Net Neutrality repeal

Bick
Posts: 3447
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:06 pm

Net Neutrality repeal

Postby Bick » Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:28 am

I've had to spend some time understanding what the heck "net neutrality" was, let alone know it was implemented a couple years ago. It's title seemed innocuous enough, which is likely why I hadn't paid much attention to it. At first blush, my thoughts were along the lines of "why are we eliminating net neutrality?" But after reading more about this, it is becoming clear it was intended to be another gov't control grab.

Glad it's gone.



broman
Posts: 2678
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:52 am

Re: Net Neutrality repeal

Postby broman » Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:54 am

Gives more power to ISP who also own media. Comcast, AT&T, Time-Warner and Version can slow down service or "roll down" content from competitors. They can also charge more for a competitors media.
Last edited by broman on Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 15136
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: Net Neutrality repeal

Postby John Q. Public » Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:56 am

Where were you reading about this? It's hard to believe that a consumer would be happy about allowing ISPs to package the internet like they do with cable TV.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 2047
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm

Re: Net Neutrality repeal

Postby Professor Fate » Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:34 am

I'm sure there's a lot I don't know about this, but at first glance, I have to side with the Democrats on this one.

Seems like there will be competition stifled, and creative pricing designed to get every last cent out of subscribers.
Well, obviously we have giant butterflies in CA. They's climbin' in your windows, They's snatchin' your people up, tryin' to steal 'em. So y'all need to hide your kids, hide your stars, and hide your coaches cause they're grabin' everybody out here.

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 21098
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Net Neutrality repeal

Postby Wabash » Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:09 pm

Some cities have adopted public broadband. I'm in favor of that since the Telecom has a government enforced monopoly.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 15136
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: Net Neutrality repeal

Postby John Q. Public » Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:21 pm

Professor Fate wrote:Source of the post ...I have to side with the Democrats on this one

Interesting that this is framed as Republican/Democrat when 80% of the population is opposed to the repeal. That would include a good number of Republicans. It's probably easier for the people behind it to sell as a "Republican" plan, but it isn't really.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 21098
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Net Neutrality repeal

Postby Wabash » Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:49 pm

When can we say it was "rammed down our throats?"
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

Bick
Posts: 3447
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Net Neutrality repeal

Postby Bick » Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:27 pm

What was happening prior to 2015 that required FCC oversight, and what's happened in the past 2 years that makes you think that control is still necessary?

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 21098
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Net Neutrality repeal

Postby Wabash » Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:48 pm

Nothing was happening. The FCC was being proactive in ensuring nothing would happen.

That is a good thing.

If the ISPs have no intention of affecting network traffic why did they lobby so much for net neutrality to be lifted?

--:--
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

Bick
Posts: 3447
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Net Neutrality repeal

Postby Bick » Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:13 pm

So nothing wrong was happening in the prior 20 years as the internet usage exploded thru private investment. And you think it needed gov't regulation.

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 15136
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: Net Neutrality repeal

Postby John Q. Public » Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:47 pm

Exactly. And the legislation was passed to ensure that nothing wrong would happen. With it lifted, something wrong is all but guaranteed to happen. That's why the ISPs spent so much money to get it done.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

Bick
Posts: 3447
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Net Neutrality repeal

Postby Bick » Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:51 pm

Legislation? You mean the FCC under Obama decided to re-classify broadband internet as a utility. Didn't those ISP's invest significant $$ to build out their networks?

Let's say you had invested significant capital to make OCConnect a wildly desirable website. Shouldn't you be allowed to charge different rates for different levels of service?

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 15136
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: Net Neutrality repeal

Postby John Q. Public » Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:32 pm

If I were to do that, sure. Many sites do. But Charter and Verizon would have had nothing to do with the creation of that content. Why should they be able to charge a fee for it?
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 21098
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Net Neutrality repeal

Postby Wabash » Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:06 am

Bick wrote:Source of the post So nothing wrong was happening in the prior 20 years as the internet usage exploded thru private investment. And you think it needed gov't regulation.

Yup!

Bick wrote:Source of the post Let's say you had invested significant capital to make OCConnect a wildly desirable website. Shouldn't you be allowed to charge different rates for different levels of service?

I would have no problem with that mindset if the consumer had choices. As it stands now the model is a government enforced monopoly so there is no competition for market share.

Given there are less than ten choices the telecom industry functions in an oligopoly pricing model. That does not bode well for the end user.
Attachments
Net Neutrality.png
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

not4u13
Posts: 5448
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:00 pm

Re: Net Neutrality repeal

Postby not4u13 » Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:00 am

One thing to consider. What is to be gained by lifting the neutrality rules? If nothing changes, then nobody wins or loses. Anything that does change will be a loss for consumers. There really is no upside to the most recent change. ISPs were experimenting with different pricing packages prior to the new rules that would have become a problem. Content providers such as Netflix were beginning to have enough compelling content to start looking like a real competitor. Putting neutrality rules in place provide a modicum of protection for their growth.

DISCLAIMER (the below is from memory, which is admittedly imperfect).
Remember back in the early days of broadcast TV when you had only VHF and UHF to choose from. The government realized that to eliminate the "tower of babble" they had to regulate who had what frequencies. This provided some assurances that content could reach homes and accelerated the growth of network television. Homes that were unable to receive broadcast signals turned to bringing the signal via cables attached to antennae located up on a hill. Cable TV was, originally, just bringing broadcast TV to homes that could not get the signal any other way. (CATV or Community Antenna TV) It began to expand as companies found they could receive more on-air channels with better antennae and distribute many more channels than a home would otherwise get. Stations could then reach more homes. As the adoption of cable grew, new innovators thought they could create their own "channel" only available to cable subscribers. This was to satisfy the greater consumer demand than broadcast TV could deliver. The FCC was limiting licenses. CATV was coming up with new ways to receive more content and add channels from other communities, some using microwave to transmit signals and bring broadcast TV from a wider area to more consumers. Local communities and CATV providers began to create exclusive contracts similar to utilities that meant you only had one CATV choice to your home. By this time, the FCC was paying close attention and there were new regulations and legal challenges. The FCC created a "must carry" rule that required CATV providers to carry all broadcast signals to their subscribers. Lower Power VHF licenses were issued with the though that local communities could choose to create more broadcast TV options and due to the must carry rule, reach many more homes. Community access TV was also required by FCC regulation. A new competitor was rapidly gaining steam. Satellite TV. What was first the domain of the hobbyist putting up a large dish to get the "free" content that others had to pay for turned into a business. Broadcasters and pay TV channels were forced to develop better methods to secure their signal or risk losing their revenue base. The FCC struggled to figure out if and how it should regulate these delivery mediums. Broadcast TV was regulated of course. It had to be. Broadcasters were lobbying the FCC to regulate these mediums as well. They were fearful of the competition, especially as consumers were starting to turn to these non-broadcast channels. Broadcasters were losing advertising revenue as consumers viewed other content, especially content not subjected to the broadcast TV decency rules.

So here we ended up. Many choices for content. Almost 15 years ago, Cable TV was king. DirecTV was growing and Broadcast networks were launching their own CATV channels and buying up other (e.g. ESPN). Consumers were growing increasingly weary of the high prices and limited choices. HDTV was here and some were discovering that old UHF antenna on the roof could bring an HD signal to their TV. Those early cord-cutters still wanted high speed internet though, mostly to watch cat videos. Around that time consumers could also find audio streaming content and the concept of broadcast streaming began. Speeds were still relatively slow, which meant that the Internet was not much of an early threat to traditional content. That would change, of course. Both compression technology and bandwidth increases enabled Netflix to launch a commercial streaming service over the Internet. I bought my first blueray player with netflix streaming capability built in. It also included audio streaming service Pandora. I still own that Samsung unit. from several years back. I think it was 2008 or 2009.

The reason I walked down memory lane is to highlight what I believe to be interesting similarities in the evolution of how content is provided to our homes. The FCC struggled early on to figure out what and how to regulate cable TV providers as broadcast TV providers cried foul with up and coming content providers threatening their revenue stream. Same is true now. Delivery networks that made significant investments (and heavily charge consumers to recover that investment) want the "freedom" to develop a revenue model that protects that investment. Consumers have limited choices. Where I live, if I want high speed Internet, I can choose AT&T U-verse (still over copper) with maximum bandwidth of 25Mb/s or TimeWarner Cable where I have over 300Mb/s. There are no choices. There is no real competition.
Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountain is going home; that wildness is necessity; John Muir
http://www.quotesdaddy.com

Bick
Posts: 3447
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Net Neutrality repeal

Postby Bick » Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:04 am

John Q. Public wrote:If I were to do that, sure. Many sites do. But Charter and Verizon would have had nothing to do with the creation of that content. Why should they be able to charge a fee for it?


They supplied the capital to build, maintain, re-invest in the supply of bandwidth. The more regulations imposed, the higher the needed return to make further investment. Basic economics.

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 21098
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Net Neutrality repeal

Postby Wabash » Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:07 am

So what? Risk is part of participating in free market capitalism. There is no semblance of free markets in this industry. And lower risk as a result.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

Bick
Posts: 3447
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Net Neutrality repeal

Postby Bick » Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:51 am

Do some homework on the impact of gov't regulation on innovation in any industry. Start with the airlines before and after 1978.

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 21098
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Net Neutrality repeal

Postby Wabash » Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:57 am

Airlines were never allowed to control their market share via government enforced monopolies.

Try another example.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

Bick
Posts: 3447
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Net Neutrality repeal

Postby Bick » Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:01 pm

You don't know what you're talking about. Take an econ class...own a business...maybe we can have a meaningful discussion.

Return to “National”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yandex [Bot] and 1 guest