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

[S4GRU]

11 hours ago, RAvirani said:

This seems like an abuse of power. Especially if to prove a point.

But go ahead and remove my post too. I guess there’s no one to stop you. 

There are no comments hidden at this time.

S4GRU Administrator

[RedSpark]

This is borderline unwatchable due to the rudeness of the host, but try to make it though the whole thing if you can. Former FCC Commissioner McDowell made some excellent points about how consumers will be protected by existing laws without having to resort to a full Title II reclassification.

[tybo31316]

There are no comments hidden at this time.

S4GRU Administrator

 

I think that they were using Net Neutrality sarcasm.

[anthony.spina97]

On 12/18/2017 at 3:09 PM, tybo31316 said:

 

I think that they were using Net Neutrality sarcasm.

Thank God that someone got the joke. Lol. I thought I was the only one.

 

-Anthony

[RAvirani]

4 hours ago, anthony.spina97 said:

Thank God that someone got the joke. Lol. I thought I was the only one.

 

-Anthony

I think everyone got the joke.

It just wasn’t a very good joke. At least in my opinion.

[Dkoellerwx]

I think everyone got the joke.
It just wasn’t a very good joke. At least in my opinion.

Really? I thought it was pretty good. Perhaps a sense of humor is in order.

Sent from my LG G6

[RAvirani]

1 hour ago, Dkoellerwx said:

Really? I thought it was pretty good. Perhaps a sense of humor is in order.

Sent from my LG G6
 

Hmm maybe ?...

[bigsnake49]

On 12/17/2017 at 12:05 PM, RedSpark said:

So are you saying you would support more competition for backhaul?

What government-level policies would be conducive for facilitating this?

Well, actually buying a company/companies with Metro fiber loops is preferable. Zayo comes to mind. Level 3 was just bought by Century link. The other solution is to partner with Cable cos. For example in addition to Verizon in Comcast's wireless MVNO, they could use Sprint and use Verizon only where Sprint does not have coverage. Something like Google is doing with Project Fi. Government should be the last resort. Although as part of infrastructure spending, I wish there was a government funded initiative to run fiber everywhere. Then a non-profit corporation would rent capacity on the network to all comers for a price just high enough to only maintain and expand the network.

Edited December 22, 2017 by bigsnake49

[centermedic]

Let's consider for a moment that the internet is the product of DOD investment and has also become a public utility. There will always be some level of government regulation involved. 

[utiz4321]

3 minutes ago, centermedic said:

Let's consider for a moment that the internet is the product of DOD investment and has also become a public utility. There will always be some level of government regulation involved. 

Lets assume heavy handed regulations had been instituted during the late 1990,  what woukd the internet look like? The internet works fine, it will countinue to work fine if we let it alone. 

[centermedic]

On 12/17/2017 at 3:03 PM, utiz4321 said:

Lots of people have one grocery to choose from, for example people that live in rural areas. They arent forced to by the store brand. 

 

You might have access to one broad band provider where you live but compatition among broad band providers exist at a market level. How many providers does dallas have? 

https://broadbandnow.com/Texas/Dallas

45. That is a very competitive mark.  But countinue being completely ignorant of have markets work. 

But there is a significant difference. Grocery stores are not a function of government. They are purely free market-based. However, the internet is an invention mostly of government and is largely administered (ISP) by two industries who are heavily regulated and one is a legal monopoly. Telephone and cable.

[utiz4321]

1 minute ago, centermedic said:

But there is a significant difference. Grocery stores are not a function of government. They are purely free market-based. However, the internet is an invention mostly of government and is largely administered (ISP) by two industries who are heavily regulated and one is a legal monopoly. Telephone and cable.

That isnt exactly true. The back bone of the internet was created by the military but the innovation and evolution of the internet for the past 25 years have been the private industry. But even if we accept your premise you have to get to grocery stores on government roads. The industries are alot alike in revelvent economic characteristics. 

[centermedic]

1 hour ago, utiz4321 said:

That isnt exactly true. The back bone of the internet was created by the military but the innovation and evolution of the internet for the past 25 years have been the private industry. But even if we accept your premise you have to get to grocery stores on government roads. The industries are alot alike in revelvent economic characteristics. 

That's a stretch at best as roads are generally not built specifically for a grocery store but rather for the public at large and commerce in general. The grocery store itself will only exist if demand dictates it. Also, I stand by my statement. The internet was invented by DOD, for the most part. The investment and development was made with public money. Industry picked that up and made the capital investments. Providing internet access is a lot closer to providing electricity then it will ever be to a free market model.

[centermedic]

1 hour ago, utiz4321 said:

Lets assume heavy handed regulations had been instituted during the late 1990,  what woukd the internet look like? The internet works fine, it will countinue to work fine if we let it alone. 

I never indicated if I was for or against the 2015 net neutrality regulations or the new regulations. I was simply making a statement. Having said that, I do not believe that Net Neutrality was a heavy-handed regulation. I would like to see the playing field to remain as free and level as possible. That will allow the internet to continue its growth and feed the economy. There is a similar argument regarding state sales taxes and purchasing via the internet. What is the right balance? That argument will continue through several administrations.

[utiz4321]

12 minutes ago, centermedic said:

That's a stretch at best as roads are generally not built specifically for a grocery store but rather for the public at large and commerce in general. The grocery store itself will only exist if demand dictates it. Also, I stand by my statement. The internet was invented by DOD, for the most part. The investment and development was made with public money. Industry picked that up and made the capital investments. Providing internet access is a lot closer to providing electricity then it will ever be to a free market model.

It isn't. Weather or not they were built for a grocery store or not they are necessary for a grocery store. 

 

God help us if the government turn the internet into at public utility like the electrical grid I'm not looking forward to Brown outside the internet in the future. How Innovative have public utility companies Been over the last 25 years? How about ISPs? 

[utiz4321]

11 minutes ago, centermedic said:

I never indicated if I was for or against the 2015 net neutrality regulations or the new regulations. I was simply making a statement. Having said that, I do not believe that Net Neutrality was a heavy-handed regulation. I would like to see the playing field to remain as free and level as possible. That will allow the internet to continue its growth and feed the economy. There is a similar argument regarding state sales taxes and purchasing via the internet. What is the right balance? That argument will continue through several administrations.

Which playimg field? There are two amd it seems like you want to privilege one over the other for feels. There is zero evidenve that the internet is harmed in a world without the 2015 NN title 2 regulation. In fact, there is 20 years of evidence to the contrary. 

[RedSpark]

5 hours ago, centermedic said:

Let's consider for a moment that the internet is the product of DOD investment and has also become a public utility. There will always be some level of government regulation involved. 

Do you want full Title II designation and regulation, or something less than that?

[ase500]

Which playimg field? There are two amd it seems like you want to privilege one over the other for feels. There is zero evidenve that the internet is harmed in a world without the 2015 NN title 2 regulation. In fact, there is 20 years of evidence to the contrary. 

Ok, while I am not pro net neutrality in its current form. You really have a massive misunderstanding of what the internet is and how it has been regulated in the past. As well as why some form of net neutrality will be essential in the future.

 

While the DOD did infact create both the original network and standards. Starting in 1988 IANA was formed with Jon Postel at the helm. However, IANA was completely under control of the DOD until ICANN was created in 1998 to help facilitate the transfer of authority away from the Government.

 

This is where Net neutrality becomes more important. Up until 1998 theoretically the Government had the full ability to revoke IP addresses and DNS access. The government handed over full control October 1st 2016. So up until that date the government wielded massive control over the internet via IP addresses and root server access.

 

Furthermore, up until a few years ago ISPs were dumb pipes with no real skin in the content game. Sony entertainment was not a theat Charter's video business. Comcast was not competing for content production rights with netflix or amazon. We now have a situation where the ISP no longer a simple dumb pipe, they now have an interest in what I am using it for.

 

We also have a situation where the peering agreements that created the broader Internet may no longer be the best option for the larger tier one networks. Leading higher capacity networks to charge gate fees. This would essentially end the free and open internet as we know it. Also driving prices in rural areas up.

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[centermedic]

13 hours ago, RedSpark said:

Do you want full Title II designation and regulation, or something less than that?

Until such time as ISP's are no longer legal monopolies, yes. Just to be clear, I understand that an ISP is not a legal monopoly. However, the companies which provide internet access are mostly legal monopolies or must abide by high levels of regulation due to their core business ie: cable companies and Telephone companies. Until such time that we can introduce enough competition into the arena, consumers should be afforded some level of protection in order to keep the internet a viable economic engine.

[centermedic]

18 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

It isn't. Weather or not they were built for a grocery store or not they are necessary for a grocery store. 

 

God help us if the government turn the internet into at public utility like the electrical grid I'm not looking forward to Brown outside the internet in the future. How Innovative have public utility companies Been over the last 25 years? How about ISPs? 

Ok. So you are really going to have to spell this out for me because I am having visions of Fields of Dreams right now.

 

18 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

Which playimg field? There are two amd it seems like you want to privilege one over the other for feels. There is zero evidenve that the internet is harmed in a world without the 2015 NN title 2 regulation. In fact, there is 20 years of evidence to the contrary. 

Not at all. I want everybody to have access to the internet as it was developed [ed by the government(read people). Kudos to business for building it out BUT and this is a big but, it is provided by companies that are already under regulation for good reason. Replace those companies with unregulated companies in sufficient numbers then I will be all for trashing title 2. Currently, there is a situation where companies can dictate to other companies how much they will pay for access rather than having the same pricing plan for everybody. Case in point....

The streaming video company’s filing provides much more detail about its negotiations with Comcast earlier this year that led it to pay for more direct access to Comcast’s internet customers. “In Netflix’s experience, there are four ISPs that have the market power to engage in degradation strategies to harm OVDs,” Netflix wrote, referring to internet service providers (ISPs) intentionally slowing down traffic from online video distributors (OVDs). “Two of those four propose to merge in this transaction.”

https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/

 

[utiz4321]

1 hour ago, centermedic said:

Ok. So you are really going to have to spell this out for me because I am having visions of Fields of Dreams right now.

 

Not at all. I want everybody to have access to the internet as it was developed [ed by the government(read people). Kudos to business for building it out BUT and this is a big but, it is provided by companies that are already under regulation for good reason. Replace those companies with unregulated companies in sufficient numbers then I will be all for trashing title 2. Currently, there is a situation where companies can dictate to other companies how much they will pay for access rather than having the same pricing plan for everybody. Case in point....

The streaming video company’s filing provides much more detail about its negotiations with Comcast earlier this year that led it to pay for more direct access to Comcast’s internet customers. “In Netflix’s experience, there are four ISPs that have the market power to engage in degradation strategies to harm OVDs,” Netflix wrote, referring to internet service providers (ISPs) intentionally slowing down traffic from online video distributors (OVDs). “Two of those four propose to merge in this transaction.”

https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/

 

If you are going to attack an analogy the difference you have to point out between the analogy and what it is attempting to discribe has to be relevant to point being made. The fact That the governments role in internet was designed for the purpose of creating internet infrastructure and roads aren't designed specifically for grocery stores is not relevant. Both the roads are necessary for grocery stores to exist and the government's investment in the internet is was necessary for it to exist.

 

Yes, netflix is complaining that some companies can demand a large share of the profits in this two side market and they would lose. The same thing happens all the time, in many industries, for example grocery stores and charging for Shelf space.  What should you care who gets what profits? Why do you think the government is better placed to divide up the profits of the industry than the market? 

[RedSpark]

2 hours ago, centermedic said:

Until such time as ISP's are no longer legal monopolies, yes. Just to be clear, I understand that an ISP is not a legal monopoly. However, the companies which provide internet access are mostly legal monopolies or must abide by high levels of regulation due to their core business ie: cable companies and Telephone companies. Until such time that we can introduce enough competition into the arena, consumers should be afforded some level of protection in order to keep the internet a viable economic engine.

Title II regulation is going to deter and prevent exactly the kind of competition and investments you want to have happen.

[centermedic]

On 12/24/2017 at 9:29 PM, RedSpark said:

Title II regulation is going to deter and prevent exactly the kind of competition and investments you want to have happen.

I disagree. The internet has spent considerably more time without article two.

[centermedic]

On 12/24/2017 at 8:33 PM, utiz4321 said:

If you are going to attack an analogy the difference you have to point out between the analogy and what it is attempting to discribe has to be relevant to point being made. The fact That the governments role in internet was designed for the purpose of creating internet infrastructure and roads aren't designed specifically for grocery stores is not relevant. Both the roads are necessary for grocery stores to exist and the government's investment in the internet is was necessary for it to exist.

 

Yes, netflix is complaining that some companies can demand a large share of the profits in this two side market and they would lose. The same thing happens all the time, in many industries, for example grocery stores and charging for Shelf space.  What should you care who gets what profits? Why do you think the government is better placed to divide up the profits of the industry than the market? 

Still going to have to disagree. What you are proposing is a self-fulfilling prophecy where innovations such as the internet could not exist without government investment. If you are supporting the idea that government has a significant role in innovation and only the government has the economic size to leverage investments into new technologies then your entire argument falls apart.

Also, explain to me how the government is dividing up anybody's profits. As I said before, article two leveled out the playing field. In my opinion, this is necessary as long as there is not sufficient competition. What I find interesting is that I have yet to hear anybody propose scrapping the legal cable monopolies. Now that is a case of government control that reaches far beyond article two.

[tybo31316]

Anyone know the outcome of the Congressional Review to have the repeal of Net Neutrality reversed?