FCC to vote on scrapping Net Neutrality

[Gray_Matter]

The regulations that establish onerous burdens on the smaller providers by forcing them to match the parameters set for the vastly larger ISPs. For example, let's say I'm starting an ISP company designed initially for seniors who just want to check their email and I come up with a 10.00/month plan. Net Neutrality makes that difficult since I'm required to match the kind of speeds that are provided by Spectrum, Comcast and other mega providers... even though my customers are not looking for something that fast and don't want to pay for speeds that they don't need. Even if my plan is to eventually offer faster speeds to those who want them as my company groes, I as a start-up, still have to provide that speed from the get-go.

This makes absolutely no sense. If you go to all of the expense to run a line to a customer, why on earth would you run a line that is only capable of handling the odd email? The cost of laying the cables is the same whether you put down optical fibre or a twisted pair. The cable cost is almost insignificant the in scheme of things. The barrier to entry for competitors is the cost of laying that cable, not the speed of the service. What is hindering competition is the existing providers refusing to provide service in areas that their competitors are servicing.

[PC2]

Read this http://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/

Some highlights:

Seems like you are throwing quite a few people under the bus there.

Small business is good. Big business is good. I don't believe regulation decisions should be based on how they help or hurt one or the other. In my view being pro-market means we shouldn't make business regulations based on a top-down rationale of who should be favored. Good policy generalizes, bad policy specializes.

[breadisfunny]

I suppose Pai is the best person for the job if you're an executive at Verizon or Comcast. Also if you're a major stockholder in companies like that.

america is owned by corporations.

[Polarthief]

Infrastructure is incredibly expensive.

After being paid billions of dollars to improve it, CEOs just pocketed the money without doing anything.

Also you'd think making people happier would make them WANT to spend more for higher tiers of service, instead of either strong-arming or being total assholes and monopolizing.

[Gray_Matter]

Want to watch Netflix but Spectrum has you throttled because they'd rather you watch their cable service? Switch to a competitor. That's freedom. That's liberty. That's free market capitalism.

And therein lies the problem. I have tried to switch and there are no other options, well, unless you call 1MB DSL an option. The cable providers have manipulated the situation so that they don't have any competitors in my area. There is nothing that free market can do about that because the barrier to entry is too big for any other company to enter the market. They would literally need billions of dollars, probably $100+ billion.

If you look at the model New Zealand adopted, they have regulations that force the line providers to sell the service to any company who wants to enter for a fixed profit margin.

In Germany, you have to have broadcasting license to stream on Twitch. That's the US in a few years if Net Neutrality isn't neutered.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs? That has absolutely nothing to do with NN. The US could do that now or after NN has been removed.

[Felya]

Small business is good. Big business is good. I don't believe regulation decisions should be based on how they help or hurt one or the other. In my view being pro-market means we shouldn't make business regulations based on a top-down rationale of who should be favored. Good policy generalizes, bad policy specializes.

Why should anyone be favored? That should never be part of the discussion... you have goals, then you have means to meet those goals. Favertism is bias... it messes everything up.

[Gray_Matter]

Ummm...
He was appointed in 2012 to the FCC by President Obama. So yeah, he sorta is President Obama's guy. Did Trump in 2017 promote him? Yes, more than likely he was the best guy for the job. So please don't go pointing that he is 100% a Trumpster, he really isn't. Also, Yahoo and Verizon support a majority of progressive causes in the United States as well as in Europe (Verizon's got a majority stakeholder in the EU.)

Did Mitch Mc-conster help him get in? Yes. But I guess it's bad new's to help push a minority to head the FCC unless they obey their Sith Democratic masters? .

Anyway, please continue to cannibalize yourselves Dem's. It's super funny to watch the hatred of two (major) companies that push your narrative.

He was appointed by Obama but the way the FCC works is that the president gets to appoint 3 people that supports his/her party. The opposing party puts forward names for the other 2 spots.

[PC2]

Why should anyone be favored? That should never be part of the discussion... you have goals, then you have means to meet those goals. Favertism is bias... it messes everything up.

Right, I'm saying those talking about how this will hurt small business are not making complete arguments given what I care about. If a new policy direction has an overall net positive effect on what I want, then whether or not it favors small or big business is irrelevant.

[Polarthief]

And therein lies the problem. I have tried to switch and there are no other options, well, unless you call 1MB DSL an option. The cable providers have manipulated the situation so that they don't have any competitors in my area. There is nothing that free market can do about that because the barrier to entry is too big for any other company to enter the market. They would literally need billions of dollars, probably $100+ billion.

If you look at the model New Zealand adopted, they have regulations that force the line providers to sell the service to any company who wants to enter for a fixed profit margin.

Yup, I get Comcast at any speed up to 150Mbps (for what's way overpriced compared to the rest of the first world countries), or AT&T who says "at best, you'll get 4Mbps", for pretty much the same price.

Really good "competition" right there, amirite?

Right, I'm saying those talking about how this will hurt small business are not making complete arguments given what I care about. If a new policy direction has an overall net positive effect on what I want, then whether or not it favors small or big business is irrelevant.

ISPs could throttle or block traffic to anyone who doesn't pay them money, kinda like what Netflix was strong-armed to do by Comcast, then the other ISPs. They claim it was because they used so much bandwidth, but without NN, they could literally pull that shit on ANYONE THEY PLEASE, and with ISPs being the recurring champions of "worst companies in America", do you really think they'll be benevolent in any way, shape, or form?

For the record: This would mean the death of pretty much any company that is primarily online, such as online stores or businesses. MMO-Champ could get shut down because someone at an ISP simply doesn't like it.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I understand that NN does not create a bandwidth problem. Like I said:


I'm talking about making a market for latency prioritization, which businesses cant do right now.

The emergency protocol is good, that's one example of why not all types of data are equal and shouldn't be treated the same.

I addressed this. If data is important, there are already special reserved channels through which emergency communications go through. These channels in fact, are required to have far more stability and protections than even normal infrastructure. All important communication is covered under the FCC regulations that require there be emergency frequencies, bandwidth, etc.

If data doesn't meet the requirements for that channel, then no, it is not any more or less important. Net Neutrality protects ISPs from gouging. You say getting rid of it would create priority lanes, which has already been debunked. They forced netflix to pay MORE for NORMAL data service that everyone else was otherwise paying normal price for, because they knew netflix 1) relied on data usage for business and 2) could pay. They didn't say "Hey netflix, if you pay us more, we'll prioritize your data over others." They said "Hey Netflix, we know your business operates entirely in a way that is entirely reliant on us, and right now we're slowing down your service to all your customers right now, which we know makes them happy and makes you lose business, so pay us more to get the same bandwidth as everyone else."

Businesses/consumers have a wide array of service SPEEDS and bandwidth CAPACITY that they can already choose from already. You say ending net neutrality "creates" the potential for data prioritization. I say you're full of shit, because those tiered packages already exist for consumers and businesses.

From the direction you're arguing, always coming back to "data hogs", you seem mad that your internet service slows down when your neighbors all stream movies in the evening, or some other nonsense like that. Your ISP could upgrade the bandwidth in your area if that is happening, but they simply choose not to, because they have no competition, and that competition will never exist. So you want to be able to pay more for data prioritization... but then everyone pays more for that data "prioritization" which in this context, just means that your net isn't throttled. You insist that "important" data will be based on who can pay. Guess who can pay that money to not be throttled? The very data hogs you're talking about. All businesses that rely heavily or exclusively on the internet are all of this useless information already.

So what's going to happen is that "important" stuff that doesn't fall under the emergency category won't be able to pay as much, and giant entertainment businesses will pay the blackmail price to ensure that their service is not throttled, and they keep their business. Companies that can't pay the extortion fees lose business and may even go under. Not going to be very fun when Breitbart and infowars take 30 seconds to load each page like you're on 56k, will it?

[Felya]

Right, I'm saying those talking about how this will hurt small business are not making complete arguments given what I care about. If a new policy direction has an overall net positive effect on what I want, then whether or not it favors small or big business is irrelevant.

I understand that... but, if it favors something other than you, do you expect the windfall to be like a ricochet effect? Because, what can a big business provide, that is impossible for a small one? If the impact isn’t universal, it explicitly creates an artificial barrier to choice. Think of it this way... if business X is small, but is sustained on innovation. How do you benefit from their established, less innovation driven competition, receiving more benefits? Your choice being inhibited by price, doesn’t benefit you. It’s a facade... like a sale... you are telling me, that you benefit from Walmart doing a 50% off sale, more than a small grocery store doing a 50% off sale?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Right, I'm saying those talking about how this will hurt small business are not making complete arguments given what I care about. If a new policy direction has an overall net positive effect on what I want, then whether or not it favors small or big business is irrelevant.

Have fun paying more money for the same speeds you're getting now, while your neighbors do too, and netflix does too, and you're back to having the same problem because your ISP refuses to upgrade your area's "trunk" because that costs them money and you'll pay for the service regardless of whether they upgrade the trunk you and all your neighbors share. All of your neighbors will pay the extortion fees, netflix, hulu, and other download and streaming services will pay the extortion fees, and nothing will have been improved or changed. Everyone will just be paying more because they think their data is the most important.

[Gray_Matter]

If current ISPs are gouging customers then the initial investment for new ISPs will be easily worth it. People will flock to the new fair competitor and make it profitable.

If my ISP charges all of the people in my area $200 per month, that would be seriously gouging. If a competitor entered the market because of that gouging, then one of two things would happen. My ISP would just undercut the competitor until it went out of business or alternatively, the competitor would spend the next 300 years paying off the infrastructure costs. What company will enter the market under those circumstances? You are forgetting that the ISP's built up their infrastructure over a long time off the back of cable television. Hell, you probably can't even dig up half the streets because of local ordinances. This is not the same as opening up a corner shop. The only way you could have real competition is to force the companies to move into each others areas or to break them up and move the fixed line portions into a highly regulated company.

- - - Updated - - -

If a locality has pre-existing regulation to keep competition out then the related regulations must be cancelled.

Ok, so lets cancel the regulations first. We will see how far that gets with the ISP's lobbying against that.

[Felya]

Have fun paying more money for the same speeds you're getting now, while your neighbors do too, and netflix does too, and you're back to having the same problem because your ISP refuses to upgrade your area's "trunk" because that costs them money and you'll pay for the service regardless of whether they upgrade the trunk you and all your neighbors share. All of your neighbors will pay the extortion fees, netflix, hulu, and other download and streaming services will pay the extortion fees, and nothing will have been improved or changed. Everyone will just be paying more because they think their data is the most important.

Netflix is a shit example. They already pay ISPs to house their latest and most popular content at most major ISP data centers. While their UI is actually distributed through Amazon’s AWS. Amazon’s AWS is actually an extremely innovative way to handle data. Fuckers didn’t hire me after 2 interviews... still think their stuff is amazing...

AWS is innovation... removing NN is an artificial way to generate revenue, without innovation. Removing NN is showing that lobbying is more cost effective than innovation.

[Gray_Matter]

Small business is good. Big business is good. I don't believe regulation decisions should be based on how they help or hurt one or the other. In my view being pro-market means we shouldn't make business regulations based on a top-down rationale of who should be favored. Good policy generalizes, bad policy specializes.

But that's exactly what this will do. Removing NN will favor a few very large businesses at the expense of all consumers and small businesses.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Netflix is a shit example. They already pay ISPs to house their latest and most popular content at most major ISP data centers. While their UI is actually distributed through Amazon’s AWS. Amazon’s AWS is actually an extremely innovative way to handle data. Fuckers didn’t hire me after 2 interviews... still think their stuff is amazing...

AWS is innovation... removing NN is an artificial way to generate revenue, without innovation. Removing NN is showing that lobbying is more cost effective than innovation.

It's also that. I'm not exactly sure what point of view PrimaryColor is arguing from. He seems to believe NN is slowing down innovation, when innovation is already low, but will pretty much die if NN is removed.

He seems to have gotten the idea that "important" data is being hindered by other sources of useless stuff, which he seems to think is netflix. He's even stated that money determining who gets priority will ensure everything important is prioritized. The reality is that there is no such thing as this prioritization he's talking about. If he thinks that money makes something important, then all of the examples he's used previously, like streaming video, will get even MORE priority than the medical data he's talking about. If he's gotten this idea because he lives in some apartment where whatever porn (or other "medical information") that he looks up that he deems important, is getting slowed down by everyone else watching netflix, he'll be in for a rude awakening when NN is gone, and money determines whether what you want is throttled or not. It's highly doubtful that any information that he personally wants or deems important will out compete netflix and other "useless" data services.

If his service is slow when others stream, it's because his ISP has decided that his neighborhood or apartment building is not worth upgrading the trunk, and NN isn't going to fix that in the least. It might just make it worse for him. But he refuses to even get it.

[Ivanstone]

Good policy generalizes, bad policy specializes.

So you're for Net Neutrality now? Make up your fucking mind.

[Kiri]

It's also that. I'm not exactly sure what point of view PrimaryColor is arguing from. He seems to believe NN is slowing down innovation, when innovation is already low, but will pretty much die if NN is removed.

He seems to have gotten the idea that "important" data is being hindered by other sources of useless stuff, which he seems to think is netflix. He's even stated that money determining who gets priority will ensure everything important is prioritized. The reality is that there is no such thing as this prioritization he's talking about. If he thinks that money makes something important, then all of the examples he's used previously, like streaming video, will get even MORE priority than the medical data he's talking about. If he's gotten this idea because he lives in some apartment where whatever porn (or other "medical information") that he looks up that he deems important, is getting slowed down by everyone else watching netflix, he'll be in for a rude awakening when NN is gone, and money determines whether what you want is throttled or not. It's highly doubtful that any information that he personally wants or deems important will out compete netflix and other "useless" data services.

If his service is slow when others stream, it's because his ISP has decided that his neighborhood or apartment building is not worth upgrading the trunk, and NN isn't going to fix that in the least. It might just make it worse for him. But he refuses to even get it.

I am not really sure why you bother to discuss it with them in the first place. They ignore most calls to actually substantiate their claims on the economics side of things beyond what Ajit Pai told them.

[GennGreymane]

Legislation will contain clauses preventing states from enacting their own consumer protections.

[Kujako]

Legislation will contain clauses preventing states from enacting their own consumer protections.

They passed those already, municipal broadband is illegal in many places in the US. Can't have competition now can we? Comcast etc own the lines, that were installed with tax payer money.