It would almost be comical if it weren't so sick: rent-seeking through a government-granted monopoly, under the premise that the providers would serve the public good.
We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
261–270 of 275 posts
Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who decided that the automobile would replace the horse and buggy for most modes of personal transportation? Consumers.
Early horseless carriages didn't sell well, if at all. Consumers weren't making the decision to replace the horse and carriage. Continuous innovation and industry and government did that. Not until the choice is taken away do consumers (appear to) make a change. We could all be driving electric cars right now if consumers were making real choices. But we won't see a great number of electrics selling until they become…
> Early horseless carriages didn't sell well
Exactly. Henry Ford paid his workers very well, not out of altruism because he was the one of the most unaltruistic people you can think of, but because he wanted them to be able to afford his car. They would become mobile advertisements of his new technology.
In that, they were much like the Google Glassers are today.
Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they want normal internet access they can pay for it. The point is to allow for a cheaper option if people want or need it.
Well right now people can buy super cheap $9 a month DSL service that provides very basic speeds. The difference right now is that the user of that service can decide where and how they use that bandwidth (assuming it's all legal). So if all they need is IRC, Email, and Github, then that's perfect for them. Why would I let them (ISPs) decide how to bill me for the places I want to go on the internet?
I believe some places have much larger prices for businesses, and those that want to offer free wifi. Getting internet through phones is also very expensive. And not everyone has access to DSL.
So cheaper albeit restricted internet would be very welcomed by many. And if you don't want it, then don't buy it. It's just another choice.
Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
#264I consider everybody here very smart. In many cases smarter than myself. Therefore, could somebody please explain why we would give the government, which has shown itself to be terribly incompetent with technology issues, the ability to enforce net neutrality? Seriously, I can't get over the dissonance here. If it's such a shitty idea, let consumers decide. Google Fiber et al will just eat the major telecoms' lunch s…
At least part of it is that tech companies benefit from net neutrality in the fight against the telcos. Its really to the advantage of distributors like Google or Netflix if net connections are dumb commoditized pipes. That allows them to extract a larger share of the revenue from any given customer. Unsurprisingly, distributors don't want telcos to be able to differentiate their services by partnering with distribut…
Who does the telcos' "differentiating" their internet services help, other than the shareholders of the telcos? That bit of rent seeking behavior would have large negative impacts on everyone else.
Why should we let telcos begin charging for no commensurate improvement in their end of the bargain after they've been granted local monopolies across the country? Internet service looks like a utility, quacks like a utility, it should be treated like a utility.
Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
#265How is this different from Google charging bit guys for blackhat SEO, while those who don't pay - are penalised?
Because Google doesn't have a monopoly on search. If you don't like the results, don't use Google. However, if you don't like your ISP, generally your only option is to move to a different city/state.
It's not a monopoly for me, but it is a monopoly for those who want to appear in search.
It's not a monopoly for products, it's a monopoly for clients.
Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moved from eastern Europe to London and the only thing that is actually better is 3G coverage. The rest is expensive/extremely low quality. Just came back from holidays at parents. 300 Mbps FTTH is £20/month, however it's not all bells and whistles. Speed to London is 200 Mbps. To NY - 1 Mbps. Neighbouring countries get 100-200 Mbps and I couldn't establish a real pattern, but international torrent speed is usually 2…
In the UK we were able to get something good enough using the copper that was in place 'since Marconi was a lad' simply by putting in better boxes at the local telephone exchange. Meanwhile, in Eastern Europe, after the wall fell, the situation was 'well, let's start from scratch'. Hence in places like Latvia you have internet speeds both ways (uplink as well as downlink) that are ridiculously fast compared to what i…
My dad lived in a small town and his phone number (which we found in phone book from certain occupation before Russians), was 55.
So the phone lines were there for a while.
Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
#267Marvin, the author of the Wired.com opinion piece, is a smart fellow. But what he ignores is that Congress never handed the FCC the authority to impose Net neutrality regulations on the Internet. Such legislation actually came up for a vote in Congress, and it came close to passage: it was reported favorably out of a Senate committee but was defeated in a House floor vote in 2006: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-608…
> Even if you adore the principle of Net neutrality, it's reasonable to demand that federal regulatory agencies stick to what Congress authorized them to do. Congress has already authorized it, the FCC is just trying to have its cake and eat it too. The FCC decides whether to classify last mile internet service as a "telecommunications service" that they have significant statutory authority over or an "information se…
If you believe that the FCC clearly unambiguously has the legal authority to advance Net neutrality regulations, then why would Congress have wasted its time drafting (and almost enacting) a law that would have given the FCC the legal authority to advance Net neutrality regulations?
Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even if you adore the principle of Net neutrality, it's reasonable to demand that federal regulatory agencies stick to what Congress authorized them to do. Congress has already authorized it, the FCC is just trying to have its cake and eat it too. The FCC decides whether to classify last mile internet service as a "telecommunications service" that they have significant statutory authority over or an "information se…
If you believe that the FCC clearly unambiguously has the legal authority to advance Net neutrality regulations, then why would Congress have wasted its time drafting (and almost enacting) a law that would have given the FCC the legal authority to advance Net neutrality regulations?
A) It is possible that members of Congress wanted to grant the FCC the authority to advance network neutrality regulations without subjecting ISPs to the full gamut of regulations they would be subject to if classified as a telecommunications service.
B) You are presupposing that all members of Congress act rationally and have an expert knowledge of the existing state of the law.
Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If by "natural monopoly" you are implying a monopoly arising without government intervention, I'm pretty sure you are completely wrong on that point. The reason telecommunications service is a natural monopoly is that the fixed costs are extraordinarily high and the variable costs are trivial. In consequence it is not profitable to build a competing network once one already exists, because all you accomplish is to…
Don't assume that the network must be entirely owned by one party. That is the situation right now in the cell and broadcast markets, but it is caused by regulation rather than anything "natural". It isn't the 1940s anymore; wideband radio technology exists that would allow the sharing of all spectrum rather than the single-use requirements we have. After that is adopted the first-mile connection is to a WISP, which…
Wireless is not a panacea even with spread spectrum. You still have a finite amount of radio spectrum you have to share with everybody within range. The amount of bandwidth you can serve to each customer with a fiber-terminating central office every square mile is limited in practice by the cost of installing fiber. The amount of bandwidth you can serve to each customer with a WISP every square mile is limited in practice by the laws of physics -- the only way to get more is to build a higher density of wireless base stations, and in higher population density areas the cost of that is on the same order as installing fiber to the customer premises. Moreover, the cost effectiveness of using wireless for the last mile goes down as the demand for bandwidth per customer increases over time, because you have to increase the density of wireless base stations and run new cable to each of them in order to expand capacity rather than only replacing the terminating equipment at both ends of an existing cable.
Wireless is a great solution to providing high bandwidth services in rural areas where the cost of laying new cable is prohibitive. It's not a solution for cities.
Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I believe that governments ought to put consumer interests first, even though presently they have a track record of doing the exact opposite. For me, this is the part I'd emphasize, and probably where we could create a great deal of consensus. Whether or not we agree that the government should be interfering for the benefit of the consumer, we definitely agree that it shouldn't be interfering for the benefit of big…
> Whether or not we agree that the government should be interfering for the benefit of the consumer, we definitely agree that it shouldn't be interfering for the benefit of big business. But government is largely bought and paid for by special interests. Given that, it seems there's very little point in asking what the gov't should do. What it will do, is quite obvious: it will serve the interests of the highest bidd…
Not necessarily. Right now our system has a policy of mandatory bribery built into the system by way of campaign finance rules. It's relatively easy to go from "mandatory bribery" to "optional bribery" through public campaign funding, which I think is a step in the right direction.
Campaign finance reform is a boring but necessary first step towards fixing this mess.