Update: Net Neutrality Restrictions Struck Down by U.S. Appeals Court
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
And by "fucking disaster" you're referring to the massive over-reaction by several people here?Twenty Ninjas said:
I mean seriously, do you think any ISP would get away with being too greedy with this new set of rules? Nope. There's still such a thing as competition...if one or even several ISPs start being dicks, people will migrate to other services. I would be very surprised if anything changes. Besides...with Google ramping up their fiber service, eventually the other ISPs will get swallowed up, and Google has a vested interest in unlimited internet access because almost every site uses Google Ad Sense so Google gets a piece of that action anyway.
I take issue with a lot of what is argued there, but I'd have to write an essay to rebut it. Net neutrality is not the barrier to entry that some claim, infrastructure is. Because of the original subsidies granted to the incumbent players, they have a government created monopoly on infrastructure that cannot be duplicated without the same subsidies offered to a new market player to build their own redundant network. Because of the subsidy-created monopoly on infrastructure, the government is now forced into the role of net neutrality regulation.Arnoxthe1 said:
If there is a good way to fix the middle-mile monopoly problem, the last-mile issues could be fixed by natural market forces. Alas, as it always is, you cannot have a government created monopoly on infrastructure and expect a free market solution to price/policy issues. On the other hand, you can't expect countless redundant infrastructure projects for every would-be player who wants in on the game. But we are where we are, and that means net neutrality has to be enforced until a solution to middle-mile monopoly issues are solved.
As for the major points of the article, I'll give short-(ish) and dirty answers, though I admit I am no more than a layman.
1) This is only an issue because of the way the current laws are written. Introduction of new legislation can solve this.
2) See my comments about redundant infrastructure, subsidy-created monopolies and how in large part, this ship has already sailed.
3) There is no reason net neutrality means that last-mile networks have to be frozen in stone, or that middle-mile networks can't expand. There is also no reason why net neutrality must stifle innovation or prevent network managers flexibility. I'd need the author to expand on these points since in the article they appear to just be assertions, but again I am no expert.
4) All true points, and as a libertarian, I strongly agree with several of them. However true they are though, they rely on an open market to breed the necessary competition and as has been pointed out, that ship sailed with the subsidy monopoly. As for community policing, what can the community do but push for legislation to keep the monopoly from being abusive? Complain on forums and ***** about the new pricing structures for their "Sports Package" they now have to buy? Community policing only works if there is a free market or through regulation, and we don't have the former and so must use the latter. This means we must rely on the FCC.
5) Again, these arguments are predicated on the idea that there is a free market here, and there simply isn't. Net Neutrality is necessary because of the existing monopoly, and ditching it without finding a way to ditch the monopoly is not going to work for the people, just the holders of the monopoly. You can't scream "let the free market sort it out" after you've already tinkered with it to the point that there is no free market to be had.
Just a few badly thought-out rebuttals off the top of my head. Someone with more knowledge than me can school me about this issue if I'm off base, and I'll be happy to learn more.
I don't see how you can consider people's reaction to be over the top when we've seen this play out before. The same argument about people migrating to different services if the service sucked was used when talking about the awful, anti-consumer policies implemented by cable carriers, and cell carriers, and the old phone carriers... And yet the consumer still gets the shaft because even the minor players adopt many of the garbage policies and pricing structures of the big ones.Avaholic03 said:
Well that's a nail in the coffin. I have to wonder how much this will ripple internationally. An awful lot of servers are located in the US and I can't help but wonder how this will impact folks outside the US.
Nothing good can come of this. Maybe nothing immediately bad either but I see no good reason for backing this. Someone was bought off.
Capcha: the tribe has spoken
Oh capcha how are you so very frequently on point?
Nothing good can come of this. Maybe nothing immediately bad either but I see no good reason for backing this. Someone was bought off.
Capcha: the tribe has spoken
Oh capcha how are you so very frequently on point?
That said, the company says that the decision will "allow more room for innovation" and that "consumers [in the future] will have more choices to determine for themselves how they access and experience the Internet."
Translation: This will let us come up with ways to either take things away from our customer base or gouge the hell out of them, thereby allowing us to make more money on their increasingly shrinking amount of freedoms.
Sometimes this @#$%ing country man.
Translation: This will let us come up with ways to either take things away from our customer base or gouge the hell out of them, thereby allowing us to make more money on their increasingly shrinking amount of freedoms.
Sometimes this @#$%ing country man.
As shitty as this country can be at times (hint: all the time), at the very least I can enjoy a rather good internet service, without transfer caps at a decent price, if this ever picks up on the US, I fear this might pick up everywhere else and it would definitely suck for everyone.
Captcha: Talk to strangers. Well, I'm kinda doing captcha... stop watching me! D:
Captcha: Talk to strangers. Well, I'm kinda doing captcha... stop watching me! D:
You say this whole "people will migrate to other services" thing like there are a plethora of options for most folks. Where I live, assuming I want broadband of some kind and don't want the obscenely long ping associated with satellite (which can give you tons of bandwidth but has poor latency), I have exactly two options -- the local cable company and the local phone company. Only one of each offers service in this area.Avaholic03 said:
What you are missing is the other, more insidious and less immediately apparent version of this -- don't charge the end user anything, but demand that the host on the other end pay up to not be throttled. Imagine your ISP demanding $5.00 a month per user on their service from Microsoft and Google in exchange for not throttling your access to them. Now imagine doing that for every online store out there -- or as I'd like to describe it "suddenly you can buy stuff from amazon and a few other large retailers instantly, but any smaller retailer takes several minutes per page because they can't afford to offer your ISP thousands of dollars per month in bribe money and are thus capped to 56kps."
You *could*, but it requires the government to hold the monopoly on the infrastructure, rather than the government to subsidize someone else gaining a monopoly on the infrastructure. Unfortunately, I suspect all the people who argue that the free market would fix it would have a huge problem with using eminent domain to take over the middle and last mile infrastructure, and then leasing use of the lines (at a rate that covers line maintenance and administration, and little else) to private ISPs.Gorrath said:
This is disturbing and needs to be watched closely. These package deal ideas cannot be allowed to happen under any circumstances, and other ideas I have seen look little better.
On a side note, I would like to voice my displeasure towards the companies involved, the writer of this article and many of the people commenting on this thread for referring to themselves, me and everyone else as consumers. It is an insulting term.
On a side note, I would like to voice my displeasure towards the companies involved, the writer of this article and many of the people commenting on this thread for referring to themselves, me and everyone else as consumers. It is an insulting term.
Another point that should be mentioned is that the court likely gave the correct decision on this and it is the legislation itself that needs to be altered. We shouldn't expect courts to interpret things in a consumer-friendly manner just because it would be best for the people, we should expect them to interpret the laws in a way that is consistent and in the spirit and letter of the laws. We should not expect courts to save us from bad legislation, we should demand good legislation to fix bad legislation, unless said legislation is unconstitutional of course.
Instead of complaining about the decision and the country, we should use the powerful tools we have to change the laws to support us. The petulance might be warranted, but is not a good path to reform.
Instead of complaining about the decision and the country, we should use the powerful tools we have to change the laws to support us. The petulance might be warranted, but is not a good path to reform.
And they wonder why there are so many goddamn hackers, pirates, and so forth. Well, Bubba, you made them.
Well, to be clear, I don't consider public ownership of infrastructure to be monopoly in this sense, even if it fits the technical definition. As you say, the problem is that the government did not build and does not own the infrastructure here, and so its only recourse to prevent abuse is through regulation of the monopoly it helped create. Even as a libertarian, I recognize the need for massive infrastructure projects to be government owned/managed. What should not happen is for the government to assist in the creation of infrastructure monopolies and then take a hands-off approach to how those monopolies operate, but I have a feeling you and I agree on that.Schadrach said:
It'll be curious to see how this pans out
On one hand: Cable companies already do this with TV - you buy cable packages, as subscriptions to gain access to television channels
On the other hand: How would ISPs even enforce something like this?
Where I live my ISP has voluntarily blocked access to certain sites to avoid potential liability in piracy cases - but using things like OpenDNS gets around that no sweat
How would an ISP put up a tollbooth in front of certain websites? ISPs might control a lot of things, but they can't control the route by which you enter websites. Mind you I'm not that technically minded, so if there are other ways to do it (which honestly wouldn't surprise me) then do tell
On one hand: Cable companies already do this with TV - you buy cable packages, as subscriptions to gain access to television channels
On the other hand: How would ISPs even enforce something like this?
Where I live my ISP has voluntarily blocked access to certain sites to avoid potential liability in piracy cases - but using things like OpenDNS gets around that no sweat
How would an ISP put up a tollbooth in front of certain websites? ISPs might control a lot of things, but they can't control the route by which you enter websites. Mind you I'm not that technically minded, so if there are other ways to do it (which honestly wouldn't surprise me) then do tell
Indeed, but they are only as potent as we allow them to be. That's why I'm playing my part as rabble-rouser, though I am under no delusion I'm going to start a movement here. We don't even need companies to get that frog a-simmerin' before we step in and demand that the law be fixed. There's no need to wait and see *if* or how the companies choose to abuse us when we have the power to stop it any time we like. I'm not being delusional here, and I get that it takes more than us simply willing proper legislation into place, but we cannot take the attitude that we've already lost, because then we really have.Kwil said:
Look at it from the bright side guys.
That judge can go on early retirement with the massive bribe he got!
Either that or this is once again an example of an idiot judge/corpse judge making a ruling about something he doesn't understand. Maybe if we explained it to this guy in more ancient terms. Imagine if you call your mistress at a call girl agency on the phone and the phone starts randomly cutting out because the phone company has a contract with a different call girl agency to give them clearer reception.
That's basically what you allow these companies to do.
That judge can go on early retirement with the massive bribe he got!
Either that or this is once again an example of an idiot judge/corpse judge making a ruling about something he doesn't understand. Maybe if we explained it to this guy in more ancient terms. Imagine if you call your mistress at a call girl agency on the phone and the phone starts randomly cutting out because the phone company has a contract with a different call girl agency to give them clearer reception.
That's basically what you allow these companies to do.