Net Neutrality Going Going Gone? (Sir Robert's Free Enterprise Capitalism Going, Going, Gone?)

[Daniel]

I'm not upset at all. I am merely disappointed.

 

 

 

______

You keep editing your posts after I reply to them.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Daniel

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Hey Robert, how many ISP options, that offer broadband speed, do you have where you are? And you live in a relatively large market. Try thinking of it like this: Your cellphone provider. They decide they are only going to give you good service if you are calling one of their numbers, otherwise it is going to be a choppy call that drops all too often. Or worst case they block it all together. Is that ok? Well that is exactly what getting rid of neutrality would do.

This isn't a matter of ISPs MAY do this, if they are allowed they WILL be because it will line their pockets. Just look at how they have done it to cable, Used to be you payed a flat rate for all the channels but once they figured out they could block channels using a box they broke it up into packages. They will do the same with the internet if allowed to do so. IE The Social Media package for 19.99 and includes Facebook, Google Plus, MySpace etc. The entertainment package for 29.99 that includes YouTube, Netflix, Amazon Video etc. The Home Shopping package for 9.99 that includes Amazon, Ebay etc etc etc Then on top of the packages you will be paying for data to visit lesser known sites, like TGO. Or all the gun sites we frequent and shop on.

I would agree with you if I had 5-10 choices on who my broadband ISP would be. But fact of the matter is you only have 1-2 choices for broadband speed. This is due to the cable companies owning the cable lines and phone companies owning the phone lines. That is not what I would call an open market and therefor I want heavy regulation.

[RobertNashville]

Hey Robert, how many ISP options, that offer broadband speed, do you have where you are? And you live in a relatively large market. Try thinking of it like this: Your cellphone provider. They decide they are only going to give you good service if you are calling one of their numbers, otherwise it is going to be a choppy call that drops all too often. Or worst case they block it all together. Is that ok? Well that is exactly what getting rid of neutrality would do.

This isn't a matter of ISPs MAY do this, if they are allowed they WILL be because it will line their pockets. Just look at how they have done it to cable, Used to be you payed a flat rate for all the channels but once they figured out they could block channels using a box they broke it up into packages. They will do the same with the internet if allowed to do so. IE The Social Media package for 19.99 and includes Facebook, Google Plus, MySpace etc. The entertainment package for 29.99 that includes YouTube, Netflix, Amazon Video etc. The Home Shopping package for 9.99 that includes Amazon, Ebay etc etc etc Then on top of the packages you will be paying for data to visit lesser known sites, like TGO. Or all the gun sites we frequent and shop on.

I would agree with you if I had 5-10 choices on who my broadband ISP would be. But fact of the matter is you only have 1-2 choices for broadband speed. This is due to the cable companies owning the cable lines and phone companies owning the phone lines. That is not what I would call an open market and therefor I want heavy regulation.

So what you are saying is that if a business runs its business in a way you don't like the federal government should come in an dictate that business' business model?

If there were only one grocery store in your town...within 100 miles of your home...should the government dictate what products they must carry and how much they can charge for them? Unlike something as basic and necessary to life as food, when it comes to the internet, we are talking about a service that no one MUST have.

 

If Comcast or Charter or AT&T or Verizon or whoever decides to structure their business in ways that some people don't like (and I guarantee others will like) it is not or at least should not be within the purview of the federal government to step in and dictate business models to those businesses.

[Daniel]

I see no reason for you to insult me.

So this decision, MAYBE will impact you or other Comcast customers negatively. Is that sufficient reason for the government to dictate to an ISP...to ALL ISPs how it/they must operate?

 

I don't think so. Three are many times that certain businesses make decisions about what they offer and how that I don't happen to like...that doesn't mean I want the government to swoop in and tell them how to operate their business.

This is a very simple issue for me...people either believe that businesses should be able to conduct their business freely or have their business models dictated to them by the federal government. I happen to believe that businesses should be free to design their own business models and either succeed or fail on those decisions.
 
Have a nice day.

Take a look at the national broadband carriers. Do you notice anything about them? Comcast, Warner, Verizon, etc. These companies are more than just ISPs. They are also the largest in the country.

 

My military job is PSYOP, here is a generic mission statement: Psychological operations are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.

 

Take out foreign and you get what is essentially marketing and public relations. These monopolies can influence our entire nation and block competing views. When our military goes into a foreign country we set up TV and Radio stations to control information the populace receives. We do this to feed info that serves our purposes. Every totalitarian regime in the world does the same thing. ISPs control the floodgates to the internet. This type regulation keeps them from limiting it.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Daniel

[Guest Keal G Seo]

So what you are saying is that if a business runs its business in a way you don't like the federal government should come in an dictate that business' business model?

If there were only one grocery store in your town...within 100 miles of your home...should the government dictate what products they must carry and how much they can charge for them? Unlike something as basic and necessary to life as food, when it comes to the internet, we are talking about a service that no one MUST have.

 

If Comcast or Charter or AT&T or Verizon or whoever decides to structure their business in ways that some people don't like (and I guarantee others will like) it is not or at least should not be within the purview of the federal government to step in and dictate business models to those businesses.

I'm saying if a business has a monopoly, YES ABSO-F******-LUTELY!
Yes if there were only one grocery store within 100 miles I wholeheartedly believe should have to carry certain goods and not be able to gouge.
Since there is more than 1 grocery store, I feel they can carry and sell whatever they want at whatever prices they see fit. That is given that they don't break any antitrust laws and work together to gouge.

The end of the deal is that you virtually have ZERO options on broadband internet and therefor it should be regulated. If they want to open those lines up and create an actual free market, then sure do whatever with that business but until then...

[BryanP]

This is a very simple issue for me...people either believe that businesses should be able to conduct their business freely or have their business models dictated to them by the federal government. I happen to believe that businesses should be free to design their own business models and either succeed or fail on those decisions.
 

 

 

Okay, fine.  Let's say we let all ISP's give up net neutrality.  Then they also should legally lose their safe harbor status as they would no longer qualify.  UPS isn't responsible for someone shipping a kilo of Columbian cocaine through their service. They don't open packages or know the contents in the normal course of their business. They are granted safe harbor from prosecution because of that. If they DID open every package and still shipped illicit drugs, they would be liable.

By saying they should be able to throttle traffic based on source and who is requesting it, ISPs effectively want to open up every package, inspect the contents and make changes because of said contents. So every time the cops nab a pedo that downloaded child porn, you could (and if they are not content neutral, SHOULD) convict the ISP as an accessory.  Except it'd never happen as telcos & ISP's are regularly granted immunity for illegal conduct, such as the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

[RobertNashville]

Take a look at the national broadband carriers. Do you notice anything about them? Comcast, Warner, Verizon, etc. These companies are more than just ISPs. They are also the largest in the country.

 

My military job is PSYOP, here is a generic mission statement: Psychological operations are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.

 

Take out foreign and you get what is essentially marketing and public relations. These monopolies can influence our entire nation and block competing views.

I've worked in finance and IT for nearly 40 years...I hold multiple degrees in those disciplines...I actually do know a little bit about the issues and I do not agree with your position even though this decision may negatively impact me as well.

 

You have your view, I have mine...have a nice day.

[RobertNashville]

...Yes if there were only one grocery store within 100 miles I wholeheartedly believe should have to carry certain goods and not be able to gouge.
Since there is more than 1 grocery store, I feel they can carry and sell whatever they want at whatever prices they see fit. That is given that they don't break any antitrust laws and work together to gouge....

So...we should only believe in free enterprise and constitutionally limited government until we are personally inconvenienced by those principles? 

[Guest Keal G Seo]

So...we should only believe in free enterprise and constitutionally limited government until we are personally inconvenienced by those principles? 

We should believe in it when there is a free market. If no free market exists then no. This isn't a matter of one person being personally inconvenienced. This is about the entire country. How many people do you know that have internet and only visit one site? Those would be the only people that benefit from nixing neutrality. I only pay about 35 for internet. Even if the packages were only 10 a pop I could only visit a fraction of the sites I normally visit AND on top of that, like cable, I would be paying for stuff I don't want to get the stuff I do want. Without a free market and the ability to choose which company offers what I want or meets my needs it is a monopoly and needs to be regulated.

Lets not forget that this would kill the online gaming industry given that every game connects to a different IP address and sometimes multiple IPs. How about satellite boxes? Can't connect to get the PPV or online features because they are the ISPs competition and are blocked. How about in markets where you do have 2 options they are just blocking web sites that advertise the other ISPs and the other ISPs website itself?

[Daniel]

[RobertNashville]

We should believe in it when there is a free market. If no free market exists then no. This isn't a matter of one person being personally inconvenienced. This is about the entire country. How many people do you know that have internet and only visit one site? Those would be the only people that benefit from nixing neutrality. I only pay about 35 for internet. Even if the packages were only 10 a pop I could only visit a fraction of the sites I normally visit AND on top of that, like cable, I would be paying for stuff I don't want to get the stuff I do want. Without a free market and the ability to choose which company offers what I want or meets my needs it is a monopoly and needs to be regulated.

Lets not forget that this would kill the online gaming industry given that every game connects to a different IP address and sometimes multiple IPs. How about satellite boxes? Can't connect to get the PPV or online features because they are the ISPs competition and are blocked. How about in markets where you do have 2 options they are just blocking web sites that advertise the other ISPs and the other ISPs website itself?

I gave you a perfect "free market" in my grocery store example yet because it might inconvenience you if the store didn't carry what you wanted when you wanted you jumped immediately to wanting government controls ignoring all other possible ways to address your grocery store desert. ;)

Edited January 16, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Guest Keal G Seo]

I gave you a perfect "free market" in my grocery store example yet because it might inconvenience you if the store didn't carry what you wanted when you wanted you jumped immediately to wanting government controls ignoring all other possible ways to address your grocery store desert. ;)

Your grocery store example would be a monopoly. The only one within 100 miles? I didn't say they had to carry what I wanted, I said they should be required to carry certain items. What I meant by that was the common items everyone uses like milk and butter etc. The things most people don't have means for getting themselves but really need.

I'm done here though if all this is going to be is me replying to you and you not addressing anything I have said.

Last time,
1. Would this be ok with your phone company (or any other service) if they would only let you call their customers?
2. How many people do you know that this would be a good change for?

Let me also ask: How big of a chunk of your money/retirement is tied up in an ISP that you would think this is a good thing?

Edited January 16, 2014 by Keal G Seo

[JayC]

If the government only allows 1 grocery store within 100 miles of where you live, you don't think the government should be allowed to place conditions on that government imposed monopoly?

 

So what you are saying is that if a business runs its business in a way you don't like the federal government should come in an dictate that business' business model?

If there were only one grocery store in your town...within 100 miles of your home...should the government dictate what products they must carry and how much they can charge for them? Unlike something as basic and necessary to life as food, when it comes to the internet, we are talking about a service that no one MUST have.

 

If Comcast or Charter or AT&T or Verizon or whoever decides to structure their business in ways that some people don't like (and I guarantee others will like) it is not or at least should not be within the purview of the federal government to step in and dictate business models to those businesses.

Edited January 16, 2014 by JayC

[RobertNashville]

Your grocery store example would be a monopoly. The only one within 100 miles? I didn't say they had to carry what I wanted, I said they should be required to carry certain items. What I meant by that was the common items everyone uses like milk and butter etc. The things most people don't have means for getting themselves but really need.

One grocery store within 100 miles of where a person lives is not a monopoly. That one grocery would only truly be a monopoly if it was protected from competition by barriers that prevent other people/companies opening up other grocery stores and if there were no other options for obtaining the product/service they provide.

There are no barriers to entry by other grocery stores in my example and, while inconvenient at 101 or more miles away, people in this town with only one grocery are free to travel to other towns that has other grocery stores. If you still believe that this situation of one grocery store within 100 miles of your town means that the government should then control that grocery and dictate what it must/can sell and at what price that's your opinion but it isn't mine. Moreover, if the government did as you suggested, it’s quite possible and perhaps even likely, that that one grocery store would go out of business leaving none at all.

 

I'm done here though if all this is going to be is me replying to you and you not addressing anything I have said.
Last time,
1. Would this be ok with your phone company (or any other service) if they would only let you call their customers?
2. How many people do you know that this would be a good change for?

 
1. Sure…I’d just do business with another phone company that didn’t have that policy and if enough people felt as I did the original phone company would either be forced to change the way they do business or they would likely go out of business.
 
2. Difficult to say given that this is a hypothetical phone company…it might be good for some…might not be but whether it is or isn’t I’m not going to suggest that government regulation is the answer to my or their inconvenience.
 
 
 

If the government only allows 1 grocery store within 100 miles of where you live, you don't think the government should be allowed to place conditions on that government imposed monopoly?

I might think so if the government was allowing only one grocery story to exist but that is not at all what I said in my example. There is no government imposed requirements/barriers in my example; just that there happens to be only one.

[Guest Keal G Seo]

One grocery store within 100 miles of where a person lives is not a monopoly. That one grocery would only truly be a monopoly if it was protected from competition by barriers that prevent other people/companies opening up other grocery stores and if there were no other options for obtaining the product/service they provide.

There are no barriers to entry by other grocery stores in my example and, while inconvenient at 101 or more miles away, people in this town with only one grocery are free to travel to other towns that has other grocery stores. If you still believe that this situation of one grocery store within 100 miles of your town means that the government should then control that grocery and dictate what it must/can sell and at what price that's your opinion but it isn't mine. Moreover, if the government did as you suggested, it’s quite possible and perhaps even likely, that that one grocery store would go out of business leaving none at all.

 

 
1. Sure…I’d just do business with another phone company that didn’t have that policy and if enough people felt as I did the original phone company would either be forced to change the way they do business or they would likely go out of business.
 
2. Difficult to say given that this is a hypothetical phone company…it might be good for some…might not be but whether it is or isn’t I’m not going to suggest that government regulation is the answer to my or their inconvenience.
 
 
 

I might think so if the government was allowing only one grocery story to exist but that is not at all what I said in my example. There is no government imposed requirements/barriers in my example; just that there happens to be only one.

If there are no regulations to keep other grocery stores out then there is no hypothetical. Or at the least your hypothetical is moot because someone else would open one that did carry those items at normal prices. That is how it is. There aren't barriers and you have what we have today. However, there are barriers when it comes to ISPs.

1. The point is, if everyone you know isn't doing business with that same company you cant communicate with them. Same with the ISPs. The companies/websites you "know" you won't necessarily have access to. Netflix is the best example, if the company has a competing service they just block Netflix or make the connection so horrid you can't realistically use it.

2. The question is actually about ISPs and neutrality but works either way. The only people it will be good for are the people that visit 1 website (or call only 1 person). How many people do you know that have a service, of any type, solely for 1 purpose? IE Do you know anyone that visits only 1 website but still has their own internet connection? I sure don't. Even my mother, one of the most tech illiterate people I know would be screwed by this system.

Again, this isn't a "might" effect people, this is a "WILL" effect every person in this country that has internet. This is nothing more than the ISPs trying to make even more money off of the people that have no choice in who their ISP is.

Bottom line, broadband ISPs are a monopoly and need to be regulated.

[JayC]

But in the case of cable companies, and LEC's (telephone companies) that is EXACTLY what is happening...  The government is giving them an exclusive license, and exclusive right of way access to provide services to a given area. Thereby preventing any competitor from joining the market place.

 

A better example is your local electric company decides to sells you power at $.10 kwh, signs an agreement with black and decker that where you continue to pay $.10 kwh when using their power tools, but must pay $.20 kwh when using other companies power tools.  Or worse telling you're not allowed to use their power on other companies tools.

 

I'm buying X amount of bandwidth for Internet access, it's not my ISPs business what I'm using that bandwidth for...

 

So lets look at data centers where you can buy bandwidth from 6 to 10 different providers...  The bandwidth costs at least half as much as the bandwidth from Comcast or AT&T...  no more than $1-1.50 per mbit/s, where as Comcast is charging upwards for $4-5 per mbit/s and AT&T is charging as much as $20 per mbit/s...

 

We don't allow electric companies (a utility which has a monopoly) in this country to charge unreasonable markups over cost to the end customers...  LECs (telephone companies) are similarly restricted how much money they can make over cost...  

 

Yet we allow Internet providers which are basically providing a utility to overprice their product and reap massive profits Comcast in 2011 made ~97% profit margin over cost for providing Internet service...  AT&T telephone service profit margin is capped at 3.5%...  Even after you factor in capital improvements to their network, they're still profiting 3 times what the PCS allows telephone companies to make on telephone service.  And telephone companies aren't going bankrupt - far from it.

 

So here we have public utilities that are granted exclusive licenses, but aren't managed by the PCS which are making 97% profit margin while AT&T is capped at 3.5% for telephone service (not capped on Internet service).  

 

It's not unreasonable to regulate these government back monopolies by saying they may not favor one customers traffic over another.

 

I might think so if the government was allowing only one grocery story to exist but that is not at all what I said in my example. There is no government imposed requirements/barriers in my example; just that there happens to be only one.

[RobertNashville]

Look guys; if you like government regulations fine...I don't.

 

ISPs are NOT monopolies. You want to consider them as such; fine but they still aren't.

 

The free market (and yes, there is a free market operating where ISPs are concerned) can work this out; not than anyone here seems to be willing to let that happen.  I expect this kind of response on a typical public forum like Facebook...it's a little surprising (and discouraging) to see it here on a firearm forum typically dripping with small-government/individual freedom rhetoric.

 

The title of this thread might be more descriptive if it said "Free Enterprise Capitalism Going, Going, Gone"

Edited January 16, 2014 by RobertNashville

[JayC]

I hate big government...  we should focus on the root cause of the problem and do away with the last mile monopolies and duopolies...  but until then, Comcast and AT&T are given access that is exclusive and as a competitor I'm unable to get the same access...  As such they're not part of a free market...  Others are not allowed to move in and compete with them for last mile of service...  and until that is fixed, they need to be regulated to the common carrier standard, and their Internet services should be price controlled to 3% profit margins like virtually all other public utilities.

 

These companies have already been caught abusing and lying to customers...  It's not hypothetical question, Comcast was caught manipulating traffic in such a way that if you or I did it, we'd be subject to a felony charge under federal law.

 

Look guys; if you like government regulations fine...I don't.

 

ISPs are NOT monopolies. You want to consider them as such; fine but they still aren't.

 

The free market (and yes, there is a free market operating where ISPs are concerned) can work this out; not than anyone here seems to be willing to let that happen.  I expect this kind of response on a typical public forum like Facebook...it's a little surprising (and discouraging) to see it here on a firearm forum typically dripping with small-government/individual freedom rhetoric.

 

The title of this thread might be more descriptive if it said "Free Enterprise Capitalism Going, Going, Gone"

[Daniel]

[Metalhead]

They're tryin' ta take mah porn!

[Guest Keal G Seo]

They're tryin' ta take mah porn!

They really are!

[RobertNashville]

I hate big government...  we should focus on the root cause of the problem and do away with the last mile monopolies and duopolies...  but until then, Comcast and AT&T are given access that is exclusive and as a competitor I'm unable to get the same access...  As such they're not part of a free market...  Others are not allowed to move in and compete with them for last mile of service...  and until that is fixed, they need to be regulated to the common carrier standard, and their Internet services should be price controlled to 3% profit margins like virtually all other public utilities.

 

These companies have already been caught abusing and lying to customers...  It's not hypothetical question, Comcast was caught manipulating traffic in such a way that if you or I did it, we'd be subject to a felony charge under federal law.

And if there hadn't been government allowed monopolies at least a 1/3 or perhaps even 1/2 of the country wouldn't have electricity, running water, natural gas, or telephone.  But then again, we are talking about internet service, not telephone, water or cable TV.

 

It's funny or maybe just sad...no one wants the government involved in their lives until somebody does something (or in this case might do something) they don't like.

[RobertNashville]

They're tryin' ta take mah porn!

And if the FCC starts regulating ISPs as public utilities/common carriers they just might do so or ban anything else they find objectionable (like...oh...firearm related forums) and there would be NOTHING to stop them. After all, it would be to protect the children since we all know that parents don't monitor what their kids do online.

Edited January 17, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Daniel]

The internet is just as relevant as electricty, telephone and television service at this point.

[RobertNashville]

Television is not and has never been a regulated utility.

 

Electricity, natural gas, water/sewer...THESE are utilities and in a city are fairly necessary to life for a number of reasons.

 

Internet Access is NOT necessary to life..is not a utility and never should be. Its a service that no one "must" have and that no company should ever be required to even offer or be told how to offer.

 

I'm still stunned at how quickly of what one would tend to believe is a collection of conservative/libertarian, small-government, Constitutionally minded, capitalists/free-market thinkers are so damn quick to go begging the federal government to regulate something because it might inconvenience them.

 

What some proponents of "net neutrality" really seem to want is for those who don't use significant amounts of bandwidth/specific services to subsidize the bandwidth/services of others...the most significant difference between what those proponents of "net neutrality" want and what the people who wanted Obamacare wanted is the name of the product.

Edited January 17, 2014 by RobertNashville