Author Topic: the "net neutrality" FCC Court decision thread, I have no idea about this stuff  (Read 29831 times)

taurusowner

  • Guest
No, some of us have experience with this and with the companies in question and know exactly what will happen.  We also know how it can be accomplished.  Do you?

What would you do if your telephone service monitored your calls, only allowed you to call certain numbers, and disconnected your calls if you talked about topics they didn't agree with?  What if every telephone service did that?  Go without a phone? 

Chris

Yes. I would go without a phone.  And enough people did the same, said telcom would stop those practices and start acting more in line with what consumers want.  When you break it down, I will almost always side with the corporations over government regulations.  Because in the end, no corporation has force.  No telcom can make me do business with them or give them my money if I don't like what they are doing.  Government can.  I trust the symbiotic relationship between corporation and consumer more than I trust the slave/master relationship between us and government.

mtnbkr

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 15,388
Not everyone has the luxury of doing without a phone.  This affects not only individuals, but other corporations and organizations (woo, wouldn't it be fun if the local telco started playing games with the fire dept or calls going to the FD).

The larger issue, and one that keeps getting sidestepped, is that the telcos want to do this within their existing operating agreements.  They don't want to offer you a tiered service that disallows some types of traffic.  They want to arbitrarily block some types or have the right to redirect your request for www.google.com to www.bing.com (as an example).

They received the protections and access they have today because they agreed to play by a certain set of rules.  Now they to change some of the rules while benefiting from others. 

Chris

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
There is only so much room in the physical pipes carrying cable for service. Until you can get around that there's going to be a monopoly, fed.gov enforced or not.
Easy.  Run more pipes.  

Or, even easier, allow providers to lease/own of said pipes.  Let providers acquire rights to the pipes, run whatever cable they want through their pipes, and let 'em sell what ever access to that bandwidth they see fit. 

Ther's no reason that government monopoly must be in control of the pipes.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2010, 11:03:57 AM by Headless Thompson Gunner »

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Not everyone has the luxury of doing without a phone.  This affects not only individuals, but other corporations and organizations (woo, wouldn't it be fun if the local telco started playing games with the fire dept or calls going to the FD).
We have to do it your way because, gosh darn it, you have a right to force companies to provide this service to you want, and on your terms.

The larger issue, and one that keeps getting sidestepped, is that the telcos want to do this within their existing operating agreements.  They don't want to offer you a tiered service that disallows some types of traffic.  They want to arbitrarily block some types or have the right to redirect your request for www.google.com to www.bing.com (as an example
Let 'em.  Customers who are ok with this practice will use it, probably save money in the process.  Customers who aren't ok with it will do business elsewhere.  The market would decide pretty quickly whether redirecting traffic is a good business model or not.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2010, 10:48:01 AM by Headless Thompson Gunner »

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Yes. I would go without a phone.  And enough people did the same, said telcom would stop those practices and start acting more in line with what consumers want.  When you break it down, I will almost always side with the corporations over government regulations.  Because in the end, no corporation has force.  No telcom can make me do business with them or give them my money if I don't like what they are doing.  Government can.  I trust the symbiotic relationship between corporation and consumer more than I trust the slave/master relationship between us and government.
This.

Free choice and property rights work much better than government fiat.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2010, 10:51:30 AM by Headless Thompson Gunner »

mtnbkr

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 15,388
Easy.  Run more pipes. 

Or, even easier, allow providers to lease/own of said pipes.  Let providers acquire rights to the pipes, run whatever cable they want through their pipes, and let 'em sell what ever access to that bandwidth they see fit. 

Ther's no reason that government monopoly must be in control of the pipes.

The govt doesn't control them, the utilities do (including the telcos), which is why all your other plans are for naught.  If VZ, who owns the fiber, decides to control your access to www.armedpolitesociety.com, it doesn't matter who you actually buy your service from.  Your local provider will be using the fiber owned by VZ.  Your local provider doesn't have the capital to run the fiber themselves.  Switch to another local provider?  They're likely using VZ's infrastructure as well. 

Quote
Customers who aren't ok with it will do business elsewhere.  Customers who are ok with this practice will use it, probably save money in the process. The market would decide pretty quickly whether redirecting traffic is a good business model or not.
Except there likely won't be anywhere else to go because all of the ISPs who have commented on this are in favor of it.  In my town, we have Verizon and Comcast (and only Comcast covers the entire town).  Both are own record opposing Net Neutrality.  If they get their way, nobody in this town (that includes businesses) will have an option for wired 'net access.  Wireless isn't fast enough or reliable enough for business use yet.

Also, the ISPs want to do this within their existing contracts.  You won't get a price break because they're mucking with your traffic.  The only market force will be from folk switching to ISPs that don't do this, assuming there are any.  So far, they all seem to be in favor of it.

It's worth noting nobody on the hosting side of the business (the folks that provide a home for websites and such) are in favor of this either.  They know what it means for their business. 

What would your company do if it suddenly lost visibility to a large portion of the country because the remote ISPs suddenly decided traffic to your company was against their interests or because they favored your competitor. 

Chris

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Unintended Consequences, page 298

Quote
"The Regulated American Economy," James Nelson said in a loud voice. "This course is about government
regulation of the free market. Much of the curriculum will focus on utility companies and other
government-regulated monopolies." Nelson was an expert on industries that were most efficient when
addressed by a single supplier.

"This department is known for its free-market philosophy, so it may surprise some of you to hear me
advocate government-sanctioned monopolies." He saw that he had their attention, and continued.
"An existing utility company—the phone company, for example—can double its capacity and serve twice
as many customers for a fraction of the cost of duplicating its entire plant and equipment. A general rule of
thumb for a single entity of this type is that capacity increases as the square of the cost. This is because
most of the necessary hardware is already in place." Nelson paced across the front of the room and went on.

"This fact has been known for many years, but sometimes our legislators forget it. Years ago, the local
decision-makers realized Amherst was growing, and needed more water service. They passed a law
decreeing that there had to be a second choice for water service in this town, and solicited sealed bids.
They chose the company that offered the town the most for the privilege of competing in the water-supply
business."

"They didn't dig up the streets and put in duplicate water mains!" Henry said reflexively.

"That's exactly what they did," Nelson said with a laugh. "Care to guess what happened?" No one
answered. "Mister...Bowman, is it?" Henry licked his lips and took a stab at the question.

"The existing company cut their prices, maybe even to where they were losing money, and they drove the
new guys out of business." Nelson smiled as he nodded in agreement.

"Then what?" the professor asked.

"Well, ah...I guess after the new company went bust, the old one was able to buy up their hardware—you
know, the pipes and all—for a few cents on the dollar, and ended up in an even stronger position than
before."

"Right. And on top of that," Nelson added, "the town subsidized the construction. It was a hundred years
ago, and they're still paying off the debt incurred by that fiasco. Can anyone tell me what was the one smart thing the town council did in making this law?" He saw Henry grinning. "Mister Bowman, you look like
you may have a suggestion."

"They were really smart to decide that there should be two water companies competing for everyone's
business, and not ten."
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
The govt doesn't control them, the utilities do (including the telcos), which is why all your other plans are for naught.  If VZ, who owns the fiber, decides to control your access to www.armedpolitesociety.com, it doesn't matter who you actually buy your service from.  Your local provider will be using the fiber owned by VZ.  Your local provider doesn't have the capital to run the fiber themselves.  Switch to another local provider?  They're likely using VZ's infrastructure as well. 
I'd hire the provider who is able to negotiate with VZ to get me the service I want.

Except there likely won't be anywhere else to go because all of the ISPs who have commented on this are in favor of it.  In my town, we have Verizon and Comcast (and only Comcast covers the entire town).  Both are own record opposing Net Neutrality.  If they get their way, nobody in this town (that includes businesses) will have an option for wired 'net access.  Wireless isn't fast enough or reliable enough for business use yet.
Ya mean the service providers are in favor of being able to run their businesses their way, not the government's what?  Whodathunkit?

It's worth noting nobody on the hosting side of the business (the folks that provide a home for websites and such) are in favor of this either.  They know what it means for their business. 

What would your company do if it suddenly lost visibility to a large portion of the country because the remote ISPs suddenly decided traffic to your company was against their interests or because they favored your competitor. 

I'd switch to a new host, one who has access to the network providers I want.



The interesting thing about this stuff, the element that simply screams for unrestricted free market usage, is that distributed networks like the internet are inherently able to reroute traffic around blockages and obstacles.  If some provider somewhere decides to stop carrying my traffic, the system is purpose-built to find another route through.  Combine that with good ol' free market greed and there would almost always be someone out there willing to take my money in exchange for moving my data.  It doesn't particularly matter to me where they are or what route the data takes, beyond the issue of speed.

And I don't buy the notion that there has to be only one or two access providers in any given area and that they'd all stifle internet access.  The moment one of 'em tries to pull any crap, someone else will come along to displace them.  There's too much money and demand at stake.  Even if it came down to needing to lay new lines, I've no doubt that someone would find a way.  There are no inherent difficulties with this, only government obstruction and lack of will/interest.

And in those rare instances where I can't find a route through, then I'd be willing to accept it.  I'm not willing to use force of government to force private entities to do my bidding if they don't want to.  I know that I don't have a government guaranteed right to internet access (or health care, or...)

Ultimately data traffic is a product like any other.  We don't rely upon the seller's good nature to give us the products we want, we rely upon their self-interests.  It works beautifully, but it does require that we give up the notion that we can control the sellers and manipulate them to our own ends by using force of government.

I agree that there are some legacy problems with telecoms these days, relating back to the days when all of this stuff was run as a government-enforced monopoly.  But the way to solve these government-related problems is not to layer even more government over the top of what we already have.  The solution is to strip away the remnants of government that still exist and are still causing the problems.

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Unintended Consequences, page 298
<snip>
Interesting you should bring that up.  The hypothetical described in the book is the exact opposite of the real-world example of what took place in my home town about a decade ago.

Rapid development in the glamorous suburbs end of town outstripped the city's ability to deliver water.  The local laws protected the municipal water utility as the sole government-monopoly utility provider.  Every new house had to be connected to it, period.  Eventually the city had to order a moratorium halting all new construction in the burbs because the utility couldn't keep up with the expansion.  A few developers and construction companies went out of business then, a number of banks got hosed, and property values in the area fell.  Eventually people got pissed enough to change the law and break the monopoly.  A second water utility company was built in the burbs area, to serve the burbs.  Construction was renewed based on the new utility and things went along nicely for a few years.

Fast forward a few years later and the original municipal utility began to have difficulty even supplying its own original customers in the older parts of town.  The solution was to link up the new utility from the burbs to the old utility in town, allowing the new utility to sell water into the old city system.  It saved the old city system untold millions in upgrades and to the old infrastructure, and ensured that everyone got the water they needed.

The two utilities now run side by side, with each one helping the other as needed.  So far no developers have chosen to connect their developments to both utilities in parallel to each house, but there's no real need to things that way, the way Unintended Consequences describes.  Either utility is willing to deliver the other's water to any house on their system, gladly collecting revenues from both their customers and the other utility in the process.

No matter, though.  I'm weary of this thread.  Everything that can be said has been, and nobody is willing to re-think their position on the matter.

Sergeant Bob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,861
I realize net neutrality is not a bill (I read way too many news feeds and it's hard to keep everything straight) however, counting on some unelected (or elected) govt bureaucrats to ensure the internet is neutral [cough]fairness doctrine[/cough] is worse than letting the fox guard the hen house.

Easy.  Run more pipes.  

Or, even easier, allow providers to lease/own of said pipes.  Let providers acquire rights to the pipes, run whatever cable they want through their pipes, and let 'em sell what ever access to that bandwidth they see fit.  

Ther's no reason that government monopoly must be in control of the pipes.
We have to do it your way because, gosh darn it, you have a right to force companies to provide this service to you want, and on your terms.
Let 'em.  Customers who are ok with this practice will use it, probably save money in the process.  Customers who aren't ok with it will do business elsewhere.  The market would decide pretty quickly whether redirecting traffic is a good business model or not.
This.

Free choice and property rights work much better than government fiat.
I'd hire the provider who is able to negotiate with VZ to get me the service I want.
Ya mean the service providers are in favor of being able to run their businesses their way, not the government's what?  Whodathunkit?
I'd switch to a new host, one who has access to the network providers I want.



The interesting thing about this stuff, the element that simply screams for unrestricted free market usage, is that distributed networks like the internet are inherently able to reroute traffic around blockages and obstacles.  If some provider somewhere decides to stop carrying my traffic, the system is purpose-built to find another route through.  Combine that with good ol' free market greed and there would almost always be someone out there willing to take my money in exchange for moving my data.  It doesn't particularly matter to me where they are or what route the data takes, beyond the issue of speed.

And I don't buy the notion that there has to be only one or two access providers in any given area and that they'd all stifle internet access.  The moment one of 'em tries to pull any crap, someone else will come along to displace them.  There's too much money and demand at stake.  Even if it came down to needing to lay new lines, I've no doubt that someone would find a way.  There are no inherent difficulties with this, only government obstruction and lack of will/interest.

And in those rare instances where I can't find a route through, then I'd be willing to accept it.  I'm not willing to use force of government to force private entities to do my bidding if they don't want to.  I know that I don't have a government guaranteed right to internet access (or health care, or...)

Ultimately data traffic is a product like any other.  We don't rely upon the seller's good nature to give us the products we want, we rely upon their self-interests.  It works beautifully, but it does require that we give up the notion that we can control the sellers and manipulate them to our own ends by using force of government.

I agree that there are some legacy problems with telecoms these days, relating back to the days when all of this stuff was run as a government-enforced monopoly.  But the way to solve these government-related problems is not to layer even more government over the top of what we already have.  The solution is to strip away the remnants of government that still exist and are still causing the problems.

I sure am glad I have the "Warning - while you were reading a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post. " warning turned on, else I might have missed one of HTG's plethora of cogent quotes on this subject and he'll receive no argument from me.
Personally, I do not understand how a bunch of people demanding a bigger govt can call themselves anarchist.
I meet lots of folks like this, claim to be anarchist but really they're just liberals with pierced genitals. - gunsmith

I already have canned butter, buying more. Canned blueberries, some pancake making dry goods and the end of the world is gonna be delicious.  -French G

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
How is it a wet dream if it is actually happening in many big cities throughout the world?

What is wet-dreamish about having two wired telcos competing in one town? THat is actually happening right where I live. I can disconnect from my telco and go to the other telco. That's an actual physical fact.

Oh, well if it works in City X in Israel, it must be a universally applicable idea in every city of every country in the world.  ;/
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

taurusowner

  • Guest
It is interesting to see people on this board come down on the side of government control when it happens to be about an issue they personally want.

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
We're not all anarchists/hardline libertarian/Ayn Rand fanbois here. AMazingly enough, there are some things .gov should be doing.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

taurusowner

  • Guest
You're right.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
That's nice. Has nothing to do with the discussion at hand of course, but way to showcase the ole copy paste skills.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

Sergeant Bob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,861
We're not all anarchists/hardline libertarian/Ayn Rand fanbois here. AMazingly enough, there are some things .gov should be doing.

You could paint 747 in one swipe with that brush.  ;/
Personally, I do not understand how a bunch of people demanding a bigger govt can call themselves anarchist.
I meet lots of folks like this, claim to be anarchist but really they're just liberals with pierced genitals. - gunsmith

I already have canned butter, buying more. Canned blueberries, some pancake making dry goods and the end of the world is gonna be delicious.  -French G

makattak

  • Dark Lord of the Cis
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,022
That's nice. Has nothing to do with the discussion at hand of course, but way to showcase the ole copy paste skills.

Also has nothing to do with the responsibilities and powers of local governments.
I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring. In which case, you also were meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Also has nothing to do with the responsibilities and powers of local governments.

The FCC is a local government now?
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
This discussion has had nothing to do with the OP for a while. You keep arguing for removing common carrier status. That's not what telcos are trying for, they want the bennies but don't wanna abide by the terms of their contracts.

This reminds me of all those threads on gunboards that start "State X has shall issue CCW nao!" Then get hijacked into "Anything but universal Vermont/Alaska carry is just a sell out!" And winds up with people talking about repealing the NFA.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Oh and Bob, 2 things. Read Ragnar's sigline to see where I'm coming from with my comment. And since you don't appear to even know what this discussion is about, it's a bit harder to take your input seriously.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

Nitrogen

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,755
  • Who could it be?
    • @c0t0d0s2 / Twitter.
You're right.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Unless each state erects a giant faraday cage at its borders, and doesn't allow any cables to cross state lines, the commerce clause obviously applies to the FCC.
You also missed a few, including a very important one:

Quote
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
This allows Congress to create bureaus like the FCC.
יזכר לא עד פעם
Remember. Never Again.
What does it mean to be an American?  Have you forgotten? | http://youtu.be/0w03tJ3IkrM

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Unless each state erects a giant faraday cage at its borders, and doesn't allow any cables to cross state lines, the commerce clause obviously applies to the FCC.

Not as obviously as you'd like:  the concept of dormant clauses does exist.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Sergeant Bob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,861
Oh and Bob, 2 things. Read Ragnar's sigline to see where I'm coming from with my comment. And since you don't appear to even know what this discussion is about, it's a bit harder to take your input seriously.
That's nice. Has nothing to do with the discussion at hand of course, but way to showcase the ole copy paste skills.
We're not all anarchists/hardline libertarian/Ayn Rand fanbois here. AMazingly enough, there are some things .gov should be doing.
Oh, well if it works in City X in Israel, it must be a universally applicable idea in every city of every country in the world.  ;/

And what you have to offer is name calling, insulting people's intelligence, and coy remarks. Since I am incapable of understanding what the discussion is about,  I guess I must be the one lacking intelligence I take it? Can you say it straight out or will you just continue couch it in pithy invective?



Personally, I do not understand how a bunch of people demanding a bigger govt can call themselves anarchist.
I meet lots of folks like this, claim to be anarchist but really they're just liberals with pierced genitals. - gunsmith

I already have canned butter, buying more. Canned blueberries, some pancake making dry goods and the end of the world is gonna be delicious.  -French G

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
You take things I said to other people as personal insults to you? That's... odd.

Here's my take on your contribution to this thread. You started ranting about the new "bill", you've showcased an utter ignorance (as in lack of knowledge, not inability to understand) of the issue, and made no substantiative input of any kind. You just accuse anyone in support of the FCC's action as big .gov stooges, without bothering to attempt to address the real points made.

Further, you seem to have a real chip on your shoulder and be spoiling for a fight, in this thread and a lot of others. I dunno if something is happening in your personal life and you're taking it out by being extra fussy on APS or what, but seriously man you need to calm on down.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Really?  Really?  I guess the interenets is serious business!  Hey, look, I got the last word in!

Thread closed due to incivility.

JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”