Obama wants to make the internet a utility

[dWarriors88]

What concerns me though is this secret deal happening, and it's 'Intellectual Property Rights' clause, coupled with government oversight of internet. Feels bad man.

 

[jthomas666]

some days, i wonder what would happen if obama told everyone that it was a bad idea to drink bleach

VJ would have the whitest intestines on the planet.

 

[92tide]

VJ would have the whitest intestines on the planet.

ive also heard that it protects against ebola.

 

[lazlohollyfeld]

actually you could not be more wrong. All this does, all it does is make ISP's treat all data as equal that is it, nothing more. This does not give any government agency any power over any sort of content. None what-so-ever. This does not give the FCC any power to say what you can or cannot see over the internet. It opens the door to nothing. In fact by not allowing net neutrality you are giving comcast, time warner, mediacom, cox cable, at&t or verizon exactly the power you are afraid to give the government

Anyone here not get SEC network because your cable provider is too cheap? How about AMC or the turner networks? I am having this problem with Dish right now and others are about to lose the walking dead. Without net neutrality your provider could do the same thing with tidefans, espn.com, netflix, hulu, amazon prime video, pandora, iheartradio, you name it you are giving your isp the power to block it.

What if an Auburn fan billionaire bought mediacom? They have a healthy monopoly in parts of Alabama. Will you be ok with absolutely no bama related websites or data traffic? Type Alabama football into google and only get Auburn related responses? Want to get all your tide news from itat? This is of course a massive stretch but this also exactly what you are dealing with. without net neutrality this is actually a feasible scenario. Without this reclassification your isp could do this.

Question to the mods or Brett If comcast asked you for $5,000 a month to get tidefans.com delivered to comcast customers how would you respond? Without net neutrality this could happen. Would you charge a fee for tidefans? or shut down the site? For the rest of us, you ready to go to some other nowhere near as good bama site? I'm not. I like it here and want it to stay. Without net neutrality your isp could buy one of those big message board sites and throttle tidefans to a point where it took a full minute to load an image just to make their crappy site seem better. Please understand if you are against this regulation, by default, this is what you are for.

Has any of this happened? Or is this a government solution in search of a problem? I can always fire Time Warner or Comcast, so I don't mind them having whatever power and nefarious action you might ascribe to them. I cannot do the same with the FCC.

 

[Jon]

What concerns me though is this secret deal happening, and it's 'Intellectual Property Rights' clause, coupled with government oversight of internet. Feels bad man.

agree there

what kills me about this is how obama played it to appear not to be in the pocket of the telecom/isp industry when he so clearly is. Waiting till he has no power to stop it to make this comment, after appointing Tom Wheeler to run the FCC. Want to know what Tom Wheeler did prior to running the FCC? Yeah he was a lobbyist for the ISP's


So Obama can now claim to support net neutrality with his public statements while also retarding it through his actions while President. Obama doesn't want Net Neutrality, he could have done it years ago with a willing congress. He wants to appear to want it, and those who are fighting it you are helping Obama.

 

[Jon]

Has any of this happened? Or is this a government solution in search of a problem? I can always fire Time Warner or Comcast, so I don't mind them having whatever power and nefarious action you might ascribe to them. I cannot do the same with the FCC.

Actually, yes it has

You see that big dip on the graph? Yea, that when Comcast and Netflix were "negotiating" a fee that Comcast was proposing on Netflix. Comcast simply slowed the connection from Netflix to their Customers until users were getting horrible service and complaining and/or canceling their Netflix accounts due to poor service. Netflix tried to remain strong but ultimately their business was getting hurt too badly so rather than lose their comcast customer base Netflix caved and is paying Comcast millions for "fast lanes". What happened next? Netflix raised rates in April, I wonder why?

How much of a stretch is it for Comcast to do the same thing to prop up Hulu (which they own a part of) or Xfinity on demand? They have the technology (I know I sold it to them ) to do it and it's technically legal.

 

[NationalTitles18]

So let's say the FCC regulates the internet as a utility. What powers does the FCC have over phone and cable services and how do you think applying similar powers against ISP's will benefit or harm consumers? Will it actually preserve or impose real net neutrality or could it actually make the situation worse?

 

[TideMom2Boys]

I work from home and depend on the internet entirely for my work.


I am a little confused on what this change would cause. Would this end up making the prices of our internet to go up?

 

[dWarriors88]

I am a little confused on what this change would cause. Would this end up making the prices of our internet to go up?

No, if Internet were to be classified as a utility, you would have more options as to who you could pick as your ISP. Okay so as it is now, Comcast has their infrastructure in place in town A, Cox has town b 400 miles away. If Cox wanted to serve the people of town A, they would need to install their own infrastructure, wires, cables etc side by side with Comcast. Which is incredibly expensive and inefficient. Were internet become a utility, Cox could operate within comcast's infrastructure. And so could Time Warner, or AttUverse, or whoever. They would simply pay a fee to whomever had ownership of said infrastructure. So what this does is gives consumers more options in who they want for their ISP, which will create price wars and companies will start offering higher speeds for cheaper rates. Hopefully. That's the idea anyways, it may work out like a gentlemen's agreement where they all keep their packages around he same price, but that remains to be seen. It also prevents the FCC from creating the fast lanes. Which Jon does a great job of explaining on the last page.

all that said, I believe we will start to see the beginning of a technological growth spurt if they allowed us consumers true high speed data transfers like South Korea just started doing. I believe they are getting ready to allow 10Gb/s broadband. You guys have no idea the advancement capabilities we could be looking at if we had that kind of speed without limits.

Believe it or not, hollywood has a lot to do with this too. They don't want their movies and music being pirated, and if we had GB/s broadband, you could download a whole movie in a blink of an eye.

 

[NationalTitles18]

No, if Internet were to be classified as a utility, you would have more options as to who you could pick as your ISP. Okay so as it is now, Comcast has their infrastructure in place in town A, Cox has town b 400 miles away. If Cox wanted to serve the people of town A, they would need to install their own infrastructure, wires, cables etc side by side with Comcast. Which is incredibly expensive and inefficient. Were internet become a utility, Cox could operate within comcast's infrastructure. And so could Time Warner, or AttUverse, or whoever. They would simply pay a fee to whomever had ownership of said infrastructure. So what this does is gives consumers more options in who they want for their ISP, which will create price wars and companies will start offering higher speeds for cheaper rates. Hopefully. That's the idea anyways, it may work out like a gentlemen's agreement where they all keep their packages around he same price, but that remains to be seen. It also prevents the FCC from creating the fast lanes. Which Jon does a great job of explaining on the last page.

all that said, I believe we will start to see the beginning of a technological growth spurt if they allowed us consumers true high speed data transfers like South Korea just started doing. I believe they are getting ready to allow 10Gb/s broadband. You guys have no idea the advancement capabilities we could be looking at if we had that kind of speed without limits.

Believe it or not, hollywood has a lot to do with this too. They don't want their movies and music being pirated, and if we had GB/s broadband, you could download a whole movie in a blink of an eye.

Well, I don't have a pick of phone or cable or electricity so why should I think I will have better choice of ISP? I don't think the government is going to "allow" 10Gbps in any way. The technology has been developed and the infrastructure is being placed in certain cities by private companies. I also don't understand how more regulation is going to spur more advances. Regulations usually impede advancements.

ETA: Regulations usually end up protecting favored interests (read as favored companies).

 

[Bama Reb]

Has any of this happened? Or is this a government solution in search of a problem? I can always fire Time Warner or Comcast, so I don't mind them having whatever power and nefarious action you might ascribe to them. I cannot do the same with the FCC.

Maybe. I would much rather they concentrate on solving problems that really do exist. My main concern behind them pushing net neutrality is why do they want to do this? Imo we don't presently have a problem with it, so, "if it's not broken, why fix it"?
You can believe that there is an ulterior motive. There always is when they try to do these things, and it's always politically motivated. So what is it?

 

[Silverback]

As somebody living without a high speed internet option I think it would be a good thing. Being in the country is nice but high speed internet is a high dollar affair for us.

 

[chanson78]

Maybe. I would much rather they concentrate on solving problems that really do exist. My main concern behind them pushing net neutrality is why do they want to do this? Imo we don't presently have a problem with it, so, "if it's not broken, why fix it"?
You can believe that there is an ulterior motive. There always is when they try to do these things, and it's always politically motivated. So what is it?

This originally came about because carriers were trying to push the "fast lane" model, much like what Comcast did with Netflix. Verizon had sued in court, the FCC chairman rolled over on the issue right before he went to work for them and essentially the FCC went belly up in the face of doing anything with broadband internet. Here is the problem. Everyone here wants to think that the status of the internet providers in the US is just hunky dory. http://theweek.com/article/index/257404/why-is-american-internet-so-slow

Susan Crawford argues that "huge telecommunication companies" such as Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, and AT&T have "divided up markets and put themselves in a position where they're subject to no competition."

How? The 1996 Telecommunications Act — which was meant to foster competition — allowed cable companies and telecoms companies to simply divide markets and merge their way to monopoly, allowing them to charge customers higher and higher prices without the kind of investment in internet infrastructure, especially in next-generation fiber optic connections, that is ongoing in other countries. Fiber optic connections offer a particularly compelling example. While expensive to build, they offer faster and smoother connections than traditional copper wire connections. But Verizon stopped building out fiber optic infrastructure in 2010 — citing high costs — just as other countries were getting to work.

So when the FCC got neutered it became open season. Internet providers have essentially divided up the landscape, much like they do with cable networks, ensuring that most customers only have a choice between crappy internet, and slightly less crappy internet. I guess since it mirrors the political system, most people aren't up in arms.

But here is the really sinister part. Cable companies have lobbied state legislatures to pass legislation to prevent municipalities in the state from even thinking about starting their own infrastructure.

A lot of people on here are worried about what happens when the free market is clamped down by the jackboot of government through regulation. I am more worried about the amount of money that has flowed into states to ensure that the cable/internet companies can continue to sell a sub par product to a populace through a veritable monopoly. We don't even have the right to try and make a better product through public means because its illegal. The free market has stifled competition, whether that competition comes from being able to drop prices in a new market or through deep deep legal pockets (http://arstechnica.com/business/201...competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/1/).

It's not the only problem to solve. Most regions in the US are dominated by one or two major ISPs that are "notorious" for filing frivolous lawsuits against startup Internet providers, according to Don Patten, who has three decades of experience in the business and is now general manager of MINET Fiber in Oregon.

Legal budgets the size of Godzilla

"I have never seen an independent… start up without having to fight the incumbent legally," Patten told Ars. "The incumbents are notorious for frivolous delay lawsuits. They know perfectly well they're frivolous, but it's a delay tactic. They have an army of lawyers and a budget to support lawsuits the size of Godzilla. That's one of their tactics, it always has been. It probably will continue to be so for many years yet to come."
That's what happened to fiber ISP Falcon Broadband in Colorado Springs. The company started in 2003, competing against Adelphia, Falcon's former engineering chief Michael Wagner said.

"They did not want anybody else to come into their territory because they wanted to have that monopoly with their franchise agreements," Wagner told Ars. "What they started to do was file frivolous lawsuit after lawsuit to try to basically bankrupt us so we couldn't compete."

When a city gets tired of having to put up with the fact that the incumbent provider is providing residents with a crappy service and decides to go it on their own, cable providers either lobby to get legislation passed or ties the city up in legal land and prevents the municipality from even starting.

How in the world can anyone think that the game isn't already rigged is beyond me. This is the antithesis of the free market and how some of you can believe that the cable companies won't continue to tighten the grip is frankly a bit scary. The conditioning to believe that any and everything free market is good, and any and everything government is bad is so ingrained that it is almost impossible to have a legitimate discussion about this kind of stuff because you have already made up your mind.

Edit: Adding a link to graphically explain net neutrality a little better. The only thing that this leaves out is that ISP's want to charge on both ends for the content. They want consumers to pay to get the high speed access to the various services, as well as getting those services to pay the ISP for preferred lanes/hookups to the ISP's backbone.

http://www.theopeninter.net/

 

[Jon]

How in the world can anyone think that the game isn't already rigged is beyond me. This is the antithesis of the free market and how some of you can believe that the cable companies won't continue to tighten the grip is frankly a bit scary. The conditioning to believe that any and everything free market is good, and any and everything government is bad is so ingrained that it is almost impossible to have a legitimate discussion about this kind of stuff because you have already made up your mind.

That's the thing. 99.999% of the time more regulation is bad. Unfortunately this falls into the .001% of the time that it isn't. For people who don't dive in and really understand the issue at the core it's very easy just to dismiss this as another example of Government over reach.

What people don't get is how completely bi-partisan this is. As I mentioned earlier in the Thread, if Obama wanted this he could have done it already when he was far, far more powerful. To make this move now shows that he never had any real intention of supporting this. Same with the Dem's who are supporting it now. They are only doing it to play to their base at a time when they know they are likely to lose. This is a win-win for them, they get to paint Republicans as the bad guy and keep the Cable/ISP Lobby happy. And the Rush Limbaughs of the world are playing right into their hands. Status quo wins and we all lose. The US is now 31st in the world and falling in average download speeds. We are behind Estonia and Uruguay. That is pathetic.

 

[Tidewater]

Who is going to do the regulation? Dept of Health and Human Services?

The IRS. They've got a clean rep.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

As somebody living without a high speed internet option I think it would be a good thing. Being in the country is nice but high speed internet is a high dollar affair for us.

So now all of "us" have to pay a service fee so you can have high speed internet? That's not ok with me.

 

[2003TIDE]

For people who don't dive in and really understand the issue at the core it's very easy just to dismiss this as another example of Government over reach. .

This.

 

[2003TIDE]

So now all of "us" have to pay a service fee so you can have high speed internet? That's not ok with me.

People are already having to pay more for services due to the broken state of things. You think when Comcast strong-armed Netflix into paying them money customers saved on that one? This is the only way to fix the issue. When you have telcos leaving equipment purposely unplugged at peering points to degrade services of companies on the internet, you can't say with a straight face that a free market system works for the internet.

 

[Jon]

So now all of "us" have to pay a service fee so you can have high speed internet? That's not ok with me.

why does this keep coming up in this thread

NET NEUTRALITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COST, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROVIDING FREE OR CHEAP OR SUBSIDIZED INTERNET TO ANYONE.

 

[Tide1986]

This originally came about because carriers were trying to push the "fast lane" model, much like what Comcast did with Netflix. Verizon had sued in court, the FCC chairman rolled over on the issue right before he went to work for them and essentially the FCC went belly up in the face of doing anything with broadband internet. Here is the problem. Everyone here wants to think that the status of the internet providers in the US is just hunky dory. http://theweek.com/article/index/257404/why-is-american-internet-so-slow



So when the FCC got neutered it became open season. Internet providers have essentially divided up the landscape, much like they do with cable networks, ensuring that most customers only have a choice between crappy internet, and slightly less crappy internet. I guess since it mirrors the political system, most people aren't up in arms.

But here is the really sinister part. Cable companies have lobbied state legislatures to pass legislation to prevent municipalities in the state from even thinking about starting their own infrastructure.

A lot of people on here are worried about what happens when the free market is clamped down by the jackboot of government through regulation. I am more worried about the amount of money that has flowed into states to ensure that the cable/internet companies can continue to sell a sub par product to a populace through a veritable monopoly. We don't even have the right to try and make a better product through public means because its illegal. The free market has stifled competition, whether that competition comes from being able to drop prices in a new market or through deep deep legal pockets (http://arstechnica.com/business/201...competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/1/).



When a city gets tired of having to put up with the fact that the incumbent provider is providing residents with a crappy service and decides to go it on their own, cable providers either lobby to get legislation passed or ties the city up in legal land and prevents the municipality from even starting.

How in the world can anyone think that the game isn't already rigged is beyond me. This is the antithesis of the free market and how some of you can believe that the cable companies won't continue to tighten the grip is frankly a bit scary. The conditioning to believe that any and everything free market is good, and any and everything government is bad is so ingrained that it is almost impossible to have a legitimate discussion about this kind of stuff because you have already made up your mind.

Edit: Adding a link to graphically explain net neutrality a little better. The only thing that this leaves out is that ISP's want to charge on both ends for the content. They want consumers to pay to get the high speed access to the various services, as well as getting those services to pay the ISP for preferred lanes/hookups to the ISP's backbone.

http://www.theopeninter.net/

I've yet to form an opinion on the broader topic, but as you can suspect, I'm initially suspicious of government regulation and its potential for negative unintended consequences. Anyway, I'll make a couple of small points:

(1) When state governments create laws that prevent municipalities from building their own infrastructure and providing their own services, that smacks of restraint of trade, not a failing of the free market.

(2) Personally, I've been very satisfied with the Internet service provided by AT&T Uverse. Maybe if I experienced the problems that some of you seem to be experiencing, I would care more. Right now, Internet service IS like a utility to me -- it's always there and always reliable.