Author Topic: Net Neutrality  (Read 2286 times)

JayGatsby

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 528
Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2017, 08:52:29 AM »
Thanks. That's interesting. The National Review article seems the most logical to me, but I tend to lean pretty far libertarian.

The Tucows statement seems fairly disingenuous to me to be honest. Cable and fiber are largely private assets. In some cases they get government incentives, but the private investment into them has been massive. The refrigerator example seems typical of the kind of fearmongering hyperbole characteristic of the for argument.

The Portugal/Spain example is interesting, but it relates to mobile phone service. My mobile data plan (through Google) is priced per gigabyte, so really it's doing the same thing. If I just do SMS it would be basically 0, and the more services I add/stream, the more they charge me. It just seems odd to me that there's all these hyperbolic examples of what the cable companies would do, but no examples of that actually happening.

This is the best article I've found against... someone posted it on Twitter: https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229021 . LC, that confirms what what I'd kind of hypothesized... cable cos have little reason to throttle low bandwidth consuming sites, but the do have reason to throttle Netflix/Youtube/FB/etc. So net neutrality basically is a free subsidy for them.


LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2085
Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2017, 12:00:05 PM »
The argument from the article you posted (https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229021) boils down to this:

Let's assume that I am a site such as Facebook, and I want to sell video ads to companies.  Now when you browse to a Facebook page Facebook "pushes", without user request, video advertising content to the user's screen.  This dramatically increases the amount of data that the consumer is using and requires that the data be delivered on a highly-stringent technical basis, lest the video "stutter" or fail to play at all.  Note carefully that the consumer did not request or benefit from this "video advertising" yet they paid an ISP for the connection to deliver it.  Facebook sold the advertising and benefited from it but did not compensate the consumer or their ISP for the higher load on his connection despite imposing that load on him or her.

The question becomes this: If Facebook delivers a sufficiently-large number of video ads such that it begins to impact network performance and thus forces upgrades of the ISP's infrastructure who should get the bill for that upgrade?

If the "Net Neutrality" argument wins the day it will force ISPs to bill all customers at a higher rate to provision that level of service to them whether they want it or not.

Why should a customer who has no interest in having high-bandwidth advertising shoved down his throat pay a higher bill because Facebook has decided to force him to watch those ads in order to use their service?

Why should a customer who doesn't want to watch Netflix pay a higher connection charge to an ISP because 20 of his neighbors do want to watch Netflix?




I have a few problems with this:

First, these are characteristics that any network/utility company experiences. I've been paying every water/electricity/heating utility company to upgrade their network my entire life. If anything, these networks have only improved. Stores increase all prices to pay for credit card processing fees. Hell, any business that offers a single product and then upgrades that product, all customers are paying for that upgrade (whether they want it or not). And the hilarious part is that nobody is forcing ISPs to make any upgrades to their network. If they are so upset, why don't they simply not upgrade their network?

Secondly, ISPs already charge tiered pricing for performance. Comcast Xfinity provides Internet tiers ranging from $72-$89/month depending on what performance you'd like.

Thirdly, the results over time do not support this argument's conclusion. Look at how the Internet has developed over the past ten years. Taking this argument as the author presents it, you would expect one of two things: either (1) slower overall speeds as customers demand increased performance which ISPs do not deliver because nobody is paying for it, or (2) bankruptcy for ISPs as they pay out-of-pocket to deliver network upgrades, without being reimbursed.

The reality is neither of these have happened. Overall performance has improved because network equipment is cheap relative to the performance improvements. And cable cos are making a ton of cash because they have a last-mile monopoly, while still delivering improved performance. 

What really gets me is this last bit. These companies already have a monopoly, and now they are trying to convince us to let them charge even more? And then complain that the FCC is "about to implement Communism when it comes to the Internet" while turning a blind eye to the "violation of The Sherman and Clayton Acts" which the same FCC lets them get away with???

Talk about cojones.

How about we remove net neutrality in exchange for removing the last-mile monopolies these companies have? I'd love to see the cableco's response to that suggestion.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | khc | nke | mo | renx | c | wppgy | dis | cmp

EliG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2017, 09:03:14 AM »

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2085
Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #13 on: November 25, 2017, 01:28:18 PM »
Good post Eli. Here's a post with even more background:

http://www.worights.cf/2017/11/the-book-of-broken-promises-400-billion.html
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | khc | nke | mo | renx | c | wppgy | dis | cmp

JayGatsby

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 528
Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #14 on: November 25, 2017, 01:36:47 PM »
What really gets me is this last bit. These companies already have a monopoly, and now they are trying to convince us to let them charge even more? And then complain that the FCC is "about to implement Communism when it comes to the Internet" while turning a blind eye to the "violation of The Sherman and Clayton Acts" which the same FCC lets them get away with???

Talk about cojones.

How about we remove net neutrality in exchange for removing the last-mile monopolies these companies have? I'd love to see the cableco's response to that suggestion.
The link I posted actually makes the same point toward the end of the really long letter. I'm curious to see what happens as wireless service and cost gets better. Knowing nothing about the technology, it doesn't seem like we're that far off from the last mile being able to be done wirelessly.

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2085
Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #15 on: November 25, 2017, 03:35:43 PM »
That's the thing. The author believes they are two different issues. But they're not, as I pointed out above.

This pretty much sums up how I view the entire issue:

https://i.imgur.com/iFVT0fy.jpg
« Last Edit: November 26, 2017, 12:40:41 PM by LC »
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | khc | nke | mo | renx | c | wppgy | dis | cmp

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2085
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | khc | nke | mo | renx | c | wppgy | dis | cmp

Valuehalla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
  • Who wants to earn forever
Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2017, 05:50:12 AM »
Here is a quote from telco expert Steve Blum:

The market, at best, is a duopoly collapsing into a monopoly – Comcast and Charter Communications account for 48% of U.S. wireline (and fixed wireless) broadband subscribers, and their share is growing. The next three biggest ISPs – AT&T, Verizon and CenturyLink – muster only a 28% market share, but that’s enough to put more than three-quarters of U.S. broadband subscribers in the hands of just five companies.

Quoted from here:
https://www.tellusventure.com/blog/end-of-net-neutrality-means-more-corporate-control-of-central-coast-media-and-speech/

I would be interested what do you guys think, are the consequences of removing NN especially for 
AT &T, Verizon, and CenturyLink ?
« Last Edit: December 11, 2017, 05:55:59 AM by Valuehalla »
BRK FFH MKL LVLT CTL BAC WFC BMY MRK MCD MO PM

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2085
Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #18 on: December 11, 2017, 06:50:52 AM »
Good question, I don't see it as anything but good if you're an ISP. It's essentially giving them the ability to extort money from their customers (either customers like you and me or the websites we visit).
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | khc | nke | mo | renx | c | wppgy | dis | cmp

rkbabang

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3373
Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #19 on: December 11, 2017, 06:59:56 AM »
Here is a quote from telco expert Steve Blum:

The market, at best, is a duopoly collapsing into a monopoly – Comcast and Charter Communications account for 48% of U.S. wireline (and fixed wireless) broadband subscribers, and their share is growing. The next three biggest ISPs – AT&T, Verizon and CenturyLink – muster only a 28% market share, but that’s enough to put more than three-quarters of U.S. broadband subscribers in the hands of just five companies.

Quoted from here:
https://www.tellusventure.com/blog/end-of-net-neutrality-means-more-corporate-control-of-central-coast-media-and-speech/

I would be interested what do you guys think, are the consequences of removing NN especially for 
AT &T, Verizon, and CenturyLink ?



In principle I'd be against government regulation of any kind, but the problem is removing net neutrality doesn't make it a free market by any stretch of the imagination, because of the issue in the post above.   These companies have government enforced monopolies in their areas and thus there is almost zero competition which means zero incentive to make their customers happy.  Think the cable market in the late 20th century or Ma-Bell in the mid-20th century.  Deregulating the internet should mean opening up every city and town in america to multiple ISPs.  Let anyone who wants to run cable or fiber run it and let's see what happens.  I know in my town they won't let in anyone other than Comcast.  That was true in the last town I lived in as well.  They are worried about their stupid cable access channel (as if a: anyone watches it or cares, or b: they couldn't just put all their content on youTube for free).   Removing government is good if it is completely removed.  If it isn't you are going to be constantly trying to fix problems caused by too much government.

Libertarians in general are split on this.   FEE has a different opinion than does EFF for example.

"Goodbye Net Neutrality; Hello Competition"
https://fee.org/articles/goodbye-net-neutrality-hello-competition/

"Network neutrality—the idea that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data that travels over their networks fairly, without improper discrimination in favor of particular apps, sites or services—is a principle that must be upheld to protect the future of our open Internet."
https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality