Obama ruins the internet

[Francesca R]

And how do you plan this to work in the States? The companies that own the infrastructure built it, would you nationalise their infrastructure then give it to a new company to control? Can't see that going down well in the US.

Correct (ETA--not nationalise it--separate it and impose utility-like service requirements). Is your only objection that you can't see it going down well in the US? Or do you think it is a bad idea (an idea that the UK and NZ have implemented already)?

Not very much goes down well in the US. The idea that all ISPs should be regulated as utilites ("common carriers") doesn't go down well either and is far from a sure thing. And that is more wide-ranging, and clumsy, than splitting off the local loop owner and regulating that as a utility--which is what is already the case for Openreach and Chorus. Neither of whom provide content or other service.

So if your only preference for NN is that you think the better idea is more difficult to achieve (but agree it is better), I disagree with you and suspect the discussion is concluded.

And as to Chorus not being taxpayer funded. The Government is paying them NZ$178 million to build the UHS Fibre network.

Which makes plenty of sense.

 

[Francesca R]

Or they do what happened here, and the owner will charge more for other ISPs to use their infrastructure than they charge their own customers, meaning that it's more expensive to go with a competitor than the owner.

Chorus is not an ISP, it does not have retail customers.

 

[Francesca R]

So you think that ISP's should be able to choose what sites their customers have access to and which ones they shouldn't. Ok then.

Competing ISPs should be able to tier content and provide fast lanes (which--yes--implies slow lanes too), yes.

So we need forced break up of our telecom companies so that they don't have the vertical integration that they presently do? That way the telecom companies don't own the local infrastructure.

Correct. Local infrastructure meets the designation of utility. Internet service providers who only use it do not.

 

[Francesca R]

Out of curiosity, does anyone object to the internet being classified as a utility and, if so, why?

The whole internet? What does that mean?

Anyway--per previous few posts--yes. The infrastructure can be regulated as a utility (and it is already, in the systems you are convinced the US could never copy, even though to copy that would be a smaller step than classifying "the internet" as a utility). Not the ISPs, certainly not content makers (though it is pretty certain you did not mean them)

 

[PhantomWolf]

Correct. Is your only objection that you can't see it going down well in the US? Or do you think it is a bad idea (an idea that the UK and NZ have implemented already)?

I think that it's a bad idea. In NZ and the UK the governments were able to do it without too many issues because the infrastructure had been built by the Government. They basically stated, we built it, you aren't sticking to your end of the bargain, we're changing the rules.

This isn't the same in the US. In the US these companies have spent their own money building their networks. What right has the Government got to steal those assets from them? And what sort of precedent does it set? What's next? Forcing Microsoft to give its windows code to anyone that wants to set up as a rival OS company? Sorry, but taking private property that private companies have built up with their own money, that is a step way to far.

Not very much goes down well in the US. The idea that all ISPs should be regulated as utilites ("common carriers") doesn't go down well either and is far from a sure thing. And that is more wide-ranging, and clumsy, than splitting off the local loop owner and regulating that as a utility--which is what is already the case for Openreach and Chorus. Neither of whom provide content or other service.

Again totally different situations. Both BT and Telecom had deals with the Government when they were formed, things they had to do to keep the infrastructure that the Governments built, and they didn't keep up their end of the bargains, thus they lost it.

So if your only preference for NN is that you think the better idea is more difficult to achieve (but agree it is better), I disagree with you and suspect the discussion is concluded.

No, I think that it'd be outright theft of private property, and probably Unconstitutional to boot. A Government can't go around confiscating assets from law abiding companies and then give to their competitors.

Which makes plenty of sense.

NN, by a long shot.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Competing ISPs should be able to tier content and provide fast lanes (which--yes--implies slow lanes too), yes.

Correct. Local infrastructure meets the designation of utility. Internet service providers who only use it do not.

So now we are stealing private property from them? Never going to happen.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Chorus is not an ISP, it does not have retail customers.

I'm not talking about Chorus, I'm talking about Telecom. The whole issue was created because they were charging the likes of Telstra Clear and other ISPs more than they were charging Xtra for the use of the local loop, that meant that Xtra could provide the same services to their customers cheaper than their competition.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Competing ISPs should be able to tier content and provide fast lanes (which--yes--implies slow lanes too), yes.

Why should ISPs be allowed to determine what content you have access to?

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, I think that it'd be outright theft of private property, and probably Unconstitutional to boot. A Government can't go around confiscating assets from law abiding companies and then give to their competitors.

Actually according to the supreme court it can. At least with respect to things like home ownership. See Kelo v. City of New London. In that it was ruled that improving the local economy is sufficient justification for eminent domain.

But it is politically untenable in the US. Network Neutrality is politically possible.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm having trouble understanding

Indeed you are.

The issue is not whether Netflix was screwed in one way and not the other. The issue is that cable companies have a vested interest in screwing Netflix and net neutrality protects content providers from being screwed.

Still wrong. Net neutrality only protects content providers from certain forms of being screwed. Netflix was being screwed by a method that net neutrality doesn't cover.

And those providers can be huge like Netflix or tiny like your blog.

Actually, no. The way Netflix was screwed was a direct result of the fact that they were so huge, and growing.

Comcast should be strictly prohibited from choosing which content gets the fast lane, or any lane at all. The end.

You still don't get what actually happened.

Net neutrality does not dictate where and how ISP's create infrastructure capacity. Netflix was screwed because ISP's didn't expand capacity fast enough for Netflix. But Netflix had full access to the capacity which was there. There was no "fast lane" or "slow lane". There were simply not enough lanes. And again, net neutrality doesn't prevent that.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Actually according to the supreme court it can. At least with respect to things like home ownership. See Kelo v. City of New London. In that it was ruled that improving the local economy is sufficient justification for eminent domain.

But it is politically untenable in the US. Network Neutrality is politically possible.

Looking at the decision, I'd say they they'd be in for a big fight. The decision held that if a legislative body has found that an economic project will create new jobs, increase tax and other city revenues, and revitalize a depressed urban area then the project serves a public purpose, which qualifies as a public use.

Increasing Competition doesn't does any of these things, and handing it to a private company to make money off, is not a public use.

 

[Francesca R]

In the US these companies have spent their own money building their networks. What right has the Government got to steal those assets from them? [ . . . ] I think that it'd be outright theft of private property

So now we are stealing private property from them?

Quite false, no assets are "stolen". No assets were stolen in the UK or NZ cases either. Openreach was spun off in 2006 from an already fully privatised BT and Chorus was likewise spun off from a privatised Telecom NZ. Assets remain in private hands.

That's more stunning ignorance or an attempt to mislead.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Quite false, no assets are "stolen". No assets were stolen in the UK or NZ cases either. Openreach was spun off in 2006 from an already fully privatised BT and Chorus was likewise spun off from a privatised Telecom NZ. Assets remain in private hands.

That's more stunning ignorance or an attempt to mislead.

What total rubbish. If I build something paying for it with my own money, and you take it away and give it to pondering turtle, you stole it. It's theft pure and simple.

The reason it was acceptable in NZ and the UK is because Telecom and BT didn't build the infrastructure, they were given it with conditions, they failed the conditions and so lost their rights to own it.

 

[Francesca R]

More misdirection. Nothing is "taken away". If you think something is--say what was taken away. Exactly.

I don't think you wish to discuss the matter honestly.

 

[PhantomWolf]

More misdirection. Nothing is "taken away". If you think something is--say what was taken away. Exactly.

I don't think you wish to discuss the matter honestly.

Of course it is. Cox, Comcast, and other companies lay the cables, and put in the routers, they own that equipment.

You are suggesting taking that equipment and giving it to another company. That's theft.

The only way you could possibly do it without it being so is to force companies to slip up into component parts so that the Content Provider Part, the ISP, and the Lines provider all become different companies owned by a parent company, but honestly, what would that actually achieve? And considering the issue is regulation and Governmental over-reach.....

 

[Francesca R]

You are suggesting taking that equipment and giving it to another company. That's theft.

Rejected, again. Completely untrue. What assets were stolen from BT? What assets were stolen from Telecom NZ.

What assets?

Please list the assets that were stolen.

The only way you could possibly do it without it being so is to force companies to slip up into component parts so that the Content Provider Part, the ISP, and the Lines provider all become different companies owned by a parent company, but honestly, what would that actually achieve?

Ding ding. Maybe we have a winner. You don't know that that is exactly how Openreach and Chorus came into being?

And considering the issue is regulation and Governmental over-reach.....

Whose issue is that?

 

[3point14]

The one that goes "government may act in my interest, corporations never will". It is as blind as the reverse "corporaions may act in my interest, government never will". It is a cariucature polarization the like of which one sees plenty around here (both sides).

More accurately:

If it's a choice between my best interests and more profit the corporation will take the latter option 100% of the time or they will be driven out of business by a competitor that does.

It's trivially obvious that corporations could use a lack of net neutrality to increase their profits. Those that do will thrive and make money. Those that consider my best interests will not.

Being a bad company providing crap service doesn't really seem to come into this equation - See Comcast, AOL and many others.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Looking at the decision, I'd say they they'd be in for a big fight. The decision held that if a legislative body has found that an economic project will create new jobs, increase tax and other city revenues, and revitalize a depressed urban area then the project serves a public purpose, which qualifies as a public use.

Increasing Competition doesn't does any of these things, and handing it to a private company to make money off, is not a public use.

Oh it is totally politically untenable, but not legally untenable.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Quite false, no assets are "stolen". No assets were stolen in the UK or NZ cases either. Openreach was spun off in 2006 from an already fully privatised BT and Chorus was likewise spun off from a privatised Telecom NZ. Assets remain in private hands.

That's more stunning ignorance or an attempt to mislead.

So given away instead of stolen then.

 

[Francesca R]

If it's a choice between my best interests and more profit the corporation will take the latter option 100% of the time or they will be driven out of business by a competitor that does.

Agreed.

It's trivially obvious that corporations could use a lack of net neutrality to increase their profits. Those that do will thrive and make money.

Agreed, that is trivially obvious.

The last part is not.