Well, kiss the Internet as you know it goodbye...

[Roadwolf]

http://news.yahoo.com/u-appeals-court-kills-net-neutrality-152413671.html

 

Tiered class of sites is the next step... who has the money to pay for fast access is the way of the future (on the hosting side).

[Bill_Walker]

Yet another triumph for oligarchy over democracy.

[Mike]

This quote makes you wonder what world these judges live in:

 

“Without broadband provider market power, consumers, of course, have options . . . They can go to another broadband provider if they want to reach particular edge providers or if their connections to particular edge providers have been degraded.”

The truth is that a huge percentage of users have no effective option and the incumbent provider does, indeed, have "market power" (in the parlance of economics). In many areas, broadband partners enjoy a monopoly, sometimes granted, often abetted, by local municipalities or by the practical barriers to entry into those markets.

[Twisties]

This quote makes you wonder what world these judges live in:

 

“Without broadband provider market power, consumers, of course, have options . . . They can go to another broadband provider if they want to reach particular edge providers or if their connections to particular edge providers have been degraded.”

The truth is that a huge percentage of users have no effective option and the incumbent provider does, indeed, have "market power" (in the parlance of economics). In many areas, broadband partners enjoy a monopoly, sometimes granted, often abetted, by local municipalities or by the practical barriers to entry into those markets.

 

+1

[russell_bynum]

The truth is that a huge percentage of users have no effective option and the incumbent provider does, indeed, have "market power" (in the parlance of economics). In many areas, broadband partners enjoy a monopoly, sometimes granted, often abetted, by local municipalities or by the practical barriers to entry into those markets.

 

Problem...govt regulation has given a few big companies an advantage.

 

Solution: Govt regulation.

 

Sorry, but I can't get behind that.

 

You're absolutely right about broadband providers often having a local monopoly. If that's due to natural barriers, then too bad, so sad. If it's due to back-room govt crap then the answer is to boot the scumbag govt types who created that problem and let the market sort it out. If some provider wants to build some new kick-ass thing and charge extra for access to it, so be it.

[Roadwolf]

Russell, the problem is two fold...

 

1. Utilities are natural monopolies... there are really no practical ways to create competition on the legacy pipes and new infrastructure. I have AT&T in my neighborhood. I have Charter as well. And Hughesnet (what a joke) as options. Notice that there are one player PER delivery method. So, I am stuck for those three "options."

 

2. The second part is not on the access to websites per say, but on the domains themselves and where they are relegated... theoretically now, you would have bigger names online who would pay for a top tier throughput, all the way to the end user, me on my machine at home (or my domain for my design business, on a lower speed network). So not all websites are treated equally. The telecoms are building out new fiber optics, etc. and want to pass that cost onto those willing to pay for those infrastructure costs. So, the open nature of the internet, as it has been generally understood up till now, is probably going to be balkanized. My website will be served on a second or third tier speed and or service/server while the paying big boys get to the front of the line. I have heard that some sites could possibly be dropped altogether (at this point I don't know how that would be possible... with the way the registry of sites is handled). This is the main point of Net Neutrality... and how it was decided today. Maybe an appeals court will set it back right.

[Mike]

Well, the interesting thing will be whether this will encourage innovation and market entry by purveyors of alternative technologies, and whether those technologies will be sufficiently robust to overcome the market power of those currently in the driver's seat.

 

I'm hopeful that we'll see some serious inroads from wireless and satellite providers. And, of course, it remains to be seen what lies beyond the internet. At some point what we think of as the ultimate vehicle for information exchange will be supplanted by a newer technology.

[russell_bynum]

Russell, the problem is two fold...

 

1. Utilities are natural monopolies... there are really no practical ways to create competition on the legacy pipes and new infrastructure. I have AT&T in my neighborhood. I have Charter as well. And Hughesnet (what a joke) as options. Notice that there are one player PER delivery method. So, I am stuck for those three "options."

 

I don't see that as a real issue. If it made financial sense for Charter to pull fiber in your neighborhood, then why wouldn't it make sense for Verizon or Comcast or Dave's High Speed Cable service to do it as well?

 

 

 

 

 

The telecoms are building out new fiber optics, etc. and want to pass that cost onto those willing to pay for those infrastructure costs.

 

That's completely reasonable.

 

So, the open nature of the internet, as it has been generally understood up till now, is probably going to be balkanized. My website will be served on a second or third tier speed and or service/server while the paying big boys get to the front of the line. I have heard that some sites could possibly be dropped altogether (at this point I don't know how that would be possible... with the way the registry of sites is handled). This is the main point of Net Neutrality... and how it was decided today. Maybe an appeals court will set it back right.

 

Want better/quicker? Pay more.

 

Makes perfect sense to me. If I want a slow car, I buy a Honda Fit. If I wanted a fast car, I'd pay more for a 3-series. And if I wanted a really fast car, I'd pay for a Veyron. It doesn't make sense to make someone else, who would be perfectly happy with a Honda Fit, pay for my Veyron.

 

Or am I missing something?

[RTJohn]

I wonder if these are the same judges who said during Mobil v Castrol, that "synthetic oil" was just a marketing term...?

[Roadwolf]

Russell,

 

If the internet and it's infrastructure truly was a product of free enterprise, then you may have a case... but it benefits from:

 

1. The public investment in the creation of the internet.

 

2. Public Utility Commissions at the state level that regulate what other competitors can do in that same space.

 

If we took your analogy of the cost benefit of rolling out to remote areas as well, we wouldn't have electricity in some locations from the 30s onwards (FDR's Rural Electrification initiative, giving money to telecoms in their day to roll out service was the only way to put the carrot on the stick to get Ma Bell to service the areas that weren't highly profitable).

 

I think that the internet has become a utility in the same way as electricity, sewage and water. Not life dependent, but every area of a person's life has been changed/touched by access to the Net. Paying bills, getting information on just about everything, connectivity with work and the ability to do work... you name it.

 

I am with Mike though, that the current distribution model will change... that is the one thing constant in technology... change.

 

I am reminded of a recent talk with Bill Moyers and a telecommunications expert and how the difference in philosophy between Europe and the US and how they treated broadband, both in access and in raw speed. We truly are behind the times in this regard. And the telecoms and their avarice will continue to keep that status quo.

[Mike]

 

Or am I missing something?

 

I don't know if you're missing something, but in many areas the landlines are regulated in the same manner as utilities. In our town, where the city owns the electrical utility and a good portion of the rights of way where an ISP would run its cable, only two companies have been granted that right, under a licensing scheme where they pay the city for the privilege. Where I live, only one of the two companies has seen fit to actually run the cables.

 

Of course, DSL, satellite and wireless remain options, but the latter two have been successful in seriously limiting their data packages while maintaining high rates.

 

We've got two houses. In our primary home, there are only two viable choices for high speed internet: Comcast cable or AT&T DSL. The other over the air options are just too expensive and unreliable to be considered in the running. In our cabin--where we occasionally like to do some work, there's no cable access and no DSL lines. Satellite and somewhat weak LTE are the only options for connecting. We connect via a wireless hotspot, but there's no practical or economical way to download large data packages (not entirely bad, as it discourages sitting in front of a computer).

 

There may be places where there are myriad options; I just haven't seen it in my own life. In some economists' view of the world, the market always responds to a void, but the truth is that market failures often occur for a variety of reasons.

[russell_bynum]

If we took your analogy of the cost benefit of rolling out to remote areas as well, we wouldn't have electricity in some locations from the 30s onwards (FDR's Rural Electrification initiative, giving money to telecoms in their day to roll out service was the only way to put the carrot on the stick to get Ma Bell to service the areas that weren't highly profitable).

 

I have no problem with that. If I want to live out in the boonies (which I would love to do, btw), then I accept that I may not have the same infrastructure that I'd have if I lived in a more populated area.

 

 

I think that the internet has become a utility in the same way as electricity, sewage and water. Not life dependent, but every area of a person's life has been changed/touched by access to the Net. Paying bills, getting information on just about everything, connectivity with work and the ability to do work... you name it.

 

People go to Starbucks everyday too...should we mandate a starbucks every 3 miles?

 

And BTW...not everyone has taxpayer funded water and sewer at their house. I suspect the same is true for electricity, though probably to a lesser degree.

 

 

And the telecoms and their avarice will continue to keep that status quo.

 

Or we could stop the taxpayer funded (i.e. govt mandated) monopolies and let the market work.

[John Ranalletta]

Follow the money. It always leads to the truth:

From 2002 through 2012, officials and organizations associated with the three largest U.S. telecom companies -- Verizon, AT&T and Sprint -- spent a combined $52.7 million on campaign contributions, according to a review of records compiled by the open government group Center for Responsive Politics. Of that total, $29.3 million were donations to federal candidates from political action committees tied to the companies, a more direct form of political influence peddling.

[russell_bynum]

We've got two houses. In our primary home, there are only two viable choices for high speed internet: Comcast cable or AT&T DSL. The other over the air options are just too expensive and unreliable to be considered in the running. In our cabin--where we occasionally like to do some work, there's no cable access and no DSL lines. Satellite and somewhat weak LTE are the only options for connecting. We connect via a wireless hotspot, but there's no practical or economical way to download large data packages (not entirely bad, as it discourages sitting in front of a computer).

 

And you knew that when you built Borah Borah (or you should have, if that was something that was important to you.) I have family in the same situation, btw...the only viable option for internet service for them is an LTE hotspot. It works. You can't have 4 people streaming HD video at the same time like you can at our house, but all of the basics are there. As a consumer, you get to decide if living in the boonies is worth not having high-speed internet and a bus stop a 100 yards from your door. I don't see a problem with that.

 

There may be places where there are myriad options; I just haven't seen it in my own life. In some economists' view of the world, the market always responds to a void, but the truth is that market failures often occur for a variety of reasons.

 

If there isn't sufficient demand to fill the void, then it wasn't a market failure.

[russell_bynum]

Follow the money. It always leads to the truth:

 

That goes without saying. Or...it should, anyway.

[Mike]

We've got two houses. In our primary home, there are only two viable choices for high speed internet: Comcast cable or AT&T DSL. The other over the air options are just too expensive and unreliable to be considered in the running. In our cabin--where we occasionally like to do some work, there's no cable access and no DSL lines. Satellite and somewhat weak LTE are the only options for connecting. We connect via a wireless hotspot, but there's no practical or economical way to download large data packages (not entirely bad, as it discourages sitting in front of a computer).

 

And you knew that when you built Borah Borah (or you should have, if that was something that was important to you.) I have family in the same situation, btw...the only viable option for internet service for them is an LTE hotspot. It works. You can't have 4 people streaming HD video at the same time like you can at our house, but all of the basics are there. As a consumer, you get to decide if living in the boonies is worth not having high-speed internet and a bus stop a 100 yards from your door. I don't see a problem with that.

 

There may be places where there are myriad options; I just haven't seen it in my own life. In some economists' view of the world, the market always responds to a void, but the truth is that market failures often occur for a variety of reasons.

 

If there isn't sufficient demand to fill the void, then it wasn't a market failure.

 

Right, but market failures can be facilitated by a monopolist or a well-organized oligopoly.

 

I'm generally on board with your viewpoint, but I also think that it's a far more complicated situation . . . largely because of the fact that multiple levels of government have their hands in the pot, but also because the incumbents have significant power to interrupt successful entry (again, in part due to the fact that they've been able to influence government action in support of their market positions).

 

As far as being in the sticks is concerned, I'm with you. That's nothing I didn't anticipate. But, it's simply one illustration of the fact that there are often substantial logistical and regulatory barriers to entry that are unique to each market.

 

This will all take care of itself at some point. The internet as we know it is a flash in the pan, or at least it will be viewed that one at some point a decade or a few down the road. The question is whether, in the meantime, government intervention screws it up or makes it better for a larger number of people.

[russell_bynum]

I'm generally on board with your viewpoint, but I also think that it's a far more complicated situation . . . largely because of the fact that multiple levels of government have their hands in the pot, but also because the incumbents have significant power to interrupt successful entry (again, in part due to the fact that they've been able to influence government action in support of their market positions).

 

I completely agree. Rather than winding more regulations around the problem, I'd rather go the other way. Especially since regulations almost always benefit the people in power...whcih right now, is the big phone and cable companies.

 

 

As far as being in the sticks is concerned, I'm with you. That's nothing I didn't anticipate. But, it's simply one illustration of the fact that there are often substantial logistical and regulatory barriers to entry that are unique to each market.

 

Absolutely. My point was that if you remove the artificial barriers (taxpayer-funded monopolies), and it makes sense for Joe's High Speed Internet and Tree Trimming Service to run fiber through your neighborhood, then they'll do it. If it doesn't, they won't. If they do, then you've got another choice. If they don't, then you're no worse off than you are today.

 

This will all take care of itself at some point. The internet as we know it is a flash in the pan, or at least it will be viewed that one at some point a decade or a few down the road. The question is whether, in the meantime, government intervention screws it up or makes it better for a larger number of people.

 

Totally agree. Given the history of govt meddling, I'm going to say we'd be better off if they left it alone.

[John Ranalletta]

Purportedly, 30% of net traffic is porn and 53% is consumed by video streaming. Likely, there's an overlap, but let's assume not. If the result of this ruling is a dramatic increase for video streaming, these subsets totaling 83% of total usage will bear the brunt of the increases. Not sure whether video conferencing is including in the video steaming but that segment is growing exponentially to save travel costs.

 

Most schools are starved for bandwidth because they can't afford to install big pipes to support hundreds of users. Don't know how much of the streaming is for legitimate educational use.

 

When something is free, people will use it injudiciously. Who would pay for TedX, ersatz Google videos of guys falling off of ladders, ice tsunamis, GoPro vids, etc.

 

Lots of stuff will be deemed of not much value when priced. Probably about time.

 

[Twisties]

Purportedly, 30% of net traffic is porn and 53% is consumed by video streaming. Likely, there's an overlap, but let's assume not. If the result of this ruling is a dramatic increase for video streaming, these subsets totaling 83% of total usage will bear the brunt of the increases. Not sure whether video conferencing is including in the video steaming but that segment is growing exponentially to save travel costs.

 

Most schools are starved for bandwidth because they can't afford to install big pipes to support hundreds of users. Don't know how much of the streaming is for legitimate educational use.

 

When something is free, people will use it injudiciously. Who would pay for TedX, ersatz Google videos of guys falling off of ladders, ice tsunamis, GoPro vids, etc.

 

Lots of stuff will be deemed of not much value when priced. Probably about time.

 

I don't have too much problem with them charging more for heavy users, e.g. monthly download steps. This strikes me as something completely different, and disturbing. Now my ISP can say which websites I can and can not visit. It may throttle some sites and promote other sites in it's financial interest. Not on the basis pipe size, but on the basis of financial relationships between these entities. I think Chris nailed it with the title of this thread.

[John Ranalletta]

Now my ISP can say which websites I can and can not visit. It may throttle some sites and promote other sites in it's financial interest. Not on the basis pipe size, but on the basis of financial relationships between these entities. I think Chris nailed it with the title of this thread.

How does that differ from your local grocer deciding (without your approval) which products to display based on profitability?

[Blind Squirrel]

When something is free, people will use it injudiciously.

 

IMO, truer words have not been spoken (or written ).

[Antimatter]

Now my ISP can say which websites I can and can not visit. It may throttle some sites and promote other sites in it's financial interest. Not on the basis pipe size, but on the basis of financial relationships between these entities. I think Chris nailed it with the title of this thread.

How does that differ from your local grocer deciding (without your approval) which products to display based on profitability?

 

There's always other grocery stores. Only in this case of internet privatization, all the roads that lead to the store are also owned by the store. In the case of grocery selection and competition, public roads are a good thing. Telecom infrastructure should be a public good; the FCC should decide on the best way to provide communication to the largest number of people, and private providers can compete within that framework. Don't like your ISP blacking out your favorite conservative/liberal site? Switch with no loss of bandwidth or service. That'll convince providers not to mess with content selection, and motivate them to provide the largest number of products at the lowest cost.

 

Access to the internet is a huge part of our daily lives now, especially when it comes to employment. If you lose your job, many experts will advise you to keep your internet connection because it is so important for communicating with potential employers.

 

I'm really afraid of ISP's being bought by large internet companies, and those companies using their ISP's to stifle competition. Imagine Amazon buying a bunch of ISP's, then making it virtually impossible for someone with a better idea to make contact with possible consumers. Did you say something bad about Amazon on your blog? Suddenly, no-one can access it, oh, and your email account doesn't work anymore, also. Better watch what you say...

[Twisties]

Now my ISP can say which websites I can and can not visit. It may throttle some sites and promote other sites in it's financial interest. Not on the basis pipe size, but on the basis of financial relationships between these entities. I think Chris nailed it with the title of this thread.

How does that differ from your local grocer deciding (without your approval) which products to display based on profitability?

 

There's always other grocery stores. Only in this case of internet privatization, all the roads that lead to the store are also owned by the store. In the case of grocery selection and competition, public roads are a good thing. Telecom infrastructure should be a public good; the FCC should decide on the best way to provide communication to the largest number of people, and private providers can compete within that framework. Don't like your ISP blacking out your favorite conservative/liberal site? Switch with no loss of bandwidth or service. That'll convince providers not to mess with content selection, and motivate them to provide the largest number of products at the lowest cost.

 

Access to the internet is a huge part of our daily lives now, especially when it comes to employment. If you lose your job, many experts will advise you to keep your internet connection because it is so important for communicating with potential employers.

 

I'm really afraid of ISP's being bought by large internet companies, and those companies using their ISP's to stifle competition. Imagine Amazon buying a bunch of ISP's, then making it virtually impossible for someone with a better idea to make contact with possible consumers. Did you say something bad about Amazon on your blog? Suddenly, no-one can access it, oh, and your email account doesn't work anymore, also. Better watch what you say...

 

What he said, plus this: a grocery store, by it's nature, must make such choices. It could not possibly stock all options. The internet is a different matter in terms of it's development, history, and technology.

[John Ranalletta]

a grocery store, by it's nature, must make such choices.

I don't think so. It gets to make those choices because it bought the land, built the building, hired the help and pays its vendor.

 

Let's just nationalize the web and telecommunications. I'm sure Uncle can manage it.

[Antimatter]

a grocery store, by it's nature, must make such choices.

I don't think so. It gets to make those choices because it bought the land, built the building, hired the help and pays its vendor.

 

Let's just nationalize the web and telecommunications. I'm sure Uncle can manage it.

 

Does anyone remember the railroads? During the 1800's they became the dominant force in transportation of goods and services to the US population. So much so, that they used their monopoly status to skim huge profits off producers and shippers. It got so bad, that the population demanded the government do something about it, which it did by developing the system of public roads that we have now. To be sure, the interstate highway system was a response to the red menace after WW2, but the idea of a network of roads that everyone could use came out of that initial conflict between the robber barons who ran the railroads, and the rest of the country who wanted other options for traveling and moving goods to market.

 

Unless we want to have multiple separate, non-overlapping systems what prevent competition (like US cell phone service), we shouldn't divvy up access to the internet to a handful of private corporations. Private enterprise always does better when it has an open playing field that allows innovation and destruction of inefficient entities. Private ownership of public goods with inelastic demand always leads to bad outcomes, since it's the nature of unregulated capitalism to evolve into a monopolistic state.

[John Ranalletta]

Private enterprise always does better when it has an open playing field that allows innovation and destruction of inefficient entities.

I agree, which is why the telecoms should have the same opportunity to price themselves out of the market as the railroad companies of old. Having the government remove barriers weakens innovation and progress.

[chrisolson]

Its interesting that if you read the actual decision, its apparent that the judges agreed with many of the basic conclusions that lead the FCC to create the rules under discussion. However the central and only point that the court based its decsion on was specifically ...

 

Thus, we must determine whether the requirements imposed by the Open Internet Order subject broadband providers to common carrier treatment. If they do, then given the manner in which the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers, the regulations cannot stand.

 

The Judges left in place the provision that wireless and wireline broadband providers disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of their services.

[russell_bynum]

Telecom infrastructure should be a public good; the FCC should decide on the best way to provide communication to the largest number of people, and private providers can compete within that framework. Don't like your ISP blacking out your favorite conservative/liberal site? Switch with no loss of bandwidth or service.

 

That's a horrible idea.

 

Over the years, I've switched from dialup to cable to DSL the fiber-based internet service, as pricing and availability matched my demand. Maybe next year it'll be some super-duper wireless technology. Or lasers. Or nano-robots who carry the individual data packets at the speed of light. Who knows....but I want the option.

 

The very last thing I want is some government-mandated least-common-denominator solution.

 

I want innovation and govt regulation almost always stifles innovation.

 

Technology moves fast. The government, by design (and this is a good thing) moves slowly. It will ALWAYS be behind and, at best, reactionary. By the time it comes up with new regulations to fit the technology, it will be irrelevant anyway. No thanks.

[chrisolson]

Not to pick on you specifically Russell, but exactly what are these highly touted inovations that were / or would be stifled under continuing the Open Internet Order ? It seems that Verizon, etc only talk the talk, but specifics for consumers are non existent. The only true inovation being stifled _by their own admission_ was their ability to create a tiered access/bandwidth payment structure for edge-providers (think Netflix). Now, I'm not saying that's bad, but its a far cry from this new and exciting internet experience that's envoked as being under attack.

[Twisties]

a grocery store, by it's nature, must make such choices.

I don't think so. It gets to make those choices because it bought the land, built the building, hired the help and pays its vendor.

 

Let's just nationalize the web and telecommunications. I'm sure Uncle can manage it.

 

As far as I understand the ownership and development of the internet, which I admit is poorly, the ownership here is very different. Your ISP only owns one end of the pipe. Others own other pieces. They all put them on based on a history and expectation that traffic will be carried... a mutual aid agreement of sorts. The development and operation of certain parts, and the rules that allow the whole thing to work came from government or quasi government agencies established by law. Altering net neutrality makes the entire operation questionable. One can see the potential for turf wars and power struggles at various levels of infrastructure to the detriment of users, just as we see now with television programming.

 

Is this piece I found fair?

 

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/who-owns-internet1.htm

[russell_bynum]

Not to pick on you specifically Russell, but exactly what are these highly touted inovations that were / or would be stifled under continuing the Open Internet Order ? It seems that Verizon, etc only talk the talk, but specifics for consumers are non existent. The only true inovation being stifled _by their own admission_ was their ability to create a tiered access/bandwidth payment structure for edge-providers (think Netflix). Now, I'm not saying that's bad, but its a far cry from this new and exciting internet experience that's envoked as being under attack.

 

That's a fair question.

 

First...you can't specify what innovation would be stifled because who knows what's coming next?

 

Second...I was primarily responding to Antimatter's statement that we should make internet access universal. In that case, you would be expanding the taxpayer funded monopolies that a few companies have, making it even harder (or legally impossible) for alternatives to pop up.

 

This specific situation (Net Neutrality)...I have no idea. I know that I want access to everything and I don't like the idea of my ISP deciding where I can and can't go. But I have an even greater dislike, (and a lack of trust) for the idea of the govt forcing the issue.

[John Ranalletta]

Seems the argument is, "I like free enterprise unless it costs more or causes me an inconvenience. When either event happens, I want the government to step in and make it 'freer'."

[chrisolson]

Seems the argument is, "I like free enterprise unless it costs more or causes me an inconvenience. When either event happens, I want the government to step in and make it 'freer'."

When the free enterprise you speak of becomes an effective monopoly, then what say you? Based on multiple studies, anywhere between 50 and 75 percent of Americans have only one viable choice of broadband ISP.

 

I think that ISPs making more money from edge-providers (which in turn will pass on to consumers) is not the primary problem for many. That's the market at work. Its the unintended consequences of having truly discriminatory actions become possible.

[russell_bynum]

Seems the argument is, "I like free enterprise unless it costs more or causes me an inconvenience. When either event happens, I want the government to step in and make it 'freer'."

When the free enterprise you speak of becomes an effective monopoly, then what say you? Based on multiple studies, anywhere between 50 and 75 percent of Americans have only one viable choice of broadband ISP.

 

And how much of that is due to govt sleazyness? (i.e. taxpayer-funded monopoly?

 

Wait...wait..no....wait...I got it....

First we use tax dollars to create a monopoly via govt regulations.

Then we pay high prices because of the monopoly.

Then we get pissed about paying high prices because of the monopoly that we payed to have created, so we use tax dollars to create more govt regulations and we somehow think that will fix the problem.

 

Why not just unwind the thing that caused the problem in the first place?

[chrisolson]

Seems the argument is, "I like free enterprise unless it costs more or causes me an inconvenience. When either event happens, I want the government to step in and make it 'freer'."

When the free enterprise you speak of becomes an effective monopoly, then what say you? Based on multiple studies, anywhere between 50 and 75 percent of Americans have only one viable choice of broadband ISP.

 

And how much of that is due to govt sleazyness? (i.e. taxpayer-funded monopoly?

 

Ok, ya totally lost me. I don't see Verizon, Comcast, Cox or any of the others as taxpayer funded monopolies. The question was only to point out that the situation is complex and not as simple as "free enterprise is good and government regulation is bad".

 

Returning to the OP re: Net Neutrality, there is one thing that is simple ... follow the money because that's all its really about. The new business models touted by the ISPs are nothing more that ways to enhance revenue. And that's not necessarily bad. Its just that there is always some collateral damage and its the purview of regulators to assess how bad (or not) that damage may be.

[DiggerJim]

Yet another triumph for oligarchy over democracy.

It ain't over until the appeals are decided. It's not like the content providers like Netflix are going to say "oh well, too bad for us" - they've got buckets of money too.

 

All it takes is someone to make the case that it's racially/economically discriminatory and we'll see everyone from the ACLU to Sharpton and other activists jumping in to help. The truth is most people don't have a choice of providers and the current providers enjoyed protection from market competition by government regulation. If they're not careful they may get the electric deregulation model shoved down their throats - okay Comcast, yes you paid to pull all that fiber...but in the new competitive environment you'll need to allow other vendors to supply the content...yep, wires by Comcast, cable service by Cox and Internet by ATT. Think they're gonna want that? That's what lots of us have now for electricity - generation & transmission are separate and the old generation company that paid for all the lines was forced to divest of a lot of generation capacity and has to carry the power generated by new folks whose sales pitch is "we're cheaper than the old guys and will guarantee we'll stay cheaper".

[russell_bynum]

Ok, ya totally lost me. I don't see Verizon, Comcast, Cox or any of the others as taxpayer funded monopolies.

 

I was talking about stuff like this, which Mike said " In many areas, broadband partners enjoy a monopoly, sometimes granted, often abetted, by local municipalities or by the practical barriers to entry into those markets."

 

Everything government does, it does with taxpayer funds. Therefore, if the government is granting a monopoly to a particular vendor, that is a taxpayer-funded monopoly.

 

The question was only to point out that the situation is complex and not as simple as "free enterprise is good and government regulation is bad".

 

I agree. It's a matter of the lesser of two evils. I'll take the market over govt almost every time...especially since the govt is often heavily influenced (if not outright bought) by a handful of big businesses.

 

Its just that there is always some collateral damage and its the purview of regulators to assess how bad (or not) that damage may be.

 

Keeping in mind, of course, that those regulators might as well be on Verizon, Comcast, etc's payroll....

[Bill_Walker]

It comes down to this: historically, the structure of the internet (which was originally created by the government) is based on cooperation, not competition, and allows pretty much equal access to all, without prioritizing traffic based on additional payments. Some of the carriers and other free market religionists think this should be changed to a "pay for priority" model, ignoring that aspects of the internet serve the common good (hell, some even disavow the concept of the common good). The internet today is the conduit for public participation in our democracy. This ruling is just another step in selling our democracy to the highest bidder.

[Sonor]

This is a very good article on the topic.

 

MIT on Net Neutrality

[Roadwolf]

Alright Bill, that seals it.. packing up to San Marcos and voting for you in the next election...

[John Ranalletta]

the structure of the internet (which was originally created by the government)

Then, I suppose you're opposed to tolls on highways?

 

If the government built the roads, should it buy every one a car? Highways and roads are essential to participation in government, commerce, etc. as well.

[Antimatter]

the structure of the internet (which was originally created by the government)

Then, I suppose you're opposed to tolls on highways?

 

If the government built the roads, should it buy every one a car? Highways and roads are essential to participation in government, commerce, etc. as well.

 

I am. It's a horribly regressive form of taxation that sticks it to the people with the least ability to pay. Selling the roads to a private vendor is even a worse idea; I predict that in 10 years or so when the roads need major work, the vendors will abandon them and take the profits from the tolls elsewhere.

[Bill_Walker]

the structure of the internet (which was originally created by the government)

Then, I suppose you're opposed to tolls on highways?

 

Absolutely. Toll roads are an abomination, IMHO. Having grown up in California, which until relatively recently had no toll roads (although it did have toll bridges), I was shocked when I visited relatives in Illinois and first drove on a toll road, with plazas every few miles to stop and pay toll. My reaction was "Why on earth would the populace put up with this?"

 

If the government built the roads, should it buy every one a car? Highways and roads are essential to participation in government, commerce, etc. as well.

 

Reductio ad absurdum.

 

There's a difference between infrastructure, which is a public good, and personal possessions which may be desirable to use that infrastructure. Government provides alternative access to those who can't afford a car via subsidized mass transit. It provides alternative access to those who can't afford a computer and internet service by providing them in libraries.

[Bill_Walker]

Then, I suppose you're opposed to tolls on highways?...

 

I am. It's a horribly regressive form of taxation that sticks it to the people with the least ability to pay. Selling the roads to a private vendor is even a worse idea; I predict that in 10 years or so when the roads need major work, the vendors will abandon them and take the profits from the tolls elsewhere.

 

Exactly. Like every form of "flat" tax, it seems intuitively fair at first, but when looked at as a percentage of income, it's shown to be an extreme burden on the poor and a trivial expense for the rich. And the model of "privatization" of public services has over and over been shown to be one of privatized profits and socialized losses.

[russell_bynum]

It comes down to this: historically, the structure of the internet (which was originally created by the government) is based on cooperation, not competition, and allows pretty much equal access to all, without prioritizing traffic based on additional payments. Some of the carriers and other free market religionists think this should be changed to a "pay for priority" model, ignoring that aspects of the internet serve the common good (hell, some even disavow the concept of the common good).

 

There are many sites on the internet that already require payment for access.

 

And I'll point out that nobody gave a crap about the internet until people started figuring out how to make money on it. Before that, it was just a handful of pocket-protector-wearing geeks in academia.

 

The internet today is the conduit for public participation in our democracy. This ruling is just another step in selling our democracy to the highest bidder.

 

Requiring people to pay to access certain parts of the internet is not "selling our democracy to the highest bidder. The same thing is true for print media, TV, and radio. You have to pay to play. (And for about the sixteen millionth time, we were never intended to have a democracy.)

 

And the problem with the "Common good" is it's usually just an emotion-fueled catch phrase to trick gullible people into doing what the "highest bidder" wants to do and has absolutely nothing to do with "common" anything.

[Roadwolf]

Sure there is the common good (also referred as the Commons)…

 

Like getting back and forth on taxpayer supported road ways (both public AND COMMERCIAL transport)… the common good.

 

The NIH and CDC and disease control… taxpayer funded experimental trials on new treatments for illnesses… the common good.

 

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, dredging the harbor to allow for larger container ships to enter the port, expediting commerce between nations… the common good.

 

Patents and trademark protection for big and smaller businesses, protecting innovation in the courts and securing your widget's right to be produced, keeping a lot of entrepreneurs and innovators always on the edge of newer discoveries…. for the common good.

 

EPA and other efforts to limit pollution in waterways, emissions, etc…. for the common good.

 

Many more examples abound...

 

I think I have made my point.

[TyTass]

Actually Chris, I agree with many of your examples but I believe you missed emphasizing the biggest one; the one that is probably the best analogy to this discussion ... The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System.

 

This is IMO the best example of the federal government creating and maintaining infrastructure (albeit we can certainly complain about road maintenance, that's for sure ). And to my mind, creating and maintaining infrastructure is what I see as the Federal government acting upon several elements of its mission statement ... i.e., promoting the general Welfare, providing from the common defense, and perhaps insuring domestic Tranquility.

 

Yes, I agree those elements of the Preamble are very general, but those are WAY less general than "the common good." Russell's point about the variable definition of "the common good" being able to be perverted by the excitement of the masses is a valid one. And most of all, your repeating of "the Common Good" evokes in me the memory of the scene from "Hott Fuzz" where Det. Angel is confronting the NWA where they are all dressed in their cloaks, ready to do murder, repeating their mantra in monotone unison as a prayer ... "the greater good." Probably not how you intended it, but I just can't get that image out of my mind! Those semantics aside, I agree with you.

 

Like the Internet, the Interstate system was indeed originated by the government, even before there was any serious amount traffic to ride on it or a great number of businesses able to make money from the fact of it's use. Admittedly, some people did make money just from the fact of it being built - some of those in a corrupt fashion - and some lost money due to the fact of it being built - when their businesses located on older highways were being bypassed and perhaps due to eminent domain (though I don't personally know occurred). However, shortly after it was being built, lots of people found out how to make money off it and that continued through it's expansion.

 

The fact that there has indeed been government mismanagement and a history of corruption, especially around the letting of building contracts, doesn't mean that the Interstate system should never have been built nor that the government should allow private industry to take it over in the belief that private industry would be more efficient in its management. While probably so, soon after we would see HOV lanes becoming tremendously expensive and people would probably be able to buy head-of-the-line-express or "filtering" passes.

 

While the privatization model may sound REALLY enticing to some folks ( Russell), I don't think the disorder caused by and the selectivity inherent in such a system is very effective either.

 

All that said, I do see where the analogy is not perfect. The Interstate example would probably be a better example if the surface roads leading to the interstate had been built and owned by private industry.

 

I don't know for certain not fully understanding the full structure of the Internet. Russell?

 

[Roadwolf]

Craig, a very good response… much I agree with… my list was created at the end of a very long day and I am surprised at myself for not including it… which brings up another analogy in the same vein…

 

You brought up HOV lanes and such… I think we might be seeing a push for delivery of content (from the hosting side) that is similar. Instead of looking at all those cars in the right most lanes as folks ACCESSING the internet… let's look at them as companies, organizations and individuals with content on the web… now, with this recent ruling on Net Neutrality, you have the backbone providers (Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, and a few others) creating HOV lanes for higher paying content providers. So, you have a service, pay for access to the HOV lane and get to the top of the food chain… your services and speed at which end users hit your domain is prominent… on the higher tier… all the investment on infrastructure costs goes to these guys… the others are left behind (or not served up at all, where a competing product or service that is at odds with the firm that created that HOV is held back… my term earlier at the Balkanization of the Net). Interestingly, in the few days since I started this thread, I have found that it is really a rule change that takes it back into the purview of the FCC. All they have to do is redefine the ISPs as common carriers and they can fix this.

[John Ranalletta]

Exactly. Like every form of "flat" tax, it seems intuitively fair at first, but when looked at as a percentage of income, it's shown to be an extreme burden on the poor and a trivial expense for the rich.

So, the state decides to build another highway and pave the last remaining piece of bare earth in SoCal; however, instead of building toll road so it can be paid for by users, some poor bastard in Medocino county who doesn't own a car or will never drive one in SoCal gets to pay for it. Yep. That's fair.

 

Or, maybe, toll roads should means test users, say, by year or model of car.

[Roadwolf]

"So, the state decides to build another highway and pave the last remaining piece of bare earth in SoCal; however, instead of building toll road so it can be paid for by users, some poor bastard in Medocino county who doesn't own a car or will never drive one in SoCal gets to pay for it. Yep. That's fair."

 

Yep… eminently fair. Mr. I-don't-have-a car does go to his local grocery store by bicycle or walking to it and buys the bananas in the produce aisle that was delivered by truck USING the roadway he does not use. He benefits, indirectly. Same argument is used by the childless who have to pay for public schools via tax dollars. An educated workforce benefits all.