Fortunately, Ted Cruz has some common sense on this issue, saying that a panel of 5 people at the FCC should not have the final say in the future of the internet.

Quote:"I will be introducing legislation that would remove the claimed authority for the FCC to take such actions, specifically the Commission's nebulous Sec. 706 authority. More than $1 trillion has already been invested in broadband infrastructure, which has led to an explosion of new content, applications, and Internet accessibility. Congress, not an unelected commission, should take the lead on modernizing our telecommunications laws. The FCC should not endanger future investments by stifling growth in the online sector, which remains a much-needed bright spot in our struggling economy."

http://newsok.com/ted-cruz-bill-would-ba...le/4820831

(05-16-2014 09:05 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:59 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 07:30 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  It's really simple. When you are posting on this board, you are using a base level of bandwidth. For argument sake, let's set this as X.

If you are watching Youtube or another regular definition, you are using 3-4X. An HD video is 5-9X.

Why shouldn't the person that is streaming HD video pay for the higher usage? Charging the same for everyone, ie. net neutrality, is just another example of income redistribution.

Thank you for demonstrating you don't understand the issue.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

So how am I wrong?

Getting rid of net neutrality would make it very hard for small businesses online. Not only that, but this leads to a slippery slope that could lead to the demolition of the free exchange of ideas.

With net neutrality eliminated, ISPs can essentially hold Web businesses ransom by saying "You have to pay us money, else your customers won't get high speed internet to your website".

This can also lead to absolute censorship. Eliminating net neutrality gives ISPs the power to slow down and even block websites that they don't approve of. So the free exchange of ideas could be destroyed.

(05-16-2014 09:05 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  So how am I wrong?

Nobody knows for sure, but I can promise you that anything written by corporate lobbyists isn't going to be good for the consumer... especially in the case of a business that is essentially a utility.

I hope that ISPs now open themselves up to be sued over piracy from their users... that will make them quickly back down when they have the MPAA and the RIAA going after them directly for billions of dollars because they opened up a can of worms by being able to prioritize traffic... that means they have looked to see where the traffic is coming from which opens them up to be responsible for illegal content.

This will most certainly keep startups to compete with Amazon Instant Video and Netflix from entering the market. It will most certainly stall innovation in areas of high bandwidth utilization because they will have to budget huge amounts of resources to pay ISPs to make sure the application or site performs as expected.

I don't know a person who works in the network engineering industry that supports this, and we are the people who do this on a daily basis. We see the consequences and we know that very little good can come out of this for the general consumer. Only more money for the telecom industry that is essentially a duopoly in almost every market.

Last mile ISPs (Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, Verizon, etc.) are utilities in this new digital world... they should be treated as such, in my opinion.

(05-16-2014 07:30 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  It's really simple. When you are posting on this board, you are using a base level of bandwidth. For argument sake, let's set this as X.

If you are watching Youtube or another regular definition, you are using 3-4X. An HD video is 5-9X.

Why shouldn't the person that is streaming HD video pay for the higher usage? Charging the same for everyone, ie. net neutrality, is just another example of income redistribution.

Your argument is to treat bandwidth like electricity or water or gasoline or any other commodity. The problem with that is you are missing how bandwidth is presently paid for. You, the consumer, are paying (a bloody huge amount for a much slower connection relative to the rest of the industralized world, mind you) for the bandwidth. Then, AT THE OTHER END, the people with content (people like me) are paying AGAIN for connections. Only this time, these connections have bigger uploads and thus are much more expensive. 60 MBit down and 4 MBit up from Charter costs around $60-70/mo. The only 24/7/365 datacenter in Upstate, SC is Immedion. They charge $100 per month PER MEGABIT. That is $400/mo to match the paltry 4 MBit upload of a residential Charter connection. So ... the money is being paid on both ends. And those providing content are already heavily subsidizing the cost of the consumer. It cost money to put stuff IN to the pipe ... not so much to take stuff back OUT. This is nothing more than people with near monopoly power wanting to further leverage what they have so they can extract MORE money from the content providers without doing **** to infrastructure. It's free money. A windfall of bags and bags of money. And it means ultimately you the consumer lose as it will create, for the first time, barrier to entry in the internet. And if you wish to continue down this road of stupidity and hubris in a duopoly market place .... just wait until backbone carriers start to get greedy. I'm talking Tier 1 providers not this final mile clowns trenching cables in subdivisions. You think AT&T and Charter and Comcast and Time Warner are giving you overpriced sh*tty service ... just wait until the REAL internet providers start charging those ISPs for "priority access". Level3, Cogent, XO, Savvis, SBC, Sprint, CenturyLink, Verizon, and AboveNet. If they put the screws down they'll make ultrabank, yet again at the detriment of the consumer. And each time your ratchet up this "priority access" scheme, you're dangling the merger and acquisition carrot a little lower .... a little lower .... a little lower. Do you really want a world where Ma Bell mergers with Verizon which mergers with Sprint which mergers with T-Mobile and they now control all wireless and land line and DSL nationwide. And then Comcast mergers with Time Warner (pending presently) who mergers with Charter who mergers with Cox who mergers with all the little regional cables like Bright House and Buckeye and Qwest and Suddenlink and they now control all cable TV and internet nationwide. The barrier to entry is now such that only a multiple-hundred billion dollar company can even mount an effort. They have priorities on all utility right of ways now. They have regulatory advantages. They no longer have motivation to improve speed. They not longer have motivation to deploy to rural areas. Innovation ends. Prices rise. Service falls. But hey ... I'm sure they'll expand the Obamaphone to be universal and have ObamaTV and ObamaInternet too. I'm sure the TV only gets 10 channels and the Internet is 0.25 MBit and only gets DailyKos and MotherJones ... but hey ... free internet and tv and phone for everyone YAYYYYYYYY!


Some other issues:

It is sold as "unlimited" but from most major carriers is actually capped. Comcast has caps as low as 50 GB I think. Charter has a 250 GB cap but they don't enforce it because they provide you no means to monitor your use. If you bought "unlimited" gasoline, you'd be pretty pissed when they said "oh we really meant 40 gallons."

How do you like your cellphone bill? How would you like it if you doubled or tripled it? In the 90's era of the carphone where your local wireless company had a total service area of 30 or 40 miles, the FCC mandated no one could charge roaming fees anymore. I'm sure clueless Republicans said it was the end of the world then too. The result was every wireless carrier immediately starting putting up towers as fast as possible. Tiny little micro carriers with their local monopolies merged quickly. Municipal carriers become regional carriers become national carriers. Turf was no longer for one company ... everybody wanted to put up towers in their competitor's area so they wouldn't have to pay for their customer's roaming charges any more. In short order a nationwide cellular infrastructure emerged. With multiple major competitors. Though we're trying hard right now through regulatory burden and artificial spectrum shortage to force that into "merger down to one" land as well. The FCC mandated competition. It worked brilliantly. If the FCC imposed net neutrality as official policy ... they will be mandating competition for the internet as well. It will shift the area of profit from leveraging customers like you're the mob to improving your infrastructure. (What a concept!!)

(05-16-2014 09:20 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 09:05 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:59 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 07:30 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  It's really simple. When you are posting on this board, you are using a base level of bandwidth. For argument sake, let's set this as X.

If you are watching Youtube or another regular definition, you are using 3-4X. An HD video is 5-9X.

Why shouldn't the person that is streaming HD video pay for the higher usage? Charging the same for everyone, ie. net neutrality, is just another example of income redistribution.

Thank you for demonstrating you don't understand the issue.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

So how am I wrong?

Getting rid of net neutrality would make it very hard for small businesses online. Not only that, but this leads to a slippery slope that could lead to the demolition of the free exchange of ideas.

With net neutrality eliminated, ISPs can essentially hold Web businesses ransom by saying "You have to pay us money, else your customers won't get high speed internet to your website".

This can also lead to absolute censorship. Eliminating net neutrality gives ISPs the power to slow down and even block websites that they don't approve of. So the free exchange of ideas could be destroyed.

Everything you've suggested is pure speculation, and fear mongering, created by the gnomes of Google, etc. (Isn't it curious how the people who are now making the most money off the internet, can find lots of reasons to support NN. I'm sure they are just being altruistic.)

But free market competition will work against your fear scenario as different firms will compete to be your ISP. Furthermore, it could open up more opportunities since companies will see a chance to benefit.

If you want to worry about the slippery slope of ideas, you'd be better advised to be worried by the Obama administrations willingness to abdicate control of the internet to some amorphous international body that will ultimately allow Putin and other international pariahs to block access in their countries. (Or you might worry about how speech codes in colleges creates "a slippery slope that could lead to the demolition of the free exchange of ideas.")

I admit I am ignorant on IT and GTS and most of the other posts on here are over my head. That said, my contract with Cox is $X/month for Y speed. I don't see how they can slow down certain sites below that speed under my contract.

(05-16-2014 11:39 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  But free market competition will work against your fear scenario as different firms will compete to be your ISP.

There is not free market competition when it comes to ISPs. I've mentioned that Charlotte has two ISPs but only one will service my neighborhood. Another poster mentioned that his city has five ISPs but only one will service his neighborhood. This is almost always a monopoly, not free market.

(05-16-2014 11:56 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I admit I am ignorant on IT and GTS and most of the other posts on here are over my head. That said, my contract with Cox is $X/month for Y speed. I don't see how they can slow down certain sites below that speed under my contract.

They already do. Cox openly throttles BitTorrent and even blocks/interrupts BitTorrent ports. Even if you want to BitTorrent Linux or The Bible or anything else that is legal and distributed on BitTorrent. Even if you haven't hit your cap yet.

(05-16-2014 12:07 PM)EpicNiner Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 11:39 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  But free market competition will work against your fear scenario as different firms will compete to be your ISP.

There is not free market competition when it comes to ISPs. I've mentioned that Charlotte has two ISPs but only one will service my neighborhood. Another poster mentioned that his city has five ISPs but only one will service his neighborhood. This is almost always a monopoly, not free market.

Yes it is exactly free market competition.

My neighborhood has two suppliers, Time-Warner and Verizon FIOS. As you may know, Verizon stopped their build-out of FIOS because they weren't making an adequate return on investment off of the extensive capital costs. That's why, many areas only have one supplier.

But by allowing the ISP to have usage based pricing, they can make more money. And if a company can make more money, then they'll have an incentive to complete the build-out. So, opportunity to make more money results in more competition. That is the basic definition of free market competition.

But there is another factor and that is that local governments control who gets to build. And there is always a (legal) kick back to the municipality. So it's, in a sense, a regulated monopoly. And again, if the profit opportunity is greater, the ISPs will pay the rights fees to get into the local markets. Ergo, more competition.

(05-16-2014 11:56 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I admit I am ignorant on IT and GTS and most of the other posts on here are over my head. That said, my contract with Cox is $X/month for Y speed. I don't see how they can slow down certain sites below that speed under my contract.

The ISP wants to charge the initial provider (Netflix, Amazon Prime, Youtube, etc.). Then eventually, your ISP will have to increase your rates.

Same as when Time Warner shuts off CBS or Fox in a fee squabble.

QS, you do realize that the United States is one of the slowest home internet countries of the 1st world, right? You know why? We've allowed the corporations to make the decisions for broadband here.

On top of that, we also pay the highest price.

This is not a free market, this is a duopoly.

(05-16-2014 01:09 PM)mlb Wrote:  QS, you do realize that the United States is one of the slowest home internet countries of the 1st world, right? You know why? We've allowed the corporations to make the decisions for broadband here.

On top of that, we also pay the highest price.

This is not a free market, this is a duopoly.

A free market means that profit making organizations will base service decisions on the opportunity to increase profits.

"We've allowed the corporations to make the decisions for broadband here." That sounds like a free market to me. Who else is going to make the decisions? Government? LOL

The reason that we have the slowest internet is because there is no economic incentive to increase speeds. If the ISPs are allowed to charge more for high usage sites, watch the high speed build out happen.

(05-16-2014 02:02 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  A free market means that profit making organizations will base service decisions on the opportunity to increase profits.

Free market means that there are little to zero barriers to entry to get into that market and offer service. That is not the case here, nor has it ever been. This is no different than the old telephone market (remember AT&T being broken up), electricity, or natural gas markets. Almost completely devoid of competition.

Quote:"We've allowed the corporations to make the decisions for broadband here." That sounds like a free market to me. Who else is going to make the decisions? Government? LOL

When something is a utility, the gov't has to be involved to make sure that the consumers best interests as kept in mind. So yes, they should be doing more in this area.

Quote:The reason that we have the slowest internet is because there is no economic incentive to increase speeds. If the ISPs are allowed to charge more for high usage sites, watch the high speed build out happen.

They could offer higher speeds now than they do but choose not to because they want to squeeze as much profit out of the consumer. While I understand that is capitalism, we also know that when a product is a utility with limited competition that the "free market" does not work in a capitalist society...