I agree that state regulatory agencies will likely be able to stop the internet if they so desire. I doubt @Basement_Gainz disagrees.
Not only is that not what I meant, but itās a hilariously adorable statement.
I say that in the way my daughter once thought itād be a cool idea to power a city with a big building of hamsters running on wheels like in a cartoon she saw. Me and the Mrs both went āawwwwwā
2 Likes
Except the āmanā in this āmanmadeā is incompetent/corrupt government. The ISP that pays off the right regulator will never get nailed by this law.
Even better, if you have a pesky, sue happy customer base in neighborhood āAā (and you didnāt pay off the right people) it will be cheaper for the ISP to just stop providing internet to neighborhood āAā altogether. 0 mbps promised 0 mbps delivered, no throttling. Mission accomplished.
Itās not that meddling in markets is wrong, itās just that they havenāt been allowed to do enough of it yet.
Which only existed for what, 4 years or so on the federal level?
2 Likes
Because the govt is the one throttling your interwebz? Guess Iām missing something here
Itās almost like a federal standard is designed to stop exactly this.
Iām alright with that. Supply and demand means another company steps in to supply the need.
Unless throttling customers provides more cost savings than giving them what they pay for provides revenue (ROFL) I donāt think thereās much risk here.
Which isā¦? Plenty of time to see how it negatively impacts the market the way you claim? On how it was stiffling innovation (because tech companies are having cash flow problems and canāt afford to do research lol)
Or did you mean that CA would have enacted this new terrible law even if the federal stuff stayed in place?
I canāt explain why California does what they do. Not sure anyone right of Jerry Brown can understand it.
The FCC getting a title 2 approval review of any change ISPs want to make? They can refuse for any reason. That would help large established ISPs and CREATE a barrier to entry for smaller more nimble ones. Same thing with paid priority. Customers should be able to choose from ISPs with and without paid priority.
As far as stifling investment and innovation, when the head of the FCC complains about the regulatory burden of the FCC. maybe we should listen. In before ābut he worked for Verizon once!ā
āAmong our nationās 12 largest internet service providers,ā he told the audience, ādomestic broadband capital expenditures decreased by 5.6%, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016.ā I ask him to elaborate. āAs Iāve seen it and heard it,ā he says, āTitle II regulations have stood in the way of investment. Just last week, for instance, we heard from 19 municipal broadband providers. These are small, government-owned ISPs who told us that āeven though we lack a profit motive, Title II has affected the way we do business.ā ā
The small ISPs reported that Title II was preventing them from rolling out new services and deepening their networks. āThese are the kinds of companies that we want to provide a competitive alternative in the marketplace,ā Mr. Pai says. āIt seems to me theyāre the canaries in the coal mine. If the smaller companies are telling us that the regulatory overhang is too much, that it hangs like a black cloud over our businessesāas 22 separate ISPs told us three weeks agoāthen it seems to me thereās a problem here that needs to be solved.ā
https://www.dailywire.com/news/18613/7-reasons-net-neutrality-idiotic-aaron-bandler
1 Like
Iām by no means defending every article NN had. Merely itās main goal.
So a federal standard of not intentionally robbing customers of performance merely to save hardware life creates a barrier for small companies?
In many parts of the country, they canāt with or without NN. Then remove the rules that stop monopolistic tendencies, and you have unbreakable oligopoly territories.
It reminds me of when Wall Street complains about the regulatory burdens. Then they cash their 7 figure bonus checks and I just laugh.
So in order to promote capitalism, weāre specifically removing barriers that hit govt owned ISPs in an effort to take profits away from companies and funnel them into the govt?
I canāt wait for these types of companies to start showing up. Any day now.
Edit: and from your article
āIf there is to be a standard for consumer protection with regard to ISPs, then perhaps it would better for Congress to pass a clear statute that maintains light regulation on the ISP market while returning the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to its role of being the enforcer in such matters.ā
They have plenty of nukes. No people: no internet.
Ah thatās the direction (state reg agencies control nukes? News to me)
I retract my prior statement. My daughters idea was much more realistic and awwww inducing.
Of course not! The folks controlling nukes control regulating agencies.
Heh. Itās a partisan appointment. And if youāve seen his āargumentā, all he really does is repeat the magic words āinvestmentā and āinnovationā.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, we know that monopolistic concerns donāt prioritize innovation for the simple fact that they have market capture and there is no spur of losing customers to a rival in the marketplace. Nimble companies competing for market share innovate - big, overfed monopolists who are essentially guaranteed market share donāt.
But, I do think it is fantastically hilarious and ironic that a libertarian is telling us to forget what we learned in economics class and listen to the lead bureaucrat at the government agency of that regulates this space for the truth.
2 Likes
Personally Iām still struggling with how we need to loosen up the regs so all of the social (not for profit) govt owned companies can compete. Thatās something Iād normally expect out of Zep.
No. Having to ask permission from big daddy FCC if you can add bandwidth here or change your service in any way stifles operations and hurts small companies more than larger ones. Helping those big bad ISPs keep competition out.
Thatās not what NN was. Thatās just the only part you liked. And throttling isnāt robbing. If they are fraudulently advertising their services they should be subject to lawsuits (like below). But if their contract with their customers allows them to throttle, then thatās what the customer agreed to. The customer having no other option is the cityās fault.
Imagine if an ISP were to come out and say āwe throttle X,Y and Z services but our internet is half as much and we guarantee speed A or your money backā. Theyād do pretty well.
That has to happen at the local level, one town at a time. Since the city council of every Podunktown and Chicago got bought off by the Comcasts and Verizons of the world. If you want competition, donāt let your local governments cut sweetheart deals.
Nope. What this is saying is that even ISPs with guaranteed compelled income, insulated from market forcesā¦ are being harmed by Title 2. Imagine what would happen to a small ISP that actually had to compete in the marketplace.
So go serve on your city council and propose opening up the right of ways to small ISPs. Even people who are very into politics usually ignore the local stuff. Do you know your council members or what theyāre voting on? I sure as hell donāt.
You missed the part where some cities allowed Google Fiber to come in and compete. Do you think the existing ISPs got better or worse there where they had to compete? Now imagine if those same cities opened up and let anyone who wants to be an ISP throw their hat into the ring.
2 Likes
You mean when Obama appointed him originally, or when Trump promoted him?
āHe has served in various positions at the FCC since being appointed to the commission by President Barack Obama in May 2012ā
In that quote heās talking about small ISPās (public and private, you both ignored the private ones heās talking about). Heās literally saying the FCCs regs are stifling competition, a complaint he got from people operating in the market. Not often the head of an agency comes out and says āweāre doing a bad job.ā
1 Like
He mentioned small private ISPs as well right in that article. But keep on with your narrative.
"If the smaller companies are telling us that the regulatory overhang is too much, that it hangs like a black cloud over our businessesāas 22 separate ISPs told us three weeks agoāthen it seems to me thereās a problem here that needs to be solved.ā
So you donāt read the articles you cite?
In 2011, Pai was then nominated for a Republican Party position on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Minority leader Mitch McConnell.
The FCC has alotted positions for each party to ensure bipartisanship. Itās not as though Obama plucked him to serve on his own - he was required to fill a Republican spot on the committee.
And his elevation to chair was partisan, thatās how it works - so thereās no reason to pretend heās some disinterested policymaker we need to listen to.
Your comment was he was a āpolitical appointeeā insinuating that he isnāt worth listening to. If Mitch and O both agreed on him he must have some merit or knowledge of the market.
Who is worth listening to? Facebook and Google who are in favor of NN?
Heās a bureaucrat working to serve someoneās agenda. His position doesnāt provide him with authority to be wrong or right on this.
Thatās what NN was preaching? Permission to add bandwidth or change services? Thatās news to me
So when ISPs hit specific domains (like they did for years with YouTube and Netflix) while allowing other domains to thrive (much like the example I gave you with my sister) thatās not robbing? I donāt remember seeing ISPs advertise āwe only throttle most of your streaming shit.ā
Iād guarantee they would. Hell Iād sign up if the savings were 10% of that, which they wouldnāt be.
Local govts are required to cave to federal laws
How exactly are they insulated from market forces? Iāll admit Iām not overly up to date on govt run ISPs and their internal financials.
I wasnāt consulted when this happened. Nor would it have really mattered if they did, obv.
I didnāt miss it. I spoke of it multiple times upthread.
That being said, I donāt believe google fiber was ever about becoming an ISP. I think it was about baiting big ISPs into upping bandwidth so it could support their actual products. (Although Iād still pay for fiber if it came to my town).
1 Like
I donāt listen to people - I listen to arguments. And the fact is NN promotes innovation and investment because it promotes (and permits) healthy competition.
Last I checked, thatās a good thing in a market for goods and services.
2 Likes
It would only be robbery if the ISP promised you in writing that they wouldnāt throttle or give different speeds for different services. If theyāre taking money for services they arenāt providing (despite written contracts) then they should be liable.
The only way the FCC could implement NN was to reclassify the internet as a utility or common carrier. That gives the FCC the same powers over ISPs that they used to have over AT&T and Bell telephones.
In November 2014, President Obama gave a speech endorsing the classification of ISPs as utilities under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.
Maybe if you twist interstate commerce laws. Not sure how the feds can tell podunktown who they should let run cable in their neighborhood.