Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?

LorenzoValla said:
Companies could choose to lease access to their lines to their competitors (and don't pretend that couldn't or wouldn't happen), and other companies could choose to install or negotiate a lease.
Click to expand...
Why would they do that? The only time that happens is when government regulations force them to (as with the phone companies), and you're opposed to that.
 
WildCat said:
Why would they do that? The only time that happens is when government regulations force them to (as with the phone companies), and you're opposed to that.
Click to expand...

That's true. Also the issue here isn't the wiring or who gets a slice of the transport fee, or anything related to competition at all. The issue is that if net neutrality isn't protected, data discrimination will ruin the internet as we know it.
 
eerok said:
That's true. Also the issue here isn't the wiring or who gets a slice of the transport fee, or anything related to competition at all. The issue is that if net neutrality isn't protected, data discrimination will ruin the internet as we know it.
Click to expand...
Actually the reclassification also allows the FCC to force the telecoms to, for example, allow Google to run fiber on their poles.
 
WildCat said:
Why would they do that? The only time that happens is when government regulations force them to (as with the phone companies), and you're opposed to that.
Click to expand...

There is no reason the equipment provider needs to also be the service provider. Ever fly on Boeing Airlines?
 
eerok said:
The proposed NN laws intend to solve an immediate threat to net neutrality, not to solve abstract systemic problems. So yes, the logical thing is to solve the problems in front of us, in the least to mitigate harm until the economic miracle occurs that you imagine might obviate the kind of overreach desired by the ISPs.
Click to expand...
No, the easy thing is to address the symptoms in front of us. Then, that later becomes a problem and we'll have another round of discussion about how to solve those problems, and on and on and on.

Or, we can ask why on Earth the gov't has anything to do with an internet company wanting to bring service to our homes and businesses.
 
LorenzoValla said:
There is no reason the equipment provider needs to also be the service provider. Ever fly on Boeing Airlines?
Click to expand...
You're dodging the question. The equipment is the service in this case. The only reason the telephone companies have competition is because government regulators forced them to allow others to use the lines.

And bear in mind none of that equipment would even exist if the government didn't grant easements for them to run all the equipment. If you think any of it could have been built by negotiating separately with millions of private property owners you are not living in reality.
 
WildCat said:
And bear in mind none of that equipment would even exist if the government didn't grant easements for them to run all the equipment. If you think any of it could have been built by negotiating separately with millions of private property owners you are not living in reality.
Click to expand...

And other utilities' assets, not just the city easements. In Canada, access to powerpoles is mandated. The owners cannot refuse access to other approved utilities. Usually the local power company builds and maintains them, and phone and cable companies can affix their assets as required, and within safety specs. 20 years ago there was a startup tech company that wanted to build a local WiFi network, they enjoyed this privilege.

If they had to all build their own support or tunnels, the cost of phone and cable would be more than double, not to mention dramatic increase in clutter on easements. Government regulation in this regard is saving the citizenry a fortune in money and eyesore.
 
WildCat said:
You're dodging the question. The equipment is the service in this case. The only reason the telephone companies have competition is because government regulators forced them to allow others to use the lines.

And bear in mind none of that equipment would even exist if the government didn't grant easements for them to run all the equipment. If you think any of it could have been built by negotiating separately with millions of private property owners you are not living in reality.
Click to expand...
I'm not dodging anything. The equipment is most certainly NOT the service. That's more than absurd.

As far as easements go, that's a fair point, but that doesn't mean it's an intractable problem without government intervention. If a community decides to grant easements to internet providers, there is no harm in that. That's a good use of government. A bad use is when government starts deciding who can use the easements just as it would be a bad use for the gov't to regulate who can use the roads. Roads are for use by licensed drivers, and there is no reason that an easement system couldn't use the same approach.
 
LorenzoValla said:
I'm not dodging anything. The equipment is most certainly NOT the service. That's more than absurd.
Click to expand...
It's not at all absurd. It was the telecoms that put up the equipment, not some cable manufacturing company that installed it in hopes a telecom would come along and buy it from them. The comparison to Boeing is absolutely absurd.

LorenzoValla said:
As far as easements go, that's a fair point, but that doesn't mean it's an intractable problem without government intervention. If a community decides to grant easements to internet providers, there is no harm in that. That's a good use of government.
Click to expand...
It is absolutely impossible for a private company to negotiate separately with millions of private landowners to string cables, wires, pipes, etc. It simply isn't going to happen. The cost would be astronomical, and it would take forever.

LorenzoValla said:
A bad use is when government starts deciding who can use the easements just as it would be a bad use for the gov't to regulate who can use the roads. Roads are for use by licensed drivers, and there is no reason that an easement system couldn't use the same approach.
Click to expand...
You just finished saying above it was a good use of government to grant easements?
 
WildCat said:
It's not at all absurd. It was the telecoms that put up the equipment, not some cable manufacturing company that installed it in hopes a telecom would come along and buy it from them. The comparison to Boeing is absolutely absurd.
Click to expand...
That's not at all what I was saying. I said operating the equipment and installing it are two different things that can be done by different companies. There is no reason why companies need to own and operate their equipment.
It is absolutely impossible for a private company to negotiate separately with millions of private landowners to string cables, wires, pipes, etc. It simply isn't going to happen. The cost would be astronomical, and it would take forever.


You just finished saying above it was a good use of government to grant easements?
Click to expand...
Yes, you read that right. I said it was a good use to grant them, but not to decide which companies get to use them.
 
LorenzoValla said:
I'm not dodging anything. The equipment is most certainly NOT the service. That's more than absurd.

As far as easements go, that's a fair point, but that doesn't mean it's an intractable problem without government intervention. If a community decides to grant easements to internet providers, there is no harm in that. That's a good use of government. A bad use is when government starts deciding who can use the easements just as it would be a bad use for the gov't to regulate who can use the roads. Roads are for use by licensed drivers, and there is no reason that an easement system couldn't use the same approach.
Click to expand...

Isn't 'licensing' 'gvt regulating who can use the roads' ?

I think that sentence is contradicting itself.
 
Last edited:
LorenzoValla said:
It is in the sense that it sets a minimum standard, but not in the sense that it chooses between two entities that have met those minimum standards.
Click to expand...
Without the reclassification, which you are against, the FCC cannot do anything about the monopoly rights to the easements. Only by reclassifying the telecoms as, well, telecoms (instead of "information services" as they are now) can they force them to allow other companies to use the equipment, such as happened with the telephone companies 40 years ago.

LorenzoValla said:
Easements are not granted to companies.

ETA: I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of easements is that they are granted for the specific use of specific entities or types entities.
Click to expand...
They were granted to specific companies. If the FCC goes ahead and reclassifies the telecoms then they can open up the easements to competition. And here you are, dead set against this for some reason? :boggled:
 
WildCat said:
Without the reclassification, which you are against, the FCC cannot do anything about the monopoly rights to the easements. Only by reclassifying the telecoms as, well, telecoms (instead of "information services" as they are now) can they force them to allow other companies to use the equipment, such as happened with the telephone companies 40 years ago.


They were granted to specific companies. If the FCC goes ahead and reclassifies the telecoms then they can open up the easements to competition. And here you are, dead set against this for some reason? :boggled:
Click to expand...

We need to be clear about terms here. Currently, easements for utility providers exist so that they may bring their services to homes and businesses. The property (land) is owned by the property owner and the access is given to the utility company so they can tunnel through it or hang wires over it, etc.

What NN proposes is a form of a virtual easement on the equipment owned by broadband networks by granting access to that equipment to internet content providers.

I support the traditional form of easements and believe it's a good use of gov't to arrange easements for utility providers to bring their services to the end user. I don't support this notion of a virtual easement for all the reasons I have already given in this thread.

I also don't support the use of gov't to decide, for example, which cable companies are allowed to bring their services to homes and businesses. That's where the monopolistic issues arise, and that is where I would direct any efforts for change.
 
LorenzoValla said:
I also don't support the use of gov't to decide, for example, which cable companies are allowed to bring their services to homes and businesses. That's where the monopolistic issues arise, and that is where I would direct any efforts for change.
Click to expand...
As I keep pointing out to you this is part of the change, and is only possible if the FCC can regulate the telecoms as public utilities. Otherwise we're stuck with the local monopolies and the internet service providers extorting money from content providers, deciding which content providers are allowed to be carried on their networks, and higher prices for consumers for crappy service. If they are reclassified as public utilities and common carriers (something which is impossible under their current classification) both of those problems are solved.

Do you do support reclassifying the ISPs as public utilities and imposing common carrier rules on them?
 
WildCat said:
As I keep pointing out to you this is part of the change, and is only possible if the FCC can regulate the telecoms as public utilities. Otherwise we're stuck with the local monopolies and the internet service providers extorting money from content providers, deciding which content providers are allowed to be carried on their networks, and higher prices for consumers for crappy service. If they are reclassified as public utilities and common carriers (something which is impossible under their current classification) both of those problems are solved.

Do you do support reclassifying the ISPs as public utilities and imposing common carrier rules on them?
Click to expand...
No, it won't fix that. What they want to do is bring content providers under the umbrella of an already broken system with the notion that there is somehow equality because everyone suffers.

Look, it's this simple. Property easements are in place for utility providers to bring their services to homes and businesses. Other than requiring that the providers are licensed to do what they purport to do, there is no reason for any gov't involvement whatsoever beyond that.

But, the gov't and businesses have decided over the years that it's in our best interests if our choices are limited to specific utility providers. It's corrupt and unnecessary.

Now, more businesses want to further corrupt the system with a 'fix'.

So, the only thing in dispute is who can use the utility easements on private property. The gov't is regulating that access when there is no reason to do so.
 
LorenzoValla said:
It is in the sense that it sets a minimum standard, but not in the sense that it chooses between two entities that have met those minimum standards.
Click to expand...

Why not?

I think governments should offer exclusivity whenever it is efficient for the electorate. For example, when we had repairs done to the outside my house, only one contractor was hired to do the repairs. It would be chaos to have all qualified road maintenance companies digging up that road.

The equivalent is happening on the infrastructure maintenance. One company has access to the easements to build and maintain poles. Other companies use that one set of poles.

Sounds like the best solution to me.
 
blutoski said:
Why not?

I think governments should offer exclusivity whenever it is efficient for the electorate. For example, when we had repairs done to the outside my house, only one contractor was hired to do the repairs. It would be chaos to have all qualified road maintenance companies digging up that road.

The equivalent is happening on the infrastructure maintenance. One company has access to the easements to build and maintain poles. Other companies use that one set of poles.

Sounds like the best solution to me.
Click to expand...

Those companies presumably were chosen by the local gov't through a competitive bidding process and they likely are under a contract with an expiration date.

I hope you don't think that just picking one contractor forever to put in power poles is efficient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom