FCC Revokes Net Neutrality [WAS: FCC Approves Net Neutrality]

[RedSpark]

31 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

No, I, as the consumer do not want to be charged twice, once for the connection and another time for streaming or consuming content by my ISP. The content provider pays for the connection on their end and I pay for mine. I also do not want my ISP to use paid lanes to favor certain content over others.

Price ensures supply and capacity. That’s just what it is for anything. We’d like to think of the Internet infrastructure as limitless, but it’s not. It’s a limited resource like anything else.

If something is too cheap, there won’t ever be enough of it and there won’t be enough of an incentive to produce it or supply it in quantity.

Most conversations I’ve had about markets and supply/capacity starts with:

“Why can’t we give everyone “X” for “Y”?”

And ends with:

“Why can’t we give everyone “X” for “Y”?”

Things exist and are often better because people are willing to pay more. It also ensures adequate supply for them.

This applies to mailing a letter. Pick your delivery time. There isn’t enough capacity to make all letters express next day and the cost structure can’t support it. However for the people that opt in, there’s enough supply/capacity.

This applies to Sprint with its Ultra HD add-on for $10/Month. It’s there if you want it. There likely isn’t enough capacity to make all users Ultra HD, but there is for those expected number who opt-in for it.

With enough competition, people ultimately get what they want for what they want to pay.

People should have the option to pay to avoid cat video congestion if they’re working on mission critical work (in their minds at least) for example.

Edited December 14, 2017 by RedSpark
Clarifications

[tybo31316]

Price ensures supply and capacity. That’s just what it is for anything. We’d like to think of the Internet infrastructure as limitless, but it’s not. It’s a limited resource like anything else.
If something is too cheap, there won’t ever be enough of it and there won’t be enough of an incentive to produce it or supply it in quantity.
Most conversations I’ve had about markets and supply/capacity starts with:
“Why can’t we give everyone “X” for “Y”?”
And ends with:
“Why can’t we give everyone “X” for “Y”?”
Things exist and are often better because people are willing to pay more. It also ensures adequate supply for them.
This applies to mailing a letter. Pick your delivery time. There isn’t enough capacity to make all letters express next day and the cost structure can’t support it. However for the people that opt in, there’s enough supply/capacity.
This applies to Sprint with its Ultra HD add-on for $10/Month. It’s there if you want it. There likely isn’t enough capacity to make all users Ultra HD, but there is for those expected number who opt-in for it.
With enough competition, people ultimately get what they want for what they want to pay.
People should have the option to pay to avoid cat video congestion if they’re working on mission critical work (in their minds at least) for example.

You are in support of the large ISPs charging the American people more. Go and look at their market cap and their quarterly reports. They are making more than enough money.

Your argument is like saying the government is spending more and more money to the American people should pay more and more taxes. The government should get their spending under control.

The ISPs don’t have that problem because they are taking billions to the bank quarterly.

[kg4icg]

For the life of me I can't figure out how people were thinking net neutrality was going to solve a municipality granting exclusive rights to a single isp instead of having a open market. Sorry but that's the fault of your local governments.

[tybo31316]

For the life of me I can't figure out how people were thinking net neutrality was going to solve a municipality granting exclusive rights to a single isp instead of having a open market. Sorry but that's the fault of your local governments.

Repealing it is going to add additional players into the market?

[WiWavelength]

2 minutes ago, tybo31316 said:

Repealing it is going to add additional players into the market?

 

Yes, absolutely, it will.  Bigly network investment.  And to quote utiz4321, it also will build castles in the sky.  Lots of them.

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

1 hour ago, utiz4321 said:

Ummm... I think you dont understand what is going on. If ISPs want to charge you more, they would raise your price. There isn't anything in title 2 that prevents that.   Pay lanes are nothing to be afraid of, it just garantees that services that are in high demand don't suffer during peak times. 

I have no problem paying more if it gets me more speed. Not that I have any choice. It's either Charter  with 100Mbits/sec or AT&T with 25Mbits/sec.

[tybo31316]

Ummm... I think you dont understand what is going on. If ISPs want to charge you more, they would raise your price. There isn't anything in title 2 that prevents that.   Pay lanes are nothing to be afraid of, it just garantees that services that are in high demand don't suffer during peak times. 

What happens when your internet package looks like a cable tv package?

[RedSpark]

25 minutes ago, tybo31316 said:

 

You are in support of the large ISPs charging the American people more. Go and look at their market cap and their quarterly reports. They are making more than enough money.

Your argument is like saying the government is spending more and more money to the American people should pay more and more taxes. The government should get their spending under control.

The ISPs don’t have that problem because they are taking billions to the bank quarterly.

 

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m for companies giving people what they want at prices they want to pay.

I support easier market entry, faster permitting processes and other pro-competition factors which enable more market participants to allow for a greater level of competition overall.

Ultimately through this process, people will select what they want for what they want to pay and be satisfied. This happens with enough choice and competition.

[tybo31316]

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m for companies giving people what they want at prices they want to pay.
I support easier market entry, faster permitting processes and other pro-competition factors which enable more market participants to allow for a greater level of competition overall.
Ultimately through this process, people will select what they want for what they want to pay and be satisfied. This happens with enough choice and competition.

Well, I guess everyone has an opinion. If I don’t like it I won’t buy the services. Unfortunately the internet has become an important part of people’s lives. Most people need it. Depending on your age it’s all some people know. I could probably do without it if I need to.

[RedSpark]

1 minute ago, tybo31316 said:

 

Well, I guess everyone has an opinion. If I don’t like it I won’t buy the services. Unfortunately the internet has become an important part of people’s lives. Most people need it. Depending on your age it’s all some people know. I could probably do without it if I need to.

 

In a vibrant, competitive market, you won’t have to do without it. You’ll get what you want for what you want to pay... or like you said, you’ll go to the competition.

Net Neutrality doesn’t solve the lack of ISP competition in a municipality. That’s the fault of your local Councils, Boards and Governments.

If you want a new local competitor, make it easy for them to enter and compete.

[WiWavelength]

26 minutes ago, kg4icg said:

For the life of me I can't figure out how people were thinking net neutrality was going to solve a municipality granting exclusive rights to a single isp...

Not solution, but protection.  Consumer protection -- precisely because of the lack of last mile broadband Internet competition.

AJ

[greenbastard]

5 hours ago, RedSpark said:

The Internet grew like hell before the last 2 years of “Net Neutrality” was enacted.

Why would the future now be any different?

If anything, the Internet will innovate through this line anything else.

Because the ISPs are trying to find new forms of revenue as their TV business continues to bleed. If Comcast can slow down SlingTV or Vue to a crawl and give their own proprietary OTT video service full speed access, then it creates an unfair competitive advantage. If Verizon slows down Google in order to get people to use Yahoo, then it creates an unfair advantage.

Also, 5G is still several years away...with or without permits. And even then, 5G won't cover every neighborhood.

As long as ISPs have no competition, they should he heavily regulated.

[nexgencpu]

1 hour ago, utiz4321 said:

If that is your concern, nothing the FCC did today repeals any net neutrality principles enforced prior to 2015. It repeat those instituted in 2015. So, yes my claim that we are simple going back to the internet of 2015 is true. You shouldn't conflate repealing the 2015 regulations with repealing all internet regulations that the FCC has ever had in place. That is nothing more than fear mongering. 

The reason this crap is getting so much push back is not because of the fear mongering, its the lack of any potential benefit to the consumer, but yet it's so easy to see how ISP's can screw us all. 

This reminds me of the phone app industries lust for microtransactions. Nickle and dime the consumer to death.

Remind me how much consumers love microtransactions?

I don't need to taste sh*t to know it will not be a pleasant experience.

[greenbastard]

4 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

And if you stave ISPs of new sources of revenue what happens to investment? The first thing sprint cut in the late 00s as revenue tanked was capex. Yeah, let have ISPs cut their capes and have plenty of content we can access during peak times. 

You know that sarcastic counterpoint anti-net neutrality folks give? The one that goes "how did the internet ever work before 2015???" Well, now I ask you...how did ISPs ever make money before net neutrality issues even came up???

You know what's a good solution to all this? Sell data by the GB. Problem solved. Make the heaviest users pay for clogging their networks. You want to torrent TBs of data all day? Then pay for it. But you know why ISPs won't go down this route? It's because they see an opportunity to control and sell to us what we consume online. This isn't about making Netflix pay for a fast lane. This is about rounding up people and funneling them to as many services they can create. You think Verizon won't try to throttle Google services in order to frustrate people into giving Yahoo a try? You think Comcast won't purposely sabotage OTT services during peak hours in order to sway people into buying Xfinity TV? Or what about the next tech startup that competes with one of Charter's major shareholder's investments? They won't slow access to them?

Why else do you think T-Mobile bought a video streaming service and Sprint bought into Tidal? ISPs aren't interested in selling services to you. They are interested in forcing services to you. It may not happen in the next 2-3 years, but we will eventually see ISPs "manage" their networks to give their services certain advantages. 

It's time to stop being naive.

[belusnecropolis]

5 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

Lack of benefit to the consumer? How about creating an incentive for more entrance, creative offers and innovation on the infrastructure side of this industry? Look at how innovative pipe has been over the last two decades without net neutrality! No one wants to talk about the long term harm to the consumer in regulating ISPs as a utility. Let me ask you this, how innovative is you standard electric company? I think two years ago mine finally got online payment as an option. 

Ours is currently being sold to the highest bidder after investing in nuclear power that tanked. 9 rate hikes in 2 years.

Online payment has been around since we built a few years ago. We went all wireless for internet about a year ago and it has been work; but it is great. Solar is looking nice, and I threw a pump out into the lake to help our heat pump in winter.

 

The utility is starting a solar farm if you buy in. This is subjective but it sure is messy in this market. Disruptive being a goal sure is something.

[ingenium]

And if you stave ISPs of new sources of revenue what happens to investment? The first thing sprint cut in the late 00s as revenue tanked was capex. Yeah, let have ISPs cut their capes and have plenty of content we can access during peak times. 

I swear you're a troll, because I'm honestly in disbelief if you actually believe what you say.

ISPs get more revenue by charging for faster service! Not based on what the service is used for. That's how the backbone providers work, and that's how the industry has always been priced, that's how data centers work. That's how Comcast, Verizon, etc pay for their own bandwidth at transit points to peers.

ISP "packages" would be akin to the electric company wanting to charge me one price for electricity that goes to my Samsung TV, but a different price that goes to my Vizio TV or to my computer, despite them all using the same quantity of electricity. Thank God I can easily switch electric companies! . The entire concept is absurd, and in a properly functioning market it would be a complete non issue, since no ISP would be stupid enough to even attempt it.

Except, we are not in a perfect, competitive market. We're in a monopolistic market, one that's government granted in many areas. A government granted monopoly comes in exchange for proper regulation. That's the only way the system works.

I fail to see the regulatory burden that you claim net neutrality would impost on "startup ISPs". It's actually more work to maintain fast and slow lanes! Use QoS on a per customer and on a general, indiscriminate bandwidth level, based on the bandwidth they purchase. Just sell bandwidth at a certain price, and if you're not making money, then raise the price. Don't charge me one price for using 100GB for Netflix, someone else a different price for 100GB of YouTube, and another person a different price for backing up 100GB of files. Build capacity to handle the bandwidth that you sell to people. Plain and simple.

And I'm not even going to get into all the money the ISPs took from the government to fund broadband expansion, which they then just pocketed and never fulfilled.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[RedSpark]

11 hours ago, tybo31316 said:

 

What happens when your internet package looks like a cable tv package?

 

You go to the competition.

[rkitt]

That's great for those with more than one option.
Now how about the 50 million household's that only have one option, or you just saying sucks to be them.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-million-us-homes-have-only-one-25mbps-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/?amp=1

[RedSpark]

1 hour ago, rkitt said:

That's great for those with more than one option.
Now how about the 50 million household's that only have one option, or you just saying sucks to be them.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-million-us-homes-have-only-one-25mbps-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/?amp=1

Put the blame where it belongs:

Officials on City Councils or Local Governments who don’t have pro-competition policies or who sign exclusive franchise agreements with one company.

Want 5G Fixed Wireless to happen sooner so that the incumbent provider has to compete? Make it easier (and faster) for Sprint or another company to build a cell site by overhauling the permitting process.

Want another wireline company to provide service? Make it easier for them to enter the market. Governments are in a position to do that. It’s all about who you vote for.

Finally, if you don’t like how a company does business, don’t do business with them. The current Sprint Hotspot solution I suggested earlier isn’t ideal for everyone, but if you stand on your principles, it’s certainly a viable option.

[RedSpark]

13 hours ago, WiWavelength said:

Not solution, but protection.  Consumer protection -- precisely because of the lack of last mile broadband Internet competition.

AJ

Consumer protection is reverting to the FTC:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/12/statement-acting-ftc-chairman-maureen-k-ohlhausen-fccs-approval

Here’s the signed MOU between the FCC and FTC linked to in the release:

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cooperation_agreements/fcc_fcc_mou_internet_freedom_order_1214_final_0.pdf

The MOU details the responsibilities of each going forward. It also details how the FCC and FTC will work jointly.

Local governments can help encourage last mile competition. Unfortunately, they haven’t done that as much as they should or have done the opposite in cases. Ultimately, I believe the last mile problem will be addressed and solved by Fixed 5G Wireless. Local governments should do what they can to expedite it: improved permitting process, etc.

Edited December 15, 2017 by RedSpark
Additonal Detail

[bigsnake49]

1 hour ago, RedSpark said:

Consumer protection is reverting to the FTC:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/12/statement-acting-ftc-chairman-maureen-k-ohlhausen-fccs-approval

Here’s the signed MOU between the FCC and FTC linked to in the release:

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cooperation_agreements/fcc_fcc_mou_internet_freedom_order_1214_final_0.pdf

The MOU details the responsibilities of each going forward. It also details how the FCC and FTC will work jointly.

Local governments can help encourage last mile competition. Unfortunately, they haven’t done that as much as they should or have done the opposite in cases. Ultimately, I believe the last mile problem will be addressed and solved by Fixed 5G Wireless. Local governments should do what they can to expedite it: improved permitting process, etc.

Fixed 5G will not solve anything when the backhaul provider will charge you an arm and a leg and is the same provider whose ox you're goring by providing competition for his last mile fixed wired connection.

[RedSpark]

26 minutes ago, bigsnake49 said:

Fixed 5G will not solve anything when the backhaul provider will charge you an arm and a leg and is the same provider whose ox you're goring by providing competition for his last mile fixed wired connection.

Net Neutrality does not address the scenario you described.

Having enough competition does, and that gets us to the questions: “what government policies are preventing competition?” and “what government policies would facilitate it?”

Edited December 15, 2017 by RedSpark
Clarification

[derrph]

Sprints statement on Net Neutrality

[swintec]

16 hours ago, kg4icg said:

For the life of me I can't figure out how people were thinking net neutrality was going to solve a municipality granting exclusive rights to a single isp instead of having a open market. Sorry but that's the fault of your local governments.

Can you share which municipalities grant exclusive rights to an ISP?  If you are referring to cable companies, franchise agreements have nothing to do with internet or even the cable companies digital phone product.  They strictly deal with nothing more than providing basic cable to the towns population.  These days (as has been the case for years), there is no profit on basic cable services so any cable company building out an area will offer these enhanced services (internet, phone, home alarmss, etc) in addition to basic cable so they can make a return but again, franchise agreements do not deal with this.

Also, any company is free to come into an area and overbuild if they choose.  They would be stupid to, but they are welcome.  Naturally they have to go through the same permitting process as the others currently there.  Don't confuse current ISPs suing to stop overbuilders (and make to to expensive with just legal) with municipalities not allowing them.  They are two different things.

[RedSpark]

7 minutes ago, swintec said:

Naturally they have to go through the same permitting process as the others currently there. 

This needs to be substantially improved.