Quote:Regulations that impose stiff penalties for degrading traffic or acting in bad faith regarding peering arrangements would be a good start.
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?
Ok what keeps me from building the lines at X amount of dollars, then my competitor who doesn't have to recover the overhead of building the network can come in and under cut my price by Y dollars how am I not going to lose money? What you're explaining is different than what Eleventh Door is explaining. I'm fine with regulation saying you can't change speed based upon content. However saying you have to give your competition network access at cost is a different story.
Quote: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.
Most people do.
Obama's FCC Chariman Tom Wheeler however opposes Net Neutrality as most people want it. Which is why many are calling for Obama to remove him as Chariman.
The ones who don't want it are mostly telecom companies. And of course Wheeler is a telecom insider. Which explains why he wants to change how things work.
Quote:Ok what keeps me from building the lines at X amount of dollars, then my competitor who doesn't have to recover the overhead of building the network can come in and under cut my price by Y dollars how am I not going to lose money? What you're explaining is different than what Eleventh Door is explaining. I'm fine with regulation saying you can't change speed based upon content. However saying you have to give your competition network access at cost is a different story.
The cost of building the network is built into the lease price for the line.
In the relatively distant past of broadband it worked that way, third party providers could lease DSL loops from the phone company (telephone lines long in the ground) for a regulated price, which was in the mid 30's/line at the time (late 90's early aughts) but that was put to an end thanks to republican FCC rules that essentially removed the possibility of competition at all since most lines were run through remote terminals and the FCC ruled that the phone companies weren't required to lease those lines, only the central office ones.
There are a lot of ways to fix the problem, but they all start with a recognition of unfettered big corporate market control being the problem and end with a recognition of big governmental regulation being the solution.
Quote:Ok what keeps me from building the lines at X amount of dollars, then my competitor who doesn't have to recover the overhead of building the network can come in and under cut my price by Y dollars how am I not going to lose money? What you're explaining is different than what Eleventh Door is explaining. I'm fine with regulation saying you can't change speed based upon content. However saying you have to give your competition network access at cost is a different story.
This is a good article that explains it. It's not about overhead anymore. There is too much conflict of interest. A company cannot be allowed to decide an arbitrary level of access of its direct competitors to the online market place. If you allow the people who power the internet to decide who gets the power, and how much of it, the system would be subject to abuse because politics and payola would corrupt an otherwise free (neutral) market.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/08/28/14-years-ago-doj-said-letting-one-broadband-company-run-half-the-country-was-a-bad-idea?tid=rssfeed'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/08/28/14-years-ago-doj-said-letting-one-broadband-company-run-half-the-country-was-a-bad-idea?tid=rssfeed</a>
Isn't it the local governments that allow Comcast and other companies the "monopolistic" title? It certainly isn't a free-market.
Why should we assume the same government wouldn't make backroom deals?
Quote:Isn't it the local governments that allow Comcast and other companies the "monopolistic" title? It certainly isn't a free-market.
Why should we assume the same government wouldn't make backroom deals?
That's what in struggling to understand its regulaition that gives you only one choice for the DSL, dial up and phone lines how regulation supposed to create more options for broadband?
Quote:That's what in struggling to understand its regulaition that gives you only one choice for the DSL, dial up and phone lines how regulation supposed to create more options for broadband?
You are missing the point on this. Net Neutrality is not about creating competition. It is about keeping the current monopolistic carriers from being able to leverage their monopolies and control traffic and speeds. If Comcast has an on demand video service than can legally slow down traffic to and from Netflix, Amazon, Hulu etc... Not only can they do this but they have already done this. They can block access to websites to say political parties or groups they do not agree with.
99% of America should be in support of Net Neutrality. The internet is absolutely vital to society and to have it anything but open and fair cannot be allowed to happen. The companies do not own the internet they cannot be allowed to control it. This is a perfect example of how industry cannot be completely unregulated. They need to be classified as common carriers.
If you want to talk about competition talk to the local municipalities that have set up legal monopolies all across the country.
I'm with you on legislation requiring equal access regardless of content I'm just exploring how did we get to the point where so few control so much of a resource.
Quote:I'm with you on legislation requiring equal access regardless of content I'm just exploring how did we get to the point where so few control so much of a resource.
The same way any business sector, when left to it's own devices, does it. Pours money into politicians pockets to get favorable deals. It is a little more complicated in this case since in, not all but a lot of instances, the carriers funded the implementation of the lines and gear needed for the broadband delivery. However as mentioned above deals were put in place to stifle competition nearly indefinitely by not allowing start ups to rent or use the lines they ran. This is the same thing that has happened in the past with landline phones service, railroads etc.... A handful of loaded people/companies fund innovation (which is fantastic) but then use the result to get filthy rich while stomping out competition and increasing prices across the board.
Look at our mobile phone plans and broadband internet prices compared with other developed countries in the world. Our prices are through the roof high and we are forced to pay it because Internet and Mobile are a necessity in modern society like power, water etc.....
You are not going to want to hear it, but more regulation is, I think the only way to fix this. Change them to common carriers and force them to rent out the pipes. Start ups will come along creating massive drops in price. Heck, people are so hungry for new players in the game they don't even need to break them up like with Ma Bell. Instant competition would pop up.
Quote:I'm with you on legislation requiring equal access regardless of content I'm just exploring how did we get to the point where so few control so much of a resource.
With regulation that protects businesses from competition, rather than open doors for competition.
In the UK they do local-loop unbundling. Meaning that other companies have access to BT's networks, and can hook their own networks up to it. It's created competition, and drove down prices. It's also encouraged innovation on BT's part, who have improved speeds, and recently their stocks have been going up by quite a bit IIRC. (Tripling)
Companies like AT&T and Verizon like LLUB... at least in the UK. They don't want it here though by any means.
Telecom corporations have been growing too powerful. They have a mouthpiece in charge of the FCC now too. Appointed by President Obama. Despite everything Obama has said about the importance of the internet, he named a telecom insider as the FCC Chariman.
Quote:With regulation that protects businesses from competition, rather than open doors for competition.
In the UK they do local-loop unbundling. Meaning that other companies have access to BT's networks, and can hook their own networks up to it. It's created competition, and drove down prices. It's also encouraged innovation on BT's part, who have improved speeds, and recently their stocks have been going up by quite a bit IIRC. (Tripling)
Companies like AT&T and Verizon like LLUB... at least in the UK. They don't want it here though by any means.
Telecom corporations have been growing too powerful. They have a mouthpiece in charge of the FCC now too. Appointed by President Obama. Despite everything Obama has said about the importance of the internet, he named a telecom insider as the FCC Chariman.
Thanks for adding more detail to the UK arrangement.
Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/29/us-telecoms-fcc-block-high-speed-internet-chattanooga'>http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/29/us-telecoms-fcc-block-high-speed-internet-chattanooga</a>
Telecom Monopoly attempts stifling competition via the FCC ^^
Good for the local towns and by all means let them expand. But from what you guys have told me doesn't net neutrality take all of the broadband and stick it under the FCC? You guys think if the FCC does gain control they won't buckle and just give all the broadband to the same guys like they did with landlines and cable?
Quote:Good for the local towns and by all means let them expand. But from what you guys have told me doesn't net neutrality take all of the broadband and stick it under the FCC? You guys think if the FCC does gain control they won't buckle and just give all the broadband to the same guys like they did with landlines and cable?
Watch the video Unravel posted. That explains what Net Neutrality is. It has nothing to do with the idea of expanding competition (which is a completely separate concept)
Quote:Good for the local towns and by all means let them expand. But from what you guys have told me doesn't net neutrality take all of the broadband and stick it under the FCC? You guys think if the FCC does gain control they won't buckle and just give all the broadband to the same guys like they did with landlines and cable?
"I know things are terrible right now, but think about how much worse it could be if we actually tried to use governmental authority to do something about it!"
- every republican ever
Quote:"I know things are terrible right now, but think about how much worse it could be if we actually tried to use governmental authority to do something about it!"
- every republican ever
So your argument is to put the internet under the FCC yes or no?
Quote:So your argument is to put the internet under the FCC yes or no?
As opposed to having a completely unregulated (from a federal standpoint) internet? Yes, it does need FCC oversight.
Quote:As opposed to having a completely unregulated (from a federal standpoint) internet? Yes, it does need FCC oversight.
I'm not advocating to have it completely unregulated. I'm asking how the FCC will fix the issue as you've explained it. You've told me there's to few players in the game and they now can control access to start up competition or speed based on content. How does the FCC fix any of that? If anything the FCC would make it worse just like they did with cable and landlines
Quote:I'm not advocating to have it completely unregulated. I'm asking how the FCC will fix the issue as you've explained it. You've told me there's to few players in the game and they now can control access to start up competition or speed based on content. How does the FCC fix any of that? If anything the FCC would make it worse just like they did with cable and landlines
It's already been explained to you how to fix the problem.
Now you need to explain to me how the FCC would make it worse. Be detailed in your explanation.