Obama ruins the internet

[Beerina]

Or people who don't want local monopolies to throttle your access to the Internet because you are accessing content provided by one of their competitors.

I think it should be dealt with by fraud laws. For example, telling me I have unrestricted Internet access at X speed, but you slow down Netflix unless Netflix kicks back to you a portion of what I pay Netflix, is fraud.

As soon as this kind of utility-like regulation starts, then the dynamic shifts from satisfying customers to whining and pleading backroom deals between the companies and Congress and regulators, just as with water or electricity. Drag ass on upgrades and regulation of prices can't be far behind.

 

[Spindrift]

I think it should be dealt with by fraud laws. For example, telling me I have unrestricted Internet access at X speed, but you slow down Netflix unless Netflix kicks back to you a portion of what I pay Netflix, is fraud.

As soon as this kind of utility-like regulation starts, then the dynamic shifts from satisfying customers to whining and pleading backroom deals between the companies and Congress and regulators, just as with water or electricity. Drag ass on upgrades and regulation of prices can't be far behind.

Guess what? They aren't going to tell you that you have unrestricted Internet access at X speed anymore if net neutrality is removed. The user agreement will most likely state that they can speed up or slow down whomever they want. If you don't like it go to someone else, who will be doing the exact same thing. That's your free market.

 

[Beerina]

Guess what? They aren't going to tell you that you have unrestricted Internet access at X speed anymore if net neutrality is removed. The user agreement will most likely state that they can speed up or slow down whomever they want. If you don't like it go to someone else, who will be doing the exact same thing. That's your free market.

The smaller companies are not. They will thus grow.

I also favor truth in advertising -- If Verizon and Time Warner put this at the top of their contracts instead of burying it, as frauds do, and people were still fine with it, then they are fine with it.

In your Verizon contract, at the top: "We deliberately slow down Netflix unless Netflix gives us $1 of what you pay them. So below, when we say we offer you X speed to the Internet, we are actually lying. This is literally, not figuratively, extortion. We hope you are fine with it. Sign here."

In your Netflix contract: "You are a customer of Verizon. Verizon forces us to pay them $1 out of your Netflix fee or else they will make our service run like crap for you. We hope you like Verizon. We have succumbed to their extortion tactic, and have given in to it. We apologize for the. We must now jack up your rate, but just for you."

 

[Spindrift]

The smaller companies are not. They will thus grow.

I also favor truth in advertising -- If Verizon and Time Warner put this at the top of their contracts instead of burying it, as frauds do, and people were still fine with it, then they are fine with it.

Being smaller companies they won't have the infrastructure to support the fastest speeds and thus they will rot on the vine.

Burying it is not a fraud. People will not be fine with it but they won't have a choice.

In your Verizon contract, at the top: "We deliberately slow down Netflix unless Netflix gives us $1 of what you pay them. So below, when we say we offer you X speed to the Internet, we are actually lying. This is literally, not figuratively, extortion. We hope you are fine with it. Sign here."

In your Netflix contract: "You are a customer of Verizon. Verizon forces us to pay them $1 out of your Netflix fee or else they will make our service run like crap for you. We hope you like Verizon. We have succumbed to their extortion tactic, and have given in to it. We apologize for the. We must now jack up your rate, but just for you."

Why do you hate the free market? Perhaps some government regulations could prevent this?

ETA: Updated to include edited quote

 

[Ziggurat]

Guess what? They aren't going to tell you that you have unrestricted Internet access at X speed anymore if net neutrality is removed. The user agreement will most likely state that they can speed up or slow down whomever they want. If you don't like it go to someone else, who will be doing the exact same thing. That's your free market.

And? Will that situation actually be any worse than today?

The thing is, I can basically never get unrestricted Internet access at X speed to anything, even without content-based throttling. It is incredibly rare that I can get download speeds anywhere that reach my peak bandwidth. There's always a bottleneck somewhere in the network, and it's often at the server side anyways.

The more relevant question to me is not whether or not there's any speed differential between different content, but whether or not my experience improves. And it's not clear to me that preventing network providers from making such choices will actually help me. Seems to me that content people are willing to pay for is logically content that people consider more important, and I'm not sure why we should make it illegal to prioritize what people want the most. If Hulu streams faster but I need to wait a while longer to download a game on Steam, am I worse off? No, I'm not: I need streaming to be high-bandwidth, but I can let the download happen in the background, so I'm not as sensitive to the time it takes.

So what we've got here is a problem that's largely hypothetical at this point, and some people want to solve it by giving government more power. Well, that's a basically irreversible decision. Furthermore, once it's regulated, there's no guarantee that it will actually be regulated in my interests, let alone competently. Ever hear of the phrase, "regulatory capture"? Well, that's a big friggin' risk here. It's an illusion to think that if you just give the FCC all these new powers, they're going to use it exactly the way you want them to. Odds are, that's not what will happen. Some of their moves may be popular, but what will eventually happen is that they'll lock down the market, stifle innovation, and protect the existing big players against any upstart competitors. That's the way of government regulation. If problems with ISP's right now were just god-awful, then maybe I'd want to take that chance, but things really aren't so bad right now.

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by cornsail View Post
Fair point if true. And yet... Was there no one he could have nominated whose opinions on important and relevant topics weren't a total mystery? I've been very unhappy with some of Obama's past appointments besides this. Nominating Michele Leonhart for DEA administrator, for instance, was really bad.

I think that prior to the "nuclear option", a huge number of Obama's nominees could not get a vote and were stalled indefinitely. I'm pretty certain that lists of nominees are floated to administrations as "acceptable" and that presidents get to choose from these small lists. I'm confident that the list for FCC director did not include any people hostile to cable companies and their interests.

And here I thought the reason he chose Tom Wheeler was because he helped raise a lot of money for President Obama's campaigns.
Although he also had a lot of experience in the industry.

Here is Wikipedia on his previous occupation. If true his positions should come as no surprise.

Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with positions including President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Michael Goodwin and Dan E Burr do it better without Inman's head-up-butt-itis.

Did you just Goodwin this thead?

 

[Spindrift]

And? Will that situation actually be any worse than today?

The thing is, I can basically never get unrestricted Internet access at X speed to anything, even without content-based throttling. It is incredibly rare that I can get download speeds anywhere that reach my peak bandwidth. There's always a bottleneck somewhere in the network, and it's often at the server side anyways.

The more relevant question to me is not whether or not there's any speed differential between different content, but whether or not my experience improves. And it's not clear to me that preventing network providers from making such choices will actually help me. Seems to me that content people are willing to pay for is logically content that people consider more important, and I'm not sure why we should make it illegal to prioritize what people want the most. If Hulu streams faster but I need to wait a while longer to download a game on Steam, am I worse off? No, I'm not: I need streaming to be high-bandwidth, but I can let the download happen in the background, so I'm not as sensitive to the time it takes.

So what we've got here is a problem that's largely hypothetical at this point, and some people want to solve it by giving government more power. Well, that's a basically irreversible decision. Furthermore, once it's regulated, there's no guarantee that it will actually be regulated in my interests, let alone competently. Ever hear of the phrase, "regulatory capture"? Well, that's a big friggin' risk here. It's an illusion to think that if you just give the FCC all these new powers, they're going to use it exactly the way you want them to. Odds are, that's not what will happen. Some of their moves may be popular, but what will eventually happen is that they'll lock down the market, stifle innovation, and protect the existing big players against any upstart competitors. That's the way of government regulation. If problems with ISP's right now were just god-awful, then maybe I'd want to take that chance, but things really aren't so bad right now.

I thought Republicans liked solutions to problems that are largely hypothetical, like voter fraud.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think it should be dealt with by fraud laws. For example, telling me I have unrestricted Internet access at X speed, but you slow down Netflix unless Netflix kicks back to you a portion of what I pay Netflix, is fraud.

As soon as this kind of utility-like regulation starts, then the dynamic shifts from satisfying customers to whining and pleading backroom deals between the companies and Congress and regulators, just as with water or electricity. Drag ass on upgrades and regulation of prices can't be far behind.

So are you mad that cable companies don't give you a cut of what they get from the networks to run their programming but make you pay for it? Then they drop the network when it isn't paying them enough.

 

[marplots]

It's always the same question in the end:
"Who run Barter Town?"

 

[Ziggurat]

I thought Republicans liked solutions to problems that are largely hypothetical, like voter fraud.

Really? That's the full extent of your understanding of what I wrote?

That's just sad.

My objection is not to "solving" potential problems. My objection is to empowering bureaucracies in order to "solve" potential problems. If you can solve or prevent a potential problem without having to empower a vast bureaucracy, have at it. But that's not the case here.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Really? That's the full extent of your understanding of what I wrote?

That's just sad.

My objection is not to "solving" potential problems. My objection is to empowering bureaucracies in order to "solve" potential problems. If you can solve or prevent a potential problem without having to empower a vast bureaucracy, have at it. But that's not the case here.

So how bad does the situation need to be for a legislative fix to be the answer?

 

[eeyore1954]

I thought Republicans liked solutions to problems that are largely hypothetical, like voter fraud.

I thought republicans were interested in more free enterprise market driven solutions.

 

[Spindrift]

Really? That's the full extent of your understanding of what I wrote?

That's just sad.

My objection is not to "solving" potential problems. My objection is to empowering bureaucracies in order to "solve" potential problems. If you can solve or prevent a potential problem without having to empower a vast bureaucracy, have at it. But that's not the case here.

The vast bureaucracy as you put it just has to maintain the status quo. Taking away net neutrality would involve creating your dreaded bureaucracy unless you favor anything goes.

BTW: The voter ID still fits. You have no problem with empowering a vast bureaucracy that doesn't exist for that.

 

[Upchurch]

So what we've got here is a problem that's largely hypothetical at this point, and some people want to solve it by giving government more power.

Its not hypothetical. It's actually happening.

Netflix Agrees To Pay Comcast To End Slowdown
Verizon caught throttling Netflix traffic even after its pays for more bandwidth
Netflix performance on Verizon and Comcast has been dropping for months
This hilarious graph of Netflix speeds shows the importance of net neutrality

Who else is going to solve this? The ISPs who are trying to kill network neutrality in the first place?

 

[Spindrift]

I thought republicans were interested in more free enterprise market driven solutions.

You would think that, but as the bailout shows, that's simply not the case.

 

[marplots]

Its not hypothetical. It's actually happening.

Netflix Agrees To Pay Comcast To End Slowdown
Verizon caught throttling Netflix traffic even after its pays for more bandwidth
Netflix performance on Verizon and Comcast has been dropping for months
This hilarious graph of Netflix speeds shows the importance of net neutrality

Who else is going to solve this? The ISPs who are trying to kill network neutrality in the first place?

Isn't the "invisible hand" supposed to swoop down and let some start-up provider offer better, cheaper service? That's what I've been told happens. Heck, I'm not doing anything next weekend, maybe I'll start my own ISP. And none of this chump cable either - I'm going full fiber right from the start.

 

[Meed]

And here I thought the reason he chose Tom Wheeler was because he helped raise a lot of money for President Obama's campaigns.
Although he also had a lot of experience in the industry.

Here is Wikipedia on his previous occupation.

Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with positions including President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).

If true his positions should come as no surprise.

This is an example of why it bugs me that people often seem to care more about what politicians say than what they do. Rarely do I find anything Obama says objectionable. He comes off as thoughtful, reasonable, even inspiring. But at the end of the day they're just words. Many of his actions have been terrible.

 

[Ziggurat]

The vast bureaucracy as you put it just has to maintain the status quo.

First, that's all you want it to do, but you're going to have to give it power to do more than that. Or at least, Obama is advocating giving the FCC power to do more than that.

Second, like I said, it will stifle innovation. You agree, yet somehow see that as a feature, not a bug.

Taking away net neutrality would involve creating your dreaded bureaucracy unless you favor anything goes.

We've had "anything goes" so far. I like the results.

BTW: The voter ID still fits. You have no problem with empowering a vast bureaucracy that doesn't exist for that.

Nope. No new vast bureaucracy involved.

 

[Francesca R]

Michael Goodwin and Dan E Burr do it better without Inman's head-up-butt-itis.

That's pretty good.

[It's] the way the internet has worked all along [Often expressed as "It's the way the internet's founders wanted it to be"]

Kind of an argument from status quo/"antiquity", so a bit weak.

The ISP also charges the movie site, it's billing them for data I've already paid for

Most all proponents of net-neutrality I have come across do not understand two-sided markets, as this one fails to do. Two-sided markets logically increase social welfare compared to one-sided (they have positive externalities). That is why they arise.

We can't go to our ISP's competitor because most of the time there is no meaningful competitor

Quite correct but highlights that net neutrality is a blunt instrument attempting to fix flawed competition policy in the US (which is more of a problem in the US than elsewhere, and is better fixed with open access to last mile wires)

Finally the pictures that show rubbish on the same (un-widened) driveway, implying that unless regulated by NN, providers voluntarily waste capacity, is intriguing. Interested if anyone has evidence of that.