• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A modest proposal on internet neutrality

Perhaps the time will come for governments to 'Imminent Domain" the infrastructure for the betterment of people's lives.

A city could imminent domain all the monopolistic fiber optics networks within it's bailiwick, then re-sell non-monopolistic rights to several providers. At a profit? It shouldn't cost the public a dime.

Or the gov can break up the vertical monopolies. Servers should not have any stake in providing content, and visa verse.

Or, there is a Public Utilities Commission in most states. They could mandate Neutrality in return for the monopolies of service the exist now.

The OP was about the courts saying the FCC could not prevent the restraint of trade the way they attempted. Which is not to say there is not another way to require neutrality.

The Gov did even find Microsoft monopolistic, after a while.
 
blutoski said:
AFAIK (I'm in Canada, so my knowledge of US regulation is 2nd hand) this is not necessary.

My understanding is that the local monopoly on network ownership is not a network monopoly on service provision. The concept is that an ILEC (RBOCs in the US) has no right of refusal for wholesaling of the last mile. Not sure about US cable.

What this means is that if Bell is running copper pairs to the community, and an ISP wants to move in and sell voice or ADSL on those pairs, Bell is obliged by law to resell the access at a tariffed rate. (Here in Canada, it's about $10/mo in bulk for a copper pair) They would have access to the CO to install their ADSL ports and clip them to the leased loop.

Generally, a lack of competition just means a lack of interest in other ISPs to move into the territory. Usually not enough subscribers to have profitable competitive pricing and service levels. As communities get larger, competition is more interested.

It's important to recognize that when a municipality is negotiating an easement monopoly, the exchange is that the utility is obligated to provide service even where they will lose money. Relieving the monopoly probably means the utility will connect only where they think it's profitable.

So the regulator's solution was to give the utility a network monopoly in exchange for full community coverage, but also give new businesses essentially unlimited access to that network through a wholesaler/reseller relationship.
Click to expand...

Coming into this conversation late:

No one seemed to answer your question on this, and I'm googling to try and find the answer. In sum it seems it depends on whatever agreement the telco or cableco has with the locality they are in. It used to be that I could get a 3rd party ISP on QWEST DSL here. That ended quite a number of years ago (before CenturyLink took over). I do not know if it was a change in the law, lack of consumer interest, or a change in rates.

I have never heard of anyone, anywhere in the USA able to use a 3rd party ISP on cable internet.
 
lobosrul said:
Coming into this conversation late:

No one seemed to answer your question on this, and I'm googling to try and find the answer. In sum it seems it depends on whatever agreement the telco or cableco has with the locality they are in. It used to be that I could get a 3rd party ISP on QWEST DSL here. That ended quite a number of years ago (before CenturyLink took over). I do not know if it was a change in the law, lack of consumer interest, or a change in rates.

I have never heard of anyone, anywhere in the USA able to use a 3rd party ISP on cable internet.
Click to expand...

It does sound like these businesses have government enforced monopolies in the USA.

Canada has regulated differently, so we may have more competition.
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Looks like Netflix is getting hit by the ISPs and their new found freedom.

http://www.geek.com/news/why-netflix-streaming-is-getting-worse-and-worse-1585416/
Click to expand...



Now it looks like they are after more than Netflix.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/verizon-broadband-costs-could-go-up-2014-2

Absolutely shameful.

Can the FCC please hurry up and win the appeal already??

And here is the worst and most shameful part of that article. The Verizon CEO has the fortitude to actually use 1984 doublespeak and claim what he is doing is the "real" net neutrality, even though it is the opposite.

“It’s only natural that the heavy users help contribute to the investment to keep the Web healthy,” McAdam explained during the call. “That is the most important concept of net neutrality.”
Click to expand...
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Now it looks like they are after more than Netflix.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/verizon-broadband-costs-could-go-up-2014-2

Absolutely shameful.

Can the FCC please hurry up and win the appeal already??

And here is the worst and most shameful part of that article. The Verizon CEO has the fortitude to actually use 1984 doublespeak and claim what he is doing is the "real" net neutrality, even though it is the opposite.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The idea of net neutrality is that they can't charge two customers who use the same data differently based on what kind of data is being transferred. ie: that they can't weigh certain packets as more 'valuable' and extract a special tithe in exchange for transmission.

In contrast: the model of customers paying in direct proportion to MB transferred regardless of the actual 'value' of those packets is quite net neutral. Whether a customer is using Netflix or is running a security camera, if they're using a lot of data, the net-neutral model is that they should be paying the same per MB. If they use more MB they should pay more.

Phone companies are net-neutral in that sense: if you're making a long distance call, it's metered by the second, not by what you're talking about.

Other utilities work similarly: if you use more electricity, you pay more. If you use more water, you pay more. If you use more gas, you pay more. Doesn't matter what you're using it for.

A net neutral model is consistent with end user charges being proportional to usage.
 
lobosrul said:
Coming into this conversation late:

No one seemed to answer your question on this, and I'm googling to try and find the answer. In sum it seems it depends on whatever agreement the telco or cableco has with the locality they are in. It used to be that I could get a 3rd party ISP on QWEST DSL here. That ended quite a number of years ago (before CenturyLink took over). I do not know if it was a change in the law, lack of consumer interest, or a change in rates.

I have never heard of anyone, anywhere in the USA able to use a 3rd party ISP on cable internet.
Click to expand...

hmmmm.. IIRC, I did once get a quote for DSL service over the local phone line, as a 3rd party in competition to the phone company. hmmm... now I'm wondering.... "DSL" does not mean "Net Server". I believe it used to mean "Dedicated Subscriber Line". I lease it, I can get the other end hooked to whoever I negotiate with. Maybe there ARE options for some of us? Cable, not so much? But isn't the FCC deal strictly about Cable services? Phone lines are a separate monopoly?
 
G6000 said:
A cable TV company is allowed to not carry a TV station if it does not want to. Why should an ISP be forced to carry a particular web site?
Click to expand...
Then the internet companies can remove all of their infrastructure from publicly owned land and carry whatever they want.

Sound fair?
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Can the FCC please hurry up and win the appeal already??
Click to expand...
You can't appeal from the Supreme Court.

The FCC simply needs to reclassify internet providers to common carriers like phone companies. It far more accurately reflects their business model and removes all of the Supreme Court's objections.
 
WildCat said:
You can't appeal from the Supreme Court.

The FCC simply needs to reclassify internet providers to common carriers like phone companies. It far more accurately reflects their business model and removes all of the Supreme Court's objections.
Click to expand...

I figured the fix would be something as simple as that.

Though I don't know what niche they occupy now. Not the same as phone companies, or radio based systems like cellular or broadcast TV?

Where is Brown when we need to discuss a SCOTUS ruling?

Link to more legalistic discussion?
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
I figured the fix would be something as simple as that.

Though I don't know what niche they occupy now. Not the same as phone companies, or radio based systems like cellular or broadcast TV?

Where is Brown when we need to discuss a SCOTUS ruling?

Link to more legalistic discussion?
Click to expand...
They're classified the same as cable TV providers are.

The only reason they aren't classified as common carriers like telephone and electric companies and railroads is because the telecoms have too many politicians in their back pockets and it will be a political [feces]storm if they reclassify them.
 
WildCat said:
Then the internet companies can remove all of their infrastructure from publicly owned land and carry whatever they want.

Sound fair?
Click to expand...

Is it publicly owned land? Near me (semi-rural) it seems to be done by way of private land and easement. As far as I can tell (quick search), the poles are not owned by the government either (although they regulate use).
 
marplots said:
Is it publicly owned land? Near me (semi-rural) it seems to be done by way of private land and easement. As far as I can tell (quick search), the poles are not owned by the government either (although they regulate use).
Click to expand...
Yes, it's nearly all on publicly owned land. Do you think private land goes right up to the street? And who do you think grants easements, the tooth fairy?

If they don't want to treat all internet traffic the same then yank the easements and let landowners charge a fair price for them, I think $1,000 per foot per month is fair.
 
WildCat said:
Yes, it's nearly all on publicly owned land. Do you think private land goes right up to the street? And who do you think grants easements, the tooth fairy?

If they don't want to treat all internet traffic the same then yank the easements and let landowners charge a fair price for them, I think $1,000 per foot per month is fair.
Click to expand...

I am only familiar with my area in Michigan. The plat map shows my property does indeed extend to the middle of the street. I have several easements on my property, besides the right of way for the street: for example, Dow Chemical holds one (decades old) for brine pipes that run along one edge (but definitely on my property).

Again, I do not know what the general situation is, but I didn't think the government actually owned even the poles the wires were strung along, much less the property. I can't say for sure, but I think either the telephone company or electrical company holds the easement on the poles. They also have rights to clear trees that interfere with their lines.

Of course, if it's constitutional, the regulations could change, but I believe it is a bit more complex than simply willing an easement away as the political winds blow.

ETA: Apparently, my situation isn't unique. Here is an informational pamphlet from Vermont that states much the same: the property to the middle of the road is likely to be owned by the adjoining landowner. http://www.sec.state.vt.us/municipal/pubs/right_of_way.pdf
 
Quick update:
Checked with a fellow I think is knowledgeable in this area and he claims Charter Cable leases the rights to use the poles from the pole owner, usually the electrical company who installed them originally, occasionally the phone company (when electric wasn't there first) and rarely, the property owners themselves, who may have installed them for some reason (such as to run a special purpose line into their property).

I'm going to leave it here without further research, although an anonymous "told me so" is pretty poor. Either others here will say my situation is the norm or not, and it's a minor point.
 
marplots said:
I am only familiar with my area in Michigan. The plat map shows my property does indeed extend to the middle of the street. I have several easements on my property, besides the right of way for the street: for example, Dow Chemical holds one (decades old) for brine pipes that run along one edge (but definitely on my property).

Again, I do not know what the general situation is, but I didn't think the government actually owned even the poles the wires were strung along, much less the property. I can't say for sure, but I think either the telephone company or electrical company holds the easement on the poles. They also have rights to clear trees that interfere with their lines.

Of course, if it's constitutional, the regulations could change, but I believe it is a bit more complex than simply willing an easement away as the political winds blow.

ETA: Apparently, my situation isn't unique. Here is an informational pamphlet from Vermont that states much the same: the property to the middle of the road is likely to be owned by the adjoining landowner. http://www.sec.state.vt.us/municipal/pubs/right_of_way.pdf
Click to expand...
How did these easements come about marplots?

Did the landowners offer them up freely? Or did the government declare them a public right of way? If it was the latter (and it will be) then the government can put conditions on private parties use of the public right of way. For example, prohibiting internet companies from treating data differently.
 
WildCat said:
How did these easements come about marplots?

Did the landowners offer them up freely? Or did the government declare them a public right of way? If it was the latter (and it will be) then the government can put conditions on private parties use of the public right of way. For example, prohibiting internet companies from treating data differently.
Click to expand...

I'm with you up to this last part. Are you saying the government's easement or "taking" ability would allow them unfettered regulation, based solely on the terms of the easement? In other words (and to be a bit extreme), could they say: "We will no longer allow Spanish to be transmitted on these phone lines, based on the new easement terms?"

Certainly there must be some limits on their authority, even if those limits are set by the constitution. If you are saying they can't be as nuanced as net neutrality requires, then I would agree that a government entity could deny the use of an easement by, say, a cable company.

Did the original nitpick get resolved? Are cable transmission lines mostly on public or private property? If it's private property under government control, that would align with what I've found.

I confess to being beyond my legal depth here and would appreciate other opinions.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
I'm with you up to this last part. Are you saying the government's easement or "taking" ability would allow them unfettered regulation, based solely on the terms of the easement? In other words (and to be a bit extreme), could they say: "We will no longer allow Spanish to be transmitted on these phone lines, based on the new easement terms?"
Click to expand...
Quite the opposite, it is you who is saying the ISPs should be able to treat data differently.

Spanish, English, Swahili, it doesn't matter what is transmitted or who transmits it, all gets treated the same. That's net neutrality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom