Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?

[G6000]

Not even close to true.

There is exactly one broadband provider available to me where I live in Massachusetts (neighbors trees block satellite, Verizon refuses to provide DSL or fiber and cell companies have so far not added towers close enough for reliable service). Under the previous rules, if they decided to block Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. so that I could only get on-demand programming from them @ $7.00 per show it was their legal right to do it. There is absolutely no technical solution that I could deploy to get around the situation.

Satellite TV and cell phone companies are your alternatives.

You said, "cell companies have so far not added towers close enough for reliable service".

Thanks for proving my point it is a technological problem that will be solved by technology, not government.

 

[G6000]

I have to check out for now, but I will check back in to see if anyone has come up with a public utility that is not a government-sanctioned monopoly.

In the meantime, think about how many power company customers have been raped by those government-sanctioned monopolies.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Satellite TV and cell phone companies are your alternatives.

Oooh this looks like a fun game!

Electrical companies shouldn't be public utilities: home generators and solar cells/batteries are your alternatives.

Gas companies shouldn't be public utilities: heating oil and propane are your alternatives.

 

[Babbylonian]

I have to check out for now, but I will check back in to see if anyone has come up with a public utility that is not a government-sanctioned monopoly.

You've built a lot of strawmen and asked a lot of questions. Could you perhaps answer the question I asked below?

No, but the VPN connections I maintain to hospitals around the country may turn out to be critical to a patient's health care. Maybe my ISP should be allowed to limit how many VPN connections I have active, too?

It might not have been phrased clearly enough, which might be why you've ignored it, so I'll rephrase just in case: Should my ISP be allowed to limit how many VPN connections I have active? Should they be allowed to charge me extra to establish a VPN connection in the first place?

These questions are important because with no regulation (specifically, no net neutrality), the ISPs would be free to implement such policies.

 

[paulhutch]

Satellite TV and cell phone companies are your alternatives.

You said, "cell companies have so far not added towers close enough for reliable service".

Thanks for proving my point it is a technological problem that will be solved by technology, not government.

Satellite?, either this is an extreme reading comprehension fail or you think I have some right to remove my neighbors trees without their permission.

Someday maybe some cell company will add towers that can provide reliable broadband but since they have made no moves to do so in the past decade I have little hope they will in the future. Verizon could also add equipment so that I could have DSL as a choice or run fiber but again they have not done so and have stated they have no plans to do it. I suppose Congress could pass a law that mandates cell phone, DSL or fiber is installed but I doubt you'd want that, I know I would not want a law that intrusive into a private companies business.

Maybe someday Congress or industry will provide a way to ensure competition in broadband for at least most of the USA. But until then having the minimal protection of no blocking or limiting at least ensures that the internet will remain the open platform it has been for so long.

 

[paulhutch]

Can anyone name a public utility where they live that has more than one company offering the service?

Anyone?

Electric power sales, generation and distribution for Massachusetts were split apart quite a few years ago allowing consumer choice of provider. (Industry lobbied for it) http://www.mass.gov/eea/energy-util...wer/electric-market-info/choose-supplier.html

I can choose from dozens of suppliers who offer many variations in pricing. Some of the choices include, type of power generation (renewable vs. fossil fuel mix), guaranteed prices for specific time periods and varying prices by usage.

We've considered doing this for broadband in Massachusetts but the industry players do not want it, they like their legal monopolies just as they are. So our only options would be to pay the owners for the wiring which is fiscally impractical or confiscate the wires which would be too anti-business.

 

[Nihilianth]

Well you only actually pay for up to 100 megs. And so throttling, say YouTube traffic, is fine because the speeds will fall into the range of "up to" 100 megs. The government shouldn't disallow such a practice, because freedom. What are you, a commie? Besides, as everyone already knows, markets always produce the best outcomes when they are free of government regulation. If customers don't like the service a company is providing, the Invisible Hand will kick in and competition will put them out of business. At least thats what my ideology says. And that couldn't be wrong otherwise I would have rethink my world view.

Ohhhh! I see now! Thank you Tony Stark. I am now officially a highly-infomred GOP member! Thank you for showing me the light!

Net neutrality passes:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...t-new-tougher-net-neutrality-rules/ar-BBi032r

"The vote starts a countdown to expected lawsuits from cable and telecoms providers which argue that the tougher regulatory regime will stifle investments, hurting consumers. "

Always with the extremely vague claims by these people.

1. How, exactly, would it "stifle investments."
2. Even if it did somehow "stifle investments," how in the world does this "hurt consumers?"

 

[Nihilianth]

Blaaaaarggggggghhhh...

There is so much bloviation on both sides of this issue.

Here's the thing. I don't know if you guys know this, but the internet has had a "net neutrality" rule in effect for something like the past 15 years. Almost since the beginning of the internet, there's been net neutrality. Net neutrality is not some new beast, and the world didn't end with it.

However, an appeals court struck down the last net neutrality rule, stating the FCC did not have the authority to make such a rule. That's been the never ending cycle. The FCC makes a net neutrality rule, someone (Verizon) challenges it, the courts strike the rule down. Rinse, repeat.

So now the FCC is classifying the internet as a utility, and this will give it the authority it needs to make net neutrality rules.

However, as a regulator of a utility, this also gives the FCC a whole new range of regulatory powers over the internet far in excess of just ruling on net neutrality. This reclassification means they can now set prices, for example.

This is extreme overkill. A huge government power expansion. And the government never fails to exercise the powers it gives itself. With these new powers it has given itself over the internet, the FCC is not going to stop at net neutrality.

And now big money is going to be capturing that regulatory power.

Here's another thing. "Net neutrality" is actually a bandwidth issue. Internet Service Providers want to be able to control which web sites get faster speeds due to the current limitations in bandwidth.

Key word: current.

Technology is going to solve this problem, not the government.

And the government just grabbed a metric ton of power that far exceeds the ability to regulate "net neutrality".

So...long after technology has made the net neutrality issue obsolete, the government will retain today's new powers.

Bogus.

Bogus, bogus, bogus.

Another very great example of extremely vague claims that was already old since god-knows-when.

"This is a MEGAHUGE OMGWTFBBQSAUCE!!!!! power grab by the government!!! DOOM, DOOM, DOOOOOOM!!!!

and:

"The freemarket will solve it! Technology will solve it!! I TELLS YA!"

*handfart*

 

[Nihilianth]

Can anyone name a public utility where they live that has more than one company offering the service?

Anyone?

No. And let me tell you something, since you keep bringing it up:

Can you tell me of anyone who doesn't have regular, clean water service to their house? Electricity? Gas (if that's what they use?) No? Has anyone you have ever known gone broke BECAUSE of those things? No? Well, then, Mr.-Scaremonger, what, exactly, is your point?

And if you have known someone who has gone broke or lost one or multiple of those utilities, have you ever helped them out of their financial difficulties that have absolutely nothing to do with the electric bill?

 

[Francesca R]

There is exactly one broadband provider available to me where I live in Massachusetts

How many are there going to be thanks to the new rules?

 

[marplots]

I have to check out for now, but I will check back in to see if anyone has come up with a public utility that is not a government-sanctioned monopoly.

In the meantime, think about how many power company customers have been raped by those government-sanctioned monopolies.

Maybe I don't understand what you are asking for, but I can think of two by me. If phone is a utility, I have the choice between a traditional land line and the one I have that runs through my cable.

For natural gas, I keep getting calls to switch from Consumer's Energy to any of a number of companies. The situation for natural gas mimics what happened when they opened up long distance service to competition - the gas company still owns the pipes and the meter, but the gas is purchased at a negotiated price from another company.

Unfortunately, I am unable to take advantage of the natural gas deals because I have propane. Propane is available from at least three different companies in my area, but I'm not sure that would count as a utility under your request.

For water, I can choose between keeping the well I have now and hooking up to the city water supply which runs by my house.

The only one I have no choice about is electricity.

 

[jhunter1163]

1. How, exactly, would it "stifle investments."
2. Even if it did somehow "stifle investments," how in the world does this "hurt consumers?"

Clearly, if the cable companies aren't allowed to profiteer off Internet fast lanes and the like, there won't be enough money to both upgrade infrastructure and pay enormous bonuses to executives. And we all know which way the decision will go when it comes down to that choice.

 

[paulhutch]

How many are there going to be thanks to the new rules?

One but now they can't legally block my Netflix and Amazon Prime to force me to use there limited selection very expensive video on-demand service.

 

[lomiller]

How many are there going to be thanks to the new rules?

Without Net Neutrality rules it seems unlikely there would ever be other providers.

NN doesn’t set out to guarantee there will be more, nor should it but without free exchange of data packets between networks (AKA Net Neutrality) anyone who sets up a new network isn’t an ISP because their traffic isn’t routed to nodes on other networks. They could pay the established ISP to exchange data with them but why would anyone subscribe if they need to pay the upstart ISP and still pay the established ISP’s anyway.

 

[xjx388]

Not even close to true.

There is exactly one broadband provider available to me where I live in Massachusetts (neighbors trees block satellite, Verizon refuses to provide DSL or fiber and cell companies have so far not added towers close enough for reliable service). Under the previous rules, if they decided to block Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. so that I could only get on-demand programming from them @ $7.00 per show it was their legal right to do it. There is absolutely no technical solution that I could deploy to get around the situation.

Ok, but did they actually decide to do such a thing? Has any ISP actually done it? Honestly, maybe I'm blind, but I've never heard of this actually occurring.

I'm willing to be educated, but it sounds like this outrage about "fast lanes," and such is much ado about nothing.

 

[Babbylonian]

Ok, but did they actually decide to do such a thing? Has any ISP actually done it? Honestly, maybe I'm blind, but I've never heard of this actually occurring.

I'm willing to be educated, but it sounds like this outrage about "fast lanes," and such is much ado about nothing.

"They hadn't completely screwed people over yet" isn't a compelling reason not to establish the principle of net neutrality in the rules governing ISPs and backbone providers.

Beyond that, Netflix was paying Comcast for preferential treatment of their data (or perhaps even decent treatment since Comcast is obviously in competition with Netflix), which means that other video streaming businesses would either be at a disadvantage or would have to similarly pay a premium in order to properly compete with Netflix. That's clearly an anticompetitive business practice and had the potential to limit consumer choice. Why should we wait to deal with problems that are clearly on the horizon?

 

[Nihilianth]

How many are there going to be thanks to the new rules?

Exactly as many as there has been without the new rules. That's the strawman, don't you see!?

At least NN protects competitive integrity of online content providers. That way, we won't also get Comcast as the only source for online content: Their On-Demand service!

You are all about "competition," but continually fail to see how, exactly, NN PROTECTS competition for the industry of online content. It isn't meant to solve the issue of lack of competition among ISPs.

 

[Nihilianth]

Clearly, if the cable companies aren't allowed to profiteer off Internet fast lanes and the like, there won't be enough money to both upgrade infrastructure and pay enormous bonuses to executives. And we all know which way the decision will go when it comes down to that choice.

haha, yes, and we all know that the enormous bonuses paid to those executives all "hurt the consumers."

I dunno whether to laugh, or roll my eyes.

 

[Beerina]

Well, they've done it. Let's see if Congress grows some balls and limits what the FCC can do to just net neutrality, which they swear, golly, really, trust us, that's all we're gonna take over.

As a principle, Congress should approve this to begin with -- regulatory bodies taking over a massive new area unanticipated by Congress should, at a minimum, have real, elected officials doing what we've charged them to do.

Well, let's see if it turns into water and electricity, with the company-customer dynamic abandoning direct concern for you, and shifting to sucking on congressional committees-as-customer.

Gosh, we can't afford the expansion, rate increase! Ohh that's too much, you whine. Rates set by government.

And we're off to the races dragging ass and whining to Congress.

Solve the problem by mandating net neutrality, and otherwise keeping their greedy little power-hungry fingers off the regulatory button.

Somehow I doubt they will.

 

[Cleon]

Well, let's see if it turns into water and electricity, with the company-customer dynamic abandoning direct concern for you, and shifting to sucking on congressional committees-as-customer.

Because that's what ISPs like Comcast are known for, their direct concern for their customers.