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

[JayC]

Robert, common carrier status would mean the exact opposite...  A common carrier can't filter service, or they loose safe harbor protections...  I haven't heard about the FCC mandating the blocking of any sex lines...  We'd have greater protections from filtering that we do today.

 

People lived without water, power, natural gas, telephone...  and society has advanced to the point where those are now treated as utilities because in modern life they are required to function...  Internet is fast approaching that status...  so many functions of business and government have moved online that you're at an extreme disadvantage by not having access...

 

The VA just announced they want to move disability applications online (and only online) instead of the paper methods they support today...  Other local, state and federal governments are moving the same direction.  A majority of our economy today is impacted by Internet access...  if it was shut down we'd see food shortage, power outages, and medical service disruptions...

 

If the government is going to give a business exclusive access over a region, and not allow anybody else to compete with them...  then that business should be heavily regulated...  period.  They should be licensed as utilities and prevented from moving into other business avenues which could create a conflict of interest...  or outright limited to only providing the utility in question.

 

I'm not sure we can get rid of the last mile utilities companies, and they may very well need to be government run, government backed coops, or something similar to how we treat water, natural gas, and power...

 

The best free market solution probably would be to have companies which exclusively provide last mile connectivity, the would operate as a non-profit similar to say the Harpeth Valley Utilities District...  Customers would buy access over the last mile utility from any ISPs wishing to provide services...  The cost of entry for ISPs would be low, since the infrastructure would be provided (at cost + improvements)...  Most customers would be able to select between 5 or 6 ISPs depending on the packages offered and the restrictions placed on those packages.

 

In this type of setup you wouldn't need net neutrality since most people would have more than a half dozen options to choose from.

 

It's not good to give big multinational companies utility monopolies but not regulate their behavior when providing a utility...  Nothing today is stopping Comcast from not only blocking netflix completely, but redirecting the netflix.com address to their own pay-per-view site which costs 10x as much as NetFlix and has a much smaller selection...  The loss in revenue from the few customers who could switch to a different broadband provider would be offset by the drastic increase in pay-per-view sales...  Also nothing stopping them from making a deal with BING to red-riect all traffic to google.com to their search engine...

 

And we have examples of cable companies doing things like this already...  or worse.  So it's not hypothetical we know given no regulation Comcast will do bad things.  

 

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.

 

[RobertNashville]

Robert...

Look...you are NEVER going to change my mind on this.  This issue is about one thing; free-market capitalism vs. government control. You either believe that businesses should be free to set their own business plans and succeed or fail on those plans OR you believe that government bureaucrats should control it.

Edited January 17, 2014 by RobertNashville

[tnguy]

it's not necessarily going to block anything, just give priority at peak times... sort of like having first class mail or normal postage, both will work fine, just one works faster than the other.

 

The other option is that Comcast turns around to Netflix and says "Give us a huge pile of cash if you want your customers to have a reasonable experience".

 

There is an argument the certain types of traffic /should/ be prioritized such as VOIP and gaming but then again, who decides?

 

Personally, I would be happy to have it unregulated but on the other hand, as others have said, it's already a monopoly/duopoly world.

[tnguy]

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.

 

Wait, now I'm confused? More government bad or more government good?

[RobertNashville]

Wait, now I'm confused? More government bad or more government good?

Public utilities were necessary due to the incredibly high capital investment required to make those commodities available and the power of govt was necessary to make rights of ways. Without that the companies that provide the services would either not exist at all or only exist in densely populated areas where the economies of scale make a profit realistic.

I fully subscribe to the axiom that the government should ONLY do what the private can not, will not or should not do - in the case of services such as gas, electricity, water/sewer it was a fully appropriate use of government.

[JayC]

I completely agree in a free market businesses should be left alone...  The problem here is we DON'T HAVE A FREE MARKET...  We have the government providing exclusive licenses to Comcast (for example) to be the only provider (or in the best case 1 of 2) for a certain geographical region.  In return for this no competition license, they're given free right of way access by the government on everybodies property, there given state breaks and money from the state and the local communities (and in recent decades the Federal government) to lay the lines and fiber to provide these services.

 

Comcast currently faces regulation from the FCC, state PCS, and local governments already for ALL their other business lines covered by this exclusive license except providing Internet access to their customers...  They have to get rate hikes approved by the PCS and in many cases by the local government that approved their license...  The FCC requires that they carry ALL local broadcast channels at no extra charge on their most basic cable package.

 

All we're (and the FCC) suggesting is a simple rule that says as part of your license, you're required to treat all Internet traffic the same, you can't slow down or speed up a certain service/site, or charge extra for connectivity to a certain site/service.

 

If you think that regulation somehow breaks a free market that exists today, then it's a lost cause....

 

I'm all for reform, we shouldn't have a single choice in water service, or electric service, cable, or Internet...  we should move away from these government back monopolies...  but until we do, government licensed monopolies and duopolies need to be regulated, that includes last mile Internet companies.

 

Look...you are NEVER going to change my mind on this.  This issue is about one thing; free-market capitalism vs. government control. You either believe that businesses should be free to set their own business plans and succeed or fail on those plans OR you believe that government bureaucrats should control it.

 

[JayC]

The now judge repealed FCC rules didn't prevent a provider from performing network management as long as the management was fair across the board...  So they could prioritize VOIP traffic, as long as they prioritized it for all VOIP providers, not just their own service, or a partners service...  They couldn't charge extra to prioritize Netflix's traffic over Hulu's...

 

It's not a perfect solution but until I have the choice between 5 or 6 broadband providers at my house like I do in a data center, it's better than trusting Comcast in the goodness of their heart won't do bad things to Internet traffic that they've already been caught doing.

 

The other option is that Comcast turns around to Netflix and says "Give us a huge pile of cash if you want your customers to have a reasonable experience".

 

There is an argument the certain types of traffic /should/ be prioritized such as VOIP and gaming but then again, who decides?

 

Personally, I would be happy to have it unregulated but on the other hand, as others have said, it's already a monopoly/duopoly world.

 

[2.ooohhh]

It's not a perfect solution but until I have the choice between 5 or 6 broadband providers at my house like I do in a data center, it's better than trusting Comcast in the goodness of their heart won't do bad things to Internet traffic that they've already been caught doing.

 

^this.

[JayC]

But it was those exact government investments in infrastructure and government mandated right of away that were provided to companies like Comcast and AT&T.  You keep explaining why water and power companies are special, but all the same special exceptions to the rules that have been provided to water, gas, and power companies have been provided to cable and telephone companies such as AT&T and Comcast.

 

So it either was an appropriate use of government and as such they should be regulated like utilities since up until this time they've been treated with special rules like utilities...

 

Or it was an inappropriate use of the government, and we should impose utilities regulation while we unwind the special treatment these companies received.

 

Public utilities were necessary due to the incredibly high capital investment required to make those commodities available and the power of govt was necessary to make rights of ways. Without that the companies that provide the services would either not exist at all or only exist in densely populated areas where the economies of scale make a profit realistic.

I fully subscribe to the axiom that the government should ONLY do what the private can not, will not or should not do - in the case of services such as gas, electricity, water/sewer it was a fully appropriate use of government.

 

[RobertNashville]

But it was those exact government investments in infrastructure and government mandated right of away that were provided to companies like Comcast and AT&T.  You keep explaining why water and power companies are special, but all the same special exceptions to the rules that have been provided to water, gas, and power companies have been provided to cable and telephone companies such as AT&T and Comcast.

 

So it either was an appropriate use of government and as such they should be regulated like utilities since up until this time they've been treated with special rules like utilities...

 

Or it was an inappropriate use of the government, and we should impose utilities regulation while we unwind the special treatment these companies received.

I don't think you really understand how utilities work.

Edited January 17, 2014 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

I completely agree in a free market businesses should be left alone...  The problem here is we DON'T HAVE A FREE MARKET...  We have the government providing exclusive licenses to Comcast (for example) to be the only provider (or in the best case 1 of 2) for a certain geographical region.  In return for this no competition license, they're given free right of way access by the government on everybodies property, there given state breaks and money from the state and the local communities (and in recent decades the Federal government) to lay the lines and fiber to provide these services.

 

Comcast currently faces regulation from the FCC, state PCS, and local governments already for ALL their other business lines covered by this exclusive license except providing Internet access to their customers...  They have to get rate hikes approved by the PCS and in many cases by the local government that approved their license...  The FCC requires that they carry ALL local broadcast channels at no extra charge on their most basic cable package.

 

All we're (and the FCC) suggesting is a simple rule that says as part of your license, you're required to treat all Internet traffic the same, you can't slow down or speed up a certain service/site, or charge extra for connectivity to a certain site/service.

 

If you think that regulation somehow breaks a free market that exists today, then it's a lost cause....

 

I'm all for reform, we shouldn't have a single choice in water service, or electric service, cable, or Internet...  we should move away from these government back monopolies...  but until we do, government licensed monopolies and duopolies need to be regulated, that includes last mile Internet companies.

Was there something unclear about the word "never"?  ;)

Edited January 17, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Chucktshoes]

Like Robert, I don't like the government regulating private businesses. On that same token, if Comcast, AT&T or the power company wants access to run lines/pipes across my property they should have to negotiate with me directly for that access not with the government. If you want special privileges from the government then you have to accept that they come with strings attached.

[Dennis1209]

I have the same thoughts and feelings as most of y'all.

 

Let me ask this... Is all this wonderful technology actually worth it, helping us or hurting us? I just lost my Weather Channel from Direct TV because of a financial dispute, so, my commentary isn't going to be pretty. As previously alluded to, 95% of the channels are garbage, packaged to get the most profit from you and shoved down your throat.

 

Physical theft, that is robbing a bank, robbing you in your home or on the street and / or robbing you of your property has always been with us. Enter this new age of cyber space, where you can be robbed and cleaned out without even knowing it until it's to late, in addition to old school methods still used. A person with values, always pays his bills on time and has always been responsible can become an outcast and rejected for loans, credit, employment, etc. because he / she got cyber hacked. His / her banks accounts, credit cards and credit can be destroyed instantly these days.

 

Y'all probably have heard of many instances that's destroyed lives and the long periods it takes to prove your innocence.

 

My Direct TV bill is normally as much as my electric bill. For my part, it won't take a heck of a lot more for me to drop the Internet and satellite TV and replace all this wasted time doing something that is tangible and productive, like the old days. Think about this, it doesn't take a lot of imagination watching television compared to reading a book, agreed?

 

Like all of you, I enjoy satellite TV, the Internet forums, email and all the conveniences but, at what price?

 

Hello all the ghosts tracking me and reading my tirades, give me the Weather Channel back :rant:

[RobertNashville]

Like Robert, I don't like the government regulating private businesses. On that same token, if Comcast, AT&T or the power company wants access to run lines/pipes across my property they should have to negotiate with me directly for that access not with the government. If you want special privileges from the government then you have to accept that they come with strings attached.

Maybe it's different here in Tennessee but where I grew up and the states I've lived in other than TN, electric companies, water companies and natural gas companies, etc.paid for their access to land.  Property owners may not have had the legal authority to stop them but they were compensated. I know this well because for my first 11 years after leaving the Navy I worked as a senior financial analyst for the (then) largest natural gas utility company in the country; operating in seven states.

 

In cities, most utility lines, except those running to the house (which are legally the homeowners' property) are part of the street/city right of way; which is something you agree to when you chose to live there and buy the property.

 

Our Constitution specifically allows the government to take property for the overall good of society so long as proper compensation is made. I'm not suggesting this should be done recklessly but it's a necessary function of a complicated society. Moreover, I don't see this as any sort of "special privilege" but a function of the government's powers that the founders specifically provided.

Edited January 17, 2014 by RobertNashville

[tnguy]

I have the same thoughts and feelings as most of y'all.

 

Let me ask this... Is all this wonderful technology actually worth it, helping us or hurting us? I just lost my Weather Channel from Direct TV because of a financial dispute, so, my commentary isn't going to be pretty. As previously alluded to, 95% of the channels are garbage, packaged to get the most profit from you and shoved down your throat.

 

Physical theft, that is robbing a bank, robbing you in your home or on the street and / or robbing you of your property has always been with us. Enter this new age of cyber space, where you can be robbed and cleaned out without even knowing it until it's to late, in addition to old school methods still used. A person with values, always pays his bills on time and has always been responsible can become an outcast and rejected for loans, credit, employment, etc. because he / she got cyber hacked. His / her banks accounts, credit cards and credit can be destroyed instantly these days.

 

Y'all probably have heard of many instances that's destroyed lives and the long periods it takes to prove your innocence.

 

My Direct TV bill is normally as much as my electric bill. For my part, it won't take a heck of a lot more for me to drop the Internet and satellite TV and replace all this wasted time doing something that is tangible and productive, like the old days. Think about this, it doesn't take a lot of imagination watching television compared to reading a book, agreed?

 

Like all of you, I enjoy satellite TV, the Internet forums, email and all the conveniences but, at what price?

 

Hello all the ghosts tracking me and reading my tirades, give me the Weather Channel back :rant:

 

Been without cable or satellite for a long time but I gots to have me some internet. Between OTA on a DVR and Netflix and Redbox, I'm pretty well covered. As for watching weather on the TV? Ain't nobody got time for that.  http://www.newschannel5.com/category/105910/storm-5-weather-center
 

[Chucktshoes]

Maybe it's different here in Tennessee but where I grew up and the states I've lived in other than TN, electric companies, water companies and natural gas companies, etc.paid for their access to land.  Property owners may not have had the legal authority to stop them but they were compensated. I know this well because for my first 11 years after leaving the Navy I worked as a senior financial analyst for the (then) largest natural gas utility company in the country; operating in seven states.

 

In cities, most utility lines, except those running to the house (which are legally the homeowners' property) are part of the street/city right of way; which is something you agree to when you chose to live there and buy the property.

 

Our Constitution specifically allows the government to take property for the overall good of society so long as proper compensation is made. I'm not suggesting this should be done recklessly but it's a necessary function of a complicated society. Moreover, I don't see this as any sort of "special privilege" but a function of the government's powers that the founders specifically provided.

So with whom did they negotiate with for that access and to determine the appropriate level of compensation? Oh yeah the government, not me. Like I said, if they wish to be free from government regulation they need to be free from government largesse.
 

I'm sorry, I don't agree with the Kelo decision. Taking of property for the public good should not include the taking of property so that a private entity can use it to generate revenues.

Just to be clear on a point again, could you refresh my memory on your position regarding the parking lot bills again? Weren't you supportive of the state regulating away the rights of a business to decide what their employees brought onto their property? :squint:

[vontar]

Kinda like Microsoft Xbox.

 

I own my xbox, but MS expects to make more money if I use it to connect to something they don't own.

 

I have a netflix account, but in order to use my Xbox that I paid for to access it, Microsoft requires me to buy a gold account from them.

 

However, Roku and my smart tv, just input the account info and it is golden. 

 

I have never renewed my MS Xbox gold account partly for reasons like that.  It doesn't cost MS anything for me to connect to netflix.  But they want to make money.  No thanks.  Also not planning to by the next gen either.

Edited January 18, 2014 by vontar

[RobertNashville]

So with whom did they negotiate with for that access and to determine the appropriate level of compensation? Oh yeah the government, not me. Like I said, if they wish to be free from government regulation they need to be free from government largesse.

Who is “they” exactly and what property and when? It’s a pointless question without specifics. Rights of way are negotiated by those who want then with the property owners at the time it is wanted.

 

More to the point, there is this thing called the Constitution, especially the takings clause, that specifically allows government to take and/or use property…if you don’t like it that government can do that then what you need to do is stop arguing with me about it and go get the Constitution changed.

 

Until you do that what you like or don’t like about the process is immaterial.

 

 

I'm sorry, I don't agree with the Kelo decision.

Neither do I…so what…nothing we have talked about here has been impacted at all by that decision.

 

 

Just to be clear on a point again, could you refresh my memory on your position regarding the parking lot bills again? Weren't you supportive of the state regulating away the rights of a business to decide what their employees brought onto their property?

The state isn’t taking away any rights at all. It’s actually quite simple…it’s called the Constitution (see above). Parking lot laws do not violate the Constitution (as has been determined by the courts multiple times). Courts recognize that it is better for society as a whole that we have responsible, armed citizens…effectively disarming them with “no firearm” policies in parking lots is contrary to the public good and States determining that parking lot owners cannot forbid firearms in their parking lots so long as those arms are kept in the citizen’s vehicle has zero negative impact on parking lot owners.

It’s odd how you appear to be worried about parking lot laws that have no negative impact (financial or operational) on a company that owns the parking lot yet you seem to want the government to regulate the business operations of internet service providers which has a direct and negative impact on those companies.

 

Government regulation of broadband providers is a sure way to kill competition, reduce profits and most importantly, strangle the sources of the tremendous capital investment required to improve the country’s broadband capabilities. If people want faster broadband and more competition the answer is to not saddle providers with regulations that dictate their business structure.

[Daniel]

[mikegideon]

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.

 

We are talking about the same thing. You have three services running along those right of ways... power, telephone, and cable. There is no room to add any other services to those right of ways, mostly because of available pole space. So cable DOES have the exact same monopoly status as power and telephone. Hell, they operate their business the same way. If they don't pay, cut them off.

 

Comcast, as an ISP is just part of their bandwidth. Nobody can compete with them, because they own the lowest tier on the poles, and there ain't room for anybody else.

 

Whether you agree with regulation or not, you gotta agree they're as much a monopoly as wired phones, at least.

[RobertNashville]

We are talking about the same thing. You have three services running along those right of ways... power, telephone, and cable. There is no room to add any other services to those right of ways, mostly because of available pole space. So cable DOES have the exact same monopoly status as power and telephone. Hell, they operate their business the same way. If they don't pay, cut them off.

 

Comcast, as an ISP is just part of their bandwidth. Nobody can compete with them, because they own the lowest tier on the poles, and there ain't room for anybody else.

 

Whether you agree with regulation or not, you gotta agree they're as much a monopoly as wired phones, at least.

I don't have to agree because if I agreed they were a monopoly I'd be wrong.  Cable internet providers do not have a monopoly on internet services; they never have. I know what a true monopoly is and ISPs are not monopolies. There are plenty of people who think they are or want to be be so that they can be regulated but they are not monopolies. Calling them monopolies and regulating them is not the answer to what people say they want...regulation will led to less competition, not more...less bandwidth, not more...higher prices, not lower.

 

I have no idea what you mean with your comment."Hell, they operate their business the same way. If they don't pay, cut them off."???  What business doesn't cut off a customer who doesn't pay???  :shrug:

As to polls, there isn't a poll in sight where I live!

Edited January 18, 2014 by RobertNashville

[tnguy]

This is digressing somewhat at this point but if I am late with my insurance payment (or most other services with a healthy dose of competition) there is a long grace period and no penalty and in the case of the insurance company, they'll make a decent effort to remind me. Gas, electricity and especially water have nasty penalties and will cut you off in  a heartbeat.

 

One possible option is to minimize the monopoly aspect. Have the infrastructure owned by one company or the government and the service itself provided by multiple companies. This brings its own issues, however but it wouldn't be such a big deal if you could have different ISPs over the same wire (As it happens, I get my DSL from a different company from AT&T who is the default provider around here. This other company is a little more expensive but less restrictive than AT&T.)

Edited January 18, 2014 by tnguy

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Cable internet providers do not have a monopoly on internet services

One note on this, no they don't have a monopoly on internet services. What they have a monopoly on is broadband internet services. Even 4G the fastest wireless available doesn't hold a candle to running a line to your home. Because these services aren't even close they can't be held in the same categories. Rather like comparing a home phone to a cell phone. Or a Lamborghini to a Kia. They aren't the same thing. Cable and phone companies have a monopoly on broadband internet and there is no way for new companies to offer a competing service.

[RobertNashville]

One note on this, no they don't have a monopoly on internet services. What they have a monopoly on is broadband internet services. Even 4G the fastest wireless available doesn't hold a candle to running a line to your home. Because these services aren't even close they can't be held in the same categories. Rather like comparing a home phone to a cell phone. Or a Lamborghini to a Kia. They aren't the same thing. Cable and phone companies have a monopoly on broadband internet and there is no way for new companies to offer a competing service.

Simply not true...you have other choices and to continue your Lambo/Kia example what some here want is to drive their Lambo whil Kia owners subsidize them for it.

[RobertNashville]

This is digressing somewhat at this point but if I am late with my insurance payment (or most other services with a healthy dose of competition) there is a long grace period and no penalty and in the case of the insurance company, they'll make a decent effort to remind me. Gas, electricity and especially water have nasty penalties and will cut you off in  a heartbeat.

 

One possible option is to minimize the monopoly aspect. Have the infrastructure owned by one company or the government and the service itself provided by multiple companies. This brings its own issues, however but it wouldn't be such a big deal if you could have different ISPs over the same wire (As it happens, I get my DSL from a different company from AT&T who is the default provider around here. This other company is a little more expensive but less restrictive than AT&T.)

Actually; with most insurance companies you are paying for coverage, sometimes in advance, sometimes not but I would suggest that if you have an accident one day after the last day you paid for the insurance you would find yourself without coverage.

 

Anyway, no company should be required to provide any service that hasn't been paid for...perhaps utilities are more callous than some other companies but I don't think you can really fault a utility for cutting off a service that hasn't been paid for. Also, maybe it's different in your are but in mine, most of my utilities have a week or two after a payment is "late" before hey cut off service...the water company even calls me if I haven't made my payment on time and tells me how may days I have to pay before the service is disconnected.