President Obama Backs Regulation of Broadband As a Utility 706
vivIsel writes In a move that is sure to generate controversy, the President has announced his support for regulation of broadband connections, including cellular broadband, under Title 2 of the Telecommunications Act. Reclassification of broadband in this way would treat it as a utility, like landline telephones, subject providers to new regulations governing access, and would allow the FCC to easily impose net neutrality requirements.
Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Say what you want about Obama, but I guarantee the next president (probably Republican) won't care about preserving Net Neutrality.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Say what you want about Obama, but I guarantee the next president (probably Republican) won't care about preserving Net Neutrality.
I might be a tree hugging liberal, but the Dems have an awful record when it comes to regulating technology. The toxic relationship with Hollywood is one reason.
I don't see why the Republicans would be any better or worse.
Technology sits outside the brain space of politicians, so they treat is as a contribution-for-laws cash cow.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I'm a tree hugging conservative... whatever, and Obama can't get out of bed in the morning to suit me. But this is a really good move on his part. That woman he nominated for Holder's job; good choice also. Sending more help to fight ISIS; another good move.
I guess he cares far less about politics now than a week ago. It'd be funny if he turns out to be a good president for these last 2 years
The idea is good even if the leaders aren't (Score:4, Interesting)
I might be a tree hugging liberal, but the Dems have an awful record when it comes to regulating technology.
No argument but the Republicans record isn't really any better. That said, I still think the basic notion of regulating internet access is an idea with merit even if the ruling parties aren't exactly brilliant at it. Internet access is as important to modern life as telephone access was 30 years ago. It has become an integral part of our lives and the companies that provide it seem to need a bit more oversight than they presently have.
I don't see why the Republicans would be any better or worse.
Because while the Democrats tend to screw up the regulations, the Republicans like to pretend that regulations are never good even when there is are clear abuses going on that markets cannot adequately address. Sometimes bad regulations are better than no regulations at all. (and vice-versa) I'm honestly uncomfortable with the amount of power that companies like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, TWC etc have over our internet connectivity. They have effectively an almost unregulated monopoly over internet service and have shown little reluctance to abuse that position when it suits them.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
In case you have your head so far up your ass, Republicans are against government regulation. FYI Ted Cruz is a Republican who opposes government regulation.
Re:Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, while the government failed to regulate by not breaking up monopolies they have had almost zero innovation.
You mean, after AT&T was regulated by being broken up and by being forced to allow third-party devices (e.g. modems), major innovation was able to start.
The Internet didn't happen because the government suddenly set telcos free; the Internet happened because the government stopped allowing telcos to prevent it!
Re:Obama (Score:5, Informative)
You mean, after AT&T was regulated by being broken up and by being forced to allow third-party devices (e.g. modems), major innovation was able to start.
Umm, no. On a couple counts:
Regulation is very important in many industries, including telecommunications. But it is almost never synonymous with innovation.
Re: (Score:3)
The one piece of regulation that did actually manage to spur consumer-friendly innovation in telecom in recent memory was the 1996 Telecom Act, which actually reduced regulation in many areas (the "carrot" for telcos) while simultaneously increasing competition in others (the "stick"), such as forcing the Baby Bells to allow competitive access to their DSLAMs to provide DSL service, etc.
Great example! Now tell me why I can't get cable internet from anyone except Comcast?
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Widen your scope a little and you will see some glaring issues with over regulation and under regulation. For the most part under regulation of utilities causes one set of problems while over regulation stifles any real innovation.
As in many things balance is required.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Since that time the cable companies have come up with such innovations as requiring me to have basic cable to get internet at the regular price, banning modems that remain compliant, decreasing the cost effectiveness of my service, provide additional congestion during peak times, and eliminate or charge extra for services that were previously free (allbeit useless). Yep, that is what Comcast innovated in the last half of my life.
In that time I lived in out state for one year and had access to two cable companies, presumably enabling the competition that brought me faster internet for $10 less. In that time I lived in Germany, where I got 50mb/50mb for a hair under $30/mo.
I'd really like to know the innovation Comcast has brought to the table. Perhaps you can counter my experience with your own. Actually what the heck does innovation really mean in this context? How do utilities innovate at all? Why should a utility innovate at all? What do private waste management companies "innovate" that my muni garbage monopoly does not? What are some recent water/sewer/electrical/gas utility"innovations"?? IMO, this is just some bullshit buzzword that means nothing, but signals the correct political team one should join for the sake of lazy argumentation.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Funny)
If you like your Internet service, you can keep it. Period.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Funny)
If you like your Internet service, you can keep it. Period.
Cue the idiots complaining that Obama lied because passage of the Fair Networking Act (Obamanet) has caused their ISP to stop offering 4800 baud dialup plans.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Obama was really so serious about it, then why does he wait until he can't do anything about it to even SAY anything? Let alone do nothing the whole time, except appoint a former telecom lobbyist to the FCC?
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Your point is absolutely mute because this is not about net neutrality at all. Obama's statement does not do anything _for_ net neutrality, and I'll argue that it's more to ensure Government intrusion than to ensure access for everyone. Remember that as soon as it's rated as a "utility" it will have to receive more funding from tax payers for Government "monitoring" and "regulation" (read crony appointees). If you have doubts look how AT&T receives funding from tax payers to duplicate ALL traffic to various NSA facilities today.
If you want to see some of the most corrupt businesses alive today, look no further than utilities. This is nothing more than a front, primarily to stop the debate about Government intrusion but also to squeeze more money from the middle class.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
What utilities are you referring to? My sewers, water, electricity, and gas all keep flowing, and at reasonable rates. I certainly would not want them transformed into Comcast-esque money-grubbers. Privatization in the absence of competition is the worst of both worlds, and that's what broadband to my home currently is.
With respect to government intrusion, assuming you buy the line that it's any different from, or even separate from, corporate intrusion (which I don't, since companies simply sell it to the govt) - the US Mail has the strongest legal guarantees of privacy, as far as I can tell, with phone being next. It seems to be in decreasing order of when invented, rather than public/private. At least with a utility there's a possibility of meaningful privacy regulations, if the public ever decides to start wanting them.
ISPs don't want to take Cogent's money (Score:5, Interesting)
In the highest profile case, Cogent has offered to cover the capital costs of the needed upgrade [cogentco.com]. The problem is that last-mile ISPs are trying to collect ongoing monopoly rents [wikipedia.org] by charging transit to backbone providers well in excess of the ISP's actual cost of moving the bits, when the ISP's customers are already paying their part of the cost of moving the bits.
So how would one go about taking away home ISPs' ability to get away with charging both sides of the connection?
Re:ISPs don't want to take Cogent's money (Score:5, Insightful)
There are actually two problems at play here - with one common reason. The first is that the backbone ISPs are purposefully allowing their peering connections to saturate to hurt video companies like Netflix. The second is that last mile ISPs want to charge certain companies (e.g. video companies like Netflix) extra for the "privilege" of not having their packet delivery slowed to a crawl.
The reason for both of these is that these ISPs also - for the most part - offer cable TV services. They don't want upstarts like Netflix taking money away from their cable TV revenue so they are trying every trick they can to prevent people from using Netflix. (This includes setting bandwidth caps and charging overage fees.) Given that these ISPs also tend to be monopolies (or duopolies) in their areas, these actions *should* result in anti-trust investigations. Unfortunately, enough lobbying money has been spread around to keep anti-trust proceedings from starting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you for giving us the Netflix perspective. Counter arguments:
1) Residential broadband networks were never engineered as video delivery systems. The advent of mainstream streaming video completely changed the engineering calculus for last mile networks. Over subscription ratios need to change to accommodate the higher peak hour bitrates; this takes time and costs money. Where should this money come from? Why should I pay the same for my connection as the household that's running three or four sim
Re: (Score:3)
6) Netflix isn't exactly the white knight that everyone thinks they are. They're a for profit company; one that I stopped doing business with after they decided to double my price with little prior warning. They've cut deals that are detrimental to their customers (i.e., withholding new releases); any other company that behaved in such a fashion would be roundly hated around these parts.
They did double the price, from cheap to still cheap. "Double" as a measurement is relative, and it sounds like it sucks. "Raised by $5" sounds much more reasonable, at least to me.
It has always been -and continues to be- a reasonable price, ever since I rented porn from them when I was a teenager (14 years ago).
Re: (Score:3)
Re:ISPs don't want to take Cogent's money (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you for giving us the Netflix perspective. Counter arguments:
1) Residential broadband networks were never engineered as video delivery systems. The advent of mainstream streaming video completely changed the engineering calculus for last mile networks. Over subscription ratios need to change to accommodate the higher peak hour bitrates; this takes time and costs money. Where should this money come from? Why should I pay the same for my connection as the household that's running three or four simultaneous HD streams during peak hours? My 95th percentile [wikipedia.org] is less than 0.5mbit/s, yet I pay the same as my neighbor who regularly runs three HD streams at the same time. Hardly seems fair, does it?
2) Related to the last point above, moving bits doesn't directly cost the ISP money but sustained higher bitrates do require a larger CapEx investment. Caps are a blunt force instrument that should be done away with in favor of demand or 95th percentile billing, IMHO.
3) IPTV is inherently inefficient vis-a-vis point-to-multipoint delivery systems (i.e., cable, OTA, satellite)
4) Settlement free peering (which is essentially what Netflix is demanding) has historically only been offered in instances where the traffic to be exchanged is roughly equal. If you're relying on me to deliver your traffic for you then you pay me. It has been this way since the beginning of the commercial internet. This ecosystem literally built the internet as we know it. If you want to blow it up the onus is on you to explain why your system is better.
5) Netflix has a history of trying to offload their costs onto third parties, be they ISPs, Tier 1 networks, CDNs, etc.
6) Netflix isn't exactly the white knight that everyone thinks they are. They're a for profit company; one that I stopped doing business with after they decided to double my price with little prior warning. They've cut deals that are detrimental to their customers (i.e., withholding new releases); any other company that behaved in such a fashion would be roundly hated around these parts.
1. False choice - how a delivery system was engineered is irrelevant. Today fiber technology and capacity exists and the infrastructure investments are not Capital intense.
2. False - Moore's law is the technical constraint. Political will is the social constraint.
3. False - Iptv is better at all distribution workloads for media. Networking tech easily allows for highly efficient compressed or uncompressed media delivery via multicast protocols. It is cable that is inefficient.
4. False - research has proven that assymmeteic last mile connections can never allow for equal peering. The premise that bits flowing in one direction costs more than the other direction is a calculated business decision based on the monopoly and regulatory environment. The same way that international sms messages are technically cost less, same goes for bits traveling in either direction, it's a neutral proposition.
5. The costs you are talking about are less than a few thousands of dollars per link. A drop in the bucket.
6. Drop subscribtion. There are alternative media delivery businesses consumers can choose. Consumers have no such luxury under current US isp arrangements.
Studied electrical & network engineering, public policy and econ. Counterarguments welcome :)
Re:ISPs don't want to take Cogent's money (Score:4, Insightful)
Others have countered more of your points, but I just wanted to address this one:
The Internet in general wasn't formed with video delivery in mind. Does this mean that nobody should ever distribute video over the Internet and expect it to work? Of course not. Times change and the use case for the Internet - and residential broadband networks - change as well. Most of the problems with distributing videos across residential networks seem to be caused by the ISPs who don't want to invest in infrastructure improvements, but want to keep taking users' money. Add in that these ISPs are usually monopolies/duopolies and the market can't "fix" this situation.
Re: (Score:3)
Residential broadband networks were never engineered as video delivery systems.
When Time Warner Cable is offering a 300mbps connection at their highest tier, and Verizon offering 500mbps, what do you think these ISPs are anticipating people will be downloading that warrants these kinds of speeds, if not video? And even if they are anticipating some other use (e.g. software downloads), do you imagine that these residential broadband networks were engineered to provide 300mbps downloads of software, but video still just presents too large of a problem?
And if these networks were not en
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for giving us the Netflix perspective.
That's not just the Netflix perspective. It's the perspective that most sane individuals have.
Counter arguments:
1) Residential broadband networks were never engineered as video delivery systems. The advent of mainstream streaming video completely changed the engineering calculus for last mile networks. Over subscription ratios need to change to accommodate the higher peak hour bitrates; this takes time and costs money. Where should this money come from?
Erm, even in the 1990s it was clear that point to point video was going to be an integral part of the internet. And I don't mean 'clear to me in hindsight', I mean clear to the guys selling fibre and switching gear to telcos and ISPs. I consulted with one of the largest and most advanced network equipment companies in the world, at one of their development labs. They were already talking about video on demand as a
Re: (Score:3)
He's not talking about the cable companies, he's talking about the physical cables that deliver the content to and from your house. There's no way I want 25 different cables terminating at my house so I can pick the one I want when just one fiber optic cable is more than enough to deliver everything I want. Make the cable coming into my house a common carrier and let any ISP/cable TV company that wants my business compete for it.
Re:ISPs don't want to take Cogent's money (Score:5, Insightful)
So how would one go about taking away home ISPs' ability to get away with charging both sides of the connection?
Title 2 reclassification, which the President has proposed, is *exactly* how you do this. Common carriage, a form of title 2 regulation which governs the phone system, among other things mandates that phone infrastructure owners resell service at a reasonable wholesale rate to other phone providers. This is why you can buy phone service from any phone provider - not just the one who owns the cable that comes to your house.
The problem you're articulating - a hugely important problem - is exactly what the President is trying to tackle here. Net neutrality is part of it, but title two reclassification gives the FCC much, much broader powers to keep the eyeball networks (i.e. home broadband providers) in line. It doesn't predetermine what the FCC will do with these powers, but this is the right track.
For more details, I recommend Susan Crawford's excellent book, Captive Audience. http://yalepress.yale.edu/book... [yale.edu]
Re:ISPs don't want to take Cogent's money (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that Cable had no such rules, the phone companies that played by the common-carriage rules were hamstrung early on, until, like Cable, they started working with the mindset that DSL wasn't bound by those rules. I was grandfathered-in with my DSL arrangement until I moved, then they wouldn't offer me the connection to the ISP anymore, I had to go with Qwest. So, I switched to cable instead, and they lost-out even more as I also cancelled my landline and took the number to a cell phone. Had they continued to operate as common-carriage, I might STILL have that DSL account with those static IPs and still pay the phone company for the privilege.
I wonder how this will affect Google Fiber?
Re: ISPs don't want to take Cogent's money (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:ISPs don't want to take Cogent's money (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it's quite simple. You create a non-profit corporation to implement and manage the "last mile." That organization would be funded by bond issues (just like every other public works project) and supported by user fees. Those user fees would be paid by ISPs who compete on price and features.
And the existing last-mile networks: what do you do with them? Maybe you expect your non-profit to buy them from Comcast, AT&T, and Quest. How exactly do you plan to figure pricing when you nationalize those networks? Or to compensate the companies when you dig up their wires and throw them away. I guarantee you will do it wrong. Taxpayers will overpay by 5-fold and the companies will be lucky to realize half of their fair value.
You proposal would be fine if internet were a blank slate, but any change you impose now will amount to nationalization of private enterprise, and there is no way people will stand for that.
Firstly, "nationalization" is a paranoid fantasy of yours. All of this stuff is done at the municipal and state levels, mostly the municipal level. Secondly, the existing last-mile networks can compete with the non-profits. Unless, of course, local governments decide otherwise. Decentralized decision making, management and implementation will provide a plethora of models to compare. The best ones will, in the end, win out -- unless co-opted by those who are raping us. Have a great day!
Re:ISPs don't want to take Cogent's money (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me take that further.
It would be like saying Ford should pay for highway maintenance while still funding it through gasoline taxes, etc as well. Additionally, the roads would never be maintained beyond the bare minimum and rarely if ever expanded, even though they are double funded.
There is the car/road analogy that you were looking for.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Obama (Score:5, Informative)
That is false. NetFlix has offered many times to provide fee CDN service to the ISP. While that may alleviate the internal traffic issue for customers, it doesn't solve the extra $$$ the ISP's want so they don't take it.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, so no net neutrality in US (Score:5, Funny)
This clearly means no net neutrality in the US. If Obama wanted net neutrality, he would oppose it and Republicans would then be for it. But by supporting it, republicans will never start any such legislation now. Maybe even the opposite of net neutrality will be what they will pass.
Re: (Score:3)
The FCC doesn't need congressional approval to implement net neutrality, or Title 2 regulation. So there's no need to "start regulation." I suggest reading TFA, it's fairly educational!
Re: (Score:2)
Correction - I misquoted you. There is no need to "start legislation". There is a need to start regulation! Doesn't change the substance of the comment, though.
Re:The FCC's enumerated powers (Score:5, Insightful)
The courts have essentially said that in the absence of title 2 reclassification, net neutrality won't be possible. But what the President is proposing IS title two regulation. Should the FCC move forward with this (its choice) it should not have an issue in the courts.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The FCC doesn't need congressional approval to implement net neutrality, or Title 2 regulation. So there's no need to "start regulation." I suggest reading TFA, it's fairly educational!
But the FCC does need funding. Which comes from congress.
If the FCC does do this, and congress gets upset about it, what you will likely see is a budget that reads "...and no part of this appropriation can be used in the regulation of ISPs as utilities..." etc... Congress has done it before (both republican and democrat) and they can do it again.
Re:Ok, so no net neutrality in US (Score:5, Insightful)
The GOP, and Mitch McConnell famously, stated that their purpose was to make Obama a one term president. Failing that, they have nearly frozen the legislative process and refused to participate in governing. So while your initial statement is subjectively accurate, the GOP left him little choice but to use the powers his office possesses to attempt to address the needs of the nation.
Re: (Score:3)
Right, because saying that Republicans would have to "ride in the back of the bus" was his way of expressing how open he was going to be in negotiating legislation with the other party. Both sides refused to talk to each other. Forcing the AHA through without any Republican votes was the final straw. You can't pull a stunt like that and expect people to want to cooperate on anything else. The only compromise the President is interested in is his objectors ceding to his argument.
Re:Ok, so no net neutrality in US (Score:4, Informative)
So again, fuck off.
Re: (Score:3)
The will of Congress, a GROUP of representative, has much more legitimacy than the will of a single man. If what you were saying was true, a republican Congress would not have been re-elected, and given control of the senate a few days ago. Obama's policy, which are more those of a monarch than a democratically elected leader, are NOT popular.
No matter what, the US were never meant to have a strong federal Government.
Re:Ok, so no net neutrality in US (Score:4, Informative)
Single man? No, the only person chosen by a majority of the people to represent them as President from 2013-2017. He is not just any old person. The President has a well defined relationship with Congress, unlike a "single man". The Congress in prior years passed all of the laws enabling the President to classify ISPs as common carriers. Congress routinely passes general laws that gives the President a lot of flexibility to execute those laws. For a Republican-type person, you seem foggy about the nature of a republican government.
I'm sure if you asked people, "Should your cable and Internet provider be allowed to slow down Internet video services like Netflix and Youtube so that they can sell more of their own video services?" and they understood the President's decision, they would agree with the new policy. That is what we are talking about here, Obama standing up to monopoly power on behalf of people as he is supposed to (under anti-trust laws), not a President behaving like a monarch. You have been very ill served by whatever media you used to arrive at your conclusion.
Your sentiment has a history. It was called the Civil War by some, and the War Between the States by others. It really did happen. A lot of people died. It decided some issues, and changed the relationship between all the states and the federal government.
Not saying it's right but I understand (Score:5, Interesting)
If Obama had his way, he wouldn't go through Congress for anything.
I'm not saying he should rule by fiat or anything of the sort but I understand the frustration the guy must feel. Would you be eager to go to congress when the republicans oppose everything he does regardless of the merits of the idea? Even when the item being debated was their idea [wikipedia.org]. They don't even try to compromise, they just say no, especially if they are a tea party candidate. Used to be that the two sides could at least talk to each other. Now a republican has to pass an ideological purity test and cannot ever even seem to be compromising or he doesn't even win the primary in the next election. The republicans like to bitch about the Affordable Care Act but they don't ever propose any alternatives or improvements even though there is plenty that could be improved. Instead they just waste everyone's time in futile votes trying to remove health insurance from millions of people that couldn't previously afford it.
Re:Ok, so no net neutrality in US (Score:5, Funny)
... If Obama wanted net neutrality, he would oppose it and Republicans would then be for it. But by supporting it, republicans will never start any such legislation now. Maybe even the opposite of net neutrality will be what they will pass.
Wow. You make it sound like Congress is focused solely on obstruction. Surely a congressional body elected to represent the United States citizenry would never harm the nation by outright obstructing positive legislative efforts?
Sorry, I've been in a coma for the last 6 years. Did I miss something?
If Obama were serious about protecting the net (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
While this is a good point, in the end Wheeler's reporting chain ends at the executive branch.If Obama is backing this legislation then the FCC has to fall in line eventually.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: If Obama were serious about protecting the net (Score:5, Funny)
More lobbiest
No it's either "more lobbier" or "most lobbiest."
*ducks*
Re:You missed the strategy ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The number one concern for the American vote is NOT the economy. The economy is doing great. People's paychecks are what suck. The lack of decent paying jobs is what sucks. The wage gap is what sucks. But the economy? It's doing great, thanks.
If the GOP was concerned about the American voter, they'd up the minimum wage to $11/hr. Instead, they rely on the gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and hundreds of millions in Koch contributions and dark money to fund propaganda that will convince people to vote against their interests.
But people turn out for presidential elections, and I'm trusting that the GOP will be unable to fight the tidal wave of voter resentment.
Legacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Despite all his other downsides, this could create a legacy perception equal to that of Teddy Rosevelts's "trustbusting"
Re:Legacy (Score:4, Insightful)
... and expanding the PATRIOT Act, and signing the NDAA complete with extraordinary rendition of American clause, and claiming that the murder of innocent women and children via drone is entirely justifiable because "maybe there was a bad guy there once," etc., etc.
Obama's true legacy, the one history will remember, won't be healthcare or net neutrality - he'll be remembered as "Shrub's third and fourth terms."
They ARE a utility. (Score:5, Insightful)
They both require massive connections to other, unrelated networks - so uniformity in protocals.
The both must also connect to human interfaces that are always made by a third party, so again, uniformity of protocals.
They provide something that is in effect a commodity measured pretty much entirety by reliability and 'size of the pipe'. You don't get different flavors, etc.
We are using it to get to places we want to get to, not for itself. Just like any other utility.
Broadband is obviously a utility and should be treated as one.
The attempt to charge people on both ends is an abuse of power. When I buy internet, I expect to get the full speed I contracted for, without regard to whomever I am connecting to at the other end.
Re:They ARE a utility. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't disagree with you, but what you described also sounds like the airline industry: uniform service (seats on a plane) which interface with third parties (airports), used to get to something else we want (destinations). I don't really think of airlines as utilities, though.
For me that's all a theoretical argument and I'm much more of a real-world guy. Will regulating broadband internet as a "utility" make the world a better place? If so, then I support it -- and it will, so I support it. I don't mind the theoretical arguments but to me they are subsequent to the real-world argument of what policy leads to the best human lives.
Re: (Score:3)
The airline industry is not a natural monopoly, your not forced to go with one of the one or two (cell/sat broadband is so worthless to not count as a viable option) airlines in any major area.
The ability to regulate broadband as a utility is potentially great, it's how it's regulated that matters so do not hold your breath with the current fcc leadership.
Re: (Score:3)
The only reason he airline industry is not a natural monopoly is because of the massive public infrastructure provided by the US Government FAA in public use airports and related flight control infrastructure. In every meaningful sense, an airport solves the "last mile problem" for airplanes. Why wouldn't we expect a similar investment in the "last mile problem" for Internet Service?
SouthWest doesn't own the Oakland Airport; they merely lease a terminal. Can you imagine what would have happened if Delta had
Re:They ARE a utility. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that in other parts of the developed world where ISPs are much more regulated, speeds have gone up and prices have gone down. So, you know, the exact opposite of what you said.
Re:They ARE a utility. (Score:4, Informative)
1: this is theoretically a tech site, he shouldnt need to provide examples. we should all be fairly well acquainted with the internet of other countries by now, and how muchj better it is than the the US industry.
2: the US isnt special. the same economic rules apply here as elsewhere.
3: the list is only short if youre ignorant.
Re:They ARE a utility. (Score:5, Insightful)
Broadband Internet is a tougher problem. In terms of infrastructure, it's hard for a region to have robust competition. It's not as extreme as, say, sewage (where it's basically impossible to have two competing sewage systems under a city), but it's closer to that model than to a healthy market. So you're stuck dealing with pain-in-the-ass monopolies that don't innovate and don't compete on price.
Re:They ARE a utility. (Score:4, Interesting)
We have, with great struggle, deregulated power and gas in my state. In most options, the prices were lower for competitors delivering service over the same "pipes" as the official, prior monopoly.
Re:They ARE a utility. (Score:4, Interesting)
South Korea
Japan
Hong Kong
Latvia
Switzerland
The Netherlands
The Czech Republic
Finland
Ireland
The top 10 nations for internet speed. Notice anyone missing from that list? Treating internet service as a utility and not allowing toll booth throttling apparently results in top notch service.
You're welcome.
Finally. It's about time. (Score:2)
And the floodgates open (Score:5, Insightful)
Cue even more millions of lobbying dollars for Republicans to block NN at all costs.
(Of course the roles would be reversed if it was a Republican president and Democratic congress.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Politics aside, how is it that republicans want to fuck over everyone but the privileged and corporate, yet get such widespread support from the people who will suffer most from their policies?
Re: (Score:3)
Because the Republican stance is more nuanced than the "Republicans are evil and want to eat your babies" crowd portrays.
Why don't other countries have a net neutrality problem? Because they have competition among their ISPs. If an ISP tries to deliberately slow down a popular website to extort the site for extr
Re:And the floodgates open (Score:4, Informative)
Why don't other countries have a net neutrality problem? Because they have competition among their ISPs. If an ISP tries to deliberately slow down a popular website to extort the site for extra payments, it doesn't put pressure on the website to pay. Instead it puts pressure on the ISP's customers to switch to another ISP. In most of the rest of the world, any ISP trying to pull this stunt puts itself out of business.
It only works in the U.S. because these ISPs have government-granted monopolies over the local customer base. The customer can't flee to a different ISP because there is none - the local government has made it illegal for there to be a competitor. Essentially, net neutrality is more government regulation to solve a problem caused by government regulation.
According to Ars Techinca (and many others) UK regulators officially mock US over ISP "competition" [arstechnica.com]:
Here's how US regulators do a broadband plan: talk about competition even while admitting there isn't enough, then tinker around the edges with running fiber to "anchor institutions" and start collecting real data on US broadband use.
Here's how they do it in the UK: order incumbent telco BT to share its fiber lines with any ISP who is willing to pay. In places where BT hasn't yet run fiber, order the company to share its ducts and poles with anyone who wants to run said fiber. In the 14 percent of the UK without meaningful broadband competition, slap price controls on Internet access to keep people from getting gouged. [...]
"Aside from small urban countries with highly concentrated populations, like Singapore, the main countries which are currently leading in the rollout and take-up of super-fast broadband are those which have had significant government intervention to support deployment, such as Japan and South Korea."
I've Googled around and I can't find any evidence that backs up your implication that consumers benefit from less government regulation of ISPs. Everything I've seen says the benefits in non-US countries stem from greater government intervention.
The nuanced Republican stance you refer to seems to be a code-phrase for BS. IMO the core of the problem is there is a lot of BS flying around because our corporate controlled "fair and balanced" media (including the NYT) refuse to call out politicians on outright lies. This gives a decided advantage to those who lie more. With no checks and balances from the media, public debate is mired in giant echo chambers filled with BS.
Re:And the floodgates open (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the "What's the Matter with Kansas?" [wikipedia.org] problem. The short answer is, most rural populist types would probably fare better under a Democratic economic regime, but it really wouldn't be that much better. On the other hand, Republicans make few concrete promises economically, but they make broad promises about how they will sustain rural culture -- they fight for gun rights, and for the protection of traditional religious values, and against abortion, and gays. And in the end both parties mostly work in the interests of large corporations. In the end, Democrats promise a Starbucks in every town, and Republicans promise a cross on every door.
Also Democrats are generally supportive of state services, and things like Obamacare, which would improve the lot of poor voters in general, but a lot of poor people are simply morally opposed to accepting "welfare," and the slightly-better-off people around them are all downright hostile to the idea. This persists even if the "welfare" in question is completely pro-market, means tested, economically justified and everything else -- it's because American culture has moralistic, puritanical beliefs about thrift and work that are impervious to facts. The liberal tendency in American politics promises poor people a leg up, at the cost of their soul and their meritocratic ideals -- they'll get ahead but "everyone" will know they don't deserve it; meanwhile the conservative tendency promises a boot on your neck, but offers the guarantee that when you get the boot, you'll feel like you deserve it. People are attracted to appearance of order and justice, even if it hurts them.
Re: (Score:3)
Because it is the American dream that one day - through hard work and determination - you can become one of the privileged. As such, any attack on the privileged is an attack on future you - or at least the future you that you hope will one day exist. Of course the irony is that the more you protect the privileged, the more you end up preventing future you from ever joining those ranks.
The existing privileged understand this perfectly, which is why they craft their message the way they do, bathed in apple p
It may be controversial... (Score:5, Insightful)
not "political" (Score:3)
you're an idiot
this move, treating all ISP's as "Common Carriers" has been pushed for almost a decade in IT policy circles
everyone, including every single tech company, wants this law
all techies want this law
you're getting what you want, then you say "bah...it's just *political*..."
you're the problem here...you're obstinate immature notions of how this country should work are ruining America
people like you are a pox upon Democracy
Ted Cruz is Already Attacking Net Neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ted Cruz is Already Attacking Net Neutrality (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ted Cruz is Already Attacking Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting. The Obamacare of X analogy is great. Well, except that Obamacare is a conservative approach to healthcare, that only gets portrayed as liberal because Obama is pushing it. No one cared when Romney rolled out Romneycare in his own state.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, except that Obamacare is a conservative approach to healthcare
Only implemented twice ... once in Massachusetts which leans extremely left, and then upon the nation as a whole when the left controlled house, senate, AND whitehouse.
You guys keep calling it the conservative approach... but it was born from liberals, and implemented by liberals every single time. Never was there a conservative government that did it.
A conservative government wouldnt do that.
Re: (Score:3)
I wasnt aware the Heritage Foundation was a group of liberals.
OH WAIT! I get it: You dont know what youre talking about.
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking as a Massachusetts resident, I can tell you that Romneycare was in no way a Republican idea. At the time, the Democratic-controlled state legislative branch was essentially trying to take over healthcare via heavy regulation. This wouldn't be the first time: Massachusetts heavily regulates auto insurance and as such had some of the highest auto insurance rates in the nation. We've since deregulated auto insurance to some degree which has allowed some additional competition and a general lowering of
Incoming port 80? (Score:3)
Does a "utility" mean that we could finally have true net neutrality and use the internet as it was designed, such as having unblocked incoming ports 80/443? I use alternate ports to route around this to access my files remotely, but strictly speaking I'm violating the ISP T&C by having a "server" at home.
However, I often want to access my home files from wifi access points such as hospitals where outgoing 80/443 are the only ports open (no outgoing ssh, etc. allowed). But my cable provider blocks incoming 80/443, so I'm completely cut off from my home files. I would rather not pay to put a TB of files on the "cloud" or pay some 3rd party service to reroute ports or whatever.
You know they'll botch it (Score:3)
Net neutrality means that QoS based on port (e.g., VOIP gets priority over HTTP) is OK; but QoS based on content or the owner of an IP is not OK.
We all understand that; but the mouth-breathers and cronies that will regulate the Internet will generate 1600 pages of crap that nobody can read, just to define "QoS".
It's all about Taxes (Score:3, Insightful)
Partisan policy aside, the government wants us to want them to regulate the nets. They want it because it will give them an excuse to tax your connection. Once the FCC steps in, they will need money to "manage" and to prosecute and to investigate. Mark my words, this has nothing to do with Netflix and everything to do with an additional revenue stream.
*Common Carrier* (Score:4, Informative)
Headline should read "Common Carrier" because that's the option Obama picked....the strongest protection for users.
This is what we have wanted all along...the best protection for Net Neutrality
Damn /. or any troll/techies who try to downplay this move by Obama...he gave us *exactly* what we asked for
No Republican would do this.
Oh, you are a Liberal troll (Score:3)
Don't tell us what we wanted. We want prioritized traffic. We've ALWAYS wanted prioritized traffic.
Next you're going to tell me that we WANTED a healthcare system with a commercially competitive marketplace.
Why do you hate America?
[never try and reason with the /. crowd...they've already made up their minds who they hate]
Internet used to be Common Carrier (Score:3, Informative)
Back in the 1990s when ISPs were being sued by the MPAA and RIAA for carrying bootlegged stuff, the ISPs claimed common carrier status as the reason they should not be sued - arguing that they just carry the bits and have nothing to do with what the bits actually are.
Fast forward to the 2000s when Verizon et al start rolling out their own video networks. Well, suddenly they claim "media company" status and not common carrier status, so they can regulate actual content.
I'm not sure what backdoor deal allowed them to abandon common carrier and still not get sued for carrying pirated material, but I am sure there was something baked into an agriculture or other unrelated bill that did it.
Go back to the pre 1984 AT&T model (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone thinks that the idea of a monopoly is bad, but I think it would work fine in this case. Raw broadband bandwidth is a utility. AT&T bandwidth isn't (or shouldn't be) any different than Verizon, Comcast or CenturyLink. As it is now, there are tons of companies spending huge amounts of money to keep their networks barely at capacity simply because there's so much traffic to pass around. One company could do this much more efficiently than everyone trying to build their own distribution network, the same way public utilities don't run 4 competing electric lines or water pipes over the same route. In addition, there would be no net neutrality debate, since every user has to plug into the same common carrier.
People love to complain about old-school pre-breakup AT&T, but the high prices they were able to charge allowed them to over-engineer the phone system for reliability. Cable companies routinely oversubscribe links by a significant amount, and DSL providers don't provision enough bandwidth to the CO to deal with the number of connected customers. Internet bandwidth has become a utility in the US - there aren't very many people who are not users of it in some form or another. The problem is that people have no concept of paying for a service and want the cheapest possible price they can get, so the providers don't invest.
Even classifying bandwidth as being subject to common carrier rules would allow rural areas to be served more effectively. There is currently no incentive for broadband providers to provide good rural service. The universal service fees that had to be paid for wireline phone service were an attempt to subsidize this cost and make sure rural areas at least had connectivity. It's a similar problem to the federal highway funding formula -- more fuel efficient cars mean less gas tax revenue, which has the unintended effect of delaying infrastructure improvements. And fewer people paying universal service fees (or higher prices in general) mean that the broadband network is neglected.
Pros I see --
- Ends the net neutrality debate once and for all
- Allows AT&T or whoever gets the monopoly power to invest in the network without worrying about shareholders penalizing them
- Unintended pro might be greater levels of employment at a more stable employer.
Cons --
- You know, monopolies are universally evil and the free market should dictate everything
- Everyone will pay more (but for better service)
It seems to me that re-forming AT&T or similar is the best way to deal with this ongoing problem. It's not perfect but it does have advantages.
Re: (Score:3)
I was, briefly - I was 9 or 10 when the breakup happened. But I also do know that phone service was extremely reliable, and the only reason it was that way was because the system had it built in. Today's market for broadband encourages providers to oversubscribe or cut out key reliability features in the name of costs/profit in an environment where shareholders are out for blood every quarter. To truly provide an open-for-all utility that works, you need to remove at least some of the competition pressure f
Did he really? (Score:3)
Did he actually support regulating it as a utility, or did he support that bullshit "hybrid" proposal that essentially leaves us where we are now, so we'll take our fake little cookie and STFU about it.
Regulation to the rescue (Score:4, Interesting)
Would much rather see legislation focus on promoting last mile fiber infrastructure any ISP can compete to light up on a fair and equal basis.
That Net neutrality is even an issue is a symptom of larger problem of market failure. As long as the only viable ISP in town is a national cable company you can legislate till your blue in the face customers are still going to get fucked over as long as there remains no serious alternative.
Re: (Score:3)
I did read it. It does not say that.
Re:Why would anyone support this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty happy with government. I certainly have a lot of issues I'm unhappy with (surveillance, constant foreign war, too-low taxes, imprudent corporate priorities, insufficient transfer payments to the poor) but those are nitpicks compared to the things I'm fully satisfied with: domestic peace, prosperity, transportation, validity of vote counts, fading homophobia, fading racism.
America has a lot of problems but we're doing a lot more right than wrong. I don't actually have a strong opinion on regulating internet providers but my general assumption would be whatever the industry opposes is the best thing for America. So whatever side that puts me on, I'm on that side of that issue.
health care reform (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll add health care...
I support fully socialized medicine....all health care orgs become non-profit...
Health Care scarcity is Artificial Scarcity in 2014....in the US we have more than enough resources to give for free the health care everyone needs...So you might say I "oppose" Obamacare in that *isn't socialist enough*
But conversely, he Republicans have only criticism of Obama's work on health care, but no actual solution for the health care crisis
the GOP didn't even think the health care crisis was any of their concern until liberals forced the issue
Re:Why would anyone support this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, who needs it? Look how well it worked out for Somalia when their government disintegrated and they were freed from that yoke. Lebanon in the 80s and Kosovo in the 90s were such shining examples, too. And it was so much better in the USA before the Civil Rights Act and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the creation of the FTC.
You're right. Comcast is so much better at controlling the internet than the government would be.
Re: (Score:3)
You should read this paper very carefully:
http://www.peterleeson.com/Bet... [peterleeson.com]
Also, Somalia currently has the cheapest and best cell phone service in Africa.
The "move to Somalia" argument is a pretty standard trope when having conversations about the proper size and scope of government. Of course, there are lots of reasons why overweight white software engineers from America wouldn't necessarily thrive in Somalia irrespective of what kind of government it did or didn't have, but that doesn't really seem to di
Re: (Score:3)
You may be correct in your generalization, but what is gained by trotting this out when the gentleman has proposed regulating a specific something which badly needs regulation?
Re: (Score:3)
There is no indication whatever of that in TFA, but suppose it is put in place. What a tragedy! Like those nasty soup kitchens and putting up the homeless where they won't freeze to death. Let them die, and while we're at it let's make sure they are without internet as they are dying.
Why do anything at all to mitigate rich pricks accumulating all the resources? What
Re: (Score:3)
The minute I read the summary my first thought was "if a government bigwig is promoting it, of can't be good for us regular Joe's"
Re: (Score:3)
The most insidious part may be from point 1:
No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it.
Maybe someone will have to preemptively decide whether the content is legal, including international content I guess. Sounds like a job for the government!
Re: (Score:3)
The government does regulate those prices. There's laws on the books, for instance, that say stores have to charge you the posted/marked price on items, they can't just decide to charge you more or less depending on who you are or why you're buying the stuff. And while the store can in large part refuse to do business with you completely, the government does regulate even that to a degree by barring them from refusing service based on race etc. (a store can refuse to do business with an individual, but they