Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?

[blutoski]

I hope you don't think that just picking one contractor forever to put in power poles is efficient.

But that's not what happens. If the utility does not meet their service levels, they can be replaced. It's always a temporary monopoly.

 

[LorenzoValla]

But that's not what happens. If the utility does not meet their service levels, they can be replaced. It's always a temporary monopoly.

That's not a monopoly. That's a contract. A monopoly would be a situation where no other bidders existed, and usually because the sole bidder had put the competition out of business and created an environment to chase off competition.

 

[blutoski]

That's not a monopoly. That's a contract.

Sounds like semantics. It's both: it's a contract for a monopoly.

A monopoly would be a situation where no other bidders existed, and usually because the sole bidder had put the competition out of business and created an environment to chase off competition.

Okaaaayyyyy... so in this hypothetical situation, the market has failed to produce competition... and this has what to do with government regulation? (are you saying government should be empowered to break up monopolies? they already are.)

 

[LorenzoValla]

Sounds like semantics. It's both: it's a contract for a monopoly.




Okaaaayyyyy... so in this hypothetical situation, the market has failed to produce competition... and this has what to do with government regulation? (are you saying government should be empowered to break up monopolies? they already are.)

It's not semantics. Your example was incorrect and far from a close example of a monopoly.

Yes, the gov't can break up monopolies. I wish they would break them up.

 

[blutoski]

It's not semantics. Your example was incorrect and far from a close example of a monopoly.

Even still, my example was about governments 'chooses between two entities that have met those minimum standards' - I think I was bang on.

Then you either moved the goalposts or changed topics entirely to somethingsomething about monopolies, where obviously the government is not choosing between two entities (since there is only one applicant).

So honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[LorenzoValla]

Even still, my example was about governments 'chooses between two entities that have met those minimum standards' - I think I was bang on.

Then you either moved the goalposts or changed topics entirely to somethingsomething about monopolies, where obviously the government is not choosing between two entities (since there is only one applicant).

So honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Well, you're the one who went off on an incorrect tangent about monopolies...

My point should be clear as I have said it numerous times, but I'll give you an example.

First, the point: I think it's a good use of gov't to facilitate easements and to maintain a minimum standard for those who use them, but it's an improper use of gov't to pick which companies should be allowed into the marketplace.

Second, the example: Companies A and B have been providing cable and internet service to a neighborhood for decades, but residents are still often unhappy with these limited choices. Company C and D are aware that residents are unhappy and both attempt to bring a competing product to the neighborhood. Company C is allowed because they have met the minimum standards to provide the service. Company D is not allowed because they haven't met the minimum standard.

In the second example, the standards are a minimum, much like those that exist for a building contractor. The gov't isn't choosing which contractors should get the job, only those that have met the standard. There could be any number of companies meeting those standards, and the decision is on the consumer to decide which one to use.

Under the current system, the gov't limits the choices for the consumer not by meeting a minimum standard, but by other legal means that do not allow fair competition. That's why Company C can't even offer service to the consumer - it's not that they aren't capable and qualified - it's that they aren't allowed to compete for business because the gov't has said that only Companies A and B are allowed into that market.

 

[Nihilianth]

Ah, the old pretense of 'you didn't answer'...
Followed by a comment on the answer. Woops.
You seem to believe that without a gov't plan in place, that those who compete will not know what to do until directed by the guiding hand of the gov't.

Without the government in place with a plan to ENSURE competition in the first place, we would all be wage slaves to Standard Oil to this day. You do know that, do you not?

Without a "government plan" in place, people would be burnt alive in over crowded cotton mills with the only exit door locked.

This used to be a nation with great political willpower to be able to ensure competition, and to spur innovation.

The problem is, you keep hounding and hounding that "There needs to more competition!"

Yes! There does need to be more competition! I am not saying otherwise! You are failing to say how, exactly that competition will come about! And your "Moar Competition" repetitive argumentation, is NOT an argument against NN! It's just a strawman.

And also, you seem to be against "government regulation." If a new private company does not want to start up, or does not have the capital to start up and we cannot use government to allow a new company to start up.....how is your "Moar Competition!!" argument even useful to begin with?

I don't know the rules all over the nation. I live in Austin, TX, and as I have said earlier, there are two companies (including Google) that are brining fiber and/or high speed internet to homes but are restricted by the PUC (not sure if it's local or state rules) from bringing it to the neighborhoods of their choosing because they must bring it to low income neighborhoods first, and only after gaining a minimum market share are they allowed to expand into other neighborhoods. These rules have essentially blocked one older company from establishing widespread access in Austin and Google is currently only available in a few areas in town.

Somehow, I doubt that your local area has a rule in place that says they must bring fiber and/or high speed internet to poor neighborhoods first. That doesn't even make any sense.

I also notice that you mentioned "only two companies." That is the entire point! Laying high speed and fiber optics to no small or cheap task! Only huge corporations have the capital to even begin such a venture. And, only companies that are into this industry to begin with. (Meaning, Wal-Mart is out.)

You completely fail to realize that very, very few companies have the ability to even consider providing high-speed internet access to people. If you do not want it to be considered a utility, then a private business must do it on their own dime. If a private business does it, then there is necessarily and naturally going to be very little to no competition in this particular industry. You can't exactly have a bunch of little mom-and-pops doing it! And that private business will want to lay cable to only the most highly profitable areas. Local governments, such as counties, will want to have most of their citizens hooked up to the internet. So those local governments make deals with the ISP.

Furthermore, once Google announced it was coming to Austin, ATT immediately started installing fiber in order to stay competitive but they aren't in every neighborhood yet, either because they don't need to be or because they aren't allowed. That's what competition does.
Why do you presume that cost is such a prohibition? Who put the current infrastructure in? Companies did and other companies would also do the same. Google and other companies are doing that right now.

That's a strawman argument. You are assuming that all companies could only exist side by side in competition by using their own equipment. 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. For example, Google could lay fiber and sell their own service directly to consumers or if it found it to be better economically, let others handle the end service.

But, your entire premise that it's too expensive is demonstrably false considering that companies have already been doing this for years.

Too bad the only examples you gave, are ATT and Google. The only other huge national company I think of off the top of my head is Comcast.

Yes, companies have done it. But not "for years," as if you are talking a hundred years or something. We are only talking about a decade to 15 years at most. Infrastructure-building Is Very Very Expensive! And it can be very, very risky.

 

[Nihilianth]

You seem to conclude that because you can't find a way to dismantle bad regulation, then logical thing is to layer new regulation over the top of it to try to compensate for the badness.

That the implication of this is lost on you is pretty weird.

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.

Exactly as eerok has said, except I would have said "economic and political miracle" (I would have added "and political" to that sentence.)

 

[LorenzoValla]

Without the government in place with a plan to ENSURE competition in the first place, we would all be wage slaves to Standard Oil to this day. You do know that, do you not?

Without a "government plan" in place, people would be burnt alive in over crowded cotton mills with the only exit door locked.

This used to be a nation with great political willpower to be able to ensure competition, and to spur innovation.

The problem is, you keep hounding and hounding that "There needs to more competition!"

Yes! There does need to be more competition! I am not saying otherwise! You are failing to say how, exactly that competition will come about! And your "Moar Competition" repetitive argumentation, is NOT an argument against NN! It's just a strawman.

And also, you seem to be against "government regulation." If a new private company does not want to start up, or does not have the capital to start up and we cannot use government to allow a new company to start up.....how is your "Moar Competition!!" argument even useful to begin with?



Somehow, I doubt that your local area has a rule in place that says they must bring fiber and/or high speed internet to poor neighborhoods first. That doesn't even make any sense.

I also notice that you mentioned "only two companies." That is the entire point! Laying high speed and fiber optics to no small or cheap task! Only huge corporations have the capital to even begin such a venture. And, only companies that are into this industry to begin with. (Meaning, Wal-Mart is out.)

You completely fail to realize that very, very few companies have the ability to even consider providing high-speed internet access to people. If you do not want it to be considered a utility, then a private business must do it on their own dime. If a private business does it, then there is necessarily and naturally going to be very little to no competition in this particular industry. You can't exactly have a bunch of little mom-and-pops doing it! And that private business will want to lay cable to only the most highly profitable areas. Local governments, such as counties, will want to have most of their citizens hooked up to the internet. So those local governments make deals with the ISP.



Too bad the only examples you gave, are ATT and Google. The only other huge national company I think of off the top of my head is Comcast.

Yes, companies have done it. But not "for years," as if you are talking a hundred years or something. We are only talking about a decade to 15 years at most. Infrastructure-building Is Very Very Expensive! And it can be very, very risky.

I've stopped responding to these kinds of rhetorical screeds...

 

[Francesca R]

Do you do support reclassifying the ISPs as public utilities and imposing common carrier rules on them?

Why do you support that? They are not public utilities.

You want to do it because they are monopolies or near monopolies when they don't have to be. Better to fix the busted regulation that to believe new regulations are magic dust (while simultaneously fessing up that regulations that have gone bad cannot be fixed, that takes some kind of denial!)

 

[Francesca R]

Exactly as eerok has said, except I would have said "economic and political miracle" (I would have added "and political" to that sentence.)

As above.

You admit that dismantling regulations that have gone bad / been captured takes, in this case, a "political miracle"

That the obvious implication of your admission continues to sail hopelessly over your head, is weird.

 

[WildCat]

Why do you support that? They are not public utilities.

You want to do it because they are monopolies or near monopolies when they don't have to be. Better to fix the busted regulation that to believe new regulations are magic dust (while simultaneously fessing up that regulations that have gone bad cannot be fixed, that takes some kind of denial!)

Because they are utilities. The internet isn't any less a utility than telephones are in this day and age. If anything it's more necessary than landline telephones.

And you apparently do not realize that the only legal way to bust up the monopolies and introduce competition is to reclassify them as utilities. Otherwise there's no legal way to force the companies that own the infrastructure to lease it to competitors.

 

[LorenzoValla]

Because they are utilities. The internet isn't any less a utility than telephones are in this day and age. If anything it's more necessary than landline telephones.

And you apparently do not realize that the only legal way to bust up the monopolies and introduce competition is to reclassify them as utilities. Otherwise there's no legal way to force the companies that own the infrastructure to lease it to competitors.

Check out this article by Wired on the subject.
http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-nee...-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

They explain how the local governments are the real problem:

Before building out new networks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must negotiate with local governments for access to publicly owned “rights of way” so they can place their wires above and below both public and private property. ISPs also need “pole attachment” contracts with public utilities so they can rent space on utility poles for above-ground wires, or in ducts and conduits for wires laid underground.

The problem? Local governments and their public utilities charge ISPs far more than these things actually cost. For example, rights of way and pole attachments fees can double the cost of network construction.

So the real bottleneck isn’t incumbent providers of broadband, but incumbent providers of rights-of-way. These incumbents — the real monopolists — also have the final say on whether an ISP can build a network. They determine what hoops an ISP must jump through to get approval.

This reduces the number of potential competitors who can profitably deploy service — such as AT&T’s U-Verse, Google Fiber, and Verizon FiOS. The lack of competition makes it easier for local governments and utilities to charge more for rights of way and pole attachments.

 

[Francesca R]

Because they are utilities. The internet isn't any less a utility than telephones are in this day and age. If anything it's more necessary than landline telephones.

First, "the internet" is not ISPs which is what you want to be regulated as utilities. Second, "telephones" aren't utilities either, neither are voice telephony service providers. I don't know about the US but I can select up to a dozen different landline bundles (from different providers), most of which have their own particular content tiering (like calls to different numbers have differential pricing, and different providers of telephony are discriminated against depending on which contract one buys). In short voice telephony service provision is not a utility and is not the equivalent of "network neutral" either. Rather, it is distinctly network non-neutral.

the only legal way to bust up the monopolies and introduce competition is to reclassify them as utilities.

Utility regulation usually means not breaking monopolies. That is indeed the point. The drawback of net neutrality is that is does exactly zero to disrupt the monopolistic position of ISPs in the US--which itself is a result of the 1996 telecom act.

When monopolies are no longer protected then one does not generally need to classify them as utilities.

The only thing about internet that qualifies as being utility-like is local exchange networks. Exactly the same as for telephony.

 

[paulhutch]

Second, "telephones" aren't utilities either, neither are voice telephony service providers. I don't know about the US but I can select up to a dozen different landline bundles (from different providers),

While it may be possible that some company besides the one that owns the POTS lines could provide local phone service, I know of no place that has any choice. To have service on my POTS line I can only use Verizon, the lines owner. For the whole 50+ years of my life there have been attempts to get choice in providers especially during the heyday of internet by POTS line but all attempts have failed due primarily to the fact that the lines where paid for 100% by private companies and there is no will to re-imburse the companies for the lines.

The drawback of net neutrality is that is does exactly zero to disrupt the monopolistic position of ISPs in the US--which itself is a result of the 1996 telecom act.

Actually the 1996 telcom act has nothing to do with it. The monopolies where granted by individual cities and towns during the 60s, 70s and 80s in exchange for having the whole community wired at no cost to the taxpayers.

Now that fiber is coming in we are repeating the exact cycle once again. The companies that are running fiber own the fiber outright and do not allow any other company to use it. Even Google is doing this in its three trial cities, you want to use Google fiber you can only contract with Google to access the fiber.

 

[WildCat]

Check out this article by Wired on the subject.
http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-nee...-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

They explain how the local governments are the real problem:

It's smacking you right in the face and you still don't see it. By regulating the ISPs as utilities the local governments are taken out of the equation. You keep rejecting the solution to the problem while offering no solutions of your own.

I don't know about the US but I can select up to a dozen different landline bundles (from different providers), most of which have their own particular content tiering (like calls to different numbers have differential pricing, and different providers of telephony are discriminated against depending on which contract one buys).

That's because in your country they are regulated in such a way that is only possible in the USA if the FCC classifies them as utilities.

Utility regulation usually means not breaking monopolies. That is indeed the point. The drawback of net neutrality is that is does exactly zero to disrupt the monopolistic position of ISPs in the US--which itself is a result of the 1996 telecom act.

When monopolies are no longer protected then one does not generally need to classify them as utilities.

The only thing about internet that qualifies as being utility-like is local exchange networks. Exactly the same as for telephony.

The USA is not the UK. In the USA you have tens of thousands of local governments that created cable monopolies in the 1970s and 1980s, which then morphed and merged into the high speed internet monopolies of the 2000s as telephone-line internet service went the way of the dinosaurs. And until and unless the FCC reclassifies these monopolies as utilities those monopolies will remain. And net neutrality is the way to have competition once the monopolies are broken up, so they can compete on price, speed, and service instead of crap like "Netflix, exclusively on Comcast!" and selling internet service in bundles like cable TV.

 

[Francesca R]

That's because in your country they are regulated in such a way that is only possible in the USA if the FCC classifies them as utilities.

They (companies that sell fixed line phone service, in the UK) are not regulated as utilities. To the point, they don't have to provide voice service at the same price to every fixed line node in some other locality independent of whose customer the end point is. Sure they are regulated, who isn't, but the network is surely not neutral. Yet this is not a regulatory issue because there is competition.

The USA is not the UK.

I am aware the US is not the UK. A few members have agreed that un-bundled local exchange networks--where the local exchange network is classed as a utility but the service providers are not--would be the best solution, but that NN is the next best because the former cannot be achieved politically or under the US regulatory apparatus. This may be true, but since it contains something of an admission that regulations, once in place, cannot be fixed (in the USA), it's a bit of a red flag about adding new ones.

And net neutrality is the way to have competition once the monopolies are broken up, so they can compete on price, speed, and service instead of crap like "Netflix, exclusively on Comcast!" and selling internet service in bundles like cable TV.

What monopolies are going to be broken up by net neutrality?

 

[mikegriffith1]

...and if so, what do think Network Neutrality is and why do you oppose it?

The fact that you would even pose this question shows that you need to greatly expand your news sources. You seem to be unaware that many people oppose so-called Net Neutrality, which is an Orwellian name for vastly increasing federal control over the Internet.

 

[WildCat]

They (companies that sell fixed line phone service, in the UK) are not regulated as utilities. To the point, they don't have to provide voice service at the same price to every fixed line node in some other locality independent of whose customer the end point is. Sure they are regulated, who isn't, but the network is surely not neutral. Yet this is not a regulatory issue because there is competition.

What on earth does any of that have to do with what I wrote? If you have competition among ISPs it's because they are using the same infrastructure, because I really doubt your easements have utility poles and cables from dozens of different companies or underground easements are dug up and new cable added every time a new ISP enters the market.

And the only way for that to happen in the USA is if they are regulated as utilities.

I am aware the US is not the UK. A few members have agreed that un-bundled local exchange networks--where the local exchange network is classed as a utility but the service providers are not--would be the best solution, but that NN is the next best because the former cannot be achieved politically or under the US regulatory apparatus. This may be true, but since it contains something of an admission that regulations, once in place, cannot be fixed (in the USA), it's a bit of a red flag about adding new ones.

What monopolies are going to be broken up by net neutrality?

The service providers own the infrastructure, you cannot separate the 2. And nobody is suggesting regulating prices charged to consumers like electric rates, it's nonsensical wrt ISPs. What needs to be regulated is that the infrastructure be shared (leased) and that data all be treated the same way (network neutrality).

 

[LorenzoValla]

It's smacking you right in the face and you still don't see it. By regulating the ISPs as utilities the local governments are taken out of the equation. You keep rejecting the solution to the problem while offering no solutions of your own.

The article explains how utilities work with local governments to deny access to other utilities. Simply becoming a utility doesn't change that inherent problem.