The Net Neutrality Thread

[BigBoxaJunk]

There's no reason to believe that American providers won't get their way in order to collect more money from users, and there's no reason to believe that the vast majority of Americans will ***** up a storm, while they continue to pay the higher prices. There will be lip service from politicians on the matter, but we live in a Corprotocracy and our only choice, our only vote is to pay or to not pay.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

There's no reason to believe that American providers won't get their way in order to collect more money from users, and there's no reason to believe that the vast majority of Americans will ***** up a storm, while they continue to pay the higher prices. There will be lip service from politicians on the matter, but we live in a Corprotocracy and our only choice, our only vote is to pay or to not pay.

I'd love nothing more than to drop Comcast. Today.

But there are no alternatives. It's nearly a monopoly on the market.

A neutral competitor comes along with decent speeds? I'd drop that day, and I'd imagine many others would too. That may be the "uproar" Comcast/ATT/et al needs to get their **** in line.

But I guarantee you - Even the government has worse customer service than Comcast. You don't want that.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I'd love nothing more than to drop Comcast. Today.

But there are no alternatives. It's nearly a monopoly on the market.

A neutral competitor comes along with decent speeds? I'd drop that day, and I'd imagine many others would too. That may be the "uproar" Comcast/ATT/et al needs to get their **** in line.

But I guarantee you - Even the government has worse customer service than Comcast. You don't want that.

It was an adventure to get Comcast, but since I've got it, I've had no complaints. It's dependable, and (relatively) affordable.

 

[Expat]

It appears then that the libertarian position is increased government regulation and taking away private property rights... Huh...

 

[poptab]

It appears then that the libertarian position is increased government regulation and taking away private property rights... Huh...

Care to comment on the op instead of *****ing about libertarians?


To that end... Government got us into the mess we are in adding in more government won't solve anything it will just have unintended consequences.

 

[hooky]

So you're saying you'd be okay with the power company throttling your electricity because they think you should pay some arbitrary amount they pulled from their butts?

Tell me more about your flat rate, unlimited usage electric plan. I'm intrigued.

 

[Denny347]

Waiting patently for Google Fiber........

 

[evsnova74]

It appears then that the libertarian position is increased government regulation and taking away private property rights... Huh...

As a lowercase l libertarian, MJ does not speak for me. That oatmeal article is pure tripe geared towards fooling the "cool kids" into supporting this crap. The technology the internet is built on isn't great at handling the technology we've developed to use it with. Streaming video puts a huge load on the "pipes" so to speak, seems pudly is the only one here that gets it with few exceptions. I've noticed there's a lot of theorizing when it comes to this debate, like in that oatmeal article it says Imagine- then lays out an admittedly unrealistic scenario that if you believe in the free market (which I thought MJ did...) you know the ISP's wouldn't do because they would tick off their customers. I guess I didn't know the internet was broken and in such desperate need of the almighty State to step in and fix it.

Also kudos to Al Bundy for getting that the State imposed barriers to entry are the real cause of lack of competition.

 

[Expat]

As a lowercase l libertarian, MJ does not speak for me. That oatmeal article is pure tripe geared towards fooling the "cool kids" into supporting this crap. The technology the internet is built on isn't great at handling the technology we've developed to use it with. Streaming video puts a huge load on the "pipes" so to speak, seems pudly is the only one here that gets it with few exceptions. I've noticed there's a lot of theorizing when it comes to this debate, like in that oatmeal article it says Imagine- then lays out an admittedly unrealistic scenario that if you believe in the free market (which I thought MJ did...) you know the ISP's wouldn't do because they would tick off their customers. I guess I didn't know the internet was broken and in such desperate need of the almighty State to step in and fix it.

Also kudos to Al Bundy for getting that the State imposed barriers to entry are the real cause of lack of competition.

And I can agree with you on most everything. If the free market is allowed to work, it will.

 

[TaunTaun]

I honestly don't know what the solution is. Asking ISPs to treat all traffic the same should be enough.... but they're adamant to not do this.

We need a new option. A new competitor to enter the ring and offer truly neutral internet. Then an exodus of customers from the top ISPs moving to the neutral competitor would likely fix this without the gov stepping in.

Really wanting some sort of consumer fiber in my area... I'd LOVE to drop Comcast.

At this point, I'd love to be able to GET comcast. Instead, I have to use Exede. It is more expensive, slower, and goes out when it rains hard. I had a DSL, but it was run by a bunch of crooks named CenturyLink. They decided that they were going to randomly add packages to my net and cable bill, send bills for awhile and then totally stop, and then demand 6 months in full when we got tired of them horsing around. Comcast are crooks as well, but at least they are upfront about it. The customer service I got from them in the past was actually pretty good....until they wanted to send out a new digital receiver and we declined....


Let's hope this one isn't a "We have to pass it to find out what's in it" type of bill. Fine detailed read of the contents rather than just the title is warranted. Until things are written out, they can vomit all the BS they want. But it doesn't make anything they say mean anything...

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I honestly don't know what the solution is. Asking ISPs to treat all traffic the same should be enough.... but they're adamant to not do this.

We need a new option. A new competitor to enter the ring and offer truly neutral internet. Then an exodus of customers from the top ISPs moving to the neutral competitor would likely fix this without the gov stepping in.

Really wanting some sort of consumer fiber in my area... I'd LOVE to drop Comcast.

What, government wanting to seize more power, and power over private industry? No, surely not? I'm shocked, shocked, I say!

Why should ISPs be forced to subsidize high-cost protocols like streaming or .torrenting when they consume the most electricity to operate and infrastructure to install? I personally don't agree with usage caps (and am free to choose a different company who doesn't utilize such things), but I absolutely agree with tiered pricing and structuring, which is virtually only way to ensure profit, that heavy users pay at least slightly more for the greater electricity and infrastructure cost. Else do we need another drain on the public treasury a la USPS?

I assure you, the outcome of 'net neutrality' will not be the 100MbPS fiber-optic that has nearly bankrupted South Korea - it will be more like the internet of the DPRK (if the DPRK could afford to install internet). Thought exercise: as an ISP, the law mandates that I now treat all protocols equally, give them equal network priority, and cannot recoup any cost associated with the most expensive-to-operate protocols, so what's my incentive? It's not to take a huge loss by giving everyone greater bandwidth so I can lose money faster - to the contrary, government has now granted me the incentive to to comply with the law and treat all protocols equally, and to slow everything down so as to hemmorhage money more slowly. That, or I can raise rates for everyone so as not to lose money, and suddenly that 10MbPS connection just cost you $400/month, since you could be using it for high-cost protocols, whether you do or not, and since price 'discrimination' is now forbidden. Nothing good will come from 'net neutrality,' and nothing at all except more government control and higher cost for consumers.

 

[mrjarrell]

It appears then that the libertarian position is increased government regulation and taking away private property rights... Huh...

Nope, I can't speak for all libertarians, but my personal position is that ISP's should voluntarily adopt NN as a good customer service practice, (rather than doing what they wish and price tiering the internet to further gouge their customers). My personal take is that the FCC should remain neutral on it, even though they have the ability and power to regulate it, (as they already do). There is no free market in the internet in this country. There is only the corporate monopolies set up by the governments and their well paying telecom masters. The internet business is already regulated, adding a customer centric NN rule would not be the government taking over a "free market" that doesn't exist. I am more akin to GPIA7R on this issue. I don't have yet have an answer, but allowing the ISP's (who ARE NOT the backbone providers of the internet) to exert their pay to play plans on the consumers is bad service and would not only slow the internet, it would serve to destroy what internet freedom there is.

The ISP's have been in bed with the government from the beginning and now, when someone suggests something that is consumer positive they lose their minds. If we actually had a free market in internet service, I could get a little more upset about this, but there isn't one. ISP's have been more than willing to use government against consumers best interests, but someone suggests something that's pro-consumer? OMG!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I am more akin to GPIA7R on this issue.

 

[pudly]

 

[KLB]

What, government wanting to seize more power, and power over private industry? No, surely not? I'm shocked, shocked, I say!

Why should ISPs be forced to subsidize high-cost protocols like streaming or .torrenting when they consume the most electricity to operate and infrastructure to install? I personally don't agree with usage caps (and am free to choose a different company who doesn't utilize such things), but I absolutely agree with tiered pricing and structuring, which is virtually only way to ensure profit, that heavy users pay at least slightly more for the greater electricity and infrastructure cost. Else do we need another drain on the public treasury a la USPS?

I assure you, the outcome of 'net neutrality' will not be the 100MbPS fiber-optic that has nearly bankrupted South Korea - it will be more like the internet of the DPRK (if the DPRK could afford to install internet). Thought exercise: as an ISP, the law mandates that I now treat all protocols equally, give them equal network priority, and cannot recoup any cost associated with the most expensive-to-operate protocols, so what's my incentive? It's not to take a huge loss by giving everyone greater bandwidth so I can lose money faster - to the contrary, government has now granted me the incentive to to comply with the law and treat all protocols equally, and to slow everything down so as to hemmorhage money more slowly. That, or I can raise rates for everyone so as not to lose money, and suddenly that 10MbPS connection just cost you $400/month, since you could be using it for high-cost protocols, whether you do or not, and since price 'discrimination' is now forbidden. Nothing good will come from 'net neutrality,' and nothing at all except more government control and higher cost for consumers.

A few points.

No protocol costs any more to transmit than any other protocol. It is purely a matter of volume of data transferred.

Newer network equipment is faster, more power efficient than previous generations and less expensive. In fact, the switches we buy today don't even support the older/slower speeds any more.

The heavy users, businesses, are paying more.

 

[steveh_131]

Most libertarians are opposed to any further government control over the internet. This is one area where I find myself somewhat disagreeing.

IF ISP's competed in anything resembling a free market then this would be simple for me. No further government interference. But there hasn't been a free market in this sector for ages. It is made up purely of government-subsidized monopolies. They've been bribing government officials for exclusive access to our public property that allows them to deliver their service to us. They've been collecting billions of tax dollars and building up their infrastructure with it. And now they have their empires and their monopolies and can bend us over all they want. Is this capitalism?

No start-up can compete with this. This is not competition. This is not a free market. For what reasons should I oppose Net Neutrality?

Private property rights? I have a difficult time attributing private property rights to an empire built out of tax dollars on public property.

Federalism? Of all the economic sectors, few cross state lines more than the internet.

Limited government? If roads fall under the purview of the government then so should the cables that run alongside them.

Public utilities are a good comparison. Imagine that NIPSCO also owned Samsung. And they set their system up such that only Samsung appliances and devices would run on their electricity. They contract with the government for exclusive access to the roads and poles that provide our energy. There are no alternatives. Would you call that a free market?

There may be better solutions than net neutrality. I've heard some good ideas. And I've not completely figured this issue out in my head yet, I've heard good arguments in opposition to mine as well. Just offering a few thoughts.

 

[MisterChester]

There are very few willing to start up in this market. Right now it's current established ISPs that expand into other locations. Unless there's some revolutionary way to start an ISP cheap and efficiently, it's unlikely a new one will start. This hurts the consumer. Government sponsored monopolies make it a lot worse. Do we eliminate the monopolies, or force the ISPs to play nice if they want to keep their monopolies? We did it to power and water companies already, and it seems to work just fine.

 

[hooky]

There are very few willing to start up in this market. Right now it's current established ISPs that expand into other locations. Unless there's some revolutionary way to start an ISP cheap and efficiently, it's unlikely a new one will start. This hurts the consumer. Government sponsored monopolies make it a lot worse. Do we eliminate the monopolies, or force the ISPs to play nice if they want to keep their monopolies? We did it to power and water companies already, and it seems to work just fine.

Yes. It's working as expected.

Experts: U.S. water infrastructure in trouble - CNN.com

California?s Crumbling Infrastructure: An Urgent Priority - Western City - February 2014 - Sacramento

As Infrastructure Crumbles, Trillions Of Gallons Of Water Lost : NPR

https://cei.org/issue-analysis/fixing-americas-crumbling-underground-water-infrastructure

The Infrastructure Crisis

Crumbling U.S. Grid Gets Jolt in Smart Houston Power System - Bloomberg

Aging power grid on overload as U.S. demands more electricity - The Washington Post

Satire below, but it seems to sum up perfectly how the .gov approaches hard choices:

We Must Repaint Our Nation's Crumbling Infrastructure | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


Why do you think big corporations get in bed with the .gov when it comes to new regulations? Barriers to entry from potential competitors, which result in statements like this being true.

There are very few willing to start up in this market.

 

[LEaSH]

Elon Musk has the beginnings of our best option for the future. Entirely profit driven - as it should be.

 

[MisterChester]

Hooky, what makes you think a private company could do much better in that business?