Obama ruins the internet

[Francesca R]

Your problem is that your ISP is not providing the content provider a service

Hey great then the content maker doesn't need them and does not have to pay them anything because it gets nothing in return. Problem solved.

Except that you are incorrect in what you said, obviously.

 

[Francesca R]

Because it is double dipping, not a two sided market.

Why do you do this? You clearly don't/didn't know about two sided markets (which are very common), and yet you keep on driving into the dark. Stop, learn and reconsider. It really isn't that hard.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And the post office is typically a monopoly so change your example.

Fine, You hire a company to do deliveries to you. Because this is an exclusive contract, you can't get anything without them delivering or sending it for you. You decide that you want groceries from Store A, so you have give your delivery company the list of what you want. They pass it on to the Store's delivery Company, who give it to the Store. The store sorts out the list, gives the groceries to their delivery company who takes it and puts it on a public train and your delivery company takes it off when it gets to them. At this point you have contracted with them to delivery those goods to you. The issue is that instead of doing so, they go to the Store tell them that in order for you to get your groceries, the ones you have already paid to have delivered, the Store has to pay as well or else they'll just remain in the warehouse until the company feels like delivering them, if they ever do.

Get the issue yet?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Hey great then the content maker doesn't need them and does not have to pay them anything because it gets nothing in return. Problem solved.

Except that you are incorrect in what you said, obviously.

So ISPs should be allowed to hold content providers to ransom by denying the customers of that ISP access to the Content Provider.... okay.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Hey great then the content maker doesn't need them and does not have to pay them anything because it gets nothing in return. Problem solved.

Except that you are incorrect in what you said, obviously.

Your mistake contently seems to be that you think that your ISP is providing a service to the Content Provider, they aren't. The Content Provider's ISP is giving them the service, that ISP is pushing the Data up onto the Internet, that is the service they are paying for. You are paying your ISP to get that data and download it for you. Your ISP isn't doing your Content Provider a service to do this, it's doing you a service.

Consider it like this. Would you be happy getting a bill from the ISP for every website you go to for them providing that website to you? That's what the issue is.

 

[Francesca R]

Fine, You hire a company to do deliveries to you. Because this is an exclusive contract [ . . . [

Still seem to be talking about monopolies.

To be clear--again (and again)--all bets are off if there is inadequate competition in markets. Rent seeking, price gouging, "double dipping" and all of that stuff is a bug found in uncompetitive markets. And the problem that gives rise to it is that lack of competition. And the way to exit inadequate competition is very often regulation. Sometimes the regulation that was originally intended to ensure competition fails to do so because special interests have distorted it, as often happens in the process of negotiating and legislating laws. This happened in the US, it also (as you have outlined already despite apparently disagreeing with me) in NZ. Happens everywhere. However--European union competition laws for the communications industry are--in my view--considerably more free of capture than many other countries.

Net neutrality avoids the issue of inadequate competition (which in the case of the US and several other places is borne of regulatory capture in the past) and attempts to deal with particular effects of it by writing new laws that compel monopolistic agents to behave a certain way, which would not actually be the optimal way for them to behave if there was adequate competition. So it leaves bad regulation (competition) in place and adds new regulation that is inferior to fixing that (two others have agreed with this so far). And without needing to adopt any right-wing canards of "all regulation is bad m'kay?" it is folly to declare that adding more and more clunky rules that address wrong issues and can themselves be captured is unambiguously the best solution here.

 

[ehcks]

Still seem to be talking about monopolies.

Well, yes. Of course we are. That's a large portion of the cause of the problem here.

The ISP companies aren't going to start competing on their own. Do you want to start an anti-trust suit against them?

 

[Francesca R]

Well, yes. Of course we are. That's a large portion of the cause of the problem here.

Which is what I have always said. Which net neutrality does not touch. If the problem is inadequate choice then it is better to deal with that.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Still seem to be talking about monopolies.

The trouble is that we are talking about a monopoly. Once you have signed up with an ISP, there is no over way to get Data to you other than via that ISP. It's not like your Content Provider can have it's ISP send the data directly to you and so bypass your ISP, all data you get in and out much go via your ISP.

Going back to the post office, if people didn't want to pay to have mail delivered to you when you were already paying to receive it, they could use other methods, couriers etc. With the Internet they don't have that choice.

Worse if you only have the choice of that ISP for high speed internet, then not only are they are monopoly once they have your connection, but before because you have no choice of who to sign up with in the first place.

 

[Francesca R]

The trouble is that we are talking about a monopoly.

Except that nobody really is discussing that as the real problem. Hardly any of this debate acknowledges the root cause of the issue. Which I did in the first post I made (#60)

[ . . . ] 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)

 

[PhantomWolf]

To be clear--again (and again)--all bets are off if there is inadequate competition in markets. Rent seeking, price gouging, "double dipping" and all of that stuff is a bug found in uncompetitive markets. And the problem that gives rise to it is that lack of competition. And the way to exit inadequate competition is very often regulation. Sometimes the regulation that was originally intended to ensure competition fails to do so because special interests have distorted it, as often happens in the process of negotiating and legislating laws. This happened in the US, it also (as you have outlined already despite apparently disagreeing with me) in NZ. Happens everywhere. However--European union competition laws for the communications industry are--in my view--considerably more free of capture than many other countries.

Net neutrality avoids the issue of inadequate competition (which in the case of the US and several other places is borne of regulatory capture in the past) and attempts to deal with particular effects of it by writing new laws that compel monopolistic agents to behave a certain way, which would not actually be the optimal way for them to behave if there was adequate competition. So it leaves bad regulation (competition) in place and adds new regulation that is inferior to fixing that (two others have agreed with this so far). And without needing to adopt any right-wing canards of "all regulation is bad m'kay?" it is folly to declare that adding more and more clunky rules that address wrong issues and can themselves be captured is unambiguously the best solution here.

Again you have to work with what you have, and in the US you have the situation were to have competition you need multiple companies with huge funds to be able to create their own infrastructure, and smaller companies simply can't afford to do that and remain competitive.

Consider that here in NZ the only way we have the ability to have so many ISPs and reasonable competition is because the Taxpayers have paid for the majority of the infrastructure that they all use. In the US this isn't going to happen. The same people that are saying "Competition is the answer" would baulk at the idea of the Taxpayer paying to put in place the very infrastructure that would allow that competition. So without that competition being available, regulating poor behaviour is what is needed.

 

[Francesca R]

Again you have to work with what you have, and in the US you have the situation were to have competition you need multiple companies with huge funds to be able to create their own infrastructure, and smaller companies simply can't afford to do that and remain competitive.

And that has been addressed elswehere with (for example) Openreach (in the UK spun out of BT) and Chorus (in NZ spun out of TelecomNZ). Neither of these firms can sell direct to customers. They have a near monopoly on the infrastructure they own/build. But they have to grant open access to re-sellers who interact with the public.

The idea of small companies having to lay wires to homes (or in the gas, electricity analogies often used--to build multiple gas mains and cables) in order to achieve consumer choice is complete nonsense, coming from either ignorance or desire to mislead. It has been used in this thread a few times.

Oh and the above are both private companies not tax funded. They were in original incarnation part of the state, yes.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No. I already told you, just one.

So how do you force the owners of the network to carry other ISP's? I think you might underestimate the amount of vertical integration that exists in the US in this regard. ISP's are also content creators and sources, so it makes sense for them to want to focus on getting those they supply access tot he internet to, to use their content more than others content.

Of course then you have to make sure that they are not giving unfair priority to their customers on their network instead of their competitors customers on their network.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That contradicts what you have already said by agreeing with me. Competition and choice of ISP will do it better. You agreed.

So what is the regulatory plan that will permit that, and will make their network neutral to which provider you choose, so they can not simply put all their competitors in a region at dial up speeds?

It is still a rather broad regulatory policy you are suggesting, and you need it to make it possible to have the choice you say removes the need for regulation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Glad you do.

Via regulation paradoxically, but pro-competition regulation and nothing to do with neutrality, requiring the incumbent infrastructure owner to allow open access to last-mile wire and allow any competing ISP to re-sell.

But at least they don't have to be neutral to traffic on it and can slow down anyone who buys anyone else's service. So you get universal crappy service unless you go with the owners selected crappy service.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's showing a reduction in speed, not capacity, they even state that. You still get the amount you pay for, you just get it slower and with more obstacles such as advertising.



Because it is double dipping, not a two sided market.

What is the point in having local ownership of infrastructure if you can't leverage that ownership to your advantage? That is what business has always been about!

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hey great then the content maker doesn't need them and does not have to pay them anything because it gets nothing in return. Problem solved.

Except that you are incorrect in what you said, obviously.

So you think that ISP's should be able to choose what sites their customers have access to and which ones they shouldn't. Ok then. Because after all it isn't like the customers are not paying to access the entire internet, just the parts of it the ISP thinks they should be able to.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And that has been addressed elswehere with (for example) Openreach (in the UK spun out of BT) and Chorus (in NZ spun out of TelecomNZ). Neither of these firms can sell direct to customers. They have a near monopoly on the infrastructure they own/build. But they have to grant open access to re-sellers who interact with the public.

And how do you plan this to work in the States? The companies that own the infrastructure built it, would you nationalise their infrastructure then give it to a new company to control? Can't see that going down well in the US.

The idea of small companies having to lay wires to homes (or in the gas, electricity analogies often used--to build multiple gas mains and cables) in order to achieve consumer choice is complete nonsense, coming from either ignorance or desire to mislead. It has been used in this thread a few times.

Except that is how it would have to work because they either have to rent the infrastructure owned by someone else, or put in their own. For instance, if you sign up with Cox, if it's not already there, they will have to lay cable to your home. They own the equipment on a local level. You can't just remove it from them and give it to every one.

Oh and the above are both private companies not tax funded. They were in original incarnation part of the state, yes.

The State which build most of the infrastructure in the first place. And as to Chorus not being taxpayer funded. The Government is paying them NZ$178 million to build the UHS Fibre network.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And that has been addressed elswehere with (for example) Openreach (in the UK spun out of BT) and Chorus (in NZ spun out of TelecomNZ). Neither of these firms can sell direct to customers. They have a near monopoly on the infrastructure they own/build. But they have to grant open access to re-sellers who interact with the public.

The idea of small companies having to lay wires to homes (or in the gas, electricity analogies often used--to build multiple gas mains and cables) in order to achieve consumer choice is complete nonsense, coming from either ignorance or desire to mislead. It has been used in this thread a few times.

Oh and the above are both private companies not tax funded. They were in original incarnation part of the state, yes.

So we need forced break up of our telecom companies so that they don't have the vertical integration that they presently do? That way the telecom companies don't own the local infrastructure.

 

[PhantomWolf]

But at least they don't have to be neutral to traffic on it and can slow down anyone who buys anyone else's service. So you get universal crappy service unless you go with the owners selected crappy service.

Or they do what happened here, and the owner will charge more for other ISPs to use their infrastructure than they charge their own customers, meaning that it's more expensive to go with a competitor than the owner.