Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9878
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Neutrality in 2017

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:56 am UTC

Ranbot wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:I honestly hope Facebook, Google, Pornhub, eBay, and Amazon all get together to form their own internet for even cheaper, because it does not cost anywhere near $39.95/m to maintain the fiber optic cables...The telecoms are making money hand over fist and are just getting greedier every year.

Hardly a solution, because unless they come in with billions of dollars to lay their own fiber lines across the nation, they will wind-up paying one of current big ISPs connection fees to use their lines and bury it in your bill. No different than so many third-party cell companies who pay one of the big national cell companies to connect to their towers; or third party electric companies who pass along the electric line fees. That's the monopoly magic.

To be fair it's not practical for every competitor to have their own private lines running everywhere and it's more efficient for everyone to use one or two lines instead of many lines. In the very early days (around 1900) of electric and telephone line building public streets were a nightmare of private wires with real public safety hazards, necessitating standardization and regulation as "utilities." There are advantages to allowing these quasi-monopolies for essential services society depends on, but they need to be closely watched to avoid abuse.

However, ISPs have gone to great lengths to avoid being classified and regulated as a utility, even though their service is practically identical to utilities like land telephone,* electric, gas, water, etc. Ironically, instead of arguing about increasing regulating ISPs like the utility they are, we are arguing about further deregulating by removing net-neutrality. It's a more than a little messed up if you ask me... I said it before above, but I'll say it again.... Net-neutrality is the compromise between regulating and not regulating ISPs.

* - AT&T and Verizon are acutely aware being descendants of the Bell Telephone monopoly.


I agree, and think that perhaps we should be nationalizing it anyway since no matter what they will keep on pushing for the end of net neutrality. Perhaps we could organi-
LOADING
LOADING
LOADING
LOADING
LOADING

gd1
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby gd1 » Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:44 am UTC

I wanted to see if this is accurate:
I said "We're about to see a blackout of information that we haven't seen since the dark ages."

Note... I could be wrong about the following
TV: Controlled, besides John Olliver, how many people have you seen talk about net neutrality
Newspapers: Sparse and the bigger papers controlled
Radio: NPR talked about it, but that's about it I think

The only place I've really seen much news about net neutrality is on the internet. So how accurate is my quoted statement?

On a side note:
Might be a good time to invest in AT&T?
If you have anything you wanted to download of any significant size now might be the time?
...
Here's some totally free old games that don't take up a lot of space:
http://www.spiderwebsoftware.com/productsOld.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20110717071112/http://www.exmsft.com/~ricks/

They're for 32 bit computers I think, so you might need dosbox (also free): https://www.dosbox.com/download.php?main=1
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10850
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:08 pm UTC

ucim wrote:I'd say that the (probable) fact that online surgery traffic is irrelevant to NN, is irrelevant to NN.


Someone brought it up as a point against NN.

That's why it was relevant to show that it was irrelevant.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3618
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Let's talk about Net Neutrality in 2017

Postby EdgarJPublius » Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:20 pm UTC

Ranbot wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:I honestly hope Facebook, Google, Pornhub, eBay, and Amazon all get together to form their own internet for even cheaper, because it does not cost anywhere near $39.95/m to maintain the fiber optic cables...The telecoms are making money hand over fist and are just getting greedier every year.

Hardly a solution, because unless they come in with billions of dollars to lay their own fiber lines across the nation, they will wind-up paying one of current big ISPs connection fees to use their lines and bury it in your bill. No different than so many third-party cell companies who pay one of the big national cell companies to connect to their towers; or third party electric companies who pass along the electric line fees. That's the monopoly magic.


Google is doing that here with Google Fiber. But they still have to pay up to the big telecoms for access to poles and utility right-of-ways. It's ridiculous.

Honestly, I think the bigger issue even than net Neutrality is how these telecoms are able to operate as monopolies by carving up service-areas to avoid directly competing for customers, and colluding with each other to lobby local, state and the federal government to lock out competitors. All the anti-consumer practices we have to put up with now would be a lot less of an issue if the ISPs actually had to compete with each other. there's a lot less incentive to exploit your customers when they can just switch to another provider.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6261
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby ucim » Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:25 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:That's why it was relevant to show that it was irrelevant.
But it's only relatively irrelevant, which is relevant. To me it still stands as a point against NN, even though as an outlying point, it would be mostly unaffected by NN. This makes it a weak point, but not an invalid one.

That was my point of bringing in less outlying examples. It's a continuum, vulnerable to nibbling at the edges.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9878
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:36 pm UTC

So, umm, how does this affect Bitcoin? I mean, will bitcoin farms need to pay up to mine?

elasto
Posts: 3460
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Neutrality in 2017

Postby elasto » Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:30 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Honestly, I think the bigger issue even than net Neutrality is how these telecoms are able to operate as monopolies by carving up service-areas to avoid directly competing for customers, and colluding with each other to lobby local, state and the federal government to lock out competitors. All the anti-consumer practices we have to put up with now would be a lot less of an issue if the ISPs actually had to compete with each other. there's a lot less incentive to exploit your customers when they can just switch to another provider.

The problem there is that, in industries with very high startup costs, very low ongoing costs, and supplying a totally fungible product, competition adds a horribly inefficient overhead compared to the natural alternative.

Imagine if water companies competed like that? Where five water companies all dig up your road and your house has five water pipes simultaneously connected to it, just so you have the 'choice' of which tap to turn on? Yes, theoretically it would force the five companies to compete on quality and price, but in practice four of them would go out of business or be taken over by the fifth and it'd end up with a local monopoly just the same. Or, if by a miracle all five stay in business, it'd only be because each of them charges much more to the end consumer than would otherwise be the case.

No, with industries like water or net traffic, there should be a single supplier for efficiency's sake - and the outcomes that normally competition pressures towards (a high quality service at a low cost) should come by force of law. This is how many other countries have a far, far better internet experience than the US does. The US just has a especially dysfunctional and compromised legislature, and that's what needs addressing.

CorruptUser wrote:So, umm, how does this affect Bitcoin? I mean, will bitcoin farms need to pay up to mine?

I think bitcoin farming is less bandwidth-intensive and much more CPU-intensive/bound (or, in reality, GPU - people mine using graphics cards).

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9878
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:04 pm UTC

But don't you need to communicate with all the other miners to confirm the transfer, and need to avoid the 51% attack where if 51% of computers agree to a transfer it happens and all your bits are belong to us?

Speaking of which, I learned how to assemble a comp recently. I can't help but wonder about heat management; I imagine that the miners purchase cheap motherboards with the most slots for cards and then last generation cards in bulk, but the cards are working full blast and using up like 300 watts each while blocking airflow. Unless they don't use cases?

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Neutrality in 2017

Postby Ranbot » Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:56 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:Honestly, I think the bigger issue even than net Neutrality is how these telecoms are able to operate as monopolies by carving up service-areas to avoid directly competing for customers, and colluding with each other to lobby local, state and the federal government to lock out competitors. All the anti-consumer practices we have to put up with now would be a lot less of an issue if the ISPs actually had to compete with each other. there's a lot less incentive to exploit your customers when they can just switch to another provider.

The problem there is that, in industries with very high startup costs, very low ongoing costs, and supplying a totally fungible product, competition adds a horribly inefficient overhead compared to the natural alternative.

Imagine if water companies competed like that? Where five water companies all dig up your road and your house has five water pipes simultaneously connected to it, just so you have the 'choice' of which tap to turn on? Yes, theoretically it would force the five companies to compete on quality and price, but in practice four of them would go out of business or be taken over by the fifth and it'd end up with a local monopoly just the same. Or, if by a miracle all five stay in business, it'd only be because each of them charges much more to the end consumer than would otherwise be the case.

No, with industries like water or net traffic, there should be a single supplier for efficiency's sake - and the outcomes that normally competition pressures towards (a high quality service at a low cost) should come by force of law.

Agreed. Monopolistic utilities are a necessary evil for efficient distribution of resources that modern society depends on, but they need to be watched closely, and they are pooling power to lobby against that. ISPs are also getting deep into creating content, like Time Warner, who also owns movie studios, TV networks, news providers, advertising, etc. creating a massive conflict of interest in providing fair internet access/content to customers. Thus the need to maintain net-neutrality.

elasto wrote:This is how many other countries have a far, far better internet experience than the US does. The US just has a especially dysfunctional and compromised legislature, and that's what needs addressing.

I agree that the US legislature is especially dysfunctional, but I think the quality of the national US internet experience is more negatively affected by our nation's vast rural areas that are difficult to get these services too. European populations tend to be more dense than the US. Even in major metro areas the US housing favors more spread out suburban sprawl. Laying cables and fiber is not cheap, the longer the line is the more expensive, and if there are fewer potential customers at the end of those lines the ROI can get ugly quick. The difficulty of reaching rural areas is the reason behind Google's Loon project.

It may not be directly related to the net-neutrality debate so...
Spoiler:
Related to the rural internet issue, I suspect the next stage in mobile cellular networks, e.g. "5G" or similar, will have speeds competitive with land-based internet available in rural areas. Then a fat fiber line could be connected just to the rural towers, instead of every rural home, and a huge ROI improvement for telecoms.
Last edited by Ranbot on Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:19 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby pogrmman » Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:28 pm UTC

I agree that a utility type situation makes the most sense for companies. It’s blatantly stupid that while many ISPs have more or less de facto monopolies, they’re regulated as if they don’t.

Even if there is nominal competition (like ATT/TWC (now Spectrum) in my area), it’s clear that they are behaving in a oligopolic manner. As soon as Google Fiber came to the metro area, both TWC and ATT suddenly lowered their prices, offered higher speeds, and upgraded infrastructure, even though Google wasn’t coming to my part of town. That alone makes it clear that there isn’t effective competition. They refused to do all those things before, but at the simple threat of somebody undercutting them, they suddenly improved the customer’s experience. That’s almost criminal IMO.

I also don’t get why this has become a partisan issue. Surely everybody wants to support small businesses? It’s frankly idiotic that it’s become partisan. My congressman is a small business owner, and yet he is against net neutrality simply because the Democrats are for it. He hasn’t even had any donations form telecoms as far as I can tell! I’ve tried calling him, but his phone is always busy and voicemail is full. I’d expect him to understand the need for it — he has run his own car dealership before.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3618
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Let's talk about Net Neutrality in 2017

Postby EdgarJPublius » Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:34 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:Honestly, I think the bigger issue even than net Neutrality is how these telecoms are able to operate as monopolies by carving up service-areas to avoid directly competing for customers, and colluding with each other to lobby local, state and the federal government to lock out competitors. All the anti-consumer practices we have to put up with now would be a lot less of an issue if the ISPs actually had to compete with each other. there's a lot less incentive to exploit your customers when they can just switch to another provider.

The problem there is that, in industries with very high startup costs, very low ongoing costs, and supplying a totally fungible product, competition adds a horribly inefficient overhead compared to the natural alternative.

Imagine if water companies competed like that? Where five water companies all dig up your road and your house has five water pipes simultaneously connected to it, just so you have the 'choice' of which tap to turn on? Yes, theoretically it would force the five companies to compete on quality and price, but in practice four of them would go out of business or be taken over by the fifth and it'd end up with a local monopoly just the same. Or, if by a miracle all five stay in business, it'd only be because each of them charges much more to the end consumer than would otherwise be the case.

No, with industries like water or net traffic, there should be a single supplier for efficiency's sake - and the outcomes that normally competition pressures towards (a high quality service at a low cost) should come by force of law. This is how many other countries have a far, far better internet experience than the US does. The US just has a especially dysfunctional and compromised legislature, and that's what needs addressing.


It doesn't actually work like that (Where's Morbo the newsmonster when you need him?), the internet is not a series of tubes. You don't need multiple cable drops in order to have access to multiple ISPs (unless their using different technologies, like Cable vs. DSL, though most homes do already have both phone and cable lines). You wouldn't even need to switch modems to switch ISPs in most cases.

I can't think of any single supplier of a utility that I would describe as 'efficient'. When I moved from Dallas, where there are multiple competing power companies, to Austin, where there's one city owned power company, my price per kwh doubled and I lost many of the conveniences such as being able to see my real-time usage and manage my account online, that I had enjoyed in the competitive market. Ten years later, the online account management available through City of Austin Utilities is still significantly worse than what I had in Dallas.
Last edited by EdgarJPublius on Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:51 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10850
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Neutrality in 2017

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:36 pm UTC

elasto wrote:The problem there is that, in industries with very high startup costs, very low ongoing costs, and supplying a totally fungible product, competition adds a horribly inefficient overhead compared to the natural alternative.

Imagine if water companies competed like that? Where five water companies all dig up your road and your house has five water pipes simultaneously connected to it, just so you have the 'choice' of which tap to turn on? Yes, theoretically it would force the five companies to compete on quality and price, but in practice four of them would go out of business or be taken over by the fifth and it'd end up with a local monopoly just the same. Or, if by a miracle all five stay in business, it'd only be because each of them charges much more to the end consumer than would otherwise be the case.

No, with industries like water or net traffic, there should be a single supplier for efficiency's sake - and the outcomes that normally competition pressures towards (a high quality service at a low cost) should come by force of law. This is how many other countries have a far, far better internet experience than the US does. The US just has a especially dysfunctional and compromised legislature, and that's what needs addressing.


Net traffic and water are quite unlike one another. It's more akin to a power company. A DSL or cable company is not actually laying new line when I subscribe. It's turning on a service over existing wire. Much as there can be plenty of competing power generation companies, but it only makes sense to have one set of wires.

I agree that, for the natural monopoly of pipe/wires laid, well, that you kind of have to forgo multiple choices to be reasonably cost effective. But it doesn't mean that the entire industry is subject to the limitation of the pipe. Just the subset dealing with the physical hardware.

Legislature is often slow to fix problems, and may not even understand them well. They are not ideal for dealing with many concerns, and Comcast + lots of government regulation is not a good substitute for competition and neutrality. Switching providers is far, far easier for the consumer than calling up his representative and getting a bill going.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3289
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:22 pm UTC

Fun fact: I have a choice of who I pay for my mains electricity or mains gas. (Not water, yet, but in both cases I only have one supply infrastructure (cables/pipe), which is analogous). And the same is almost the same for voice and data landline. The same copper POTS cable can be paid for via different telecoms/ISPs (that being the same for both, or different between the two!), although if my street also had FTTP available that would be an additional (or replacement) cable to the copper, and I may or may not have flexibility over which ISP I paid for that, depending upon a number of factors that are currently entirely hypothetical to me.

I might even have a (nominal) choice of paying for which sources of electricity (as in primarily renewables) the company I pay for the electricity says is the electricity that they pay the respective generators for so that they (i.e. the billing company) can say that the electricity that comes into my house (alongside the nondescript electricity coming along most of the same wires, into my neighbours' house, that they (the neighbours) pay a different company for) is of the kind relevent to my particular sensibilities.


Obviously it's a different business model in the US (like *cough*Gun Control*/cough*, it's probably a case of "you can't get there from here") and I suspect it'd be "government interference" if anybody tried to force it to become anything similar. Which is ironic, as we got to where we are with multiple public utilities over the same basic infrastructure seemingly through the intervention of Thatcher, the Denationaliser-In-Chief.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Ranbot » Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:05 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:Fun fact: I have a choice of who I pay for my mains electricity or mains gas. ...And the same is almost the same for voice and data landline. The same copper POTS cable can be paid for via different telecoms/ISPs (that being the same for both, or different between the two!)...

...I might even have a (nominal) choice of paying for which sources of electricity (as in primarily renewables)...

Obviously it's a different business model in the US...and I suspect it'd be "government interference" if anybody tried to force it to become anything similar.

It's actually not much different here in the US. I have all those same options for electric, gas, and phone where I live and so do my parents, who live in a very rural area. It's only the ISPs that if I want to switch from one to another they will dig a trench through my front yard to connect my house (assuming a connection wasn't made at some point in the past they can just turn on again). I think there are a couple 3rd party ISPs in my area who pay one of the big ISPs to use their lines, but they aren't very competitively priced and mostly irrelevant from a market competition view.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3289
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:33 am UTC

Perhaps apart from those fibre lines (like I said, not applicable to me, leastways not far enough for me to bother looking into them in detail) the hardware infrastructure is overwhelmingly run by BT Openreach (split off from iteration of the time of the original everywhere-but-Hull denationalised monopoly), and they let any number of 3rd'party ISPs service anyone on any lines that those providers want to. (Interesting to see that I've mostly used/supported the ones that feature in the 30th and 40th decades of ordinal recommendations, there. The one I historically used most is noted to have gotten worse and worse for support since the heyday when I used it without problem, and the one I currently use isn't so good either, but I'm currently looking at a business-aimed one for a new premises, and it isn't even on that list!)

It's not perfect, of course, and some people have had to get the last mile(s) cabled up independently, to avoid going down other routes.

(But I'm wondering if this is a diversion away from the subject at hand?)

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: Let's talk about Net Neutrality in 2017

Postby pogrmman » Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:53 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:
elasto wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:Honestly, I think the bigger issue even than net Neutrality is how these telecoms are able to operate as monopolies by carving up service-areas to avoid directly competing for customers, and colluding with each other to lobby local, state and the federal government to lock out competitors. All the anti-consumer practices we have to put up with now would be a lot less of an issue if the ISPs actually had to compete with each other. there's a lot less incentive to exploit your customers when they can just switch to another provider.

The problem there is that, in industries with very high startup costs, very low ongoing costs, and supplying a totally fungible product, competition adds a horribly inefficient overhead compared to the natural alternative.

Imagine if water companies competed like that? Where five water companies all dig up your road and your house has five water pipes simultaneously connected to it, just so you have the 'choice' of which tap to turn on? Yes, theoretically it would force the five companies to compete on quality and price, but in practice four of them would go out of business or be taken over by the fifth and it'd end up with a local monopoly just the same. Or, if by a miracle all five stay in business, it'd only be because each of them charges much more to the end consumer than would otherwise be the case.

No, with industries like water or net traffic, there should be a single supplier for efficiency's sake - and the outcomes that normally competition pressures towards (a high quality service at a low cost) should come by force of law. This is how many other countries have a far, far better internet experience than the US does. The US just has a especially dysfunctional and compromised legislature, and that's what needs addressing.


It doesn't actually work like that (Where's Morbo the newsmonster when you need him?), the internet is not a series of tubes. You don't need multiple cable drops in order to have access to multiple ISPs (unless their using different technologies, like Cable vs. DSL, though most homes do already have both phone and cable lines). You wouldn't even need to switch modems to switch ISPs in most cases.

I can't think of any single supplier of a utility that I would describe as 'efficient'. When I moved from Dallas, where there are multiple competing power companies, to Austin, where there's one city owned power company, my price per kwh doubled and I lost many of the conveniences such as being able to see my real-time usage and manage my account online, that I had enjoyed in the competitive market. Ten years later, the online account management available through City of Austin Utilities is still significantly worse than what I had in Dallas.


Deregulation of electricity in Texas is complicated. As somebody else from Austin, I agree that Austin Energy sucks. So I was suprised when I saw all the articles stating that people in regulated markets in the state (Austin and San Antonio are the prominent examples) pay less, on average, than those in the rest of the state. It probably has something to do with generation portfolios and distribution costs (it’s gotta be expensive to get power to Junction, for instance), but it’s still kind of surprising. I think part of it is people don’t want to take time out of their day to choose providers.

Regulated utilities can work, but it has to be done right. I don’t know enough about the industry to be sure of the best solution, but either a regulated, competitive market (where there’s one company who owns the lines and multiple retail providers) or a regulated monopoly are the best solutions to the ISP problem. Either way, they should be regulated like a utility. It might be preferable to have the one line, multiple ISPs, but even one ISP that is regulated in terms of pricing works too.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9878
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:06 pm UTC

Montana is a better example for electricity. Mostly rural state, there really wasn't room for multiple companies. Electricity was expensive, sure, but everyone got access. Then deregulation occurred, and slowly the more rural areas were abandoned while the prices got jacked up...

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Ranbot » Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:12 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:(But I'm wondering if this is a diversion away from the subject at hand?)

It sort of is a diversion, except that it shows how ISPs can [and in my opinion should] be regulated as a public utility similarly to electric, water, gas, telephone, etc., but the political power in the US has turned the nation from that debate to one of further deregulating the ISPs.

pogrmman wrote:Regulated utilities can work, but it has to be done right. I don’t know enough about the industry to be sure of the best solution, but either a regulated, competitive market (where there’s one company who owns the lines and multiple retail providers) or a regulated monopoly are the best solutions to the ISP problem. Either way, they should be regulated like a utility. It might be preferable to have the one line, multiple ISPs, but even one ISP that is regulated in terms of pricing works too.

...another option could be to stop ISPs from also being involved in the creation of content. I think companies doing both have an inherent conflict of interest that is not in the consumer's favor. It's complicated for sure...

User avatar
Minstrel
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:07 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutella in 2017

Postby Minstrel » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:15 pm UTC

I'd be mostly preaching to the choir to post my general pro-neutrality thoughts, but on a couple points brought up in this topic:

- Remote surgery, VoIP 911 calls and the like - these have always been exempt from Net Neutrality rules as well as network management such as delaying email by a second or two to ensure voice quality. In the current rules (linky link), about to be overturned, this is called "reasonable network management". (The most recent version of the proposal to repeal is here. Page 188 of the document (189 of the pdf due to cover page) lists all the parts to be removed.)

- Competition - I'm of a mixed mind here. While more last mile competition is desperately needed, it seems like only one part of the battle. My intuition says that competition alone won't result in a content-neutral option for most people, instead it will result in multiple, low cost, offerings, each one prioritizing their own content services over competitors, and everyone one of them throttling or blocking startups out of the market, or extorting fees from them amounting to the same.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6261
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Let's talk about Net Neutrality in 2017

Postby ucim » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:02 pm UTC

If all you're interested in is facebook, twitter, and instagram, you can get a service that prioritizes them. You might have to buy two services if there isn't one that does all three decently. But you'll never learn about instapic or quikchat. In fact, those two services wouldn't even have a chance to get started, because nobody that carries twitter will carry quikchat at a decent speed (so it will be abandoned as slow and buggy), and nobody that doesn't carry twitter will survive.

The end user won't have meaningful choice.

And will somebody please fix the IP subject line! My eyes are sore!

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:36 pm UTC

Thinking about post-net neutrality reminds me of Friedman's observation that central price planning only worked in the Soviet Union because they had a basis for comparison in the free markets of other countries. There's no real way to determine what the market prefers and thus what to optimize when the market is not free.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6004
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Thesh » Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:53 pm UTC

Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:There's no real way to determine what the market prefers and thus what to optimize when the market is not free.


Well, the market doesn't prefer anything; only people have preferences. Centralized planning is inefficient, I'll grant you, but you will still be able to observe the effects of prices on supply and demand and you can always ask people what they want. The main problem with the USSR was not centralized planning itself but the corruption (and stupidity) that came with it, which leads to worse inefficiencies than the centralized planning itself.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:33 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:There's no real way to determine what the market prefers and thus what to optimize when the market is not free.


Well, the market doesn't prefer anything; only people have preferences. Centralized planning is inefficient, I'll grant you, but you will still be able to observe the effects of prices on supply and demand and you can always ask people what they want. The main problem with the USSR was not centralized planning itself but the corruption (and stupidity) that came with it, which leads to worse inefficiencies than the centralized planning itself.


This doesn't deserve a response.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6004
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Thesh » Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:41 pm UTC

If you don't actually have a response to my post, could you at least give evidence or some reason to believe that your (extremely broad, and baseless) assertion is true?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Neural Networks in 2017

Postby Ranbot » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:09 pm UTC

Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:
Thesh wrote:
Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:There's no real way to determine what the market prefers and thus what to optimize when the market is not free.


Well, the market doesn't prefer anything; only people have preferences. Centralized planning is inefficient, I'll grant you, but you will still be able to observe the effects of prices on supply and demand and you can always ask people what they want. The main problem with the USSR was not centralized planning itself but the corruption (and stupidity) that came with it, which leads to worse inefficiencies than the centralized planning itself.


This doesn't deserve a response.

Honestly, Dr34m, I thought your original post was very ambiguous and I don't know if you are for or against net neutrality regulations. A "free market" argument be made for or against net-neutrality depending on your point of view.

I also don't know what connection USSR pricing policies has to net-neutrality in the US...maybe there is a connection, but I don't think you clearly established it, therefore if Thresh's response seemed off to you, I think it's because you weren't clear to start with.

(This is probably off-topic, but you brought it up so.... the USSR also had a flourishing black market that officials were certainly aware of to help guide official prices too. )

gd1
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby gd1 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:13 am UTC

https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/12/16766324/fcc-commissioners-clyburn-rosenworcel-net-neutrality

Do you believe that the vote should be postponed until an investigation is conducted?

There’s something wrong. Roughly a million people have had their identities stolen and comments filed in our docket. There’s a problem here, under state law and possibly under federal law. And instead of responding to this with concern, this agency, through its general counsel’s office, has responded back to the attorney general and said there’s nothing to see here, we’re moving on. I think that that’s a problem because it seems like there are laws that have been violated, but I also think it’s a problem because it shows contempt for the public, many of whom filed on this because they wanted us to listen. But also because there are people whose identities have been stolen. We have got to get to the bottom of that. That is bigger than just net neutrality, it’s about public participation and Washington proceedings in the digital age. We have got to find a way to make sure that our records are secure. Integrity in our public records matters. I don't think we should dismiss these concerns out of hand. I think we have to get to the bottom of them.


The New York attorney general made it very clear that he feels like he’s being stonewalled. What do you attribute that to?

It has been regular and customary practice for federal authorities to work hand in hand [with] their state counterparts to get to the bottom of problems like this. Our failure to cooperate with our colleagues at the state level feels unusual and to me does not seem right.


Oh well. I'm sure they'll do the right thing and postpone the vote.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.


gd1
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby gd1 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:08 pm UTC

There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4611
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:05 am UTC

Apparently we're not going down without a fight.

The Verge wrote:Lawmakers and public officials are responding to the FCC’s decision to gut net neutrality with promises of action. In the hours following the FCC hearing, officials from around the country announced lawsuits and bills intended to counter the FCC’s decision.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6261
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Let's talk about Net Neutrality in 2017

Postby ucim » Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:25 am UTC

the link quoted above: https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/167 ... s-lawsuits wrote:State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-CA) announced plans to introduce a bill to adopt net neutrality as a requirement in his state. He wrote in a Medium post, “If the FCC won’t stand up for a free and open internet, California will.”
This heartens me. If enough states do this, it will make it difficult for ISPs to run the internet over, especially as many of them are geographically large. It doesn't even need to be very many states; cattle don't go on the net. Yet. (At least, cattle don't choose their ISP). A few of the most populous states should be enough.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Minstrel
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:07 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Neutrality in 2017

Postby Minstrel » Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:05 pm UTC

ucim wrote:This heartens me. If enough states do this, it will make it difficult for ISPs to run the internet over, especially as many of them are geographically large. It doesn't even need to be very many states; cattle don't go on the net. Yet. (At least, cattle don't choose their ISP). A few of the most populous states should be enough.

Jose


If it's a close enough analog to car emissions standards, California alone will be enough. I'm thinking probably not though...it seems like it would be simple enough for Comcast and friends to whitelist customers by state and exempt them from any blocking/throttling/etc. rules they put in place. I hope I'm wrong though.

It wouldn't exactly be ideal to have to put such a kludgey fix on things, but better than nothing.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6004
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Thesh » Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:01 pm UTC

I'm not sure we should wait to see if the states can fix it; I think we need to start pushing for municipal wifi wherever we can, and simply eliminate our dependency on these big ISPs.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9878
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:36 pm UTC

So basically, Chattanooga?

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4611
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:10 pm UTC

Breakdown of major ISPs' (non-)commitments to continuing net-neutral practices in absence of legal requirements to do so.

The Verge wrote:In particular, none of the ISPs we contacted will make a commitment — or even a comment — on paid fast lanes and prioritization.


Also, can I finally second Jose's repeated request to correct the egregious typo in this thread's title? Unless we're meant to actually be discussing the plenitude of nuts (presumably of the figurative variety) on the net?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

gd1
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby gd1 » Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:30 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Breakdown of major ISPs' (non-)commitments to continuing net-neutral practices in absence of legal requirements to do so.

The Verge wrote:In particular, none of the ISPs we contacted will make a commitment — or even a comment — on paid fast lanes and prioritization.


Also, can I finally second Jose's repeated request to correct the egregious typo in this thread's title? Unless we're meant to actually be discussing the plenitude of nuts (presumably of the figurative variety) on the net?


It's very nutritious for a healthy internet.

Unrelated.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Neutrality in 2017

Postby morriswalters » Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:23 am UTC

I did my part.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Spelling Net Neutrality Correctly in 2017

Postby Ranbot » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:39 pm UTC

There's some hope that Congress will FINALLY weigh in on net-neutrality... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... umer-says/

Short version: Senator Schumer says he will introduce a bill to make the Senate vote on reinstating Obama-era net-neutrality rules. Chances of passing the Senate pretty good, but would have a much harder time passing the House and vulnerable to a Trump veto. However, there may be room for compromise between the parties, because some Republicans have said they are working on their own bill to reinstate some net-neutrality restrictions, albeit less restrictive than Obama-era rules.

It's pretty annoying how stupidly reactive politicians are though... :x Everyone knew months ago that Ajit Pai's FCC would roll-back net-neutrality. It's not a surprise. But, if either the Ds or Rs in Congress had shown any interest in maintaining some degree of net-neutrality prior to today, then the FCC might have held off on their decision and not handed all their reigns over the ISPs. Even if the FCC did remove the rules, at least Congress would be a little further along to taking the reigns back. :roll:


In the ways of compromise... one compromise I would accept is make ISPs treat all data equally, but allow them to set data caps on individual accounts, just like cell phone mobile data plans. Then heavy streamers or torrent users would have to pay more for their extra bandwidth, and aren't subsidized by low bandwidth users (which is kind of how the current ISP pricing works). And ISPs get additional options for revenue without controlling content.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9878
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:02 am UTC

Oh for fucks sake he doesn't want it to pass. DONT call it OBAMA era net neutrality. People are far more supportive of the ACA than they are of 0bamacare.

And damn the filters.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Ranbot » Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:51 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Oh for fucks sake he doesn't want it to pass. DONT call it OBAMA era net neutrality. People are far more supportive of the ACA than they are of 0bamacare.

And damn the filters.

Chill dude. You are upset over semantics with someone on your side. I had to differentiate between net-neutrality rules instated by the FCC under Obama vs those that Schumer and some Congressional Republicans are working on now.

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby bantler » Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:37 pm UTC

The entire issue will be moot soon enough.
Some Google/Musk Philanthropists/Assholes will eventually figure out how to beam free-internet over the earth.

Comcast is shoveling cash as fast as they can because they know their days of plunder are drawing to a close.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mcd001, Tobias and 8 guests