The government throttling content was never a risk or issue. Just look up the FBI’s suit against Apple for encrypting phones, tech companies are more than happy to give the finger to the feds.
Yeah, and I don’t have a good answer to that. My guess would be that foreign businesses would have a steeper curve to get to paid priority access for their services to the market in the US. The one that stands out to me is a Swedish company like Spotify. I don’t know though.
Sure! First of all, the ISPs are super profitable as they are. Saying they’re withholding investment because it’s not profitable enough is disingenuous at best. We were constantly talking about investment, jobs, etc when I worked in the telecom world, and it was largely all smoke and mirrors. They’re rolling out stuff as much as they can, having tax breaks or being able to make more money isn’t going to change that.
As far as poor and rural (or difficult to access) areas, that’s actually something that would have forced their hand if they came under Title II regs. Under the old rules, whenever there was a new development or a community lacking access, the companies were forced to build out new networks to provide to these communities, similar to utilities and greenfield developments. This ensured that grandma living out in the sticks would be able to have a phone to call 911 if something happened. And they were duly compensated by the state and local governments for their troubles. It hasn’t been a broadband question for some time, but if it ever became one, they’d usually say they were providing wireless access, since that was cheaper and easier than building fiber to the block or fiber to the home.
What you can see in your daily life is that ISPs, when rolling out to new communities, will almost always focus on the rich ones first. Just kind of makes sense, those are the folks that can pay for their services. Then they’ll just work their way down the line until they can say “we have full coverage in whereversville, USA.” Some people get bent out of shape about it, and will call it redlining, but that’s just how progress gets done.
The only thing that will increase speed, investment, or price lowering is competition. Net Neutrality doesn’t affect any of these things though, since they more take place in the physical world, not the digital one.
This is a good question, and the answer is twofold.
The first is the issue of cost for the end consumer, and is the easier question to answer. All the ISP players know that we’re all ok shelling out hundreds of bucks a month for Internet access. They’re not going to cut into that revenue stream, and even thinking about it would breach of trust for shareholders. Do we honestly think they’d do it out of the goodness of their hearts, now that they have a new revenue stream? No, that would be financially irresponsible. That’s not them being assholes about it, that’s just business.
The second answer is as it relates to the big profitable companies that are the content providers. Almost all of them didn’t exist 15 years ago (Amazon is like the grandpa of Internet companies). The way they were able to become these giant monoliths was that they grew out of very, very small enterprises. So I’m not here to cry over poor old Amazon and Facebook, what concerns me is what would happen to current and future small competitors that may have a superior product or service, but can’t gain access to the market because they don’t have the capital necessary for priority data transfer. We’re in a better world because Amazon Prime competes with Hulu which competes with Netflix, I want the next great one to have the same even playing field.
Close (which is why you merited an upvote). What net neutrality would do in this scenario is make sure all of the roads Wal-Mart would like to use remain open and free to use for them, and everyone else. Without net neutrality regulations, the construction companies that built the roads can offer preferred treatment to Wal-Mart or its competitors. Obviously Wal-Mart has the cash to spend, so what they would do is find the best and fastest roads and pay the construction company for exclusive access, leaving competitors like mom and pop stores to have to use backroads and suffer the consequences.
There are no taxes or government kickbacks involved in net neutrality, it’s just the principle that the roads remain open for everyone to use. The telecom lobby’s point of view is “we built this, so we can manage it the way we want.” The opposing point of view is that since the transfer of data is necessary for life in America, that everyone should be able to use the networks equally.
So I think I figured out the issue here. There’s a bit of confusion on what the FTC regulates vs. the FCC.
The FTC IS involved in a couple of disputes with AT&T, but those are limited to Anti-Trust issues (AT&T acquisition of Time Warner) or straight up unethical business practices (AT&T billing customers for products without their consent).
This disconnect is where Net Neutrality fits into the equation, which is that it doesn’t. The FTC has plenty of oversight of noncompetitive business practices, but the FCC’s ruling says that prioritization of data is within and ISP’s purview, and as part of their ongoing business practices, they have complete freedom to manage their own networks. The FTC doesn’t have purview over what data gets sent where, or at what speed that data arrives. THAT is what net neutrality used to do (and doesn’t anymore).
I can see an FTC dispute coming if, for instance, AT&T blocks people from searching for Verizon plans via their network, but that’s a small piece of a larger concern.
2) That has to do with price fixing and collusion in the providing of services, not how the services are conducted. The FCC is and always has been the relevant governing body.
3) I pretty clearly cite all the assertions, it’s pretty hard to call them bullshit statements and lies when the evidence is provided to you.
4) You are an internet troll that wakes up every morning just to pick fights in the comments section of this website. You’re a sad person.
100% correct. It was the advent of fiber and wireless that allowed ISPs to avoid having broadband fall under these rules, which led to us needing to have the conversation.
Short answer no, because of how ubiquitous these services are. What you’re asking for is to have a concerted effort on the part of content providers to cease or adhere to traffic slowdowns, while at the same time expecting everyone in America to stop using the Internet. That’s not going to happen.
Notice I stop short of saying that Internet service should be classified under Title II, which would make common carrier rules applicable. Common carrier rules exist for things that are more or less public utilities (water, for example). But on the other hand, try imagining life with no Internet access whatsoever. Do you think you’d be able to live a decent life in America without it?
Advertise
The government throttling content was never a risk or issue. Just look up the FBI’s suit against Apple for encrypting phones, tech companies are more than happy to give the finger to the feds.
Yeah, and I don’t have a good answer to that. My guess would be that foreign businesses would have a steeper curve to get to paid priority access for their services to the market in the US. The one that stands out to me is a Swedish company like Spotify. I don’t know though.
Sure! First of all, the ISPs are super profitable as they are. Saying they’re withholding investment because it’s not profitable enough is disingenuous at best. We were constantly talking about investment, jobs, etc when I worked in the telecom world, and it was largely all smoke and mirrors. They’re rolling out stuff as much as they can, having tax breaks or being able to make more money isn’t going to change that.
As far as poor and rural (or difficult to access) areas, that’s actually something that would have forced their hand if they came under Title II regs. Under the old rules, whenever there was a new development or a community lacking access, the companies were forced to build out new networks to provide to these communities, similar to utilities and greenfield developments. This ensured that grandma living out in the sticks would be able to have a phone to call 911 if something happened. And they were duly compensated by the state and local governments for their troubles. It hasn’t been a broadband question for some time, but if it ever became one, they’d usually say they were providing wireless access, since that was cheaper and easier than building fiber to the block or fiber to the home.
What you can see in your daily life is that ISPs, when rolling out to new communities, will almost always focus on the rich ones first. Just kind of makes sense, those are the folks that can pay for their services. Then they’ll just work their way down the line until they can say “we have full coverage in whereversville, USA.” Some people get bent out of shape about it, and will call it redlining, but that’s just how progress gets done.
The only thing that will increase speed, investment, or price lowering is competition. Net Neutrality doesn’t affect any of these things though, since they more take place in the physical world, not the digital one.
I’m not holding my breath.
This is a good question, and the answer is twofold.
The first is the issue of cost for the end consumer, and is the easier question to answer. All the ISP players know that we’re all ok shelling out hundreds of bucks a month for Internet access. They’re not going to cut into that revenue stream, and even thinking about it would breach of trust for shareholders. Do we honestly think they’d do it out of the goodness of their hearts, now that they have a new revenue stream? No, that would be financially irresponsible. That’s not them being assholes about it, that’s just business.
The second answer is as it relates to the big profitable companies that are the content providers. Almost all of them didn’t exist 15 years ago (Amazon is like the grandpa of Internet companies). The way they were able to become these giant monoliths was that they grew out of very, very small enterprises. So I’m not here to cry over poor old Amazon and Facebook, what concerns me is what would happen to current and future small competitors that may have a superior product or service, but can’t gain access to the market because they don’t have the capital necessary for priority data transfer. We’re in a better world because Amazon Prime competes with Hulu which competes with Netflix, I want the next great one to have the same even playing field.
Close (which is why you merited an upvote). What net neutrality would do in this scenario is make sure all of the roads Wal-Mart would like to use remain open and free to use for them, and everyone else. Without net neutrality regulations, the construction companies that built the roads can offer preferred treatment to Wal-Mart or its competitors. Obviously Wal-Mart has the cash to spend, so what they would do is find the best and fastest roads and pay the construction company for exclusive access, leaving competitors like mom and pop stores to have to use backroads and suffer the consequences.
There are no taxes or government kickbacks involved in net neutrality, it’s just the principle that the roads remain open for everyone to use. The telecom lobby’s point of view is “we built this, so we can manage it the way we want.” The opposing point of view is that since the transfer of data is necessary for life in America, that everyone should be able to use the networks equally.
So I think I figured out the issue here. There’s a bit of confusion on what the FTC regulates vs. the FCC.
The FTC IS involved in a couple of disputes with AT&T, but those are limited to Anti-Trust issues (AT&T acquisition of Time Warner) or straight up unethical business practices (AT&T billing customers for products without their consent).
This disconnect is where Net Neutrality fits into the equation, which is that it doesn’t. The FTC has plenty of oversight of noncompetitive business practices, but the FCC’s ruling says that prioritization of data is within and ISP’s purview, and as part of their ongoing business practices, they have complete freedom to manage their own networks. The FTC doesn’t have purview over what data gets sent where, or at what speed that data arrives. THAT is what net neutrality used to do (and doesn’t anymore).
I can see an FTC dispute coming if, for instance, AT&T blocks people from searching for Verizon plans via their network, but that’s a small piece of a larger concern.
1) MOUs are non-binding.
2) That has to do with price fixing and collusion in the providing of services, not how the services are conducted. The FCC is and always has been the relevant governing body.
3) I pretty clearly cite all the assertions, it’s pretty hard to call them bullshit statements and lies when the evidence is provided to you.
4) You are an internet troll that wakes up every morning just to pick fights in the comments section of this website. You’re a sad person.
Fun fact: Shaq was a pre-IPO investor in Google.
I upvoted this.
I dunno, read the fucking article you twat.
100% correct. It was the advent of fiber and wireless that allowed ISPs to avoid having broadband fall under these rules, which led to us needing to have the conversation.
She hates Spotify, if that helps give you a glimpse into her thinking.
Short answer no, because of how ubiquitous these services are. What you’re asking for is to have a concerted effort on the part of content providers to cease or adhere to traffic slowdowns, while at the same time expecting everyone in America to stop using the Internet. That’s not going to happen.
Notice I stop short of saying that Internet service should be classified under Title II, which would make common carrier rules applicable. Common carrier rules exist for things that are more or less public utilities (water, for example). But on the other hand, try imagining life with no Internet access whatsoever. Do you think you’d be able to live a decent life in America without it?
Quadruple-digit-dinners*
/sobs
You need a loaner toddler for a couple days?
Yeah… that’s on me. I was saying Magic Mike is the true origin of the McCounnasaince.
No it fucking wasn’t.
Click on the work “multiple” in the last sentence of the second to last paragraph.
It’s all good bro.