Net neutrality (again)

[strawman]

We have an opportunity to influence the FCC and congress to act on this, and today (September 10th) a lot of websites are participating in the campaign to get the rules and laws changed so providers can't slow down or speed up your internet based on what you're doing (and who's paying them).

If you are in the US and you'd like to send a letter, here's an easy form that just requires a little information so your representatives know your mind on the matter:

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

 

[Ravenpoe]

 

[PatrThom]

http://jointhefastlane.com/

And if you want some less sensationalized, hard academic data, you can try this pdf (warning: Wordy Academic PDF).

--Patrick

 

[fade]

Particularly liked the Lex Luthor/Superman analogy.

 

[Zappit]

There's been over a million replies sent to the FCC, with 99.9999% in favor of preserving net neutrality as is. I just don't think it will make a difference. The cable companies and their lobbyists and the FCC have bled together to the point they're barely separate entities. They'll ram this down our throats.

Just hope for an executive order.

 

[Ravenpoe]

Let's see, do they go with the 99.99% of the population's wants, or do they go with the corporations they're already in bed with feeding them dumptrucks of money? Tough call.

 

[Krisken]

I think we all know we don't stand a chance. This country is circling the drain faster and faster.

 

[Covar]

Three words: Sherman Antitrust Act.

Bust the ISPs wide open so that the vast majority of consumers has more than 2 options. Let competition resolve the issue of net neutrality. Just looking within this country the small handful of markets with competition or even the threat of it (Austin) have a big boon in speed, decreases in price, and overall better Internet Service.

 

[PatrThom]

Let competition resolve the issue of net neutrality.

This is part of the reason there is contention over the official definition(Mb/s) of "Broadband." The ISPs are pushing for "4," but others are pushing for "10." This is relevant since most ISPs point to satellite as their regional "competition," but satellite is much slower than even what DSL can offer. Satellite is only just now breaking the 10-15Mb/s level while DSL can hit 25-30 and cable can hit 100 or more. That's hardly "competition."

--Patrick

 

[Covar]

You know they should bust them based on infastructure. The DirecTV Dish merger was blocked on the grounds that it would reduce satellite TV choices to one. No reason you can't treat Cable Internet and DSL (which phone companies are forced to lease, but the technology just can't keep up with cable internet so the market is dying on its own) the same.

 

[figmentPez]

Three words: Sherman Antitrust Act.

Bust the ISPs wide open so that the vast majority of consumers has more than 2 options. Let competition resolve the issue of net neutrality. Just looking within this country the small handful of markets with competition or even the threat of it (Austin) have a big boon in speed, decreases in price, and overall better Internet Service.

That'll work to keep big stuff like Netflix evenly competing, but what about smaller stuff like Team Four Star, or dissenting political voices? What happens when unpopular opinions can be effectively silenced by someone paying big money to make sure that they get no bandwidth?

 

[PatrThom]

there is contention over the official definition(Mb/s) of "Broadband." The ISPs are pushing for "4," but others are pushing for "10."

I thought I would link the article in question, if anyone is interested.

--Patrick

 

[GasBandit]

I seem to be saying a lot of things that don't mesh with my libertarian standpoints these days, but it's clear to me that Internet service providers need to be considered common carriers.

 

[PatrThom]

That's true. If the definition of "broadband" gets upped, then they won't be able to claim that it's "broadband" unless they build out faster service, and that means spending money (gasp!).

--Patrick

 

[fade]

I seem to be saying a lot of things that don't mesh with my libertarian standpoints these days, but it's clear to me that Internet service providers need to be considered common carriers.

Like John Oliver said, Lex Luthor and Superman are teaming up on this one. Right, Lex?


(yes, I know he wasn't referring to political parties, but it still works)

 

[Enresshou]

I seem to be saying a lot of things that don't mesh with my libertarian standpoints these days, but it's clear to me that Internet service providers need to be considered common carriers.

I'm curious as to why this sentiment does not mesh.

 

[GasBandit]

I'm curious as to why this sentiment does not mesh.

Because it is a stance that would increase regulation on a private sector entity.

 

[Enresshou]

Because it is a stance that would increase regulation on a private sector entity.

Fair enough.

As far as this goes, I would love nothing more than to have these companies relegated to the status of Title II common carriers.

 

[PatrThom]

Because it is a stance that would increase regulation on a private sector entity.

I would almost agree with you, except for the fact that I don't see Internet access as "belonging" to the private sector. It is obviously a public utility (or has become one) and should be treated/regulated as such.

I don't know where the border between "toy for the private sector" to "public utility" lies, but I'm sure that the Internet crossed over a long time ago (assuming it was truly ever not there to begin with). Considering that the Internet grew out of a government-funded project, I see the current situation as nothing more than a virtual land grab with ISPs essentially squatting territory and paying the government enough to distract them from realizing that land all belongs to the government anyway and they could be evicted at any time.

--Patrick

 

[Null]

I'm willing to bet that one of the big telecomm's paid muppets invokes cloture to require a 60 vote majority, and the vote will fail by a 58-42 margin.

 

[GasBandit]

I would almost agree with you, except for the fact that I don't see Internet access as "belonging" to the private sector. It is obviously a public utility (or has become one) and should be treated/regulated as such.

"Should be," but not "is." That's what all the fuss is about.

I don't know where the border between "toy for the private sector" to "public utility" lies, but I'm sure that the Internet crossed over a long time ago (assuming it was truly ever not there to begin with). Considering that the Internet grew out of a government-funded project, I see the current situation as nothing more than a virtual land grab with ISPs essentially squatting territory and paying the government enough to distract them from realizing that land all belongs to the government anyway and they could be evicted at any time.

--Patrick

To me, it's as if the government started building interstates, but all the on-ramps were privately owned/constructed. The sad fact of the matter is there's no way to really introduce local market competition into the broadband market because there isn't competing hardware - no redundant cable, aside from DSL-vs-Cable which isn't even really a competition at all. So, yes. Internet access is de facto infrastructure and should at least be regulated as "common carriers" same as phone companies.

And all that is very unlibertarian of me to say. Eecch.

 

[Hailey Knight]

I feel like any public outcry will be silent when Comcast's money is stuffed in Congress's ears.

 

[PatrThom]

To me, it's as if the government started building interstates, but all the on-ramps were privately owned/constructed.

"Yes, the Internet is completely free, but you have to pay us to get there."
It's almost like you just described some of Ticketmaster's "convenience" services.

--Patrick

 

[PatrThom]

It's like I don't even need to read the article.

--Patrick