Author Topic: Net Neutrality ?  (Read 3878 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5383
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #75 on: November 24, 2017, 11:30:39 AM »
The answer is, in my opinion, municipally-owned fiber-optic networks.  But then, I’m a bloody socialist.
A better answer would be to demand net neutrality.

No, it wouldn’t.  Municipally-owned fiber would allow true competition because it would remove barriers to entry. No ISP would have a monopoly due to their owning the last-mile fiber/cable.
However, we currently have net neutrality, so it's a proven "doable". Having municipalities construct a fiber optic system bring thousands of local politicians into the process, a horrifying thought.

Even with net neutrality, 55% of us still pay monopolist rates. When neutrality goes away we'll pay even more. If the infrastructure were owned communally (by municipalities or other collective units) then there would be competition in basic rates. And consumers could choose providers that don't throttle the services they want.

And even with net neutrality in the law, that doesn't guarantee that there will not be favoritism. Haven't I read about some ISPs charging some content providers for favorable treatment? That's under the present system.

Socially-owned infrastructure is the better system. We already do this for roads and air travel. States own roads and impose taxes for road use, and cities own airports and charge airlines for gates.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline Noisy Rhysling

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2383
    • Hyperwar, WWII in Hypertext.
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #76 on: November 24, 2017, 11:38:43 AM »
Good  luck with that. Hell, it might even work.
"Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life." Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9878
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #77 on: November 24, 2017, 12:37:41 PM »
Look into who owns the infrastructure of the Internet. It's the same companies who already have a monopoly over ISPing in local markets. There will likely end up being no alternative ISPs who can provide unthrottled Internet.
That means a maverick company is going to make a lot of friends.

Somebody doesn't understand barriers to entry.   Go back and reread your Porter.
Never claimed to understand barriers. And no, not my Porter.
So trumpeting ignorance is now a valid defence for a bullshit premise?
Whiney today, ain't ya.

If that's how you interpret that post, then whatever makes you feel good.
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered.

Offline Noisy Rhysling

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2383
    • Hyperwar, WWII in Hypertext.
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #78 on: November 24, 2017, 12:40:38 PM »
Look into who owns the infrastructure of the Internet. It's the same companies who already have a monopoly over ISPing in local markets. There will likely end up being no alternative ISPs who can provide unthrottled Internet.
That means a maverick company is going to make a lot of friends.

Somebody doesn't understand barriers to entry.   Go back and reread your Porter.
Never claimed to understand barriers. And no, not my Porter.
So trumpeting ignorance is now a valid defence for a bullshit premise?
Whiney today, ain't ya.

If that's how you interpret that post, then whatever makes you feel good.
Given that you've been supercilious and pretentious I am not worried about how you misinterpret my posts or try to give me orders.
"Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life." Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9878
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #79 on: November 24, 2017, 12:42:29 PM »
Plus, you get to avoid taking about how wrong your initial post was.
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered.

Offline CarbShark

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6530
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #80 on: November 24, 2017, 12:50:02 PM »
The initial post wasn’t wrong. Local public ownership of the landlines isn’t necessary.  With net neutrality internet service is a public utility. Local, state or federal regulation of the internet service providers could allow sufficient competition. And while some localities could do very well managing ownership of the land lines, there are many that couldn’t or could mismanage just as bad as monopoly ISPs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Offline Noisy Rhysling

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2383
    • Hyperwar, WWII in Hypertext.
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #81 on: November 24, 2017, 12:59:46 PM »
The initial post wasn’t wrong. Local public ownership of the landlines isn’t necessary.  With net neutrality internet service is a public utility. Local, state or federal regulation of the internet service providers could allow sufficient competition. And while some localities could do very well managing ownership of the land lines, there are many that couldn’t or could mismanage just as bad as monopoly ISPs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Careful, don't want to disagree with the relentlessly obstreperous.
"Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life." Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *****
  • Posts: 5326
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #82 on: November 24, 2017, 01:34:46 PM »
The only way to ensure sufficient opportunities for competition with private ownership is to require the monopoly cable companies to separate infrastructure costs from service costs and require them to provide equal access to third-party ISP’s.  This has been tried in many places, including in my own state, with power transmission and energy costs.  The result has not been spectacular, in my opinion.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline CarbShark

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6530
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #83 on: November 24, 2017, 01:38:56 PM »
Or require the infrastructure utility to be a separate dedicated entity that does not act as an ISP.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that’s how service is handled in most of the EU and their service is generally better and cheaper than in the US


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *****
  • Posts: 5326
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #84 on: November 24, 2017, 01:43:13 PM »
That ignores the fact that the networks as they exist are owned by the content providers.  If we were building a whole new system, we could do that, but I do not think it is practical to force an AT&T/Bell Telephone-style breakup of cable providers, forcing them to sell/spin off their backbone services.  I think that’s a non-starter.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11310
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #85 on: November 24, 2017, 01:46:16 PM »
The answer is, in my opinion, municipally-owned fiber-optic networks.  But then, I’m a bloody socialist.

Well, even that has been cut out by the ISPs.  Because municipalities started doing this, the ISP's went to the statehouses and made it illegal.  Also, this rule will explicitly prohibit states from implementing their own net neutrality rules.

#non-belief denialist

Offline CarbShark

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6530
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #86 on: November 24, 2017, 01:55:56 PM »
That ignores the fact that the networks as they exist are owned by the content providers.  If we were building a whole new system, we could do that, but I do not think it is practical to force an AT&T/Bell Telephone-style breakup of cable providers, forcing them to sell/spin off their backbone services.  I think that’s a non-starter.

The infrastructure as it exists now for consumers is telephone lines and cable TV lines.

Cable TV operators would be free to offer cable TV to their customers. Phone companies would continue to offer land-line phone service.

But neither would be allowed to sell internet service directly to consumers, but would lease access to other companies who would compete for consumers.

Yes, cable and phone companies would be required to spin-off their ISPs. Why is that a non-starter? For whom? Republicans in the FCC and the White House? Yes. A Democratic administration supported by a Democratic House and Senate? No. 

(This would probably be well-beyond the authority of the FCC, and would require legislation).

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Offline Nemmzy

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 393
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #87 on: November 27, 2017, 11:37:57 AM »
The answer is, in my opinion, municipally-owned fiber-optic networks.  But then, I’m a bloody socialist.
A better answer would be to demand net neutrality.

No, it wouldn’t.  Municipally-owned fiber would allow true competition because it would remove barriers to entry. No ISP would have a monopoly due to their owning the last-mile fiber/cable.
However, we currently have net neutrality, so it's a proven "doable". Having municipalities construct a fiber optic system bring thousands of local politicians into the process, a horrifying thought.

It really depends on who your local politicians are.
I currently live in a community that I think could pull this off but I have also live in communities where the potholes were never filled and the snow plow came by 1 or 2 days after the storm. Some communities will likely do a great job implementing this, others not so much.  It will be yet another selling point for well-organized (and well funded)communities, better schools, roads, better emergency services and now better internet.  Which in turn will cause communities under stress to lose even more tax revenue.   But, I think communities that want to try should be encouraged to do so in the name of open markets.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2017, 11:40:54 AM by Nemmzy »

Offline MTBox

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 138
  • "The last best place" to be, in or out of a box
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #88 on: November 27, 2017, 06:17:03 PM »
"With net neutrality internet service is a public utility."

That's backwards. The overriding issue in the US for regulatory consideration, is whether it is a utility or a commodity. Neutrality is possible in either model.

"the networks as they exist are owned by the content providers."

Anyone, even your municipality right now, can "get on the net" via the Backbone. It's sort of the on-ramp. Netflix is a content provider, you and your municipality are the end user, your municipality would be your local distributor, and the backbone is the winner if net neutrality goes down to a redefinition of the net not as a utility. Where you see a new development go in advertising as a high-tech industrial park or zone, they had to provision this from the backbone, to make it on offer.

From https://www.vox.com/a/internet-maps:

"The privatization of the internet backbone In 1994, the Clinton Administration privatized the internet backbone. Commercial firms took over the job of carrying long-distance internet traffic, allowing the government-funded NSFNET to be decommissioned. Officials were careful to ensure that no single company controlled too much of the backbone, helping to create a competitive market for internet connectivity that still exists today.  These four maps illustrate how the market had evolved by the turn of the century. Four of the largest private long-distance network providers were UUNet, AT&T, Sprint, and Level 3. Each had its own nationwide (and global) network, and they competed with each other to provide long-distance connectivity to smaller networks.  UUNet became part of WorldCom in 1996, and became part of Verizon in 2006. Today, Verizon operates one of the world's largest internet backbones, in competition with AT&T, Sprint, Level 3 and many other companies."

Offline CarbShark

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6530
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #89 on: November 27, 2017, 06:24:29 PM »
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"