OT: net neutrality vote today.
December 14th, 2017 at 8:23 AM ^
This was ordained as soon as Republicans took the Whitehouse. This is a predetermined vote by an unelected regulatory body chaired by someone paid to do exactly what he is doing today. Elections have consequences and both parties are not the same.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:34 AM ^
This is what it is on the surface but when you peel the layers back, Republicans dont even want this. Republicans, Democrats, no one wants this.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:54 AM ^
I think Libertarians do. But what do I know :)
December 14th, 2017 at 11:22 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 11:54 AM ^
And consumers would demand it in a free market with no need for regulation. I think that's the root cause that needs to be addressed - lack of competition of ISPs locally.
I don't understand the point about liberty being stifled by corporations, though.
December 14th, 2017 at 2:10 PM ^
Damn those evil companies providing us technological advances and goods and services that we voluntarily buy!
December 14th, 2017 at 3:19 PM ^
DIG UP STUPID
December 14th, 2017 at 3:19 PM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 6:01 PM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 10:41 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 7:39 AM ^
It sucks, but the next administration willl just change the rules back. Due to the popularity of this administration, an administration change is all but a certainty and I just don't see cable companies going all out for a policy change that will simply be reversed in the next administration in 3 years
December 14th, 2017 at 8:54 AM ^
You actually bring up a good point. There is existing law (like actual law, not regulation) that the government cannot change regluations capricously. This was done to protect buisness and markets from administration changes yo-yoing regulations which would hurt long term investment. There is already suits being prepared to challenge the Net Neutrality repeal saying such a change in regulation would be capricious. And they have a case considering the US govement has gone to court to defend the current regulations. And if/when democrats are back in power, they would likely re-regulate ISPs like utilities again anyway, thus the yo-yo. So we'll see what happens.
December 14th, 2017 at 7:43 AM ^
It's bad if you believe internet services should be free, or cost the same for everyone, regardless of use.
It's purported to be good if you think those serviices should be metered like electricity, gas, and water.
It's a horrible mess because of the usaul dysfunctionality of government, and the opportunistic nature of corporations.
Just consider one company: Netflix.
They get a free ride to everyone's home. They don't pay for the pipelines, the hardware or software that delivers their services to our homes. They can survive by charging a nominal fee only because they are allowed to operate as they do.
Is it fair my neighbor will be forced to pay incrreasing ISP prices because I choose to download 4 K content all day?
Like most political messes, it's a mess. And, like most political messes, the entities with the power will win, and those without, will pay.
Don't worry about it...worry about asteroids, or multi drug resistant bugs, or the contamination of our water supply by fracking and pesticides.
This internet thing is just a fad.
December 14th, 2017 at 7:56 AM ^
has been stagnant for quite some time due to agricultural research in spite of population growth and better food distribution. A great way to continue that is to avoid the non-GMO labels and some of the companies that perpetuate myths about food science (Panera, Chipotle, etc.)
December 14th, 2017 at 8:14 AM ^
I guess a plateu is a good start, but most people on this rock don't have access to what you recommend, let alone abilty to pay for them.
The enemies are not chain restaurants. They are only the dealers. You need to go after the cartels to make a dent.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:17 AM ^
Billions of dollars of research has been spent to provide draught tolerent grain crops like rice just so the very people who need it (African farmers) could increase their productivity. These plants are being funneled to where they are needed.
GMOs have been a godsend for farm productivity and the goal of reducing pesticides. The genetic incorporation of the cry toxin (only insects and lepidoptera) has saved cost by reduced use of pesticides, as well as there subsequent runoff.
December 14th, 2017 at 8:34 PM ^
This is all true, yet there is a very ugly side to this coin as well. Not going to get into it, because this isn't the right thread.
December 14th, 2017 at 8:16 AM ^
Netflix doesn't get a free ride, they pay plenty of money for internet bandwidth/transit. The customer is already paying for their bandwidth to their ISP. Netflix is certainly paying their fair share of the costs.
December 14th, 2017 at 8:20 AM ^
It seems I have been misinformed.
Please post a link that divulges what Netflicks pays ISPs to carry their content. I can't find that info.
The customer is payment to ISPs is more complicated than it seems. You pay a fee for speeds "up to." The charges are based on average use accross all subscribers, not peak use from everyone. If everyone used netflix, the system would be so slow people would be lighting torches and marching.
The fundamental flaw in the Netflix business model is that if they were forced to pay their fair share, they would be O O B.
December 14th, 2017 at 8:36 AM ^
Why should Netflix pay money to an ISP for traffic that the ISP's customers specifically requested. Netflix plays for their backbone connection and their transit fees. What you are proposing is quite literally gas stations charging refineries and gas distributors to sell their gas.
Netflix literally already pays MORE than their fair share. ISPs are responsible for upgrading their end point networks to provide what they advertise.
December 14th, 2017 at 4:39 PM ^
I agree with with your post. I guess I'm having trouble seeing where removing NN will change any of this. Not just a question to you specifically.
December 14th, 2017 at 5:54 PM ^
Because it will!!! I know you are in the "industry" but these corporations are going to abuse the hell out of this, you can't be so naive. WHY are they fucking with this in the first place? To me, because some greedy assholes have found some groud that hasn't already been taken and milked for all the dollars and are going to bust in and eventually rape the concept of equal information for all.
December 14th, 2017 at 10:22 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 10:31 AM ^
Netflix currently pays their ISP for the bandwidth they use to transmit to consumers. Consumers currently pay their ISPs for the bandwidth to receive Netflix. No free ride involved. Net neutrality is about preventing the consumers' ISPs from charging Netflix in order to reach the consumers, even though the consumers are already paying the ISPs to reach Netflix. AKA double-dipping. Revoking net neutrality would allow ISPs to pick and choose which services customers can reach, which is bad for a competitive free market and horrible for innovation.
December 14th, 2017 at 2:47 PM ^
"Please post a link that divulges what Netflicks pays ISPs to carry their content. I can't find that info."
They don't, and they shouldn't. That's the entire point of net neutrality! Netflix pays for their internet service to their ISP to serve all the content they do. That's the only money they owe for other ISPs to "Carry their content" (a.k.a. provide access to any and all websites on the internet..)
Netflix doesn't need to "pay their fair share." ISPs need to live up to the agreements they're making with their customers. The previous method of overselling your internet was a business staple, but since users are actually using that service now doesn't in-turn mean the sites they're going to owe the ISPs that oversold their service more money. That's idiotic and illogical, and a staple view that i've heard from telcom workers.
December 14th, 2017 at 8:23 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 8:29 AM ^
"It's bad if you believe.." is what was posted.
That's what many people seem to believe. For those people, the proposed changes are bad, regardless of the reality of the current service delivery and pricing.
December 14th, 2017 at 2:51 PM ^
"That's what many people seem to believe. For those people, the proposed changes are bad, regardless of the reality of the current service delivery and pricing."
I have not seen a single person that believes that's what NN is. Not a single one. Hell of a strawman though.
December 14th, 2017 at 10:09 PM ^
Moron:
I never posted what you imply.
I never posted about what people believe about NN.
I have to hand it to you though, expert reverse straw man.
December 15th, 2017 at 1:53 PM ^
Sure thing slugger. I mean, it's not like I quoted you saying that's what many people seem to believe. That definitely didn't happen. :) You do you though, it's strong. Idiotic and illogical, but strong.
December 14th, 2017 at 8:35 AM ^
It's somewhat amazing that telecom industry shills infest even sites like this.
What we'll likely have soon is the worst of all worlds:
* No free market (as there are effective monopolies in most locations) and therefore no chance for a competive marketplace. You'll see the invisible middle finger more than the invisible hand.
* Effectively no regulation (unless you're into regulatory capture).
Notice that Google et al. are pretty quiet at the moment. They'll be fine and possibly better off now that smaller companies will have a larger barrier to entry.
December 14th, 2017 at 8:54 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 9:20 AM ^
The market is broken already on the internet...behemoths like Amazon, facebook, Google have an unrelenting head start in the data war. Small companies can never catch up and if they have a great idea/IP, they will get bought out. The FCC needs to start producing real competition in that space, possibly by breaking up some of these behemoths, charging for data aquisition, or making data a freely available resource.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:29 AM ^
That literally isn't under the FCC's authority. And small companies have little barrier to entry thanks to NN. And both Google and Facebook can certainly be overtaken. After all, they all overtook large incumbents on their way to becoming massive mega corporations. And there are numerous alternatives alread out there to Amazon, Google, and Facebook that anyone can use instead. Google alone has tens to hundreds of competitiors in every area in which they compete.
December 14th, 2017 at 10:16 AM ^
You need to look closer. Look at market share. It is generally perceived that there are several information monopolies on the internet. I wasn't commneting on NN at ll...but whether NN is free or not, the barier for market entry for internet search, internet marketing, or creating the internet marketplace is actually quite high.
A company like Walmart is already having trouble entering the marketplace to combat amazon, who is using their position and their recent aquisition of Wholefoods to corner the grocery market. Snapchat has seen steady losses since their IPO as they have found the targeted market space difficult (cornered by Facebook and Google). Most internet companies are integrating several components of life and using the large amount of data obtained from each user to make it even more attractive, thus making market entry even more difficult.
December 14th, 2017 at 11:45 AM ^
No the barrier isn't high at all. In fact it is quite easy to come up with a service and launch it. The costs are minimal compared to basicaly every other field. Building mindshare and taking over an incument who has been there for 15+ years might be hard, but that's true in every field.
Walmart's basic business model is less efficient than Amazon's. That's why they are having trouble.
Snapchat is literally competing with hundreds of similar services that offer exactly the same thing. Google itself has basically continuously failed to compete in the same space that Snapchat is competing in. Facebook likewise has had its fair share of failures.
There is a myriad of choices for pretty much every service on the Internet. If people actively choose to use ones from large companies, that is perfectly fine. Maybe I just have a longer memory of the history of the internet, there have been multiple companies that at the time had as much influence as Google/Facebook do today that basically don't exist anymore.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:59 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 10:08 AM ^
No...I didn't confuse it...I never equated the two issues. It was a general comment on the industry...nowhere did I make a reference to NN
December 14th, 2017 at 11:59 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 9:57 AM ^
"except when most people have fewer than 2 choices between ISPs there is no market."
You hit the nail on the head reshp1!
December 14th, 2017 at 11:44 PM ^
December 15th, 2017 at 9:38 AM ^
And this is the crux of the issue. I just can't fathom how people don't understand this.
There is no competition. It's a fallacy in this case, but "free market" types don't want to see that, why... i have no idea.
I honestly think our society may be doomed. I hope I'm wrong, but I think there are just too many people who just lap up whatever bullshit their favored talking heads spit out. It's fucking sad, and makes me so angry I can't put it into words.
Fucking stupid people.
December 14th, 2017 at 8:35 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 7:44 AM ^
Here's an example that hits close to home. Let's pretend that an OSU fan rises to become CEO of your local ISP (far-fetched, I know, but bear with me). His company can make loading MGoBlog so slow that it is basically unusable. Or charge you for access. Or block it altogether.
This illustration may seem light-hearted, but removing NN basically allows the commercial powers-that-be to dictate what information you get, even moreso than they already do.
December 14th, 2017 at 8:53 AM ^
Correct. This repeal of NN will essentially legalize OSU-Net to block MGoBlog content - the First Amendment be damned... Yes, Free Speech. If it's legal to censor MGoBlog, it's also legal to censor mainstream news outlets. Our fictional OSU-Net would be free to only provide access to 'OSU News Central'. That would be all you get, because OSU-Net, being the only ISP that provides service in your area, can. All in the name of money.
December 14th, 2017 at 10:00 AM ^
That scenario is only possible if the ISP is into bad business practices that are against their own best interests - ok, entirely possible with an OSU fan! - but it would be crazy for them to slow down a site with good traffic that the customers want to visit. And if they did that, the consumers can choose to go to the next ISP in an ideal world. With proper competition of ISPs (agreed this is a big if) there would be no issue of net neutrality whatsoever. The market would demand ISPs providing open internet access at the best cost/value.
December 14th, 2017 at 10:18 AM ^
Literally the only way that would ever come about would be via Local Loop Unbundling which requires Title II.
In effect, LLU would make you ISP into the same type of entity that your local power line provider is: they setup and maintain the lines while charging a nominal flat fee for the service and then you contract for an actual provider of power that uses those lines. In many places, you can choose from 100s of power providers which all use the exact same physical transmission lines into your house. But the local power line provider is regulated as natural monopoly.
As far as an ISP never doing such a thing as slowing/blocking MGoBlog, they've already done many similar things in the past.
December 14th, 2017 at 10:58 AM ^
Good points ats. I am going to do some further research on LLU. This is a conflicting one since in theory I can't agree with the "public utility" concept, but in a practical sense it may just be true that the internet needs to be treated like traditional utilities.
December 14th, 2017 at 11:53 AM ^
Pretty much the only entities that can compete with existing ISPs are other utilities. Almost all the shining examples of companies competing with ISPs are based around a non-ISP utility getting into the ISP game. As an example, Chattanooga EPB was an already existing power line utility which made their entry into the ISP market extremely easy as they already had the right of ways to every location within their footprint and had both a large amount of experience with running and laying a network along with a large workforce ready and able to do it (as power line companies basically have to have a large workforce of line workers 24/7 in case of emergencies). That allowed EPB to not only get direct benefit from the fiber network (basically perfect grid monitoring and prediction) but allowed them to get the entire network done in a small amount of time for minimal cost.
Some things just realistically form natural monopolies due to the requirements. ISPs are generally within that category as like power line utilities they have to connect every location within a target area and it doesn't economically make much sense having enough providers putting in networks that actual market competition could occur. Imagine every house having 20 different power lines...