Obama ruins the internet

[ponderingturtle]

I don't. I have a choice of at least five suppliers I think. And at least seven ISPs. And only one set of cables for each. It is called local loop unbundling.

I am not in the US but to declare it impossible because the US has not done it, when other places have is, well, "exceptional".
This is superior to network neutrality laws IMO.

So you need to maintain 5 distinct separate redundant systems? For every neighborhood?

That might be a nice alternative but it isn't what is on the table in the US. Here you might have 2 options if you are lucky for real high speed internet. And they all are from companies that also make and distribute content, so they have a vested interest in encouraging you to get your online content from them not just your service.

So with out forcing companies to carry other companies customers on the network they own, there isn't a feasible option in the US. And no one is proposing that as an option either.

 

[Francesca R]

So you need to maintain 5 distinct separate redundant systems? For every neighborhood?

No. I already told you, just one.

 

[Spindrift]

No. I already told you, just one.

Do the carriers provide content?

 

[Francesca R]

Does a vendor paying an ISP for preferential treatment have nothing to do with Net Neutrality?

Most versions of net neutrality would veto this practice. That is a shame since it improves welfare and innovation, provided that competition is not thwarted.

Most people don't understand why two sided markets are better than one sided markets. All they see is the message in the comic strip I addressed before: "I will get charged twice for the same thing". Which is a misunderstanding. (Quite a complete one)

 

[Francesca R]

Do the carriers provide content?

Yes.

 

[ehcks]

Almost certainly unrelated, but I just got another internet outage. DNS server not found. I get this every so often, but this time I remembered the Google Public DNS server address. I set my connection to use that, and I'm up again.

I'm not the only one with this problem with Charter. Google Fiber, please, PLEASE hurry up.

 

[Upchurch]

Your repeated mention of practicalities, does that mean that absent the practicalities you speak of (which are rather vague to be honest) you do actually agree that greater ISP choice is better than, and a replacement for NN rules? If not, why not?

I agree that greater ISP choice is better than official network neutrality regulation, but given the actions displayed by the ISPs, why not both to be on the safe side?

 

[ehcks]

I agree that greater ISP choice is better than official network neutrality regulation, but given the actions displayed by the ISPs, why not both to be on the safe side?

Because that would mean not maximizing the profits of the ISP companies, and that is unallowable.

 

[Francesca R]

I agree that greater ISP choice is better than official network neutrality regulation

OK thank you.

why not both to be on the safe side?

You never seem to acknowledge any cost or risk to added regulation. (Such as it being captured by special interests, in exactly the way the FCC's telco regulation was). It is not a given that it would be "the safe side".

 

[Spindrift]

OK thank you.


You never seem to acknowledge any cost or risk to added regulation. (Such as it being captured by special interests, in exactly the way the FCC's telco regulation was). It is not a given that it would be "the safe side".

Just trusting corporations to do the right thing rarely if ever works.

 

[Upchurch]

You never seem to acknowledge any cost or risk to added regulation. (Such as it being captured by special interests, in exactly the way the FCC's telco regulation was). It is not a given that it would be "the safe side".

Would that be in the same way that you never seem to acknowledge any cost or risk in not having some sort of network neutrality safeguards?

As I said in another conversation: "The downside of the FCC ensuring network neutrality is that they might get it wrong. The downside of the FCC *not* ensuring network neutrality is that the ISPs *will definitely* get it wrong."

 

[Francesca R]

Just trusting corporations to do the right thing rarely if ever works.

Non sequitur.

 

[Upchurch]

Non sequitur.

Not even a little bit. The whole point is that ISPs cannot be trusted to maintain network neutrality, which benefits everyone else, when they have a way to make more money if they abandon it.

 

[Francesca R]

Would that be in the same way that you never seem to acknowledge any cost or risk in not having some sort of network neutrality safeguards?

No it would not. Since that is not my position. You have just agreed that my preference is more effective than yours at achieving the things you want or avoiding the things you don't. So that is false.

As I said in another conversation: "The downside of the FCC ensuring network neutrality is that they might get it wrong. The downside of the FCC *not* ensuring network neutrality is that the ISPs *will definitely* get it wrong."

That is ideological blindness on your part. It is not always that way around at all. Neither is it always the opposite way round.

 

[Francesca R]

The whole point is that ISPs cannot be trusted to maintain network neutrality, which benefits everyone else, when they have a way to make more money if they abandon it.

That contradicts what you have already said by agreeing with me. Competition and choice of ISP will do it better. You agreed.

 

[Upchurch]

That is ideological blindness on your part.

Which ideology is that?

Blindness is not recognizing that it's already happened. It isn't even a hypothetical question at this point.

 

[quadraginta]

That contradicts what you have already said by agreeing with me. Competition and choice of ISP will do it better. You agreed.

I agree that it would be better. How is this achieved?

Until such time as it might be, wouldn't some sort of net neutrality guarantees avoid potential abuse?

 

[Upchurch]

That contradicts what you have already said by agreeing with me. Competition and choice of ISP will do it better. You agreed.

It would be better, but it is not fool proof. And the fact of the matter is, there isn't likely to be more competition. Certainly not enough to make a difference to the likes of Comcast or Verizon.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which ideology is that?

Blindness is not recognizing that it's already happened. It isn't even a hypothetical question at this point.

Blindness is not recognizing that what already happened (the Netflix slowdown) wouldn't be prevented by "net neutrality".

 

[PhantomWolf]

In other words, nobody around here thinks that what the comic shows (metaphorically) actually happens. Nobody armed with evidence anyway.

However the public at large might. So--poor show from the writers in misleading deliberately or otherwise.

No, what it means is that you don't understand what they are depicting so you make stuff up and claim it is what they are depicting.

The Driveway is not "Bandwidth" it's a connection. Nothing is being wasted because whether the left or right lane is used, it's the same driveway. The Comic is merely depicting that you end up with a choice of navigating a bunch of junk designed to slow you down or stop you, or pay more to have it removed and allow you fast access, but only to the "Premium stuff" which they determine. Your failure to understand does not make the comic misleading, it just means you don't get it.

NZ's telco framework is a lot more messed up.

Bollocks, our system is nowhere near messed up, it's pretty easy really.

One set of lines (well two now that the high speed fibre is going in) all owned by the lines company. ISP's hire their bandwidth from the lines company.

The biggest issue with our system is that on the national level we have multiple lines because the Government started out with the same system as in the States, (Telecom owned both the lines and the provided the services) forcing as it was then, Clear Communications, to built its own national network.

And guess what, the unbundling of the local loop, and splitting Telecom's local lines department off into Chorus came via Government Regulation 4 years after Telecom had convinced them not to allow it (despite the Commerce Commission's recommendation and Telecom's competitors demanding it) and then spectacularly failing to live up to their end on the bargain that they had struck (implementing only 10% of the 500,000 new connections they had claimed they would do.) Without that regulation we'd likely still all be hostage to Telecom's whims, and anyone with their competitors would be paying huge amounts to use the local loop (which was originally built with Taxpayer money).