator.

Spidey wrote:“It's simply a way to make money out of nothing.”

Yea…I’m sure AT&T runs its infrastructure with a perpetual motion machine connected to a generator.

So far this thread has been great. Best thread on the topic so far. What exactly in Ferno's post do you have a problem with? edit: I just want to know since I thought he had a great point just like almost all the other posts above yours.

When you pay for internet services…you are paying for the cost of providing the services…not the “bits” themselves.

...yeah? and?

WTF man! You asked me what the problem I have with Ferno’s post…he is implying you are paying for the water…err bits.

The amount of electricity your ISP has to spend in order to keep the net running is so ridiculously small it is completely covered a billion times over in the flat fee they already charge you. Trying to imply that internet traffic is power expensive is a joke argument, it is far more expensive for the content delivery network (EG: Netflix) to power all their servers than it is to power the bandwidth to connect you to them.

It is like saying 95% of your electric bill is from your Cable/DSL modem and router because they use so much power (even though their power adapters cant deliver more than a few watts).

I wasn’t trying to make that argument at all…you people are nuts.

I don’t give a rats ass about net neutrality, or any given service payment scheme…I way trying to make a simple point that an isp is a delivery service…like UPS you don’t pay for package you pay for the delivery.

You guys are so hung up on this issue that you can’t even think straight.

My god, I make a little joke, and you guys think I’m trying to destroy your little world of free stuff.

Get over it man.

Spidey wrote:“It's simply a way to make money out of nothing.”

Yea…I’m sure AT&T runs its infrastructure with a perpetual motion machine connected to a generator.

wow, missed the point entirely.

charging for the bytes transferred to a subscriber (EG: netflix movie download) is how they are trying to make money from nothing.


don't give a rat's ass about net neutrality spidey? you sure will once you find out that A) the only content that doesn't take a day to respond is the content that's provided by AT&T and B) you're being charged 350 dollars per month for transferring something that's not provided by AT&T.

See, that's what happens when a large company is an internet service provider AND a content provider. They will try and make it cost prohibitive for services outside of their control just so you're forced to go back to the content they provide.

I don't know about you, but I like paying 8 bucks a month for movies that I can download instead of four bucks per movie from the large conglomerates.

You know what, I really don’t care about all that…Oh well.

You made two incorrect points…

1. ISPs can’t be considered utilities because…(your reason)

Service providers become utilities based on when they become essential to the community…not based on your reasoning. At that point they become regulated under the public utilities commission. (even if it’s a private company)

The phone company is a “utility”…they only deliver amplitude modulation.

The other was obvious…that’s the one I made the joke about, that got Isaac so miffed.

Spidey wrote:1. ISPs can’t be considered utilities because…(your reason)

well duh.

Service providers become utilities based on when they become essential to the community…not based on your reasoning. At that point they become regulated under the public utilities commission. (even if it’s a private company).

lol.

do you even know the difference between service and utility?

In this context, there is no real difference…other than government regulation.

UPS is a flawed analogy - there isn't a third party demanding you pay more or have to wait longer because you choose UPS rather than a service that paid more to said party.

Ferno wrote:Comparing the internet with utilities falls completely apart when scrutinized.

You can't compare the internet with water, simply because there is only so much water that's held in a reservoir.

Can't compare it to power either because power is created using a finite resource.

Natural gas? finite.

Data from the internet on the other hand is infinite. you can have one original on a server and on the next machine a hundred thousand copies of that original file. And yet, the ISP's want to charge for those copies. It's simply a way to make money out of nothing.

Besides.. there are no provisions for people to use less at all. it's a set amount per month whether you use one gig a month or fifty.

I hear your reasoning. I'm not rying to disagree with you here, just trying to understand better:

1. Why do companies with high usage have to pay per GB rates?

I think the answer lies not so much in volume but in throughput. Extra through put involves extra cost in the form of capital improvements needed to get enough equipment to handle the volume, and in the form of extra electricity to run the extra equipment that you just bought. This is why I buy into the MMO subscription fee. You're not really paying for their bits, you're paying for them to have the machines running on the far end to provide those bits and for them to be connected to more machines that provide streamlined pipes to the backbone of the internet.

Volume is just a convenient way to measure throughput requirements when it comes to a server that has a more consistent demand than the average internet user. It''s also the way that people are used to paying for things.

2. I'll back down from the being okay with per GB charges for consumers, but only to a degree. The finite resource involved here is bandwidth. If the average bandwidth demand of a small percentage of the user base is significantly higher than the rest, and it is such that the ISP has to upgrade/add equipment to handle it, doesn't it make sense that the heavy users should bear more of the increased operational cost for the ISP? You're right that most of the cost to an ISP is capital (fixed), and that a very small amount of the cost is bandwidth; so I'm okay with per GB charges, as long as my bill consists of a (relatively) high fixed service charge, and a very small per-GB fee.

3. I'm in favor of internet service being treated more like utilities more in the sense of wanting regulation that guarantees a level playing field for service providers, web servers, and everything in between. I agree that the threat to net neutrality right now lies in the service providers. If XYZ company can fairly compete for money as an ISP, then it is detrimental for other ISPs to degrade sites, because the competition can step in, and the company with the best attention to the customer's needs wins out, not just the biggest one with the most clout.

It's funny, that I feel this way, considering the fact I generally have libertarian leanings, especially at the national level.

I'm somewhat convinced that the monster companies have figured out how to tweak the government into the perfect place where they can wield power. Part of me thinks that both less and more regulation would have a net effect of weakening the telecom giants. Of course, less federal regulation would then rely on more individual regulation which I'm not sure that the sheeple are capable of.

What do you guys think? Would less regulation actually weaken the telecom giants and encourage net neutrality? Would less regulation in a world of DBBers weaken them? Is asking for more regulation asking for trouble?

I'd be for less regulation provided that the physical structure(lines, satellites and towers) are owned by the public.

Otherwise the big players would block out future and smaller ones.

The root of the problem is that there is rampant corruption across the entire industry (and many other industries), it is hard to tell where gigantic corporations end and the regulators begin because they are so cozy with each other. There is a fair amount of pointless or borderline anti-consumer 'regulation' in the telecommunication industry so getting rid of some of it could benefit the consumers...Except that the market is already cornered so rather than deregulating it, there needs to be an application of correct regulations.

The best thing they could do is to make life a lot easier for the little guys without going out of their way to step on the toes of the incumbents: Force open access so the huge telecoms no longer own and control the networks. It doesn't mean the incumbents can't do business anymore and actually it would allow them to expand into competitors territories for free. At the same time it gives small start-ups the opportunity to get a toehold in the market without having to spend half a billion dollars to build yet another redundant network in the same place where two or three other companies have already each built entirely separate networks that do the same job. This is the keystone of current anti-consumer / pro-monopoly regulation that exists in the US: The amount of red tape and legal warfare it takes in order to build a last mile network is truly ridiculous, and it is all for the sole purpose of locking out competition. You can't use one of the networks that are already there because they are "privately owned", you can't build a new network because you can't get the licenses/permits/easements, or you get sued to oblivion by a corporation or group of corporations with comparatively bottomless pockets.

A common message you hear from the incumbents is that they will stop building out networks if the government forces them to open up. This is mostly a lie, and even if it were true it is irrelevant since once the networks are open anyone with the know-how and equipment can build out the network themselves, by-passing the huge telecoms entirely. If a community decides their last mile network is insufficient: they could contract any willing company with the know-how to expand/upgrade it and wouldn't have to put up with or worry about AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner Cable and Comcast all suing them to try and put a stop to it because it would add competition to their monopolistic market. And even more comical, the incumbents already have cut back considerably on network build outs anyway (hoping the government will pay for them or from general apathy towards uncompetitive markets).

I've seen a ton of stuff like this, the incumbent telecoms do not want to compete and they will try everything they can think of in order to lock out competition. They throw millions of dollars around in politics, they try to sue potential competition out of business before they even get started, they endlessly lobby, bully, threaten, bribe and outright lie to the regulators to make sure the regulations always suit their needs and nobody seems able or willing to put a stop to it.

So what do you all think of what a bunch of small towns in Utah recently did: Fiber lines to every home, owned by the city. ISPs provide service over that infrastructure. See http://www.utopianet.org/

Nice.