Yesterday, Republican opposition in Congress folded in the face of popular support for Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality means that your ISP (Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision, TWC, etal) is prohibited from charging different rates to visit certain websites, or charging websites to get faster delivery over an ISPs network. The NN movement wants the FCC to treat broadband Internet like a public utility (called "Title II") to maintain equal access among the sites that Internet users can visit and publish.
NYTimes:
| Republicans hoped to pre-empt the F.C.C. vote with legislation, but Senate Democrats insisted on waiting until after Thursday’s F.C.C. vote before even beginning to talk about legislation for an open Internet. Even Mr. Thune, the architect of draft legislation to override the F.C.C., said Democrats had stalled what momentum he could muster. |
This is big for two reasons:
1) Although nothing is yet set in stone, NN may be preserved in some form, without some raidcal hair-brained overhaul to 'enhance' the free Internet.
2) Popular support (with 11th hour help from Silicon Valley) beat beack a major industrial lobby on the Hill in favor of consumers and entrepreneurs. A rare occurrence, to say the least.
More from the Times:
In mid-October, the tech activist group Fight for the Future acquired the direct telephone numbers of about 30 F.C.C. officials, circumventing the agency’s switchboard to send calls directly to policy makers. That set off a torrent of more than 55,000 phone calls until the group turned off the spigot on Dec. 3.
In November, President Obama cited “almost four million public comments” when he publicly pressured the F.C.C. to turn away from its paid “fast lane” proposal and embrace a new regulatory regime.
Since then, the lobbying has grown only more intense. Last week, 102 Internet companies wrote to the F.C.C. to say the threat of Internet service providers “abusing their gatekeeper power to impose tolls and discriminate against competitive companies is the real threat to our future,” not “heavy-handed regulation” and possible taxation, as conservatives in Washington say.
|
Here, Consumerist blog breaks down, in Comcast's own words, why NN needs to be preserved. In short, Cable companies, who enjoy monopoly status in many markets, are experiencing troubling trends in their overpriced and subpar tv service, including falling revenues and subscribers despite raising prices. They can only raise prices so much, and need an unregulated monopolized Internet in order to be able to raise revenues from their broadband-only subscribers.
Consumerist: 2 charts from Comcast show why NN is vital - (
New Window )
Why?
Quote:
will be a disaster.
Why?
Just my opinion, but I feel it will stifle innovation and take the biggest technological advancement of our lifetimes and regulate it like a utility.
Consumers now have a voice and control. If you don't like your ISP because they block content or are too slow, too expensive, etc. you change providers.
think about the changes in dynamics of the web in just a few short years - and the changes from downloading on torrent sites to streaming. That is significant in how you access and "use" content.
In my experience the government cannot keep up with that.
It takes them forever to enact legislation and in general I prefer smaller government.
I do not oppose many things about net neutrality, but from what I've read about this propose it will over regulate the web.
Quote:
will be a disaster.
This. Nothing like "fixing" something that isn't broken.
Well, when the rest of the world including many "backward" countries have faster, cheaper web service, I'm not sure I would regard ours as "not broken"
Consumers now have a voice and control. If you don't like your ISP because they block content or are too slow, too expensive, etc. you change providers.
You don't have a choice, because ISPs are the same as cable companies in many places, which enjoy monopolies or near monopolies dating back to last century. That worked for cable tv, a luxury by all accounts. But in the 21st century, cable companies bring these monopoly privileges to necessities, like broadband Internet.
Quote:
In comment 12152004 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
will be a disaster.
Why?
Just my opinion, but I feel it will stifle innovation and take the biggest technological advancement of our lifetimes and regulate it like a utility.
Consumers now have a voice and control. If you don't like your ISP because they block content or are too slow, too expensive, etc. you change providers.
think about the changes in dynamics of the web in just a few short years - and the changes from downloading on torrent sites to streaming. That is significant in how you access and "use" content.
In my experience the government cannot keep up with that.
It takes them forever to enact legislation and in general I prefer smaller government.
I do not oppose many things about net neutrality, but from what I've read about this propose it will over regulate the web.
Are you sure you read this thread right?
does not hold water
because currently
US is ranked 11th in average internet speed
so it's "innovation " is lagging behind many of the other countries in the world
also the fastest internet available in US now is in Chattanooga which offers a gigabit per second broadband at 70 bucks a month
and is drum roll please .. a public utility company
While I agree we need an open, unregulated Internet, this doesn't fit the needs of everyone. In my area, we have only one provider: Comcast. That's it. Unless I want to go with DSL and these aren't the dark ages. I do a lot of work from home and need a high speed connection. DSL won't cut it. So I can either pony up the money to Comcast, who has me over a barrel, or move.
Quote:
Consumers now have a voice and control. If you don't like your ISP because they block content or are too slow, too expensive, etc. you change providers.
While I agree we need an open, unregulated Internet, this doesn't fit the needs of everyone. In my area, we have only one provider: Comcast. That's it. Unless I want to go with DSL and these aren't the dark ages. I do a lot of work from home and need a high speed connection. DSL won't cut it. So I can either pony up the money to Comcast, who has me over a barrel, or move.
+1
does not hold water
because currently
US is ranked 11th in average internet speed
so it's "innovation " is lagging behind many of the other countries in the world
also the fastest internet available in US now is in Chattanooga which offers a gigabit per second broadband at 70 bucks a month
and is drum roll please .. a public utility company
Do you understand the difference between "innovation" and "cost of capital"? It's a lot cheaper/easier for South Korean telecoms/cable giants to increase speeds across their entire networks then it is for US companies which cover vastly larger geographic areas.
The reason the US isn't "#1" in speed has little to do with innnovation.
Not yet. If it were so easy to deliver reliable broadband Internet to homes over LTE, ISPs would do it.
Quote:
Consumers now have a voice and control. If you don't like your ISP because they block content or are too slow, too expensive, etc. you change providers.
While I agree we need an open, unregulated Internet, this doesn't fit the needs of everyone. In my area, we have only one provider: Comcast. That's it. Unless I want to go with DSL and these aren't the dark ages. I do a lot of work from home and need a high speed connection. DSL won't cut it. So I can either pony up the money to Comcast, who has me over a barrel, or move.
I'm in the same boat. 105 mbs from Comcast or 3 mbs from AT&T isn't a choice.
Quote:
or WiFi (which is connected to cables/fiber) is certainly faster, you do have a growing number of options in many areas due to the rapidly improving speeds of LTE. So there are options for high speed internet beyond the traditional cable modem.
Not yet. If it were so easy to deliver reliable broadband Internet to homes over LTE, ISPs would do it.
Define "easy". From a technical standpoint it can be largely done. From a practical standpoint it's extremely expensive to handle the necessary capacity (and get approval for the large # of cell sites that would be required).
This seems to be the point people are missing. There isn't a choice to "just leave it as is" (my preference). Given the choice between money rules taking over or regulating and maintaining open access at the same level for all, I'll take the regulation.
The one change I'd like to see, as was alluded to by Dunedin above, is the opening of markets to real competition. The charges right now are excessive and service is sometimes spotty. Sure, we have a choice; internet under monopoly conditions, or no internet at all.
this is wireless technology that is rolling out in test in San Fran
it offers speeds 1000 times faster than current LTE ..
if this proof of concept test works
then your mobile company will be offering high speed internet and cable tv to home users via wireless
Artemis, Dish Ink Deal for Super-Fast Wireless in San Francisco - ( New Window )
Quote:
Because if it isn't, net neutrality should remain. Problem is they ARE trying to change it by ISPs being allowed to control traffic. It's a choice of lesser of two evils. Either keep net neutrality by regulating it, or blow it up and allow monopolies to control it.
This seems to be the point people are missing. There isn't a choice to "just leave it as is" (my preference). Given the choice between money rules taking over or regulating and maintaining open access at the same level for all, I'll take the regulation.
The one change I'd like to see, as was alluded to by Dunedin above, is the opening of markets to real competition. The charges right now are excessive and service is sometimes spotty. Sure, we have a choice; internet under monopoly conditions, or no internet at all.
This is the point why I mentioned Google Fiber. Google is going to end up winning out on this whole thing. They don't have the entrenched interests/limitations that the ISPs do which makes them dig in. Google is rolling out high speed internet across middle America to test it out and it won't take them too long to go after the big markets. And they get to be both an ISP and a content provider. So they get to sit on both sides of the fence. It is in their best interest to allow for high speed access to digital properties, that's where their real money is made. If the interests in forcing regulation to not cap data to sites, that's fine for them, they want you to be connected at all times to the internet (and if you go to Google properties, all the better). If the decision goes the other way, then they can play favorites towards Google content. Smart or lucky, they will end up being well ahead of the ISPs within the next few years as they ramp up their infrastructure.
And what would be stopping them from violating NN (without Title II reclassification) to intentionally drive you to Google content?
Yes, but at a significantly inflated cost for what remains pretty low bandwidth.
But Larry said "do no evil";)
All I'm saying is that they are playing the ISPs and politicians perfectly. They are looking at 2020 and beyond, the ISPs are looking at 5 years ago and politicians are doing what they do. You have a generation now that is entering college who have only known the internet, you will have another generation within 10 years going to college who only know about iPhones and constant connectivity (including my kids). Google is in the best position to provide what they want/expect. It is what it is.
Quote:
.
And what would be stopping them from violating NN (without Title II reclassification) to intentionally drive you to Google content?
Nothing, that's why they win either way.
Lots of details we deserve to know. Post the bill online and give everyone a chance to see it before any vote.
Quote:
In comment 12152072 Shecky said:
Quote:
Because if it isn't, net neutrality should remain. Problem is they ARE trying to change it by ISPs being allowed to control traffic. It's a choice of lesser of two evils. Either keep net neutrality by regulating it, or blow it up and allow monopolies to control it.
This seems to be the point people are missing. There isn't a choice to "just leave it as is" (my preference). Given the choice between money rules taking over or regulating and maintaining open access at the same level for all, I'll take the regulation.
The one change I'd like to see, as was alluded to by Dunedin above, is the opening of markets to real competition. The charges right now are excessive and service is sometimes spotty. Sure, we have a choice; internet under monopoly conditions, or no internet at all.
This is the point why I mentioned Google Fiber. Google is going to end up winning out on this whole thing. They don't have the entrenched interests/limitations that the ISPs do which makes them dig in. Google is rolling out high speed internet across middle America to test it out and it won't take them too long to go after the big markets. And they get to be both an ISP and a content provider. So they get to sit on both sides of the fence. It is in their best interest to allow for high speed access to digital properties, that's where their real money is made. If the interests in forcing regulation to not cap data to sites, that's fine for them, they want you to be connected at all times to the internet (and if you go to Google properties, all the better). If the decision goes the other way, then they can play favorites towards Google content. Smart or lucky, they will end up being well ahead of the ISPs within the next few years as they ramp up their infrastructure.
I don't disagree. However, how is Google Fiber going to serve rural America? The simple answer is, it isn't because there's no way it could be cost effective. If you live in a city/fairly heavily-populated area you're fine. Otherwise, you're still SOL.
I liken it to the older problem of rural electrification/telephone service. That took a long time to fully implement, and it was the government doing it. This is just the sort of project that only the federal government can/will do. If we depend on private business to do it, it won't happen on the scale that's needed.
Another example is the national highway system. If the profit motive was considered, we'd still be hiking through the woods. Making internet access a utility can help move it toward universal access at a (hopefully) reasonable bandwidth.
I think that's attainable only via wireless; wired just can't cope with the ultimately vast network that would be needed.
This is good enough for now - what happens next will determine how bad things are (or will get). Could have been much, much worse.
Quote:
In comment 12152115 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12152072 Shecky said:
Quote:
I don't disagree. However, how is Google Fiber going to serve rural America? The simple answer is, it isn't because there's no way it could be cost effective. If you live in a city/fairly heavily-populated area you're fine. Otherwise, you're still SOL.
I liken it to the older problem of rural electrification/telephone service. That took a long time to fully implement, and it was the government doing it. This is just the sort of project that only the federal government can/will do. If we depend on private business to do it, it won't happen on the scale that's needed.
Another example is the national highway system. If the profit motive was considered, we'd still be hiking through the woods. Making internet access a utility can help move it toward universal access at a (hopefully) reasonable bandwidth.
I think that's attainable only via wireless; wired just can't cope with the ultimately vast network that would be needed.
You mean like this?
http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-tests-ultra-high-speed-wireless-internet-technology/ - ( New Window )
Lots of details we deserve to know. Post the bill online and give everyone a chance to see it before any vote.
Websites are already registered through ICANN.
C'mon, that's patently false - most of them understand full well how the tubes work.
(in case you thought I was serious - see here)
Quote:
In comment 12152139 Matt in SGS said:
Quote:
In comment 12152115 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12152072 Shecky said:
Quote:
I don't disagree. However, how is Google Fiber going to serve rural America? The simple answer is, it isn't because there's no way it could be cost effective. If you live in a city/fairly heavily-populated area you're fine. Otherwise, you're still SOL.
I liken it to the older problem of rural electrification/telephone service. That took a long time to fully implement, and it was the government doing it. This is just the sort of project that only the federal government can/will do. If we depend on private business to do it, it won't happen on the scale that's needed.
Another example is the national highway system. If the profit motive was considered, we'd still be hiking through the woods. Making internet access a utility can help move it toward universal access at a (hopefully) reasonable bandwidth.
I think that's attainable only via wireless; wired just can't cope with the ultimately vast network that would be needed.
You mean like this? http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-tests-ultra-high-speed-wireless-internet-technology/ - ( New Window )
It's a possibility, but what is the ratio of distance to a wireless transmitter and bandwidth drop-off? Unless this technology can provide adequate bandwidth under all conditions (i.e., mountainous, forested, wide coverage area, etc.) then we still arrive at the concerns and show-stoppers I voiced above.
Hopefully it will provide significantly better coverage than cell service. As an example, our cell service is dependent on a separate, home-based receiver (mini cell tower) that channels the cell signal via the internet. Without it, we have no cell service available.
how does rural america get their broadband and wireless phone service??
because of all those taxes on my cell phone and cable bill
i always found it ironic that federal taxes pay for some farmer in nebraska to have cell phone and internet service so he can watch fox news and he rail against the federal government
I think high speed internet's a bigger issue for cities, where the cost of construction/laying fiber and higher cost of labor can't be justified without charging a lot more for the service. WWAN/MAN solutions have been tried a few times over with lukewarm success, and at much slower rates. I think they're going to hit the ceiling in terms of how much they can practically get done given the congestion and frequencies being used.
Quote:
I liken it to the older problem of rural electrification/telephone service. That took a long time to fully implement, and it was the government doing it. This is just the sort of project that only the federal government can/will do. If we depend on private business to do it, it won't happen on the scale that's needed.
how does rural america get their broadband and wireless phone service??
because of all those taxes on my cell phone and cable bill
i always found it ironic that federal taxes pay for some farmer in nebraska to have cell phone and internet service so he can watch fox news and he rail against the federal government
Perhaps I misunderstand, but it sounds like you're saying, "I've got mine; fuck everyone else."
I think high speed internet's a bigger issue for cities, where the cost of construction/laying fiber and higher cost of labor can't be justified without charging a lot more for the service. WWAN/MAN solutions have been tried a few times over with lukewarm success, and at much slower rates. I think they're going to hit the ceiling in terms of how much they can practically get done given the congestion and frequencies being used.
I agree, hence my statement that the only entity who can do such a widespread effort is the federal government. People of a certain persuasion love to say that government is useless, but (to reiterate from above) this is exactly the sort of project that needs such an entity in order to get done.
In order to try to forestall the usual suspects, how to do it, will it be done properly, will it be done in a timely manner, what will it ultimately cost, etc. are all reasonable questions, but not at this point in the debate.
Has regulation of the phone company helped? Has regulation of any utility made it better or more crippled by bureaucracy and had more taxes added to it?
Has regulation of the phone company helped? Has regulation of any utility made it better or more crippled by bureaucracy and had more taxes added to it?
The people of California probably have a few opinions on deregulation of utilities...
umm no
i am saying that many of those rural red staters who hate the federal government are the very ones getting subsidized cell phone and cable service courtesy of the federal government .
That's the crux of the problem. We don't yet know what a regulated internet would look like. My guess is that there'll be a high volume of scare stories from one side and pollyanna-like "everything will be ducky" stories from the other side.
Until an actual, agreed-upon regulatory environment is set, we're just whistling into the wind.
Quote:
are valid, but I don't think they'll ever really be addressed. Just like any other service, it's difficult to justify the cost/benefit to a private provider when there's so few customers allocated to so much infrastructure.
I think high speed internet's a bigger issue for cities, where the cost of construction/laying fiber and higher cost of labor can't be justified without charging a lot more for the service. WWAN/MAN solutions have been tried a few times over with lukewarm success, and at much slower rates. I think they're going to hit the ceiling in terms of how much they can practically get done given the congestion and frequencies being used.
I agree, hence my statement that the only entity who can do such a widespread effort is the federal government. People of a certain persuasion love to say that government is useless, but (to reiterate from above) this is exactly the sort of project that needs such an entity in order to get done.
In order to try to forestall the usual suspects, how to do it, will it be done properly, will it be done in a timely manner, what will it ultimately cost, etc. are all reasonable questions, but not at this point in the debate.
Doesn't depend on how essential internet actually is? Highways and phones, etc are essentials but internet and cable? IMO, not so much.