Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
22 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: FCC to bring down the Title II hammer on ISPs rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://bgr.com/2015/02/02/fcc-net-neutrality-proposal/

In an industry that is dominated by only a few providers the only way for the consumer to get a fair deal is with government intervention. The free market has left the cable companies to rake in huge profits as an ISP (see their SEC filings) to protect their cable TV bundles. They price their service so that most consumers opt for speeds in the 15Mbps range to prevent internet based stream services from providing services to compete with HDTV on cable (20 to 25 Mbps is required to deliver high quality HDTV streams).

What really should happen is that data services should be ran by municipalities just as water and sewer are. It doesn't make sense to build competing electrical grids, water grids, or sewer pipes to everyone's house and it certain doesn't make sense to build competing networks either. That is a different conversation though, but my bet is that is where we will eventually end up as the internet matures.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:


In an industry that is dominated by only a few providers the only way for the consumer to get a fair deal is with government intervention. The free market has left the cable companies to rake in huge profits as an ISP (see their SEC filings) to protect their cable TV bundles. They price their service so that most consumers opt for speeds in the 15Mbps range to prevent internet based stream services from providing services to compete with HDTV on cable (20 to 25 Mbps is required to deliver high quality HDTV streams).


I'm pro-regulation as they come, but is there compelling information out there that says that price fixing is occurring? Sure there are probably customers who only have access to one data-delivery method, but since the majority of people are urban dwellers and price structures are standardized on those markets, are DSL, Sattelite, Fiber and Cable not competing with each other price wise? I know people suspect that Cable companies are pricing throughput to protect their video delivery service, but is it actually verfiably true? Are they actually pricing what the market will bear instead (while allowing for competitor pricing)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
In an industry that is dominated by only a few providers the only way for the consumer to get a fair deal is with government intervention.


And how !!!! this is so true, I mean back in the 70's when I was a wee lad, we had two telephone companies and we had to rent our phone from them and god forbid you called long distance because that shit was coming out of your allowance. There was no call waiting or 2nd line unless you were a millionaire.

And then the god damn government deregulated the industry and ruined everything !!!!

Its so annoying paying 20$ per month to carry this tiny computer/entertainment center/ phone/ gps around in my pocket....

IF ITS NOT WORKING ,MORE REGULATION WILL FIX IT !!!!!!

Well not really, deregulate and remove local monopolies/oligopolies would fix a lot of the bullshit.
3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think that nowadays, when people say "regulate," they mean "break up a monopoly," at least in instances like this.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:


Wow could republicans be more disingenuous?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
"This is a really weird game, and you’ll find that most people will not want to play this."
Avatar
mb
Before people start talking out their ass about this (too late, Cobert already did) please understand that just because broadband would be subjected to Title II does NOT... repeat... does NOT mean it will automatically be "regulated like a utility." Title II just means the FCC can designate broadband as a "common carrier." This means operating in a "reasonable and non-discriminatory manner."

It does not include price regulations.
It does not include any consumer protections.
It does not include any customer-service mandates.
It does not include any regional level service standards.

So before Jeremy Cobert... ummm... I mean AT&T's lobbyists start trotting out the typical fear-mongering about CREEPING SOCIALISM! just be aware of what this decision may or may not entail.

And in case anyone doubts how Jeremy Cobert... ummm... I mean AT&T's lobbyists feel about this...
Quote:
AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner Cable and the cable industry’s chief lobbying group spent $42.8 million during the 2013-2014 election cycle to weigh in on issues including burying Net Neutrality, outlawing community broadband competition, winning tax breaks for themselves, and avoiding consumer protection regulations.

6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:

Be careful what you ask for.

The Feds are like Buffyverse vampires. Once you invite them in, you can't uninvite them.


I'm not saying you are wrong in this case, but this reasoning was used to predict we would all be driving Yugos and Trabants after the auto bailouts and Obama would run the auto industry. In fact, the Feds did get out.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-12-09/gm-bailout...-
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
What really should happen is that data services should be ran by municipalities just as water and sewer are.


Please, please, please don't let this happen. You'd just about never see any improvements to networks - unlike water or sewers, this isn't a "maintenance only" type of installation.

If you want to argue that the physical cable to my house should be a municipal service, that might make some sense. Then they could lease access to lots of companies to deliver services.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
'm pro-regulation as they come, but is there compelling information out there that says that price fixing is occurring?


Prices in the US are dramatically higher than in other industrialized nations on a per-MB basis. And the basic services delivered are slower speeds. Can you show collusion? No, probably not. But that's not necessarily the problem.

Further, the regulation isn't as much focused on pricing as it is net neutrality, which is a very different discussion and it isn't hard to show that ISPs have used their control over the consumer market there. The consumer may not pay directly for some of the things that are of concern.

Quote:
...are DSL, Sattelite, Fiber and Cable not competing with each other price wise?


DSL and cable do, but cable is clearly winning that war due to higher speeds. Fiber is only available to consumers in a very small number of markets, often (though not always) at a premium. Satellite or wireless services shouldn't really be considered competitors - they serve very different needs, have far higher prices (either base for satellite or usage-based for mobile) and have performance considerations (particularly satellite) that will make them unattractive for many types of service.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:


In fact, the argument that you bolded works better to support the FCC action than it does against it. With the growth of services like Netflix, Internet-based phone and video services, streaming music services, cloud storage, etc. it's really important that the ISPs serving consumers aren't permitted to throw road-blocks up that either:

1. Allow them to charge companies for "preferred access" to their customers.

2. Allow them to charge customers based on the applications that they want to run and the traffic that generates.

3. Allow them to decide what applications are even permitted in the first place.

What's particularly humorous is his choice of wording later:

"Anyone who really understands the nuts of bolts of how the Internet and broadband connections are actually built should fight the FCC on this."

I work in networking and have for north of two decades. The technical experts, trade rags, etc. are overwhelmingly in favor of the regulation because they know precisely how damaging mucking with IP streams can be. What I think he really meant was "executives at ISPs," and they often don't understand "the nuts of bolts," but the money, the marketing, and the management of the company.

Edited 'cuz I accidentally left a bunch of stuff in that didn't need to be there.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
"This is a really weird game, and you’ll find that most people will not want to play this."
Avatar
mb
Drew1365 wrote:
fightcitymayor wrote:
Before people start talking out their ass about this (too late, Cobert already did) please understand that just because broadband would be subjected to Title II does NOT... repeat... does NOT mean it will automatically be "regulated like a utility."
Huh. The Chairman of the FCC disagrees with you.
See, you are wrong, and this is exactly what I'm talking about: It is the media that continues to use the phrase "like a public utility" because they don't understand the environment. There is literally nowhere in Wheeler's statement that uses the phrase "public utility." If you read what he actually wrote, vital portion in bold:

Quote:
To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling.
This is what happens when an ignorant media (both for and against) latch onto a news story without knowing the facts.

If anyone wants to read Tom Wheeler's actual op-ed in Wired, it is right here:
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutra...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I can certainly imagine the FCC is now going to be involved in the internet backbone. With the Feds sitting between the Tier 1 providers and monitoring all traffic, you run the risk of not only being spied upon, you run the risk of Government targeting as it did in the IRS/tea party scandal.

Sure, its all fun until your party is out of power and your websites are now slower or unavailable at peak hours.

Also add the fact that Government changes slowly while technology changes quickly is a recipe for disaster.

In the 90's in Iowa the republicans started the "Joint Communication Network" and connected each school to a new "high speed network" which was obsolete two years later and most schools had to drop it for private internet providers offering much faster speeds at lower costs.

This wasted millions in tax dollars not only installing it all but then removing it all.

Leave the internet alone, its great becasue its open and out of reach of the feds.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:

Leave the internet alone, its great becasue its open and out of reach of the feds.


I'm sure that generated a hearty chuckle at the NSA.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
The media would never lie. My goodness. Next you'll be telling me Brian Williams has been making stuff up for over a decade.


So the media that agrees with you - they're telling the truth. But the other media? Liars all.

Got it.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
I can certainly imagine the FCC is now going to be involved in the internet backbone. With the Feds sitting between the Tier 1 providers and monitoring all traffic, you run the risk of not only being spied upon, you run the risk of Government targeting as it did in the IRS/tea party scandal.

Sure, its all fun until your party is out of power and your websites are now slower or unavailable at peak hours.

Also add the fact that Government changes slowly while technology changes quickly is a recipe for disaster.

In the 90's in Iowa the republicans started the "Joint Communication Network" and connected each school to a new "high speed network" which was obsolete two years later and most schools had to drop it for private internet providers offering much faster speeds at lower costs.

This wasted millions in tax dollars not only installing it all but then removing it all.

Leave the internet alone, its great becasue its open and out of reach of the feds.


Tom Wheeler:

"That is why I am proposing that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections.

Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission.

All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks. To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling."

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
I can certainly imagine the FCC is now going to be involved in the internet backbone. With the Feds sitting between the Tier 1 providers and monitoring all traffic, you run the risk of not only being spied upon, you run the risk of Government targeting as it did in the IRS/tea party scandal.

Sure, its all fun until your party is out of power and your websites are now slower or unavailable at peak hours.

Also add the fact that Government changes slowly while technology changes quickly is a recipe for disaster.

In the 90's in Iowa the republicans started the "Joint Communication Network" and connected each school to a new "high speed network" which was obsolete two years later and most schools had to drop it for private internet providers offering much faster speeds at lower costs.

This wasted millions in tax dollars not only installing it all but then removing it all.

Leave the internet alone, its great becasue its open and out of reach of the feds.



Jeremy your anecdote highlights the problem of leaving ISPs,entirely in the wild. Startup costs are so prohibitively high (millions on a small,educational network) that the entrenched provides who have benefited from decades of Taxpayer money (because private entireprise wants gov't out but gov't money in) currently possess an enormous advantage that makes basic competition an ineffective tool at curbing monopolistic practices. If in the future some new medium is developed that allows for effecient/speeed matching distribution channels without the associated installation costs such that a hundred providers could buy into a fresh market simultaneously, the need wouldn't be there. As it stands you have two major providers in the US who specifically avoid competing with each other in practice if not in written in children's blood on the skins of kittens unholy contract.

How is that a 'free' market?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Without net neutrality, launching something like Google or Facebook would be much, much harder. We'd have way less innovation.

For that matter, we'd have a pretty crappy economy if every road were a toll road controlled by an oligopoly of two private profit-maximizing enterprises.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.