Net Neutrality Issue

[FoolKiller]

@Sanji Himura

You ignore market forces. Specifically, the consumers. Like I said, AT&T can be blocked from accessing a community if they do that. Locals could tell AT&T to take a hike or allow multiple ISPs to come in and compete. Worst case, the local government takes over the ISP duties themselves.

The only way your scenario happens is if every single ISP changes at once. At least one company won't do it just to steal marketshare from the big guys.

And still not sure how you call net neutrality free market. Politically or economically, a free market means business agreements between businesses and customers without government interference.

 

[Danoff]

Is the example a bit extreme? Yes, you could be right, however, one must realize that companies are not willing to eat costs and will pass them down to the consumer every chance they get. They are not willing to "eat" costs when they actually should. That is why net neutrality should always exist.

Don't represent that position as pro-free market. That's an anti-free market position. The free market is ISPs and websites coming to an agreement that they both are happy with and enter into voluntarily. Anti-free market is forcing one company (ISPs) to do something that it doesn't want to do with the threat of firearms and jail. That's net neutrality.

Right now you pay the cost to keep bandwidth equal across all websites. And maybe you're happy to do that - and companies will certainly line up to offer you that service if that's what you want. But if the consumer would rather that they got charged less and some websites didn't get equal speeds, well that's what consumers want then.

 

[DK]

It looks like net neutrality could be under fire in Europe, too:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-11/19/eu-telecoms-reform-concerns

 

[DK]

Sorry for the double post, but I found this interesting piece online today:
http://www.g33k-e.com/electronics/the-day-the-internet-died-why-the-fcc-is-killing-net-neutrality/

I found it interesting that the head of the FCC was formerly a lobbyist for big telecom companies. This capitulation to big business sickens me.

 

[Danoff]

Sorry for the double post, but I found this interesting piece online today:
http://www.g33k-e.com/electronics/the-day-the-internet-died-why-the-fcc-is-killing-net-neutrality/

I found it interesting that the head of the FCC was formerly a lobbyist for big telecom companies. This capitulation to big business sickens me.

...and this is why the FCC is unconstitutional. Lawmakers are required (by the US constitution) to be elected by the people. Regulatory agencies like the FCC (also the TSA and many many others) make law but are appointed officials - making it impossible for voters to have direct influence over the person making law.

 

[Liquid]

Away from the internet, I've always been unsure as to the purpose of the FCC anyway given the first amendment. The, ahem, Federal Censorship Council, also has no purpose policing the internet. Neither on a global scale nor on a US domestic front.

 

[wfooshee]

The FCC was created to assign the airwaves and regulate and license users of those airwaves. These people can use these frequencies, those people can use those frequencies.

What that has to do with closed circuit non-broadcast systems I'm not very clear on.......

 

[Danoff]

Funny, I don't agree with it but it's worth a watch anyway:

http://gizmodo.com/the-fcc-gets-the-premium-cable-takedown-it-deserves-1584715542

 

[a6m5]

Top cable lobbyist was appointed as the head of FCC? I still struggle to understand why cable companies don't compete other cable companies where I live. They just steamroll lame satellite services that no one I know have. The market seems rigged, just like with oil. They claim that the demand set the market, yet they seemed to be working the international politics 24/7. If this Net Neutrality is a scheme to rig this market, too, all I can say is what took them so long?

 

[FoolKiller]

Top cable lobbyist was appointed as the head of FCC? I still struggle to understand why cable companies don't compete other cable companies where I live.

Your local government gives out the contracts. Watch for your local city/town council meeting announcements. They will have cable renewal and rate discussions listed in the agenda, when it comes up. If you don't have access to Windstream, Uverse, and a few of the other second party services then bring it up.

Better yet, cut the cable altogether. I've been a year without any kind of cable/satellite service. Just an Internet connection with Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime.

 

[Danoff]

Your local government gives out the contracts. Watch for your local city/town council meeting announcements. They will have cable renewal and rate discussions listed in the agenda, when it comes up. If you don't have access to Windstream, Uverse, and a few of the other second party services then bring it up.

Better yet, cut the cable altogether. I've been a year without any kind of cable/satellite service. Just an Internet connection with Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime.

How do you manage during the football season?

 

[Mirado_7]

Here is another good read about the cable monopolies. Seems fitting to post it here.

 

[FoolKiller]

How do you manage during the football season?

Bars with friends or streaming radio.

NFL is even easy to keep up with online. For college sports, TuneIn Radio gives me alerts when a Kentucky game is starting.

And in Kentucky, we still believe the best game calling comes from our local guy. They don't ramble on while missing plays. People who watch on TV even mute the TV and turn on the radio.

There are other resources to catch live video streaming if you are willing to pay or go through not so honest methods. Auto racing is doing more and more to have the race online after it is over. Considering I used a DVR most of the time with cable, I don't miss much there.

 

[Danoff]

Bars with friends or streaming radio.

NFL is even easy to keep up with online. For college sports, TuneIn Radio gives me alerts when a Kentucky game is starting.

And in Kentucky, we still believe the best game calling comes from our local guy. They don't ramble on while missing plays. People who watch on TV even mute the TV and turn on the radio.

There are other resources to catch live video streaming if you are willing to pay or go through not so honest methods. Auto racing is doing more and more to have the race online after it is over. Considering I used a DVR most of the time with cable, I don't miss much there.

Dish network has a "pause" feature that allows you to suspend your service for 6 months. For the past few years I've been suspending service right after the superbowl (or olympics) and restarting it right before football starts. It saves me activation fees, and allows me to not have to pay for service in the off season.

This next season I hope to not even do that.

If I can get my personal DVR up and running, I'll ditch Dish network too and just do over-the-air feeds. That'll mean losing ESPN, but honestly Monday night football is a bit of a stretch these days with the kid.

 

[FoolKiller]

If I can get my personal DVR up and running, I'll ditch Dish network too and just do over-the-air feeds. That'll mean losing ESPN, but honestly Monday night football is a bit of a stretch these days with the kid.

ESPN has an app. It's on most tablets and Roku, and likely a dozen other things. But it is for TV subscribers only. That irks me. I would gladly pay $2/month (more than they get from my cable subscription) to get streaming, even if it isn't live. I've been trying to get Speed/Fox Sports to work with me on this too, but no luck. They are tying new technology to a dinosaur method.

As for kids: Streaming services are great once she becomes old enough to want certain shows and operate a remote. Netflix allows separate profiles on one account, so my daughter's profile only allows her to access Kids programming. Plus, sometimes you want to introduce them to something like Mister Rogers, rather than MLP or Cayou.

 

[Omnis]

So, this is pretty cool. Not.

Revealed: ISPs Already Violating Net Neutrality To Block Encryption And Make Everyone Less Safe Online

In the second instance, Golden Frog shows that a wireless broadband Internet access provider is interfering with its users’ ability to encrypt their SMTP email traffic. This broadband provider is overwriting the content of users’ communications and actively blocking STARTTLS encryption. This is a man-in-the-middle attack that prevents customers from using the applications of their choosing and directly prevents users from protecting their privacy.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...cryption-make-everyone-less-safe-online.shtml

 

[niky]

That's pretty 🤬 up. I would think that there is the understanding that the ISP shouldn't interfere with or alter data transmissions.

That should fall afoul of one Federal law or another.

 

[Danoff]

Why is the particular provider's name in that instance not being announced? That's how net neutrality works without government interference - consumers understanding the difference between the various ISPs.

 

[Omnis]

Hanlon's razor comes to mind, @Danoff. If not intentional, however, I'm not sure I would trust an ISP that makes such a grievous mistake.

 

[DK]

The FCC has just reclassified broadband as a Title II utility. The ruling will also apply to mobile internet.

 

[FoolKiller]

The FCC has just reclassified broadband as a Title II utility. The ruling will also apply to mobile internet.

And the federal government now has the power to regulate content. Diane Feinstein's dream come true.

 

[DK]

How so? Title II reclassification has NOTHING to do with regulating content, only service, according to Corynne McSherry of the EFF, their director of Intellectual Property.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The future of the internet according to Mark Cuban. Obamacarenet here we come.

Video

Dallas Mavericks owner and investor Mark Cuban predicted that proposed FCC Internet regulations will end up impacting TV and “your TV as you know it is over” on Thursday’s “Squawk Alley” on CNBC.

Cuban began by predicting “the courts will rule the Internet for the next however many years.” He then explained, “let’s just take it all the way through its logical conclusion. All bits are bits, all bits are equal. If all bits are equal, then let’s look at what a stream bit is an example. So when Henry and I do an interview, and it’s streamed lived on the Internet, there’s a camera, it goes through an encoder, it sends it out via server or some manner to the Internet, you click on Business Insider and you watch the stream, right? Now, let’s look at CNBC on Comcast. There’s cameras right in front of you, they go through a switcher, they go through an encoder, it’s put through a server, it goes to Comcast, and it’s streamed in a managed service environment to television. It’s the exact same thing. And if it’s the exact same thing technologically and all bits are equal, then why shouldn’t CNBC and all TV networks that are delivered on cable, and Telco, and fiber like Verizon, why shouldn’t they be part of the open Internet as well? And if they are and all bits are equal, now, let’s take it one step further. It’s the purview of the FCC now. The FCC, right? So, the FCC now has to apply their same standards to content, don’t they, that they do to television content because that’s where it is and there’s going to be certain citizens who think ‘well now, since all content is delivered over the Internet because all bits are bits, and it’s a fair, and open, and equal Internet — decency standards.’ And remember the FCC is the same agency that fought Nipplegate for eight years over a wardrobe malfunction.”

He added, “your TV as you know it is over.”

Cuban further said that due to court and regulatory battles that will ensue if the proposed regulations are adopted, innovation online will be halted, declaring “if you love the Internet the way you know it today, this is what you’re going to have for a long time. But, if you’re like me, and you think the best is yet to come, then you don’t the FCC involved because of all the uncertainty.”

Cuban also commented on the transparency regarding of the FCC’s regulation process, sarcastically remarking “lots of transparency, right? Yeah, Lots of transparency.” And “that’s the FCC, that’s the Department of Internet that we’re going to get, no transparency.”

 

[FoolKiller]

How so? Title II reclassification has NOTHING to do with regulating content, only service, according to Corynne McSherry of the EFF, their director of Intellectual Property.

Until now members of congress have not been able to gain ground on regulation proposals because the Internet is an open place free of regulation. Now the government has it's foot in the regulatory door. They never stop at that point.

But a creative regulator can use Title II rate regulation powers. Just as the FCC can now tell ISPs they can only charge companies like Netflix so much for access, so can they say that a type of service must have a minimum rate fee, creating a de facto ban, the same as putting a sin tax on real-world goods and services.

Either way, net neutrality violates property rights. That is never good for anyone. When they did this to phones AT&T's monopoly was born.

 

[Blitz24]

Until now members of congress have not been able to gain ground on regulation proposals because the Internet is an open place free of regulation. Now the government has it's foot in the regulatory door. They never stop at that point.

But a creative regulator can use Title II rate regulation powers. Just as the FCC can now tell ISPs they can only charge companies like Netflix so much for access, so can they say that a type of service must have a minimum rate fee, creating a de facto ban, the same as putting a sin tax on real-world goods and services.

Either way, net neutrality violates property rights. That is never good for anyone. When they did this to phones AT&T's monopoly was born.

And now they have to worry about other monopolies or oligopolies forming in it's wake.

 

[FoolKiller]

Here is where these things scare me. During WWII the government grabbed control of all phone companies. AT&T, bring the biggest complained and got a sweetheart deal where they were paid more for the inconvenience than paying customers would have paid. After WWII all phone networks were given to AT&T.

The last I checked, we are in a War on a Terror and the enemy is apparently using the Internet to a degree that we have to spy on everyone's activity. There is a lot of back and forth going on about the legality of that. What if it is deemed necessary for national security that government seize temporary control of the Internet? Or they regulate that ISPs have to give the NSA access. Security laws already forbid the companies from revealing when access is requested. Now that those who have shown a willingness to abuse their power can regulate who can do what on the networks, what can we do to stop them now? If Comcast goes public with the NSA abuses will they lose their control of their own infrastructure? Will they be licensed by the FCC so that restrictions are a matter of taking away a license?


Basically, we let the fox in the hen house.

 

[synchromesh]

Basically, I don't see what's wrong with the NSA spying on our internet usage. If we're not committing any crimes or doing anything illegal or that would cause any suspicion, then what's wrong with that?

Also, if the NSA is reading this, hi there.

 

[Omnis]

I've always thought about the internet, "Gosh, I sure wish it were just like the electric company."

 

[Johnnypenso]

Basically, I don't see what's wrong with the NSA spying on our internet usage. If we're not committing any crimes or doing anything illegal or that would cause any suspicion, then what's wrong with that?

Also, if the NSA is reading this, hi there.

North Korea is that way>>>>

 

[Imari]

Basically, I don't see what's wrong with the NSA spying on our internet usage. If we're not committing any crimes or doing anything illegal or that would cause any suspicion, then what's wrong with that?

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.