Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:^^ that right there makes me suspicious of the whole thing

 

So you're okay with censorship as long as big business is the one in charge of it?

Quote:^^ that right there makes me suspicious of the whole thing

 

Because you don't understand the world around you at all.

 

Like I said, you're going to have power and authority whether you like that or not.

 

The only question is, do you want a vote in that power and authority, or do you want to just let those already with power have all of the control?

Quote:So you're okay with censorship as long as big business is the one in charge of it?

 

I'm not for censorship at all but I don't know enough about the subject to give you any options or thoughts. I know the idea that business is a parasite and we need government to fix it rarely leads to anything good.

Quote:Because you don't understand the world around you at all.

 

Like I said, you're going to have power and authority whether you like that or not.

 

The only question is, do you want a vote in that power and authority, or do you want to just let those already with power have all of the control?

 

I understand the world around me fine, I'm also humble enough to know when I'm not up to speed on a subject. You on the other hand have one solution for everything, Government.

Quote:I understand the world around me fine, I'm also humble enough to know when I'm not up to speed on a subject. You on the other hand have one solution for everything, Government.

 

It's really as simple as I said, either you have real and effective regulation, or you don't. Either you support the power of the people to dictate rules of the game to big business, or you support uncaring huge corporations doing whatever they want.

 

Right now we don't, that's how we got to that graph I posted earlier of how Netflix was treated by the big power players in the internet sector when regulation was struck down.

Quote:I'm not for censorship at all but I don't know enough about the subject to give you any options or thoughts. I know the idea that business is a parasite and we need government to fix it rarely leads to anything good.

 

70% of the US Internet market is controlled by 5 companies -- soon to be 4 if Comcast and Time Warner merge.  39% of the US have no choice of Broadband Providers at all.  With 65% having 2 or fewer choices.  

 

Keep in mind that these 5 companies will effectively have control over the internet.  Want to start your own social networking site?  You're going to have to pay huge amounts just to get equal speeds to your website.  And that's from startup.  Assuming they want to even allow you access to the fast lane at all if they have their own social networking site.


Then you have this:


http://www.republicreport.org/2014/comca...Q9ODkzMQ==


Someone writes an article that Comcast disagrees with?  "Take it down, or we'll put you in the slow lane!"

 

Big Businesses seeking control like this is part of the reason that big government is bad.  Because the ones with money are the ones that can and will use and abuse government to their advantage.

Quote:70% of the US Internet market is controlled by 5 companies -- soon to be 4 if Comcast and Time Warner merge.  39% of the US have no choice of Broadband Providers at all.  With 65% having 2 or fewer choices.  

 

Keep in mind that these 5 companies will effectively have control over the internet.  Want to start your own social networking site?  You're going to have to pay huge amounts just to get equal speeds to your website.  And that's from startup.  Assuming they want to even allow you access to the fast lane at all if they have their own social networking site.


Then you have this:

http://www.republicreport.org/2014/comca...Q9ODkzMQ==


Someone writes an article that Comcast disagrees with?  "Take it down, or we'll put you in the slow lane!"

 

Big Businesses seeking control like this is part of the reason that big government is bad.  Because the ones with money are the ones that can and will use and abuse government to their advantage.

 

I've always been under the impression traditional internet providers such as cable and DSL lines are set up like the phone companies. You only have one option but isn't that because it's regulated already? I'm pretty sure the argument was and still is you can't have multiple companies running lines on the counties power line so they limit the access to the power lines to one company per area.

Quote:I've always been under the impression traditional internet providers such as cable and DSL lines are set up like the phone companies. You only have one option but isn't that because it's regulated already? I'm pretty sure the argument was and still is you can't have multiple companies running lines on the counties power line so they limit the access to the power lines to one company per area.

 

Currently no internet broadband provider is regulated.

 

Phone providers are only regulated for telephone service.

 

There were weak regulations before, but those were struck down.

 

If we had a "big government" movement the FCC could classify broadband as "common carrier" and regulate it just like phone lines are regulated.

 

However, thanks to the extreme paranoia and fear exhibited by significant parts of the population against representative government, we get faceless corporations running the show however they want.

Quote:I've always been under the impression traditional internet providers such as cable and DSL lines are set up like the phone companies. You only have one option but isn't that because it's regulated already? I'm pretty sure the argument was and still is you can't have multiple companies running lines on the counties power line so they limit the access to the power lines to one company per area.

 

In the UK the regulations require companies to lease their networks to competitors at cost.  


Net Neutrality is still important even if we get more competition -- because access to all information should be equal.  


Imagine if a business owned all of the roads in the nation.  Now imagine if they were able to shut down roads so that people wouldn't use stores they didn't want them to use (or that they were in competition with).  That's essentially what a slow lane will be.

Quote:Currently no internet broadband provider is regulated.

 

Phone providers are only regulated for telephone service.

 

There were weak regulations before, but those were struck down.

 

If we had a "big government" movement the FCC could classify broadband as "common carrier" and regulate it just like phone lines are regulated.

 

However, thanks to the extreme paranoia and fear exhibited by significant parts of the population against representative government, we get faceless corporations running the show however they want.

 

how would that fix anything the regulation you're suggesting didn't create more options for the consumer it only limited the amount of competition for the phone companies.

Quote:how would that fix anything the regulation you're suggesting didn't create more options for the consumer it only limited the amount of competition for the phone companies.

 

Could you explain what you're talking about?

Quote:In the UK the regulations require companies to lease their networks to competitors at cost.  


Net Neutrality is still important even if we get more competition -- because access to all information should be equal.  


Imagine if a business owned all of the roads in the nation.  Now imagine if they were able to shut down roads so that people wouldn't use stores they didn't want them to use (or that they were in competition with).  That's essentially what a slow lane will be.

 

So if I own Eric's Internet Provider and build a network to service the up and coming Palatka area, under the UK's regulation after I built my network I'd have to lease Homies Interent Provider company access at cost?

Quote:Could you explain what you're talking about?

 

Phone companies are limited to a specific region, just like power companies you can't pick BellSouth as your home phone provider if your area is managed by ATT. That's because regulation requires only one provider for the phone companies and in most areas power companies as well. I don't see how regulation changed the amount of people in control of the phone lines nor how it would change the amount of people or companies in control of the internet?

Quote:Phone companies are limited to a specific region, just like power companies you can't pick BellSouth as your home phone provider if your area is managed by ATT. That's because regulation requires only one provider for the phone companies and in most areas power companies as well. I don't see how regulation changed the amount of people in control of the phone lines nor how it would change the amount of people or companies in control of the internet?

 

That would depend on the regulation.

 

However, the issue that causes a lack of competition in broadband isn't regulation, it's a combination of multiple things.

 

First there's the required capital outlay, building out a wired broadband infrastructure is expensive. It's the kind of undertaking only assumed by governmental powers or large corporations, and in the cases of large corporations they usually demand contractual arrangements with public utility boards that they don't face any competition.

 

Second there's the first mover problem. Overbuilding (which is the term for a redundant wired broadband network being laid) makes a recouping of capital investment very difficult because not only do you have to pay to build out, but you also have to figure out how to take customers away from the incumbent, and as standard oil taught the nation 100+ years ago, when you have a powerful incumbent it's not hard for them to kill off a small new competitor through various means. Predatory pricing, contract agreements, and sabotage in the field to name three.

 

Third there are the efforts of right-wing politicians. Quite literally in some states laws have been passed by republicans that make it impossible for local municipalities to build their own broadband infrastructure to compete with, or operate in lieu of, the large incumbent providers. So even if Comcast or AT&T don't want to offer some areas broadband, those areas can't even, through their own government, build out a network to allow for it in their area.

 

Any other questions?

Quote:That would depend on the regulation.

 

However, the issue that causes a lack of competition in broadband isn't regulation, it's a combination of multiple things.

 

First there's the required capital outlay, building out a wired broadband infrastructure is expensive. It's the kind of undertaking only assumed by governmental powers or large corporations, and in the cases of large corporations they usually demand contractual arrangements with public utility boards that they don't face any competition.

 

Second there's the first mover problem. Overbuilding (which is the term for a redundant wired broadband network being laid) makes a recouping of capital investment very difficult because not only do you have to pay to build out, but you also have to figure out how to take customers away from the incumbent, and as standard oil taught the nation 100+ years ago, when you have a powerful incumbent it's not hard for them to kill off a small new competitor through various means. Predatory pricing, contract agreements, and sabotage in the field to name three.

 

Third there are the efforts of right-wing politicians. Quite literally in some states laws have been passed by republicans that make it impossible for local municipalities to build their own broadband infrastructure to compete with, or operate in lieu of, the large incumbent providers. So even if Comcast or AT&T don't want to offer some areas broadband, those areas can't even, through their own government, build out a network to allow for it in their area.

 

Any other questions?

 

So what kind of regulations would "net neutrality" have to change any of that?

Quote:So if I own Eric's Internet Provider and build a network to service the up and coming Palatka area, under the UK's regulation after I built my network I'd have to lease Homies Interent Provider company access at cost?

 

If you own the lines, yes.

 

 

Quote:<div>
So what kind of regulations would "net neutrality" have to change any of that?

</div>
 

All net neutrality does is prevent companies from having tiers of speeds different for different websites.


It provides that companies can't slow traffic down because of the content of the website.

 

Under Net Neutrality loading ilovethegovernment.something would load the same as ihatethegovernment.something

 

Without it, telecomm companies can have ihatethegovernment.something in a slow lane -- or refuse acess to it at all.

Quote:If you own the lines, yes.

 

Than why would anyone build a network, if their competition gets to use it at cost without having to pay for the building of a network?

Quote:So what kind of regulations would "net neutrality" have to change any of that?

 

Regulations that impose stiff penalties for degrading traffic or acting in bad faith regarding peering arrangements would be a good start.

 

Quote:Than why would anyone build a network, if their competition gets to use it at cost without having to pay for the building of a network?

 

Because they are at least guaranteed not to lose money on the lines they're running and still can actually compete for end point customers?

Quote:Than why would anyone build a network, if their competition gets to use it at cost without having to pay for the building of a network?

Presumably if you're a telecomm company, you also provide phone services as well.  I'd imagine that's why you'd want to build a network.  

 

Notably, Verizon and AT&T take advantage and support the laws in England, but don't support them over here.  

Quote:If you own the lines, yes.

 

<div> 
 
 

All net neutrality does is prevent companies from having tiers of speeds different for different websites.


It provides that companies can't slow traffic down because of the content of the website.

 

Under Net Neutrality loading ilovethegovernment.something would load the same as ihatethegovernment.something

 

Without it, telecomm companies can have ihatethegovernment.something in a slow lane -- or refuse acess to it at all.

</div>

 

I don't see why anyone would oppose the legislation than, if all it really does is simply create a regulation that you can't change access based on content, seems like a pretty open and closed case if that's all there is to it.