Cableok re: net neutrality

[SMemmett]

@cableok

I believe I saw you post in favor of the repeal of NN months ago and you seemed to talk with expertise.

As a novice reading about it, it seems like the benefits for the companies are plentiful and the benefits for the consumers are less so. Am I mistaken? Correct?

If I have the poster wrong, I apologize.

 

[trapped_in_tx]

@cableok

I believe I saw you post in favor of the repeal of NN months ago and you seemed to talk with expertise.

As a novice reading about it, it seems like the benefits for the companies are plentiful and the benefits for the consumers are less so. Am I mistaken? Correct?

If I have the poster wrong, I apologize.

I'm not cableok, but I have experience in the Telecom industry as a supplier.

I have a lot of concerns about how communications infrastructure is dealt with by the feds and manipulated by the massive communications companies.

While I'm generally a very conservative, free-market type, Telecom is an area where I will likely disagree with cableok and several others on this board.

Internet service (and IMHO cell service) should be held to a higher standard of service. Some of the language used by Pai is just ridiculous - ie outdated 1934 regulations, for example.

As a side note, something that continually bothers me is the fact that an extremely complex product that is not easily understood by the public is marketed in crazily simplified means to inspire interest. Unfortunately marketing will try to create value where none exists by differentiating something that the public doesn't understand as a 'different' or 'premium' product. This is not unique to Telecom.

This creates a conflict between a desire for minimal government interference and the need to limit the prevalence of 21st century snake oil salesmen - and ones with massive lobbying and regulatory influence.

I haven't yet decided exactly where I land. I currently walk the 'case by case basis' line.

At some point I hope to do more research on this topic to generate an intelligent discussion, but oftimes such discussions on this board go off the rails in spectacular fashion.

 

[SMemmett]

I'm not cableok, but I have experience in the Telecom industry as a supplier.

I have a lot of concerns about how communications infrastructure is dealt with by the feds and manipulated by the massive communications companies.

While I'm generally a very conservative, free-market type, Telecom is an area where I will likely disagree with cableok and several others on this board.

Internet service (and IMHO cell service) should be held to a higher standard of service. Some of the language used by Pai is just ridiculous - ie outdated 1934 regulations, for example.

As a side note, something that continually bothers me is the fact that an extremely complex product that is not easily understood by the public is marketed in crazily simplified means to inspire interest. Unfortunately marketing will try to create value where none exists by differentiating something that the public doesn't understand as a 'different' or 'premium' product. This is not unique to Telecom.

This creates a conflict between a desire for minimal government interference and the need to limit the prevalence of 21st century snake oil salesmen - and ones with massive lobbying and regulatory influence.

I haven't yet decided exactly where I land. I currently walk the 'case by case basis' line.

At some point I hope to do more research on this topic to generate an intelligent discussion, but oftimes such discussions on this board go off the rails in spectacular fashion.

Thanks for the reply. I’ve been trying to educate myself about it the last few weeks, but it’s a bit over my head and I might be reading biased sources.

The fake internet comments, the intense lobbying and the such have made me think this is a money grab and a consolidation effort above all.

I’ll keep reading!

 

[EvilPOKES]

Until ISPs are held to the same standards as other infrastructure (electric, water, etc.), it is a crap shoot. Idk how much that applies to this overturn, but I just remember that being a point of contest way back in the early stages of all this/my research.

 

[cableok]

Less regulation is almost always better. And regulation that solves an issue which has yet to be a problem is not good governmental intervention.

@cableok

I believe I saw you post in favor of the repeal of NN months ago and you seemed to talk with expertise.

As a novice reading about it, it seems like the benefits for the companies are plentiful and the benefits for the consumers are less so. Am I mistaken? Correct?

If I have the poster wrong, I apologize.

First, we should clarify net neutrality versus what was imposed under the Obama FCC in May 2015. What the FCC approved a little over 3 years ago was a Title II classification for ISPs along with new net neutrality regulations. That Title II classification was written in 1934 for the telephone company. Net neutrality wasn’t really something the major ISPs disagreed with (although the Obama FCC expanded on what net neutrality should be). What ISPs did not like was the Title II regulations. Title II regulations come with the ability of government oversight on rates.

Second, I need to state my bias. I am a libertarian on most issues and am against most governmental regulations that don’t apply to public safety. Also, I have been in the telecom industry for my entire adult life and formerly owned a small ISP.

So now my thoughts: I think the Obama FCC regulations in 2015 were absolutely horrible. I believe those regulations were unnecessary, potentially would have decreased growth and investment, and stifled competition.

Unnecessary: The internet has been publically consumed by a majority of citizens for 20 years. Some of the best innovation and technology leaps have been experienced during that time. The internet was working great. ISPs were not blocking traffic that required a heavy-handed regulation set. Besides the government wanting to pick and choose winners and losers, why the need to implant burdensome regulations now?

Infrastructure investment: A FCC study showed that investment in telecom infrastructure fell by around 16% over two years. From the companies I worked with I didn’t see much initial pull-back, but I have no doubt that some builds would have been decreased if not for a change in FCC leadership.

Stifle competition: As a small ISP owner, the net neutrality rules favor the status quo. Also, I would argue that they stifle product innovation. You may not know this but YouTube and Netflix account for about 67% of the Internet data traffic carried in the United States. That large amount of data eats up a lot of bandwidth that ISPs are offering. But let’s say I wanted to be enterprising and offer a low price high speed internet service to my customers, but I would disclose that Netflix and YouTube were not available. That service may have strong appeal to senior citizens who desire high bandwidth services for video chat, remote virtual vacations, FaceTime with relatives, and security cameras. But the way the May 2015 FCC rules defined net neutrality that offering would be illegal. Why should the government be creating regulations to keep the innovation funnel clogged?

Here is a fantastic Forbes article that I have forwarded many times to others. It is well written, accurate, and describes why the Obama definition of net neutrality was bad. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffre...dea-supported-by-poor-analogies/#54a07284dc8f

 

[cableok]

Additional thought: The major ISPs (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cox, Charter) want congress to establish net neutrality rules. They are concerned the next FCC chairman, if a Democrat wins, will simply revert back to the expanded view of net neutrality that Obama’s FCC did, instead of simple net neutrality rules.

My personal opinion: net neutrality should simply be a disclosure item.

 

[DrunkenViking]

What about an internet bill of rights that prevents limiting speech?

 

[cableok]

Who knew??? Obama’s net neutrality rules were horrible for internet growth and the economy and ....de-regulation DOES lead to increase broadband infrastructure and a win for all.

https://newsok.com/article/5607217/net-neutrality-repeal-is-benefiting-consumers

 

[CowboyJD]

What about an internet bill of rights that prevents limiting speech?

A “bill of rights” that actually restricts the rights of private citizens and entities to do business with who they choose in favor of forcing them to promote speech they disagree with?

Doesn’t sound like a bill of rights to me.

 

[DrunkenViking]

A “bill of rights” that actually restricts the rights of private citizens and entities to do business with who they choose in favor of forcing them to promote speech they disagree with?

Doesn’t sound like a bill of rights to me.

How is twitter “doing business” with users and and how does preventing suppression of speech become “promotion” of said speech?

Oh, btw. Not being a smart ass here

 

[CowboyJD]

How is twitter “doing business” with users and and how does preventing suppression of speech become “promotion” of said speech?

Oh, btw. Not being a smart ass here

Easy. If the government MANDATES what speech must be carried by individual members of the private press...that is promoting by mandate that certain speech disclosed and provided by private parties. Freedom of speech as a private entity under the 1st Amendement includes choosing what speech. Freedom of association includes whom you associate with.

How is twitter doing business with users? They agree to let twitter use their data for a myriad of purposes in exchange for use of their communication platform and seeing what others are sharing, but only under Twitter’s terms and conditions that they present and everyone agrees to in advance.