Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?

[Francesca R]

If you have competition among ISPs it's because they are using the same infrastructure

Correct

The service providers own the infrastructure, you cannot separate the 2. [ . . . ] What needs to be regulated is that the infrastructure be shared (leased) and that data all be treated the same way (network neutrality).

What is there in the proposed net neutrality plans that requires infrastructure owners to lease what they own? That is local loop un-bundling it is separate from net neutrality.

 

[Nihilianth]

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.

Huh? "Dismantling regulations?"

I want's talking about dismaltling "regulations!" That wasn't what the "political miracle" argument was even referring to! The "political miracle" it was referring to, was the fact that we have morons like John Boehner in office who know nothing about American history.

It was specifically referring to busting up monopolies. The problem is, Comcast is not a NATIONAL monop-oly. It has LOCAL monopolies, obtained through agreements with LOCAL communities.

You are suggesting that we "should just increase competition."

The question everyone has is:

"HOW!?"

It is like someone saying:

"If the Earth is getting overcrowded, we should just build a colony on Mars."

The only logical answer any of us can assume you have, is "break up those monopolies."

It would take a political miracle to break them apart because of people like John Boehner, who is an ultra-conservative, serving his corporate overlords.

It has nothing to do with introducing new legislation that makes sure the internet stay neutral! All of your arguments against NN thus far, is all straw. Yes, "Moar Competition!!" is desireable. You have failed to show exactly how we acheive that, and it also fails to address why NN is so bad.

 

[Francesca R]

All of your arguments [against NN] thus far, is all straw.

Right--that's why you've agreed with it:

And again, I am not arguing against your "more competition would make it work." I have already agreed with this conclusion in that other thread, and in this one.

 

[ehcks]

Right--that's why you've agreed with it:

In the same way I agree that a colony on Mars would be amazing.

The problem is still in the "How do we do that?" question. How do we increase competition?

The businesses don't want to. Half the government will fight the idea because it's anti-business. Yes, competition is anti-business and pro-consumer. So how do we make it work?

 

[WildCat]

What is there in the proposed net neutrality plans that requires infrastructure owners to lease what they own? That is local loop un-bundling it is separate from net neutrality.

The "local loop unbundling" can only be corrected by reclassifying the ISPs as utilities. And not even the local municipalities that granted them have great difficulty undoing them as pointed out in this article:

Bureaucratic pole attachment rights negotiations are already sometimes annoyingly cumbersome, but they're also one of many ways incumbent ISPs thwart competitive efforts. Municipal broadband efforts in Utah, for example, were hindered by a litany of Qwest (now CenturyLink) lawsuits aimed at blocking local community ISP Utopia from having access to the company's poles. In Austin, where AT&T owns around 20% of the city's utility poles, Google Fiber ran into some initial obstacles getting pole attachment rights because AT&T argued Google wasn't officially a telecom company.

This is a relatively big deal, in that while Google beats around the bush somewhat to avoid ruffling feathers, it's noting how Title II ISP classification could actually be used to help break open the stubborn broadband duopoly to improved broadband competition.

 

[Francesca R]

The "local loop unbundling" can only be corrected by reclassifying the ISPs as utilities.

You have yet to show how it does this. Net neutrality, disallowing fast/slow lanes and paid prioritisation, all done under "Title 2 classification" is not local loop un-bundling and--as far as I know--does not seek to achieve local loop un-bundling.

So what is there in the proposed net neutrality plans that requires infrastructure owners to lease what they own?

 

[WildCat]

You have yet to show how it does this. Net neutrality, disallowing fast/slow lanes and paid prioritisation, all done under "Title 2 classification" is not local loop un-bundling and--as far as I know--does not seek to achieve local loop un-bundling.

So what is there in the proposed net neutrality plans that requires infrastructure owners to lease what they own?

As I keep repeating there is no legal means to require infrastructure sharing without Title 2 classification.

If the goal is competition then Title 2 classification is a prerequisite.

 

[Francesca R]

That's three times you haven't answered. I will conclude that you agree that nothing in any net neutrality proposals is going to require infrastructure sharing, and thereby increase ISP competition.

The difference between what you write and most others is that you think this is actually possible. Everyone else thinks it is impossible in the US and/or would take a "political miracle".

 

[WildCat]

That's three times you haven't answered. I will conclude that you agree that nothing in any net neutrality proposals is going to require infrastructure sharing, and thereby increase ISP competition.

The difference between what you write and most others is that you think this is actually possible. Everyone else thinks it is impossible in the US and/or would take a "political miracle".

I never said reclassifying would require network sharing. I have said it's not even possible without such reclassification.


And it is you who keeps espousing the benefits of network sharing, but you are against the reclassifying that would make this possible?

 

[Francesca R]

I am not against making that possible at all.

However it is you alone in this thread who claims that title 2 will make it possible. All I ever heard from the NN enthusiasts is how uniquely impossible this is in the US. So they're wrong?

 

[WildCat]

I am not against making that possible at all.

However it is you alone in this thread who claims that title 2 will make it possible. All I ever heard from the NN enthusiasts is how uniquely impossible this is in the US. So they're wrong?

It's no more impossible than breaking up Ma Bell was. But it's not possible without a Title 2 classification.

 

[Francesca R]

Well I have long recommended that the US do that, and not network neutrality.

But it doesn't look as though it will.

 

[WildCat]

Well I have long recommended that the US do that, and not network neutrality.

But it doesn't look as though it will.

I predict we will end up with both eventually.

The only reason you don't want neutrality is because no UK ISPs are big enough to force companies as big as Netflix and Google to their knees.

 

[Francesca R]

Competition generally means that yes. But size relative to google or netflix isn't the issue as you no doubt know. It is size relative to other ISPs that is relevant.

But I don't want neutrality because the option of paid prioritisation and fast/slow lanes is net beneficial where there is competition. The opposite of what is the case when there isn't any.

Nobody questions non-network-neutral fixed line telephony. Nor non-neutral mobile data contracts. Well not here they don't. Not everybody wants one but then there is always a choice to have a more neutral one.

It would be a bit like complaining that Apple doesn't have to allow every app anyone ever writes onto their app-store.

 

[Nihilianth]

That's three times you haven't answered. I will conclude that you agree that nothing in any net neutrality proposals is going to require infrastructure sharing, and thereby increase ISP competition.

The difference between what you write and most others is that you think this is actually possible. Everyone else thinks it is impossible in the US and/or would take a "political miracle".

I am not against making that possible at all.

However it is you alone in this thread who claims that title 2 will make it possible. All I ever heard from the NN enthusiasts is how uniquely impossible this is in the US. So they're wrong?

Wrong! What is being said, is it would take a political miracle RIGHT NOW to acheive. Who knows what could happen in later years? Right now, we have compelte morons like John Boehner in office. Oh, and probably in later years it would be polticially impossible. Afterall, the idiotic state of Alabama just passed a bill in their state legislature that would get rid of AP History USA, and replace it with "American Exceptionalism" ********.

You;re in the UK. You obviously have no idea what dumbasses, and the amounts of dumbasses, the sane have to contend with over here in the US.

 

[Tony Stark]

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.

Obamacare for the internet, according to Ted Cruz. Of course, Ted Cruz doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[Nihilianth]

Obamacare for the internet, according to Ted Cruz. Of course, Ted Cruz doesn't know what he is talking about.

Lol, Ted Cruz is a blowhard, and Fox News is his mouthpeice. (Hhhmmm...Cruise, News....lol.)

 

[Faustus]

The net is NOT presently regulated.

With NN the internet will be regulated.

It will become subject to the key provisions of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Title II authorizes the commission to decide what “charges” are “just and reasonable” and that determination will be made by the FCC itself.

Its proponents say that NN will free internet (its users) from the "duopoly" (some say monopoly) of the telecom and cable industries. In reality it will give the “duopoly” enhanced tools to limit new comers therefore blocking competition.

The only limitation on the FCC’s discretion to regulate rates is its own determination of whether rates are just and reasonable. Utility regulations let dominant companies complain that innovations from upstarts fail the “just and reasonable” test – as innovators often do; by disrupting the status quo.

The best that can be hoped for from this regulatory scheme is that the status quo will be perpetrated.

Perpetration of the status quo in a dynamic technological framework such as the internet will ensure that the net will degrade in its capacity to serve it’s users.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Its proponents say that NN will free internet (its users) from the "duopoly" (some say monopoly) of the telecom and cable industries. In reality it will give the “duopoly” enhanced tools to limit new comers therefore blocking competition.

Citation required.

The only limitation on the FCC’s discretion to regulate rates is its own determination of whether rates are just and reasonable. Utility regulations let dominant companies complain that innovations from upstarts fail the “just and reasonable” test – as innovators often do; by disrupting the status quo.

The best that can be hoped for from this regulatory scheme is that the status quo will be perpetrated.

Perpetration of the status quo in a dynamic technological framework such as the internet will ensure that the net will degrade in its capacity to serve it’s users.

Citation required.

 

[Faustus]

Originally Posted by Faustus View
Its proponents say that NN will free internet (its users) from the "duopoly" (some say monopoly) of the telecom and cable industries. In reality it will give the “duopoly” enhanced tools to limit new comers therefore blocking competition.

Citation required.

OpenInternet - Real Internet Freedom, Not Regulation

Quote:
originally posted by Faustus
The only limitation on the FCC’s discretion to regulate rates is its own determination of whether rates are just and reasonable. Utility regulations let dominant companies complain that innovations from upstarts fail the “just and reasonable” test – as innovators often do; by disrupting the status quo.

The best that can be hoped for from this regulatory scheme is that the status quo will be perpetrated.

Perpetration of the status quo in a dynamic technological framework such as the internet will ensure that the net will degrade in its capacity to serve it’s users.

Citation required.

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai held a press conference on February 10, 2015