Obama wants to make the internet a utility

Gr8hope said:

"The government that cannot properly set up ONE internet site for healthcare is now taking control of all of them."
Think about that and tell me how this is a good thing.

Click to expand...

I get your skepticism, but it is not really a valid comparison of what is going on. Regulation and enforcement is different from developing and providing a service.

What Jon is advocating for is needed. Service providers should be just that, providing the connection and agreed upon bandwidth to the network. There needs to be a separation between content providers on the internet (like E-Mail, Web Sites, VOIP phone systems, Streaming media, etc.) and service providers that provide the connections and bandwidth you use to get to the content.

Gr8hope said:

"The government that cannot properly set up ONE internet site for healthcare is now taking control of all of them."
Think about that and tell me how this is a good thing.

Click to expand...

Currently, they are not taking control of anything. They are simply mandating that ISPs can't hold certain content hostage given that consumers have few if any ISP options in the market.

Let's say you have a subscription to Netflix and are paying them so you can watch House of Cards tonight. However, your ISP owns a competitor and has an interest in degrading Netflix's customer satisfaction by throttling the speed at which it is delivered to you. Lots of buffering is going on and the picture quality sucks. After all, you are paying your ISP (internet service provider) to provide internet service to you at certain speeds and you are paying Netflix for the content that the ISP is delivering. Keep in mind you don't have another high speed ISP option other than unreliable satellite broadband.

Would you say this is ok? That that is the free market at work?

TheAccountant said:

Currently, they are not taking control of anything. They are simply mandating that ISPs can't hold certain content hostage given that consumers have few if any ISP options in the market.

Let's say you have a subscription to Netflix and are paying them so you can watch House of Cards tonight. However, your ISP provider owns a competitor and has an interest in degrading Netflix's customer satisfaction (throttling the speed at which it is delivered). After all, you are paying your ISP (internet service provider) to provide internet service to you and you are paying Netflix for the content that the ISP is delivering.

Would you say this is ok? That that is the free market at work?

Click to expand...

this isn't even a "let's say" or hypothetical scenario Comcast has already done this

I'm really disappointed they didn't take steps to unbundle the last mile. Consumers deserve choices for ISPs. That won't happen until #1 the FCC forces the owners of the wires to lease them out at fair prices OR #2 they step in and stop State governments from banning local municipalities from becoming ISPs. Both of those stifle innovation and are road blocks for entry in the business. Otherwise the only way you get more competition is companies sitting on 10's of billions of dollars like Google. Realistically, a Google will never enter into a small town. They are going to populated areas to get bang for their buck. If a town of 10000 people want to set up a ISP, I think it is absurd for state governments to ban that after getting lobbied by Comcast or ATT.

At this point, all I can do is wait the 2 yrs or so before Google is built out in my area.

Jon said:

this isn't even a "let's say" or hypothetical scenario Comcast has already done this

Click to expand...

Yeah I'm curious if there is any wording over peering in there.

TheAccountant said:

Currently, they are not taking control of anything. They are simply mandating that ISPs can't hold certain content hostage given that consumers have few if any ISP options in the market.

Let's say you have a subscription to Netflix and are paying them so you can watch House of Cards tonight. However, your ISP owns a competitor and has an interest in degrading Netflix's customer satisfaction by throttling the speed at which it is delivered to you. Lots of buffering is going on and the picture quality sucks. After all, you are paying your ISP (internet service provider) to provide internet service to you at certain speeds and you are paying Netflix for the content that the ISP is delivering. Keep in mind you don't have another high speed ISP option other than unreliable satellite broadband.

Would you say this is ok? That that is the free market at work?

Click to expand...

Regulating ISPs as utilities is not required to fix this problem when it occurs. Microsoft says hello by the way.

Jon said:

this isn't even a "let's say" or hypothetical scenario Comcast has already done this

Click to expand...

Yes, I know. I doubt he does and was attempting to make a point using an actual scenario as a personal example for him.

Tide1986 said:

Regulating ISPs as utilities is not required to fix this problem when it occurs. Microsoft says hello by the way.

Click to expand...

I guess you are assuming I would be against busting up these monopolistic companies in favor of more government control?

Go back and reread some of my posts.

Tide1986 said:

Regulating ISPs as utilities is not required to fix this problem when it occurs. Microsoft says hello by the way.

Click to expand...

So how DO you fix the problem when Comcast refuses to add a fiber connection to Level3 or Cogent at a peering point while they are trying to strong arm Netflix into giving them money?

2003TIDE said:

So how DO you fix the problem when Comcast refuses to add a fiber connection to Level3 or Cogent at a peering point while they are trying to strong arm Netflix into giving them money?

Click to expand...

To be clear, my comment relates to the following comment by TheAccountant:

Let's say you have a subscription to Netflix and are paying them so you can watch House of Cards tonight. However, your ISP owns a competitor and has an interest in degrading Netflix's customer satisfaction by throttling the speed at which it is delivered to you. Lots of buffering is going on and the picture quality sucks.

Click to expand...

This practice is a violation of existing antitrust laws -- it's a type of bundling. And as long as the federal government is willing to enforce existing laws, it can be fixed ultimately with a federal lawsuit against the perpetrator.

Tide1986 said:

To be clear, my comment relates to the following comment by TheAccountant:



This practice is a violation of existing antitrust laws -- it's a type of bundling. And as long as the federal government is willing to enforce existing laws, it can be fixed ultimately with a federal lawsuit against the perpetrator.

Click to expand...

That's the ISP line. Deal with it on a case by case basis and put the onus on the consumer and content providers to fight this in court.

Mittman, it will be, just wait. I believe what I see in the record of this administration. I know what they're capable of doing to the American business model first hand. The fact that the regulations are held tightly in secret makes the danger clear. FCC Chairman refused to answer questions before Congress. The Commission has no authority to do what it has unilaterally decided. Another case of "you didn't build that." Do we want a government controlled society in exchange for perceived equality. Who decides what is fair? So many support what is wrong when they feel they are benefiting but fail to see the big picture and long term results. "I'm doing well so the country is fine," is so selfish.
Please watch the video I posted above for further explanation. I understand your points but they are only being used to gain control and are not the ultimate goal.

2003TIDE said:

I'm really disappointed they didn't take steps to unbundle the last mile. Consumers deserve choices for ISPs. That won't happen until #1 the FCC forces the owners of the wires to lease them out at fair prices OR #2 they step in and stop State governments from banning local municipalities from becoming ISPs. Both of those stifle innovation and are road blocks for entry in the business. Otherwise the only way you get more competition is companies sitting on 10's of billions of dollars like Google. Realistically, a Google will never enter into a small town. They are going to populated areas to get bang for their buck. If a town of 10000 people want to set up a ISP, I think it is absurd for state governments to ban that after getting lobbied by Comcast or ATT.

At this point, all I can do is wait the 2 yrs or so before Google is built out in my area.

Click to expand...

we are moving our offices to hapeville (next to the airport) this spring and it, along with east point is slated to get google fiber. so home and office will have google fiber soon

crimsonaudio said:

I know there are differences, but it seems FCC regulation of the telecomm industry has helped more than hurt. I'm always wary of government involvement, but allowing companies to go unchecked is historically not a wise move, either.

Click to expand...

hippy

Someday a wireless technology will render this absurdity a moot point.

Gr8hope said:

Mittman, it will be, just wait. I believe what I see in the record of this administration. I know what they're capable of doing to the American business model first hand. The fact that the regulations are held tightly in secret makes the danger clear. FCC Chairman refused to answer questions before Congress. The Commission has no authority to do what it has unilaterally decided. Another case of "you didn't build that." Do we want a government controlled society in exchange for perceived equality. Who decides what is fair? So many support what is wrong when they feel they are benefiting but fail to see the big picture and long term results. "I'm doing well so the country is fine," is so selfish.
Please watch the video I posted above for further explanation. I understand your points but they are only being used to gain control and are not the ultimate goal.

Click to expand...

the video you posted is laughable

his two premises that he opens his video show that he has absolutely no understanding of what he is talking about. I stopped just after as he is clearly basing his entire argument on flawed logic and then shouting "marxism"

Premise 1 Net Nuetrality is Socialism for the Internet, which turns the net into dumb tubes which he describes as requiring the same amount of bandwidth to all customers. Net neutrality has nothing to do with the amount of bandwidth available to your house, you want a 30 mb plan get one, want more or less do it This ruling doesn't change that

Facet 2 (and yes he says 2 premises and then calls one a premise and the second a facet) is essentially restating the first, and again he is simply wrong. You are 100% still able to buy a faster internet plan than your neighbor and you will get faster speeds (most of the time)

he totally gets this wrong, to use his analogy the video provider of the Panda Sneezes video gets the same as any other service that wishes to transport data across the net. The hospital MRI Scenario is far more hysterical to me (and yeah I actually sell and design all the stuff to do that with MRI's, closed one last week actually with a Hospital in FL, so I know for a fact the Net Neutrality won't affect it)

like I said, when based on false premises whats the point of listening to this guy rant.

TheAccountant said:

That's the ISP line. Deal with it on a case by case basis and put the onus on the consumer and content providers to fight this in court.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that there will be no need to fight ISPs in court if they are regulated as utilities?

Gr8hope said:

Mittman, it will be, just wait. I believe what I see in the record of this administration. I know what they're capable of doing to the American business model first hand. The fact that the regulations are held tightly in secret makes the danger clear. FCC Chairman refused to answer questions before Congress. The Commission has no authority to do what it has unilaterally decided. Another case of "you didn't build that." Do we want a government controlled society in exchange for perceived equality. Who decides what is fair? So many support what is wrong when they feel they are benefiting but fail to see the big picture and long term results. "I'm doing well so the country is fine," is so selfish.
Please watch the video I posted above for further explanation. I understand your points but they are only being used to gain control and are not the ultimate goal.

Click to expand...

I did watch the video. I agree and understand that the FCC is not being open and honest about what they are asking for and what they may do. As I said before I fully expect the FCC to make things worse, and have little confidence that they will do only what needs to be done.

However, if the service providers were being service providers the FCC would not have a gripe to latch onto. There is a real problem that those outside the industry only marginally understand. Probably the only thing they see is when they watch a movie on Netflix via Comcast it had to stop and buffer when watching via Comcast on demand worked just fine. The media companies are not being good corporate citizens, were trying to monopolize market, and drive competitors out of what should be a free and open marketplace. This marketplace was in effect created and paid for by taxpayers, and then privatized. This is a real problem that only can be addressed at this level.

Yes we should be concerned about what the FCC does, and how they do it. That does not mean we can just step back and say let the market fix it, in this case the market is breaking it. That may be ok with some people. In fact it probably will correct itself eventually, but I would rather not go through the pain of a correction that will probably take decades.