OT: net neutrality vote today.
December 14th, 2017 at 4:54 PM ^
Oh, I 100% agree. I'm almost positive this is a bad thing, especially in the short term. I think it can lead to long term gain by responding with even harsher regulations or just completely making the internet a public goods and service (some cities are already doing this). Maybe google sees less visitors due to a pay-per-search type system being threatened by the worst case scenario people and instead of paying the ISPs the fees to increase site speed, they double down on Google fiber and add another big player into the mix.
This is as good of a time as any for the government to wake up, and say wait a second, we own the majority of this infrastructure, and you are monopolyzing our property. NN didn't help stop that, but we are going to put in the laws that actually do stop it.
December 15th, 2017 at 12:57 AM ^
The original intention and the free market could certainly work if all ISPs were limited as last mile providers and had equal resources to start. The problem is that they have legally embedded themselves into the regulatory capture of all city center markets, which makes it unprofitble for competition to enter against them. In our specific case, we had a team of 25 startup employees and minimal legal assistance. 0 full time attorneys against hundreds at Verizon and a few city attorneys the mayor (the mayor of this large city was bought) throws at you on the side makes for a rough ride. We had a team of technology innovators and we were not prepared for a legal battle. Investors want return on their investments and courtrooms make the worst investments.
The city, state, or federal government grants liscence in contract terms to the large ISPs. These ISPs and the entrenched political entity join in agreements to pay donations to maintain continued contract services. This leaves little options and abilities for new entrants. That is how the smaller guys get shut out from all larger metropolitian areas. In theory, yes we should be able to connect to the public fiber node. However, after the lengthy legal battle even the Googles of the world have trouble entering this area. The failure of Google now signals that we will never break the stranglehold.
Also as a side note, I was proud that several from my team joined Google after our failure to continue the fight. We need more innovators to continue this effort. Go get them new grads! I encourge everyone to fight for something they have a passion to do because that is a great way to learn and create new opportunities for yourself and for others. Try something and fail and you will find yourself succeeding in different ways later in life.
December 15th, 2017 at 3:17 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 4:11 PM ^
[edit]: double post.
At the end of the day, free markets can work, but this isn't a free market.
December 14th, 2017 at 11:38 PM ^
ezblue.
"All competitors have lost the ability to connect to the dark fiber originally paid for by the public. The public should be outraged by this fact. Over the last 20 years there were plenty of potential competitors which were bullied out of the marketplace. It is not a fair or competitve marketplace. The anti-net neutrality companies are more or less in favor of legal piracy over what should be a public utility resource."
Super useful information & perspective. Filing away, hopefully to forward to those who can use it effectively at the right time... thanks for sharing.
And pls. don't give up, or shrug & simply hope young'uns will pick it up...
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if your post could be parlayed into a full-length article. I can imagine picking up something like The Atlantic and reading this account, fleshed out.
They'd also likely have the legal team to protect / navigate what is publishable.
I'd def. be interested in reading something like this. Not many will have this insight...
December 15th, 2017 at 1:44 AM ^
I'm unfortunately becoming older- especially in relation to the technology. The innovation we need requires inspiration and energy of a type I would unlikely be able to give at this point. As we all grow older, we become invested in family, other pursuits, and adventures. This was an adventure I undertook before Google and Facebook existed. And if someone does notice, yes our team was discussing using streaming video from moving vehicles in the mid-to-late 90s. All I can say is that the prototype existed and worked in our tests.
We are all young with little to nothing to lose at some point in our lives. Are you willing to risk everything you have and own to multiple lawsuits? If you are starting out in life it works because you have nothing for anyone to take. This is how entrepreneurship occurs in the modern age- strike young and hard or you will not have enough money to hold off the next patent, trademark, or nonsense lawsuit. The landscape has changed drastically. I encourage others to certainly learn and try. You must have an extreme passion and keep up with ever-changing technology. In terms of today, I understand the business challenge, but it is likely the technology has passed me by now. Also unfortunately, it would be a huge investment into a courtroom as well.
Some of us are successful, but very few of us are toe-to-toe Verizon courtroom challenge level successful. This change requires inspiration that would fundamentally challenge the whole industry. That is rare. I wish I was that person, but I am not. However, I do hope that maybe that person might be sitting in the fishbowl right now reading this..
December 14th, 2017 at 2:46 PM ^
Who could forget the dark days of 2015.
The internet was great before Net Neutrality and it will be great after it's dead and gone.
December 14th, 2017 at 4:08 PM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 4:13 PM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 2:56 PM ^
ISPs probably won't make drastic changes, and even if they do we can just reinstate the regulation.
If you're really so convinced that the ISPs are going to price gouge now that net neutrality is gone, shouldn't you be buying stock in them? AT&T and Verizon stocks are both down today. A perfect time to buy. Put your money where your mouth is. If you think this was only done to increase their profits, buy their stock.
December 14th, 2017 at 3:11 PM ^
of how this is going to slow down this platform even more than is already the case.
December 14th, 2017 at 3:11 PM ^
It'll probably be ok.
December 14th, 2017 at 3:24 PM ^
If you believe in government control of things like this you like it.
If you believe in open market forces steering things like this, you don't like it.
December 14th, 2017 at 3:44 PM ^
Net neutrality has only been violated a few times previosuly. The regualtion was only first needed in 2015 since Comcast and others first tried extracting additional money from Netflix and Layer3 Communications in 2014. The regualtion wasn't needed till someone tried to screw with traffic patterns. If you like paying twice and three times for divided services, you will love the roll back of these protections. Just wait till you buy the social package and sports package for an additional $5 per month each so you can continue to post here without any "slow-downs" and advertsing interruptions.
December 14th, 2017 at 4:38 PM ^
I have 1 ISP available. Others may have 2. There's no market. If Spectrum decides to screw my internet, I have no other options.
This isn't selling hamburgers. Most of the major ISP's essentially hold monopoly power in significant swaths of the country
December 14th, 2017 at 3:40 PM ^
I look at it this way. Whatever is done here can be undone in in a couple years (maybe less). That is the magic of the ballot box.
December 14th, 2017 at 4:40 PM ^
I tend to lean center-right, but I don't want to worry that every time a Republican president gets elected that my ISP is going to bone me again
December 14th, 2017 at 5:05 PM ^
...that if GOP constituents make it clear that this is a big problem, then GOP reps in Congress will adopt net neutrality. As I said above, this really shouldn't be a democrats vs republicans issue, yet someone it has become one. Generally speaking, there are many, many issues that need to be "de-partisanized."
December 14th, 2017 at 5:47 PM ^
I think it's a partisan issue because right-er leaning folks like myself tend to think less regulation and more free markets = good which I would generally agree with. This however is not one of those situations. It's basically just the ISPs trying to bone everyone equally
December 15th, 2017 at 1:50 AM ^
This is not actually a partisan issue. The local level generally has even greater impact so watch your local voting on this issue as well. If your local representation is recieving any $ from Verizon and similar sources, you can bet they are bought no matter which label they carry.
I have read that about 76% across both republicans and democrats both support net neutrality in fairly similar percentages (maybe +/-3%). I am generally republican (in theory), but I understand the technology and the continued need to enforce neutrality. Not all republicans are against net neutrality. This is a complicated issue and simplification into "free market" is not doing the general population any favors in unerstanding this situation. I try to explain to my friends and family if anyone cares to listen. It is difficult and we can win this issue in time if we can explain the potential impact clearly.
December 14th, 2017 at 10:56 PM ^
against repeal, or at least slowing down & considering this more carefully.
If only on the strength of figuring out why Russia is so interested in repealing these rules.
Srsly. Here's a Slate article on it.
My resolution in 2018: pay at least as much attention to what's going down in D.C. as Russian bots are...
December 14th, 2017 at 5:29 PM ^
Sure. But the concern is (a) the new administration(s) won't treat this as big of an issue or will simply have other matters to deal with, thus allowing it to perpetuate, and (b) as there is uncertainty around the state of internet access, competitors will close ranks and be less flexible while start-ups will find the barrier to entry even higher, meaning viable competitors will be less capable of being viable options.
December 14th, 2017 at 11:43 PM ^
is def. treating this as a big issue.
It is delighted with it.
Goes hand-in-glove with tightening the reins on journalism & free speech, while simultaneously benefitting industry giants & finding new ways to extract wealth from everyday folks.
All under the rubric of "transparency", "innovation", and that good old stand-by, trickle-down economics.
December 14th, 2017 at 5:00 PM ^
With net neutrality, ISPs can't charge you more or less based on what you do on the internet. Now they can. They can charge you more for streaming audio and video, they can charge you for accessing certain sites. They can throttle sites they don't like, making them functionally impossible to use, and so forth and so on.
It also benefits absolutely no one except for ISPs. And that fact tells me that this issue absolutely should not be a "democrats vs republicans" thing. It is against ALL our interests for net neutrality to be repealed.
December 14th, 2017 at 5:26 PM ^
Not a good thing, but in the short term my guess is people won't notice it. But if you thought your ISP's tiers were confusing before, just wait until they start rolling out the various speed and access packages.
December 14th, 2017 at 10:48 PM ^
or start-up sites, the little guy w/ big dreams, or critical thinking, it is B/A/D bad. Big Ass Dumb bad. Just bad.
It bascially completes the commercialization of what's left of the digital commons, the current-day town square.
Another Orwellian chink dismantling free speech.
December 14th, 2017 at 11:34 PM ^
I can't even imagine a world without net neutrality! Oh wait, this Dystopian fantasy of mine is what some people call "every year up to 2015."
Now can someone who considers themselves somewhat unbiased/realistic explain to a guy whose only knowledge on the matter is that nothing changed personally for me from 2014 to 2015 why this is the end of the internet as we know it, as so many people on my facebook timeline have said? From what I've gathered this only moves regulation from the FCC to the FTC, who will still be able to protect against shitty business practices.
December 14th, 2017 at 11:46 PM ^
nothing of the thread above?
Everything you bring up has been addressed, several times over. From people who've been there.
For one thing, NN was the default from 2005 on; 2015 just clarified.
Do your homework.
December 15th, 2017 at 12:08 AM ^
Step one: Sees thread with over 400 posts.
Step two: Thinks, I'll zing them with this NN hot take, no sense in reading the 400 posts before mine.
Step three: Profit.
December 15th, 2017 at 1:26 AM ^
Because reading 400 comments during final exams sure sounds like a realistic thing to do!
December 15th, 2017 at 3:28 AM ^
December 15th, 2017 at 1:45 PM ^
I agree, that doesn't sound terribly realistic (unless your exams are on ethical issues around internet access, in which case, I'd suggest reading it).
Perhaps that would also mean it's not realistic to intelligently contribute to the conversation during final exams? Just becuase you're taking finals doesn't mean you ought to go to a Starbucks without pants on, cut to the front of the line, and say, "sorry bros, I'm too busy for manners and societal norms, but here's a HOT TAKE". There's no harm in sitting one out.
December 14th, 2017 at 11:34 PM ^
Undecided on if this vote is good or bad for me...scary thought of letting the government (Donald Trump / FCC) regulate the internet though. The classic Big Government vs. Big Corporation debate...does either side truly do things For The People.
December 14th, 2017 at 11:58 PM ^
above.
9 pages of it.
Reviewing some of which, I'm struck by how abstract / on principle the pro-repeal (as well as neutral/undecided) viewpoints & arguments are,
vs. how detailed, concrete & real-world based many of the net neutrality defenders are.
Even had I come to the discussion unbiased (& I've been following this for some time, so yes I came with a position), the distinction would be salient...
seeing (for example) center-right mgobloggers shift their position after engaging & reading real-life experiences & the detailed information shared by super knowledgable posters bears me out on this, I think...
thanks everyone for dropping mad knowledge!
December 14th, 2017 at 11:51 PM ^
December 15th, 2017 at 12:07 AM ^
the public has funded infrastructure & rural access to the tune of millions ALREADY.
The FCC just delivered this publicly-funded foundation to the largest of corporations & local monopolies.
in the words of ezblue, "the public should be outraged by this fact":
"All competitors have lost the ability to connect to the dark fiber originally paid for by the public. The public should be outraged by this fact. Over the last 20 years there were plenty of potential competitors which were bullied out of the marketplace. It is not a fair or competitve marketplace. The anti-net neutrality companies are more or less in favor of legal piracy over what should be a public utility resource. It is sickening that anyone would support these types. I have met this enemy directly and it is ugly and needs to be changed with public support and by retaking their rightfully owned public dark net highways. I hope there are a few younger UM grads able and willing to take up this fight. We need innovators to change this landscape."
December 15th, 2017 at 2:47 AM ^
Not the best article, but this is the general idea of how this happened. The government paid them to upgrde lines and they often did not build what we requested. They initally upgraded copper instead of laying fiber in the early 90s. Then they used profits to build out the network we actually wanted and now currently try to claim the original funding didn't build the fiber networks so they can control the fiber lines. It's scummy and unethical, but it worked:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-book-of-broken-promis…
December 15th, 2017 at 10:05 AM ^