ADVERTISEMENT

Net Neutrality

CBradSmith

CBradSmith

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Sep 21, 2005
26,757
28,081
113
Educate me...por favor.

What are the issues? It has the whiff of a political conflict, so what are the principles that both sides are arguing from?

Much appreciated.
 
To me it really is a matter of how you view the internet.

Is it a utility like electricity with regulation that says you can not discriminate on the basis of mode of consumption - meaning the utility can not charge you more for air conditioning than for lights.

Or do you take the position that it is a generally available service like your cell phone and that it is up to the providers to build and compete on the basis of service plans.

On the one hand we have more and more provider choice. However, the distribution channels are by and large publicly managed/controlled. Google Fiber for instance can't deploy everywhere they want to because of regulation of cable franchises in many communities - thus stifling competition.

Net neutrality is the term coined to describe a regulatory model where providers (ISPs) must treat all data passing on their network equally. With Net Neutrality, Comcast can not throttle, charge a premium for or discriminate in delivering content based on who the customer is, what site originated the content, the type of browser, device, or platform connected to the network. Providers can throttle your overall bandwidth, they just can't pick out one sites content to slow down vs. another.

I waffle a bit on it but ultimately support it. The economics of the network have to change. Net neutrality is being debated in part because of a disparity in the cost born by network providers (Centurylink) vs. content providers (Netflix). That these two compete in components of their business (Prism IPTV vs. Netflix OTT) complicates things further.





This post was edited on 2/12 10:46 PM by davidallen
 
Originally posted by shortbus:
One side comes with one direction. The other side comes with another.

One wins.

We lose.

There is no reason for legislation. Just leave it alone!
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Click to expand...
The problem Bus is you have tons of regulation already. Try and rent space on a telephone pole to run your copper to a neighborhood... Think about what it takes to get fiber to your prospects door step (utility right of way). Think about what it takes to get licensed for spectrum so you can bring you wireless innovation to the masses.

Consumers aren't going to lose big one way or the other, what will shift is how content providers and network providers price their services. We are on the cusp of real issues in the last mile given the coming shift to 4k (and eventually 8k) video... at that point things are going to start breaking down.

One solution is to clear the decks for companies like Google to get their fiber programs rolled out...

This post was edited on 2/12 10:58 PM by davidallen
 
Interesting question.

To be really honest, I would benefit from net neutrality as a small business. It would allow me to better compete with larger, more well established businesses in my industry. Having said that.... the pure libertarian point of view is that it inhibits the natural growth of free enterprise and that as I become a better established business myself, I can choke out my upstart competition.

Pretty conflicted on this topic I guess.
 
Complicated by the state/local right to regulate things like telcos and cable providers vs. interstate commerce - content flowing across all imaginable boundaries... Not an easy slam dunk question to answer.
 
What I'm hearing from you, David, is that it will provide consumers more choice. And the assumption is that choice is beneficial.

I also hear from you that this would be Federal decision making trumping local government. Is this a case where some people's civil rights are being abused?
 
It is a multifaceted issue - true choice will come when state and local utility commissions open up access to right of ways to more providers and lift the punitive taxes they call "franchise fees".

Net neutrality from the feds will mean that Comcast can't force Netflix to pay carriage fees for the bandwidth they suck up. But it will likely mean that Comcast will have to raise its rates to provide the kind of service their consumers expect. Especially when the latest House of Cards binge begins.

In my opinion we need Net Neutrality now and then a concerted effort to reduce the barrier to entry for new network providers. That is the best combo I believe for consumers.

Guys like Duke are much smarter on this issue. Though my work with one of the big global content providers has brought this to the forefront over the past six months.
 
The regulation the FCC is proposing is 332 pages long and won't be released to the public until after they vote on it. "It will give the FCC the power to micro-manage virtually every aspect of how the internet works" - Ajit Pai FCC Commissioner

Call me skeptical.
 
Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:
Here's a pretty good piece from a techie who opposes net neutrality as it is being proposed.
Click to expand...
That's where I got the quote from. Thought it was a pretty good read. Gives you some things to think about.
 
Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:
Here's a pretty good piece from a techie who opposes net neutrality as it is being proposed.
Click to expand...
How much do you think it would cost for a start up to wire Tulsa for internet? I would think there is a reason the only company entering the broadband market is Google, it isn't something a start up can generate the capital to do. Even Google isn't wiring out entire cities for Fiber now, but specific neighborhoods. Goldman Sachs estimates they will have to spend 1.25 billion a year to connect to 850,000 homes. What start up can do that, or even ?

Even if they could, they can't come in to many cities because of non-compete clauses in the contracts cities have with telecoms. There is currently a bill in Kansas to prevent Google from moving into Kansas further. Similar statutes in 20 states prevent cities from offering public internet, even if the citizens of those cities vote for it.

If those issues were resolved, it would be interesting to see what happened, but the politicians are already bought. I doubt they propose any legislation to roll back their pro-telecom legislation.
 
Originally posted by long-duc-dong:
The regulation the FCC is proposing is 332 pages long and won't be released to the public until after they vote on it. "It will give the FCC the power to micro-manage virtually every aspect of how the internet works" - Ajit Pai FCC Commissioner

Call me skeptical.
Click to expand...
The difference between net neutrality as a concept versus net neutrality in practice is yet another complication.
 
Originally posted by Mr. Blonde:


Even if they could, they can't come in to many cities because of non-compete clauses in the contracts cities have with telecoms. There is currently a bill in Kansas to prevent Google from moving into Kansas further. Similar statutes in 20 states prevent cities from offering public internet, even if the citizens of those cities vote for it.

If those issues were resolved, it would be interesting to see what happened, but the politicians are already bought. I doubt they propose any legislation to roll back their pro-telecom legislation.
Click to expand...
These are the issues I hope they deal with. Open up true competition in these local areas.
 
Originally posted by Mr. Blonde:


Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:
Here's a pretty good piece from a techie who opposes net neutrality as it is being proposed.
Click to expand...
How much do you think it would cost for a start up to wire Tulsa for internet? I would think there is a reason the only company entering the broadband market is Google, it isn't something a start up can generate the capital to do. Even Google isn't wiring out entire cities for Fiber now, but specific neighborhoods. Goldman Sachs estimates they will have to spend 1.25 billion a year to connect to 850,000 homes. What start up can do that, or even ?

Even if they could, they can't come in to many cities because of non-compete clauses in the contracts cities have with telecoms. There is currently a bill in Kansas to prevent Google from moving into Kansas further. Similar statutes in 20 states prevent cities from offering public internet, even if the citizens of those cities vote for it.

If those issues were resolved, it would be interesting to see what happened, but the politicians are already bought. I doubt they propose any legislation to roll back their pro-telecom legislation.
Click to expand...

The history of regulated network industries: (1), regulators reorganized the industry into a protectionist cartel; (2) this arrangement ends up hurting consumers-exactly the opposite of what is the purported rationale; and (3) investment and innovation slowly die.

Sounds awesone! Nothing says progressive quite like using legislation from 1934 to rationalize tighter government regulation. Reminds me of the left's obsession with trains.
 
I'm all for small government but I think this is one issue the feds should step in and regulate. Netflix should not have to pay Comcast, Cox, TW etc. a fee to let their videos stream at a high speed.
 

The history of regulated network industries: (1), regulators reorganized the industry into a protectionist cartel; (2) this arrangement ends up hurting consumers-exactly the opposite of what is the purported rationale; and (3) investment and innovation slowly die.

Sounds awesone! Nothing says progressive quite like using legislation from 1934 to rationalize tighter government regulation. Reminds me of the left's obsession with trains.
Click to expand...
Which "regulated network industries" are you talking about?
 
Originally posted by OSUIvan:
I'm all for small government but I think this is one issue the feds should step in and regulate. Netflix should not have to pay Comcast, Cox, TW etc. a fee to let their videos stream at a high speed.
Click to expand...
Agreed, given that you as the consumer have already paid for a specific speed/bandwidth level from your provider. That's my issue with the proposals. How I use the bandwidth and capacity provided should be my decision, and there is zero customer value in having it diluted so my provider can rake in a few extra bucks from the source side.

Justin
 
People forget that without government regulation electricity and telephone service never make it to rural America creating an even greater economic divide. I think most would agree that the TVA was a good thing in the economic development of the US.

Knee jerk reaction to ALL regulation just isn't smart... Nor do we need regulation in perpetuity.
 
What is the cost to all stakeholders? A bullet point list would suffice.

Cost to XXX entity. Regulated inability to charge what they have been.Benefit to YYYY entity. Better competition through regulation forcing a more competitive environment drives down cost.Cost to ZZZZ entity. line of description.Benefit to AAA entity. another line of description.
Much of the "concern" that I see when I skim over headlines, which is rare nowdays due to time constraints, is the cost of taxes being passed on to consumers. Is this a legitimate concern?

Would opening this box for a little good now potentially pave the way for a lot of cost later?

I'd consider myself a libertarian with conservative sympathies, and thoroughly an advocate of the benefits free markets and freedom in general bestow on a population, but I'm also not blind to the effectiveness of government in some situations. However, I believe the burden of proof for the government to take action should be very high. It's the quintessential manifestation of coercive power within society, so the benefits of movement by it must be apparently beneficial when the costs are weighed clear-eyed.
 
Please bear this in mind: Net Neutrality = Status Quo. This is how the internet has basically been working since it's inception and nothing really changes.

The challengers to net neutrality, ISP companies I'm sure all of us/you love dearly like Cox Communications, Time Warner, Comcast, AT&T, are the ones wanting to change things to allow them to basically charge different rates depending on content. This sets them up as gate-keepers with the ability to exert control and allow them to create "tiers" which they can use to charge users premiums to make sure their content doesn't come to a crawl. This is a fundamental change from the way the internet is set up now, which makes ISP's deliver all content at the same speeds regardless of ownership of the content.

I know Ted Cruz and few others are claiming that "Net Neutrality" is somehow going to fundamentally change things and give the government more control, etc. But actually, that is 180 degrees different than reality. Net Neutrality merely keeps things as they are, without giving the ISP's the power to treat different users, content providers, etc. differently by charging them more or less for services.

Long-duc-dong, you made the following statement: "The regulation the FCC is proposing is 332 pages long and won't be released to the public until after they vote on it."

Sorry, but that is utter bollocks. The Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 5 U.S.C. 501 et seq ('APA") establishes the procedure that every governmental agency must follow when making rules and regulations. As part of the APA, any proposed rule or regulation MUST BE published in the Federal Register and designated as "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking."

Each Notice of Proposed Rulemaking must contain the following elements (or any subsequent rules will be considered invalid)

A statement of the time, place, and nature of the proposed rulemaking proceeding;A reference to the authority under which it is issued;A description of the subjects and issues involved or the substance and terms of the proposed regulation;A statement of the time within which written comments must be submitted; andA statement of how and to what extent interested persons may participate in the proceeding.

From the date of publication in the FR, the public is given a time period in which to provide general comments to the relevant agency on the proposed rules/regulations. This is typically 60 days at a minimum, but can be longer. Following the initial 60 day general comments period, the public is also provided (again, at a minimum) a 30 day period on which to comment on the previous comments which were submitted to the agency.

By law, any rule or regulation proposed by an administrative agency of the US, MUST first be made publicly available for a period of at least 90 days, prior to any time the agency can even vote on the proposed rules/regulation. So your claim is bollocks, pure bollocks.
 
So it's pure and utter bollocks?

Take it up with the guy that wrote the article.
 
Why should I? Did you give a citation to any article or author when you posted what I quoted you as saying?

And yes, yes it is pure and utter bollocks as there is no way in hell that could happen (and be valid) due to the underlying requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.

BTW, if the guy F's up that bad on a simple factual matter, like that no Administrative Agency can legally make, or amend any rule or regulation without giving the public notice of the proposed regulation a minimum of 90 days before they vote on it, how much faith are you going to continue to place in the notion that he got the rest of it right?
This post was edited on 2/14 6:38 PM by hollywood
 
Net Neutrality is total BS. The US government regulating the internet under 1930's laws is utterly ridiculous.

Government regulation in this area is bound for failure. The technology changes too quickly for them to keep pace. Just stupid.

Oh, and the Obama administration will just use it as one more hammer against commerce and industry.
 
Originally posted by OSUIvan:
I'm all for small government but I think this is one issue the feds should step in and regulate. Netflix should not have to pay Comcast, Cox, TW etc. a fee to let their videos stream at a high speed.
Click to expand...
So under that logic, passengers on a plane shouldn't have the option to pay more for first class service?


And it won't work anyways. There are so many technical solutions to get around that if it happened that it won't ever happen for very long. If my ISP did that to me I'd never know because I'm already set up to bypass my ISP's routing. They don't see my traffic anyway.

That is a red herring argument used to get the government in the regulation door. Once opened, it'll never get shut.
 
Originally posted by hollywood:
Why should I? Did you give a citation to any article or author when you posted what I quoted you as saying?

And yes, yes it is pure and utter bollocks as there is no way in hell that could happen (and be valid) due to the underlying requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.

BTW, if the guy F's up that bad on a simple factual matter, like that no Administrative Agency can legally make, or amend any rule or regulation without giving the public notice of the proposed regulation a minimum of 90 days before they vote on it, how much faith are you going to continue to place in the notion that he got the rest of it right?
This post was edited on 2/14 6:38 PM by hollywood
Click to expand...
I believe I stated the information I typed came from the article marshall posted. So yes. If I didn't properly cite that in my summation I apologize to you legal eagle.

You coming after me like that is pure and utter bollocks so just calm down before you bust something.
This post was edited on 2/14 7:35 PM by long-duc-dong
 
300+ pages of me regulation from the FCC. Just to maintain the status quo on the internet.

Makes sense.
 
long-duc-dong,

Perhaps you should take a minute and peruse the thread again. You may note that your post (with that claim) actually appears BEFORE marshal posted the link.

So explain to me how I, or anyone else, was supposed to know where you got that claim....you know the claim that you cited without any attribution?

Was I suppose to read your mind on that (failure to attribute the information to its source) as well?

And I will ask again, if someone can F up so bad on what is such a common and simple point of law as not knowing that public disclosure of proposed rule making is required under Federal Law for at least 90 days before any agency can act, then how much faith would you put in the rest of what he wrote?
 
Originally posted by hollywood:
long-duc-dong,

Perhaps you should take a minute and peruse the thread again. You may note that your post (with that claim) actually appears BEFORE marshal posted the link.

So explain to me how I, or anyone else, was supposed to know where you got that claim....you know the claim that you cited without any attribution?

Was I suppose to read your mind on that (failure to attribute the information to its source) as well?

And I will ask again, if someone can F up so bad on what is such a common and simple point of law as not knowing that public disclosure of proposed rule making is required under Federal Law for at least 90 days before any agency can act, then how much faith would you put in the rest of what he wrote?
Click to expand...
Hollywood,

Perhaps you should peruse the thread again. I realize I didn't fully cite where I got the information in the original thread. I apologized for that. After Marshal posts the article I state that's where I got the information from. No, I don't expect you to read my mind, although you think you're so f*****g smart, you probably could. As to your question, I don't put a lot of faith in that guys ability to interpret law, but that doen't make the rest of what he wrote wrong.
 
Marshal Duncan,

You wrote: 300+ pages of me regulation from the FCC. Just to maintain the status quo on the internet.

Makes sense."

In the final rule (whittled down from the initial proposed rules which were published in the Federal Register back last May) according to the FCC, there is only actually 8 pages new regulations/rules. The remainder is reportedly a 34 page "white paper" outlining the history of the net, the previous net neutrality rules of 2010, and explanations for why the FCC created the new regulations. Apparently, 200+ pages of the 300+ are actually merely the publications of comments received from the public, both for and against the regulations.

So stop buying into the BS.

These are text only of the tweets produced by one of the top in-house (career/nonpartisan) attorneys at the FCC, Gigi Sohn:

"To suggest length of #NNFacts" and;

"2) The other 324 pages of #NNFacts"
 
Here's another article from the LA Times on this topic. I found it interesting to read that the FCC typically does not release draft orders until after it is voted on by the commission. Also, in addition to the "it's only 8 pages of regulations" discussed earlier in this thread, there are 79 pages detailing other regulations. So mayby not 300+ pages but not eight either. I don't have any tweets from individuals backing these claims so we'll just have to trust the quotes contained in the article.

LA Times
 
OStatedchi,

Can you point to the specific proposed regulations published in the Federal Register, published in May 2014, which would be useful to hammer commerce and industry?

Can you point to any of the existing Net Neutrality rules contained in the 2010 Net Neutrality regulations which have been used to stymie commerce and industry?
 
Long-duc-dong,

Here's how it actually works. When the Agency releases it's proposed rules in the Federal Register and opens up the period for public comments, what they actually do is list virtually every single regulation/rule that may possibly end up in the final regulation. If they include something in the final draft, which is not virtually/substantially identical to what they outlined in their "proposed rules" disclosures, it cannot lawfully form part of the final rules. Thus, for example if there is nothing about taxing the internet, or censoring content in the initial disclosure, such things could not possibly be included in the final rule, (without it being void ab initio and subject to being tossed by the first federal court that hears a challenge to the rule on the basis the procedural process violated the APA.)

Let me analogize for a minute: Let's say the NCAA investigates a university's sports program for violations. They tell the university that, while they haven't yet decided on what the final penalty will be, that they are limiting the penalty(ies) to A., B., C., and D. If they come back with any combination of A, B, C and/or D in their final ruling, they're ok. If they come back and throw in E & F on top of what they initially disclosed would be the limit of the penalties, they are very likely subject to a court challenge for violating the law of private associations (procedural process of the NCAA bylaws) and would almost certainly be prevented from imposing E & F as a penalty by means of a court order.

So whatever is in the FCC's final rule,it cannot exceed what they first disclosed as the potential rules which they listed last May, 2014.

The notations to other regulations which may apply are nothing new that they have created, they form part of the history and background but in no way can be considered creating NEW regulations. Just like a court decision may outline other relevant case law and statutory provisions as part of the dicta, but that portion of the decision is not in any way binding on the litigants or form part of the decision as far as citing as an authority.
 
Well then apparently FCC commissioner Pai doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. All the more reason to doubt the ability of the federal government to effectively implement these new regulations. By the way I thought Al Gore what the "father" of the internet. No?

This post was edited on 2/15 6:40 AM by long-duc-dong
 
Originally posted by hollywood:
OStatedchi,

Can you point to the specific proposed regulations published in the Federal Register, published in May 2014, which would be useful to hammer commerce and industry?

Can you point to any of the existing Net Neutrality rules contained in the 2010 Net Neutrality regulations which have been used to stymie commerce and industry?
Click to expand...
Wood, the Obama admin have proven over and over that they don't care what the law or regulation actually says. They are going to go after their political opponents. This is just another way. The actual regulations don't matter.
 
But again, Net Neutrality is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TPOKE

NS Wi Fi Extenders

Replies
25
Views
713
The Corral
EvilPOKES
EvilPOKES
F

The Left Wages War on Christmas

Replies
3
Views
251
24/7 Politics
LAY THE WOODY
L
Adman513

Qb in 2025?

Replies
37
Views
2K
The Corral
osu2082
O
D

Pat Jones Put Out To Pasture….

Replies
48
Views
2K
The Corral
O-State1974
O-State1974
windriverrange

Report: Hamas Inflated Gaza Death Figures; Included Natural Deaths, Cancer Patients

Replies
29
Views
772
24/7 Politics
windriverrange
windriverrange
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back