A big part of the problem is free market isn’t poised to solve things like this in a very large chunk of the country. You have 1 MAYBE 2 high speed internet options in most places.
Probably stems from Google’s recent entry into the ISP market. In the areas they’ve chosen to open up shop, they’ve started crippling their competition in those areas. So even if net neutrality fails, they’re becoming an ISP already so they win either way.
This has been the claim to combat all the (common sense) criticism - that a particular public policy will be promoted by the repeal of NN, namely “investment” and the “innovation” that flows from it. Meaning, the lack of NN regulation will automatically attract loads of investment dollars, which will always and automatically magically work their powers to create new content, ways of doing things, next wave technology, etc.
It’s just rewarmed supply-side in another context. The Ajit Pais of the world always fallback on a theory of lack of government involvement = expansion of development on the supply side of the equation. NN will chase innovation dollars away - let ISPs control things free of regulation, and like magic, we’ll see an explosion of innovation and consumers will never be happier.
Which makes no sense - innovation flows from competition, not from a few feudal lords of the internet who are content to protect existing margins not through developing new ideas and products, but from guarding existing lines of business through self-serving restrictions and tribute.
The GOP is without a doubt the pro-business party, but it isn’t pro-market. Ajit Pai’s move is just one confirmation of that fact.
Lol, ya… Well, short of more SCOTUS rulings there’s not much we can do about that. I’m pretty sure ISPs are already reading everything transmitted iver their infrastructure anyway. The 4th amendment and privacy rights are antiquated concepts it seems.
I’ve said for the longest time, in order for the Chevy Volt to have worked, the infrastructure would have to be put into place. It was not.
Would you consider the cell phone to be considered a winner? Without a network of cell towers, you have nothing, really.
Maybe I’m wrong but. Isn’t net neutrality kinda anti trust prevention? Like the internet, wont raise prices on consumers because we won’t pay for a service that has always been free. However, it makes it possibly harder for new companies to emerge. Hence basically giving Time Warner or what ever global giant the keys to fuck over everyone with no choices. Seems very anti capitalist just to shit on Obama
No. Government involvement doesn’t necessarily mean monopolies won’t form. If you want to limit or avoid “trusts” open up the market. Competition is to trusts what garlic is to vampires.
Do you pay for your internet now? Are you getting it for free? No such thing as a free lunch. I have yet to see any guarantee that the price I’ll pay for internet delivery will go up. Only fear mongers will tell you that it absolutely will. They don’t know as much as I don’t know.
However, maybe you want to elaborate what you mean by “free” b.c thinking about what you said, I don’t think it’s the same thing I’m talking about.
I’m assuming you mean the repealing of NN. It may. It may not. What i’m pretty sure it WILL do is incentivize ISPs to promote internet applications (think Google, Amazon) which don’t utilize massive amount of resources - which would mean possibly promoting little guys, it could also mean making consumers pay more for those services.
Now if a consumer now has to pay for the services of a high traffic application, they’d either find the value in it and pay the price, or substitute away the price change. Depends on the price sensitivity of the consumer in this scenario which choice they’ll make.
Of course this is theoretical as I do not know how the ISPs will respond. I do know how a free(er) market will respond. Innovation and more choice. Some people will like that. Some won’t. We will all adjust and life will continue.
I don’t think it’s to “shit on Obama” unless you know something I don’t.
I also don’t think it’s an “anti capitalist” decision. The ISPs have a duty to maintain their infrastructure and deliver a service as efficiently as possible. I’m mainly worried that the infrastructure development has been hamstrung by regulators to the point where your fears are more likely to come true given that potential new entrants can’t over come the regulatory barriers to entry in terms of capital investing (think physical infrastructure) in order to deliver a competitive service in local markets (think mom and pop internet service provider in local markets).
But again, I don’t know how this will play out - I’ve only really recently begun to sort through the cases and information on this topic - but this is my understanding to this point.
Serious question inc.
How do you forsee a repeal of NN leading to increased innovation and more choice?
The same argument from both sides, right?
We need net neutrality regulations to keep the internet free.
We need to get rid of net neutrality regulations to keep the internet free.
@polo77j, you’ll like this. From a WSJ article on 2018 predictions.
I don’t “forsee” anything to be clear. I have reservations about who owns the infrastructure and ability to deliver services - there’s a constraint I haven’t seen anyone reference yet - but I think that’s a local or state level thing.
I can’t really give a nuanced answer to this question, at least a nuanced as I’d like - I simply don’t have the knowledge of ISP infrastructure and operations to give you a specific answer. However, given the ISPs will now have the lee-way and incentive to really dig into their data and tailor products to meet specific groups of users all while trying to lower costs to them (think infrastructure maintenance - I’d imagine their costs are fucking hyoooge but I could be wrong - I’m not sure at what margin an ISP would operate on for a given service).
The more choice comes through innovation. As I understand it as it is now (under NN), say you and I have Verizon as our ISP but we both use the internet for very different things. Say I’m a gamer and you’re a student. You might stream YouTube videos and attend online classes while I’m on XBox live (or w/e they’re calling it now a days). For the sake of discussion, I’m probably using MORE traffic and costing the ISP more than you, but both you and I are paying the same amount for the service - same upload/download speeds and same rented equipment (modem, etc).
From what I understand under NN, even though our two preferences impose the ISP different levels of costs, they CAN’T innovate any new service products that tailor our two uses better/more efficiently. Instead, it would seem to me that you’re subsidizing my heavier usage while not getting the same value out of it that I would be given our different usage profiles (i.e. for the level of usage you’re using, you theoretically could be paying LESS than you are now). The ISP is restricted, under NN, to treat both consumers as if they are using the same amount of the service and thus has to charge the same price to both of us to cover the costs which I disproportionately create more of when compared to you.
ISPs can now, after repealing NN, develop products catered to our specific tastes and usage levels and deliver better value to you with respect to your past usage, rather than force you to subsidize my heavier usage, lowering the value you’d derive from it. EDIT: it also might incentive me to play less video games and go out and meet a nice girl.
Keep in mind this is hypothetical - I have no insight into how any one ISP might develop any new products to any consumer segment. I do have insight into how service products are developed in a constrained competition based market. It’s a slog but ultimately the products will be developed to better service customers and attract new ones.
As a quick aside, this isn’t and has never been the case. ISPs currently charge based on data usage already. They simply don’t subgroup prices based on the type of data (xbox vs netflix etc).
With the knowledge that high speed internet competition doesn’t exist in large chunks of the country, do you feel ISPs can be trusted to not gut the consumer now that they’re legally allowed to in a more “free” fashion?
Dude, the internet can’t survive in the free market. If it does, it will only do so because of massive price increases. That’s how the free market works, time after time. That’s why computers and televisions are constantly going up in price.
#datmarketfailure
From what I know about their past behavior, I don’t think they’ll “gut” consumers on this service. I do think they’ll offer diverse products at varying levels.
Also, what you’re describing is price gouging - I don’t think these companies will engage in any monopolistic pricing.
However, this is a very vague statement - I’m not saying it’s false but I am curious if you have anything readily available to qualify (quantify?) this statement? i.e. what does “large chunks” consist of? How many consumers do not have reasonable alternatives for ISPs?
At the very least, point me in the direction that isn’t a de-regulation hit piece (I’ve read a lot of those and they’re all a little light on the specifics).
Posted it upthread. It’s a bit dated by now, but I’d be happy to look up a more recent estimate if you’d like.
TBH answering this would probably require some quantifying of “internet” and “large chunks” as you technically have internet anywhere on the planet, it’s just varying speeds.
Most of it stems from being the only member of my family. I’m the only member of my family with access to more than 1 high speed ISP. Most of that stems from my family living in the middle of nowhere, but my parents live in the suburbs of the metro area I live in now and they’ve only got 1 choice.
It is a bit dated. Looking at the charts, specifically the one from 2015 it’s telling me 89% of “Census blocks with housing units” (not entirely sure what that mean - I have a guess; I’ll look into the exact definitions if needed) have at least 2 providers providing at least 10 mbs download and 1 mbs upload speeds (which includes satellite service providers). That 89% is made up of 63% with access to 3+, and 23% 2+ …
I’m not sure what your benchmark is for large chunks, but another thing to consider is, of the 11% not represented in my previous paragraph, what % don’t use or have a desire to use the internet? i.e. they wouldn’t be considered in the market as it operates today. I’d imagine there are reasons why infrastructure hasn’t been invested in to not deliver to 11% of the population under consideration.
I’m using the 10mb/s download speed as reasonable considering there are costs associated with the delivery of the system and I remember dial up (I think I was over the moon with 84 kb/s download speeds haha).
Again, I’m not sure exactly what their definitions are and tbh I don’t really want to dig around for them. However this is a good conversation and worth looking into if we progress deeper.
Found a more recent one
Even when counting access to fixed wireless connections, there are still nearly 50 million households with one 25Mbps provider or none at all.
I’m not a fan of them using the “household” stat instead of warm bodies, fwiw. They justify the change in the 3rd para and I guess it makes sense, I just don’t really understand the need for the change so it makes me suspicious of the reasoning.
Even at lower speeds, tens of millions lack any choice. There were 31.1 million households with exactly one wireline provider offering speeds of at least 10Mbps, and another 6.9 million households with zero providers offering such speeds over wired connections. At the paltry level of 3Mbps download speeds, 19.3 million households had access to one wireline ISP and 4.9 million households had no access at all.
I think that’s reasonable re: “high speed internet.” 10mbps is generally enough for most people in my experience (although this is rapidly changing due to things like smart TVs, amazon firesticks, etc).
Shakes out to ~38mil households with access to 1 or less 10mpbs+ connection.From my very scientific googling of “how msny households in the us” it produces ~126mil households. So roughly 30% of the country fits the above stat.
For arguments sake (unless you want to delve deeper) lets assume businesses don’t require the internet moving foward so we can stick to consumer households.
business DO need the internet lol … but it’s a different conversation … they’re a different class of user.
Interesting charts. The underlying study is even more interesting in terms of infrastructure investments as a result from deregulation. As it stands now, they’re forecasting nex gen infrastructure investment which will include consumer improvements and jobs growth.
With new methods for delivery, aside from “copper based” methods, including fiber and 5g, more reasonable options should alleviate the access issue we’re discussing. I did a quick scan of the study; what I’ve gleaned is from the executive summary.
Interesting to see how the combination of these types of investments and repealing NN affects how we use the internet.
From the study on which the article is based: “By reducing regulations and other barriers that raise costs and slow deployments, more areas of the country can be profitably deployed with advanced fiber and wireless networks.”
There’s a portion in the study that specifically talks about the costs associated with outfitting rural communities with FTTP and 5G next generation infrastructure - it may be, with deregulation, according to the study, beneficial for investment and delivery.
I’m increasingly excited to see how this all pans out. Thanks for the link.
One of the criticisms of repeal of NN is the places that need the infrastructure most to support high speed ISPs (rural areas) are the least likely to be the benefits of infrastructure investment. ROI is nearly impossible to achieve re: next gen infrastructure in rural areas.
I saw a cost analysis of this kinda thing yesterday (I’ll try to dig up the link tomorrow at work). The MAIN driver to the cost analysis surrounding rural areas is an increase average cost per user to accomodate the increase in cost. While this makes sense in a business sense it seems like it may have an adverse effect on these areas, especially around retaining population.
Idk man time will tell. I do know I aint feelin paying for porn, email, paying extra for netflix, Amazon, and Hulu to work the way Im used to. Also if they fuck with my ps4 Im knockin nerds out like kimbo
Not sure about that assertion. Just get ready for higher prices, less choice and worse service. Time to celebrate.
The plot thickens?