Net neutrality repealed!

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2017, 03:08 AM)treee Wrote: A better analogy would be if the power company also made toasters and TVs and charged you more to use your electricity for appliances other than the one's they produce. 

But the Power Company doesn't make toasters and TVs, so that analogy is moot.

Bottom-line: in Feb 2015 the Federal Government was guilty of over-reach. They told Private Companies how they were going to make their product available to the public. They had no business doing it and they have no business doing it. If congress wants to pass legislation to put the ISPs under Federal control then have at it. I simply warn: be careful what you ask for. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2017, 10:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yup, and I have no problem with that. To be quite honest, I don't know much about the idea of net neutrality. It's not a policy issue I've delved into much. My statement isn't so much about net neutrality as it is about any issue surrounding the internet. It is an essential part of our infrastructure at this point and we are already seeing market failures with regards to local/regional monopolies and lack of access in some areas. Making something a public good and providing it as a utility through either a public agency or a quango is one way to resolve market failures, and I am in favor of it.

Man I thought you listened to NPR; they've been killing this subject, because they have a huge interest in the matter. I've gone from Net Neutrality ignorant to Net Neutrality smart.

They base issue is, as of yesterday, the Federal Government cannot regulate internet the speed with which a private company provides its users service. Folks that are complaining about it are complaining about the wrong things: Monopoly, lack of service, Freedom of Speech, ect..... The argument should be how it is going to affect the Mom and Pop Shops.

[Belsnickel]

(12-15-2017, 10:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Man I thought you listened to NPR; they've been killing this subject, because they have a huge interest in the matter. I've gone from Net Neutrality ignorant to Net Neutrality smart.

I've been walking to work, lately. So podcasts have been my commute audio. I don't use data and I don't have continuous wi-fi to listen to WMRA on my walk in.

(12-15-2017, 10:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: They base issue is, as of yesterday, the Federal Government cannot regulate internet the speed with which a private company provides its users service. Folks that are complaining about it are complaining about the wrong things: Monopoly, lack of service, Freedom of Speech, ect..... The argument should be how it is going to affect the Mom and Pop Shops.

Yeah, this is one reason I haven't come down hard on this issue in particular. I've known for a while that the argument in the liberal echo chamber has been contorted. I mean, the things that they are in favor of are good things, but I haven't had someone explain to me in any systematic way that repealing the 2015 regulations would negatively impact those things, it's mostly been heuristics. And, since my position is that it should be a public utility, anyway, it wouldn't really change my policy position.

[SunsetBengal]

(12-15-2017, 10:16 AM)Goalpost Wrote: It all sounds good.  I just think it is counter to what tech companies are.  They aren't utilities.  Here they exist in a Capitalist society thru purpose of innovation and competition.  I cant imagine what Microsoft or Apple would look like today if we classified them as utilities 20 years ago.  Tech advances so rapidly without managing their boundaries.  

Not sure what you're getting at there.  Tech companies like Apple or Microsoft aren't in the business of providing service to consumers, they produce goods that require those services to be utilized.   Declaring internet service a utility should have little to no impact on what those companies choose to develop and sell.

The fair way to do it is to charge for the amount used, like water or electric.  Those companies don't charge different rates for cleaner water, as opposed to semi-potable or one rate for 110 volt service and another rate for 220 volt service.  You simply pay for water or electric by the volume of it used.  

[treee]

(12-15-2017, 10:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: But the Power Company doesn't make toasters and TVs, so that analogy is moot.

Bottom-line: in Feb 2015 the Federal Government was guilty of over-reach. They told Private Companies how they were going to make their product available to the public. They had no business doing it and they have no business doing it. If congress wants to pass legislation to put the ISPs under Federal control then have at it. I simply warn: be careful what you ask for. 

The Power Company (ISPS) do actually make toasters and TVs (online streaming services for example). These companies that own the ISPs don't just own ISPs, they also own all kinds of online services that they can (and do) give preferential treatment by doing things such as limiting access to their competitor's services. That would be all fine and dandy, if they didn't already have stranglehold on the infrastructure required to provide internet service.

Maybe this example would ring more true to you: Without net neutrality, one of these giant media companies (that have "liberal bias")  could legally block conservative content. And if you're in an area where they are the only broadband provider, well tough shit.

[Belsnickel]

(12-15-2017, 11:40 AM)treee Wrote: Maybe this example would ring more true to you: Without net neutrality, one of these giant media companies (that have "liberal bias")  could legally block conservative content. And if you're in an area where they are the only broadband provider, well tough shit.

Someone posted something similar on Twitter. They said if Verizon or Comcast were to block any online firearm sales then net neutrality would become law of the land before the end of the year.

[GMDino]

(12-14-2017, 09:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Don't electric companies charge more depending on how much electricity you use?

They do!

But it's not part of a package deal that says if I want to have a stand alone freezer it will cost an ext $20 a month.  Of if I prefer to have an Apple laptop that will be an extra $35 because they sell Dell PCs.

It's not just usage...it's about my local company deciding that they have a VOD service and if I'm going to have to compensate them for the loss of business to their service if I prefer to use Netflix instead.  Then it comes to throttling.  Where they can make Hulu half the speed of their own service to frustrate those who want to use it instead.

Net Neutrality is saying everyone can get to whatever site and use whatever service without a middleman (that we are paying so we can access the entire internet) deciding that they don't want us to and deliberately slowing down access in order to try and force us to use something they are selling instead.

Like paying a toll to use the Turnpike and being told only one brand of car can go the speed limit because they prefer that one.  If you want to drive 65 and don't drive that car or aren't going to the locations the Turnpike provides for you (or has special deals with) you have to pay more.  Want to get off in Cranberry? Ooooh....sorry.  We don't have a service station there.  You can go to Irwin! No extra charge! Or you can pay an extra $50 to use the Cranberry exit.

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2017, 11:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: They do!

But it's not part of a package deal that says if I want to have a stand alone freezer it will cost an ext $20 a month.  Of if I prefer to have an Apple laptop that will be an extra $35 because they sell Dell PCs.

It's not just usage...it's about my local company deciding that they have a VOD service and if I'm going to have to compensate them for the loss of business to their service if I prefer to use Netflix instead.  Then it comes to throttling.  Where they can make Hulu half the speed of their own service to frustrate those who want to use it instead.

Net Neutrality is saying everyone can get to whatever site and use whatever service without a middleman (that we are paying so we can access the entire internet) deciding that they don't want us to and deliberately slowing down access in order to try and force us to use something they are selling instead.

Like paying a toll to use the Turnpike and being told only one brand of car can go the speed limit because they prefer that one.  If you want to drive 65 and don't drive that car or aren't going to the locations the Turnpike provides for you (or has special deals with) you have to pay more.  Want to get off in Cranberry? Ooooh....sorry.  We don't have a service station there.  You can go to Irwin! No extra charge! Or you can pay an extra $50 to use the Cranberry exit.

Yes, the Private Business gets to decide how to present their product and not the Government; it's not a novel concept in a free market society. If they present it in a manner that the customer does not; like there will be competition to vie for the consumer's dollars. Instead of having Charter, Time Warner, ect... relying on their economies of scale; there will be competition from DSL, Broadband, and Satellite. Hell who knows the Power Companies may find a way to add it to your electric grid.

   

[treee]

(12-15-2017, 12:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, the Private Business gets to decide how to present their product and not the Government; it's not a novel concept in a free market society. If they present it in a manner that the customer does not; like there will be competition to vie for the consumer's dollars. Instead of having Charter, Time Warner, ect... relying on their economies of scale; there will be competition from DSL, Broadband, and Satellite. Hell who knows the Power Companies may find a way to add it to your electric grid.

   

While I will agree that more often than not it is best to let the free market take it's natural course, this is one of the instances that I do not.

[GMDino]

(12-15-2017, 12:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, the Private Business gets to decide how to present their product and not the Government; it's not a novel concept in a free market society. If they present it in a manner that the customer does not; like there will be competition to vie for the consumer's dollars. Instead of having Charter, Time Warner, ect... relying on their economies of scale; there will be competition from DSL, Broadband, and Satellite. Hell who knows the Power Companies may find a way to add it to your electric grid.

   

I just don't buy the argument that all of sudden there will be competition.  There could have been competition now. 

One company installed the electrical lines but a handful will sell you electricity using those same lines.

The government tells private companies lots of things.  Like they can't discriminate against a race.  They can't destroy the environment.  They have to provide a safe working environment.  And they can't not give the consumer what they paid for (unrestricted internet access) by limiting which sites the customer can go to in order to drive more business their own way.

"free market", to me, means you put out a better product, have better advertising, serve the customer better in order to win a larger market share.  Not you already have most of the market and then start screwing your customers to stop them from accessing anything outside of it.

[Millhouse]

(12-15-2017, 11:40 AM)treee Wrote: The Power Company (ISPS) do actually make toasters and TVs (online streaming services for example). These companies that own the ISPs don't just own ISPs, they also own all kinds of online services that they can (and do) give preferential treatment by doing things such as limiting access to their competitor's services. That would be all fine and dandy, if they didn't already have stranglehold on the infrastructure required to provide internet service.

Maybe this example would ring more true to you: Without net neutrality, one of these giant media companies (that have "liberal bias")  could legally block conservative content. And if you're in an area where they are the only broadband provider, well tough shit.

Yeah I think some dont understand what net neutrality actually did, which was to provide an equal and level playing field for all legal content providers on the internet. 

For example Comcast is the largest isp in the states (and rated the worst). Comcast also owns NBC and Hulu for example. So now any competitor for one of their businesses they own can be charged a massive fee to get the normal 'high speed' lane. Otherwise they could throttle it or block it entirely if they chose to. And if you are start up company trying to compete against one of their companies, they could charge a massive fee or block you as well.

Those that are against net neutrality must have great faith in the large telecommunication companies in doing the right and just thing for all of us consumers and business that use the internet. Those like myself have little to no faith in those companies doing the right thing, because its all about money in the end for them.

[treee]

(12-15-2017, 12:45 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Those that are against net neutrality must have great faith in the large telecommunication companies in doing the right and just thing for all of us consumers and business that use the internet. 

Either that or they expect consumers to be okay getting dicked around for a decade or two until an alternative becomes viable (and that's the optimistic timeline). 

[Dill]

(12-14-2017, 10:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Using your analogy the Internet is the highway, but we are talking about private companies that provide service to that highway (ISPs). Should the government control services provided along the highway?

I think folks are all spun up about Net Neutrality repeal because Trump passed it and they are told by the media (many who may now have to pay more) that it is bad for them. When in reality the measure will most likely have zero affect on the consumer despite the "ISPs can now control what you can access" mantra. 

In that last line did you really say you would not want private businesses  controlling access to private profit?   

Let's keep the analogy, and imagine private businesses controlling your access, which lanes you can drive in, and the speed at which you can drive, according to how much you pay them. And should businesses control services provided along the highway--which companies can sell gas or provide rooms or restaurants?

Folks are "all spun up" because lobbyists can shape infrastructure policy to favor private control and profit more easily under Trump.  Responsible journalists (who will have to pay more along with everyone else) tell people that it is bad for them because it is bad for them.

Whyever would you say this move is likely to have "zero effect"?  The 2015 ruling has been changed precisely so that it WILL have an effect, one more conducive to private control, and hence private profit.
 
So yes, I really said that I do not want private corporations, in the name of profit, controlling access to what should be a public good.

[Dill]

(12-15-2017, 12:45 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Yeah I think some dont understand what net neutrality actually did, which was to provide an equal and level playing field for all legal content providers on the internet. 

For example Comcast is the largest isp in the states (and rated the worst). Comcast also owns NBC and Hulu for example. So now any competitor for one of their businesses they own can be charged a massive fee to get the normal 'high speed' lane. Otherwise they could throttle it or block it entirely if they chose to. And if you are start up company trying to compete against one of their companies, they could charge a massive fee or block you as well.

Those that are against net neutrality must have great faith in the large telecommunication companies in doing the right and just thing for all of us consumers and business that use the internet. Those like myself have little to no faith in those companies doing the right thing, because its all about money in the end for them.

LOL But Millhouse, I find it hard to believe Comcast would block an effective competitor cutting into their profits after they have PROMISED to be good! 

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2017, 12:45 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Yeah I think some dont understand what net neutrality actually did, which was to provide an equal and level playing field for all legal content providers on the internet. 

For example Comcast is the largest isp in the states (and rated the worst). Comcast also owns NBC and Hulu for example. So now any competitor for one of their businesses they own can be charged a massive fee to get the normal 'high speed' lane. Otherwise they could throttle it or block it entirely if they chose to. And if you are start up company trying to compete against one of their companies, they could charge a massive fee or block you as well.

Those that are against net neutrality must have great faith in the large telecommunication companies in doing the right and just thing for all of us consumers and business that use the internet. Those like myself have little to no faith in those companies doing the right thing, because its all about money in the end for them.

Let me ask folks a question as it seems we prefer analogies over what has really happened: 

You own a bakery and you bake pies, another baker wants to sell his pies in your bakery, many of your customers like his pies better, what are you going to do?  

Once you provide a honest answer to that, then ask yourself: 

How would you feel if the government stepped in and said you must sell his pies in your bakery, you cannot charge him anything additional to sell them, and they must be displayed exactly like yours?

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2017, 02:18 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL But Millhouse, I find it hard to believe Comcast would block an effective competitor cutting into their profits after they have PROMISED to be good! 

Conversely, I find that very easy to believe. 

[Dill]

(12-15-2017, 04:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let me ask folks a question as it seems we prefer analogies over what has really happened: 

You own a bakery and you bake pies, another baker wants to sell his pies in your bakery, many of your customers like his pies better, what are you going to do?  

Once you provide a honest answer to that, then ask yourself: 

How would you feel if the government stepped in and said you must sell his pies in your bakery, you cannot charge him anything additional to sell them, and they must be displayed exactly like yours?

We aren't talking about government taking over private businesses. We are talking about government relinquishing public control of access to a public good--as in relinquishing that control to private business.  You are framing the issue as if the internet were already privately owned and some folks wanted big bad big government to weasel its way in.

If I granted your frame, I would lobby the city government to sell control over city sidewalks, arguing that private enterprise is more efficient than government.

Then I would buy control for my district, and restrict sidewalk access to the other bakery by blocking the sidewalk in front of it. 

Then I would charge the other baker a fee to partially lift the block at certain times of the day, or perhaps on the weekend. At other times I would charge the baker's customers for using that sidewalk.

How would that other baker feel if the government stepped in with a policy of "sidewalk neutrality"and took control of that bit of infrastructure in the public interest? I would not like that because the free market encourages innovation etc., but how would his customers feel?

[*bfine32*]

(12-15-2017, 05:06 PM)Dill Wrote: I would lobby the city government to sell control over city sidewalks, arguing that private enterprise is more efficient than government.

Then I would buy control for my district, and restrict sidewalk access to the other bakery by blocking the sidewalk in front of it. 

Then I would charge the other baker a fee to partially lift the block at certain times of the day, or perhaps on the weekend.

How would that other baker feel if the government stepped in with a policy of "sidewalk neutrality" and took control of that bit of infrastructure in the public interest. How would his customers feel?

There was no other bakery in my analogy (aka he doesn't have his own ISP) only yours; he was just selling pies in your bakery. You cannot make things up. 

So what would you do? 

But to answer your question: I'd feel great is the government made him let me sell pies in his bakery


EDIT to answer your EDIT: The bakery is the public access to the good.

[*PhilHos*]

(12-15-2017, 01:56 PM)Dill Wrote: Let's keep the analogy, and imagine private businesses controlling your access, which lanes you can drive in, and the speed at which you can drive, according to how much you pay them. 

But aren't they the ones doing the driving? Ever ride the bus? Do you tell the bus driver how fast he should go or which roads to take?

In all honesty, I'm with Matt on this one. I don't think things will be as bad as some think AND I think internet access should be a public utility.

[Dill]

(12-15-2017, 05:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There was no other bakery in my analogy (aka he doesn't have his own ISP) only yours; he was just selling pies in your bakery. You cannot make things up. 

So what would you do? 

But to answer your question: I'd feel great is the government made him let me sell pies in his bakery


EDIT to answer your EDIT: The bakery is the public access to the good.

There were TWO bakers in your analogy. Unless the other guy is using my bakery-which I would not allow--there are two bakeries then. 

Your bakery cannot be "the public access" and privately owned.

My sidewalk is a much closer analogy to the internet than a privately owned bakery.