I don't really understand net neutrality

[Que]

How come in socialist Britain we pay about a dollar less per Mbps than the bastion of the free market that is the US?

I have no idea, but I bet you are not going to elaborate, are you?

You are very good at pointing our what other people don't know, and piss-poor at revealing what it is that you pretend to know.

I don't have any idea the effect of net neutrality is intended to be, much less what the actual effect and unintended consequences will be. I will freely say so as Mr. Savage has. My bias is that if congressman want to change something, someone paid a lobbyist to convince them to do so.

My gut says that if the title has "neutrality' in it, it probably has nothing to do with neutrality, and everything to do with some particular special interest.

Are you under the impression that the US has free markets, especially in any area that the government has regulatory hurdles for a business to clear?

To directly answer you question, copper wire and fiber optics cost money. Maintaining them costs money. Your country needs far less miles of it per user than we do, since you cover very little geography.

You have no idea what the eventual cost of your service will be since the infrastructure was paid for by the British Telecom back when it was a lot easier to charge off costs to the British Government. As that infrastructure needs repair and replacement and squabbles develop over who is responsible for what bit of wire and how the costs of that are to be shared, my guess is that that cost will go up. Perhaps by then, technology will make the copper obsolete and it will be a moot point. Who knows? I do know that you don't know.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I have no idea, but I bet you are not going to elaborate, are you?

You are very good at pointing our what other people don't know, and piss-poor at revealing what it is that you pretend to know.

I don't have any idea the effect of net neutrality is intended to be, much less what the actual effect and unintended consequences will be. I will freely say so as Mr. Savage has. My bias is that if congressman want to change something, someone paid a lobbyist to convince them to do so.

My gut says that if the title has "neutrality' in it, it probably has nothing to do with neutrality, and everything to do with some particular special interest.

Are you under the impression that the US has free markets, especially in any area that the government has regulatory hurdles for a business to clear?

To directly answer you question, copper wire and fiber optics cost money. Maintaining them costs money. Your country needs far less miles of it per user than we do, since you cover very little geography.

You have no idea what the eventual cost of your service will be since the infrastructure was paid for by the British Telecom back when it was a lot easier to charge off costs to the British Government. As that infrastructure needs repair and replacement and squabbles develop over who is responsible for what bit of wire and how the costs of that are to be shared, my guess is that that cost will go up. Perhaps by then, technology will make the copper obsolete and it will be a moot point. Who knows? I do know that you don't know.

The answer is simple, basic economics.

Britain is tiny; covering it involves little difficulty and even less infrastructure.

America is vast and after a certain point, the cost of delivering services goes up, but they will compete for that remaining demand.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Thanks to contributing to an already over-strained landfill system. Next time think about recycling..

Dude... I live in Montgomery County, Maryland. Our "dump" is the nation's model for recycling centers.

 

[Que]

The answer is simple, basic economics.

Britain is tiny; covering it involves little difficulty and even less infrastructure.

America is vast and after a certain point, the cost of delivering services goes up, but they will compete for that remaining demand.

I have no idea what is already in place demanding a wire be run to my house. I think to be in the phone and/or cable business, you have to cover everyone in a geographic area.

In my area, they bring the Internet in by microwave for the cable company, so although they charge for 50MPS service the most anyone gets is closer to 25MPS. Once it is here, house to house is cheap because the density in this company town is quite high. DSL from the phone company over copper is worse.

Between here and Walmart there are spreads where the phone wire might go 5 miles to serve a single ranch. They are not charged extra towards maintenance once the initial run is made. That is built into the price everyone pays.The Lazy B where Sandra Day O'Conner grew up on probably has a 10-15 mile run.

There is no wire to the jail Billy the Kid wormed his way out of, so I guess he was not offered a phone call.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The cable company will not run cable to our house...



Too far out.

Of all the major data carriers, only one covers this area.

Ah, ain't that America!

 

[Que]

The cable company will not run cable to our house...



Too far out.

Of all the major data carriers, only one covers this area.

Ah, ain't that America!

So it sounds like cable companies can define "service areas." Is it correct that phone companies cannot? I think that probably varies by state. We have the "corporation commission" here that sets...i mean rubber stamps rates.

3 people, solidly in the pocket of the utilities decide the rates for what? 6-10 million people? It has gotten much better now that the power companies must let any "delivery" company use their wire.

Here it is a non issue. 8 billion+ in profit company buys electricity in bulk to use in our big, orange 4,400 volt extension cords. They then sell the town power at what has got to be their cost. If the grid goes down they have their own NatGas Steam plant. We do not even look at the power bill. It is never much more than $50 bucks. Water is free, basically a flat $10 a month I think. They have to pump the stuff out of the pit anyway, so conservation used to not be an issue. Now it is more complicated because a lot of perfectly usable, clean water is not available because it comes from a zero-discharge area. Nothing can leave that portion of the 84 square miles.

 

[anchoredinocean]

If you weren't already for it, I'm sure AJ the Dope being against it would change your mind.

 

[Sean]

The answer is simple, basic economics.

Britain is tiny; covering it involves little difficulty and even less infrastructure.

America is vast and after a certain point, the cost of delivering services goes up, but they will compete for that remaining demand.

Yeah, that must be why tiny little countries like Russia pay 80% less than you do.

 

[eyer]

Internet freedom, quality, and accessibility in America is, imwo...

...most definitely an issue that serves the "general welfare" intent of the framers. It is an issue of utmost importance to this nation's political, economic, and cultural future; it also directly concerns our national security. Therefore, it most definitely falls under the constitutional authority of the federal government.

That has already been decided...

...what's being contested now is which part of the federal government has full authority over the issue, which will dictate what part of the federal government will rule over the issue as it continues to develop.

Congress' draft bill intentionally and specifically dictates all of that authority and power resides exclusively with the Peoples' representatives - Congress itself...

...the President and the President's chosen Chairman of the FCC assert the FCC has all the authority it needs to dictate how net neut is decided.

I urge you all again to read Congress' draft discussion bill and to address/debate the merits or demerits of it...

...again, here's how it begins:

A BILL
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure Inter-
net openness, to prohibit blocking lawful content and
non-harmful devices, to prohibit throttling data, to pro-
hibit paid prioritization, to require transparency of net-
work management practices, to provide that broadband
shall be considered to be an information service, and
to prohibit the Commission or a State commission from
relying on section 706 of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 as a grant of authority.

www.commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=7a90bcad-41c9-4f11-b341-9e4c14dac91c

1. "ensure Internet openness"

2. "prohibit blocking lawful content and non-harmful devices"

3. "prohibit throttling data"

4. "prohibit paid priorization"

5. "require transparency of net-
work management practices"

6. "provide that broadband
shall be considered to be an information service"

7. "prohibit the Commission or a State commission from
relying on section 706 of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 as a grant of authority."

As you've probably already surmised...

...#7 specifically addresses what the FCC is continuing to assert is within their authority - Congress makes it clear that it is the exclusive authority on the matter, and that the FCC exists to enforce the law(s) Congress makes on the matter.

That being statued, #6 will then serve the "utility" need the FCC and the President are pushing as their cause now...

...under this Bill, they'll get exactly what they say in political public they want ("utility"), but they will continue to fight because what they really want in private is the POWER to dictate net neutrality itself, partisanly.

There is significant Democrat Congressional support for this Bill already, as it was purposely crafted with significant Democrat inclusion. I predict that this Bill will come to a vote quickly and will easily be passed into law with wide bi-partisan support...

...and that the President will sign it when presented with it, rather than to continue illogically pursuing the partisan political game he's straddling now.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So it sounds like cable companies can define "service areas." Is it correct that phone companies cannot? I think that probably varies by state. We have the "corporation commission" here that sets...i mean rubber stamps rates.

3 people, solidly in the pocket of the utilities decide the rates for what? 6-10 million people? It has gotten much better now that the power companies must let any "delivery" company use their wire.

Here it is a non issue. 8 billion+ in profit company buys electricity in bulk to use in our big, orange 4,400 volt extension cords. They then sell the town power at what has got to be their cost. If the grid goes down they have their own NatGas Steam plant. We do not even look at the power bill. It is never much more than $50 bucks. Water is free, basically a flat $10 a month I think. They have to pump the stuff out of the pit anyway, so conservation used to not be an issue. Now it is more complicated because a lot of perfectly usable, clean water is not available because it comes from a zero-discharge area. Nothing can leave that portion of the 84 square miles.

That is what I was referring to. If I cannot get cable, then that is how I am talking to you. One comp[any has the commercial where they tout their superior coverage network (what is this a map of) and one of their big holes is where I live.



Only AT&T has a tower in the area and I am on the outskirts of it.

Our TV is satellite and we use to have satellite for our internet, but it was always slowing down to a crawl...

 

[Que]

Yeah, that must be why tiny little countries like Russia pay 80% less than you do.

Does the consumer, or the State, get charged for the copper wire?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Does the consumer, or the State, get charged for the copper wire?

So why is Russia kicking England's ass?

 

[Que]

Internet freedom, quality, and accessibility in America is, imwo...

...most definitely an issue that serves the "general welfare" intent of the framers. It is an issue of utmost importance to this nation's political, economic, and cultural future; it also directly concerns our national security. Therefore, it most definitely falls under the constitutional authority of the federal government.

That has already been decided...

...what's being contested now is which part of the federal government has full authority over the issue, which will dictate what part of the federal government will rule over the issue as it continues to develop.

Congress' draft bill intentionally and specifically dictates all of that authority and power resides exclusively with the Peoples' representatives - Congress itself...

...the President and the President's chosen Chairman of the FCC assert the FCC has all the authority it needs to dictate how net neut is decided.

I urge you all again to read Congress' draft discussion bill and to address/debate the merits or demerits of it...

...again, here's how it begins:



www.commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=7a90bcad-41c9-4f11-b341-9e4c14dac91c

1. "ensure Internet openness"

2. "prohibit blocking lawful content and non-harmful devices"

3. "prohibit throttling data"

4. "prohibit paid priorization"

5. "require transparency of net-
work management practices"

6. "provide that broadband
shall be considered to be an information service"

7. "prohibit the Commission or a State commission from
relying on section 706 of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 as a grant of authority."

As you've probably already surmised...

...#7 specifically addresses what the FCC is continuing to assert is within their authority - Congress makes it clear that it is the exclusive authority on the matter, and that the FCC exists to enforce the law(s) Congress makes on the matter.

That being statued, #6 will then serve the "utility" need the FCC and the President are pushing as their cause now...

...under this Bill, they'll get exactly what they say in political public they want ("utility"), but they will continue to fight because what they really want in private is the POWER to dictate net neutrality itself, partisanly.

There is significant Democrat Congressional support for this Bill already, as it was purposely crafted with significant Democrat inclusion. I predict that this Bill will come to a vote quickly and will easily be passed into law with wide bi-partisan support...

...and that the President will sign it when presented with it, rather than to continue illogically pursuing the partisan political game he's straddling now.

The last time I looked at this and wrapped my head around it I was in favor of it, mostly because it codified in law the throttling issue. My concern though is I trust neither the executive branch nor congress to avoid adding layers of red tape, accountability, reports, oversight, and the taxes justified by the oversiight.

Cars have no need of a catalytic converter when proper amounts of fuel are delivered to the combustion chamber at the proper time. One WANTS to burn it off as efficiently as possible both for performance and economy. Mandating cats has messed up automotive engineering proper exhaust and the cure is worse than the disease. That one thing alone probably added $1000 to the cost of a modern car. You had to find ways to improve performance with the restriction which led to bigger engines and more, not less fossil fuel being burned.

No matter what congress or the FCC does it will make things worse.

 

[eyer]

The "area", "distance" issue (Britain is much smaller than America to cover) can be dismissed mostly by the fact that the majority of Americans live close together in densely populated areas (think the big cities, far smaller in area than Britain)...

...and their Internet accessibility, speed, and costs are still inexcusably limited, slow, and expensive.

How I understand the British example is that their broadband service, too, was once controlled by an elite few providers who built and then monopolized the digital paths they had built...

...and their Internet accessibility, speed, and costs were also inexcusably limited, slow, and expensive under the same circumstances America still finds itself in today.

The British government altered the broadband arena by simply dictating that the few providers must allow access to the paths they created - basically opening-up the broadband arena to any competitors who wanted to enter the game...

...and it is that large field of competition now which has broadened accessibility, increased speeds, and lowered costs.

Local governments in the US are dealing with the same issues today; eg, Google lobbies them to dictate to the few carriers to allow them access to digital paths already paved; if the local government deems Internet/broadband access enough of a community welfare need, they have all the power to dictate those few providers open themselves up to competition...

..or, the local government can quit giving those few carriers the access to county/city property that the providers need to conduct their own business.

It really all comes down to how vital government deems accessible, fast, inexpensive Internet/broadband service is to their community...

...so it is for the federal government to decide for the general welfare of the nation, too.

150 years ago, the harnessing of electricity was considered one of the world's most amazing utilizations; today, it's no less technically amazing, but almost everyone now is simply so accustomed to its almost universal accessibility, its speed, and its low cost that the "amazing" part is pretty much dulled...

...government, of course, had a large, useful part in making that so.

100 years from now, universally accessible, fast, and inexpensive Internet/broadband utility will be as unexciting then as electricity has become to us today...

...the sooner we can make that happen, the better off our nation will be.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So, eyer...

You do seem to like the idea of the government taking over control of the internet.

Did I miss something?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

PS

"But what about the several net-neutrality proponents, like Google, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon and many others?[3] Have they really thought about the consequences of net-neutrality regulation — not only in the short but also in the long term? Are they not aware that any regulation has unintended consequences?"

http://mises.org/library/net-neutrality-unwarranted-intervention

 

[bg23]

this sums it up. and in fun picture form!

http://www.theopeninter.net/

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Every year, I get more, not less, internet. In the last three months, my provider went from a 15 gig limit to a 30 gig limit due to market pressures. In the next year, I expect even sweeter deals. Government always seems like a good answer.

Let's ask our members from China how well government control of the internet is working for them.

PS - Now they're even going to rolling over my unused data this month.

 

[Cucumber_lover]

Should I be a yey or a nay?

Sometimes things are very confusing.

#youdontunderstanthetides

 

[bg23]

a prime example of why we should have net neutrality:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304834704579401071892041790


http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/20/5...t-and-verizon-on-net-neutrality-some-big-isps

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

For those of us who do not subscribe to the WSJ, why don't you provide us a recap...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

For those of us who do not subscribe to the WSJ, why don't you provide us a recap...

Oh, wait!


GOVERNMENT SHOULD MAKE THAT FREE TOO!!!

 

[JohnnySavage]

So the Congressional bill prohibits the FCC from regulating providers as utilities, and it prohibits the providers from, say, charging customers $10 per month to access lit?

The FCC wants (believes it has) authority to regulate the providers as utilities. Do they take a position on whether or not a provider could charge for different data streams?

 

[bg23]

Netflix Inc. has agreed to pay Comcast Corp. to ensure Netflix movies and television shows stream smoothly to Comcast customers, a landmark pact that could set a precedent for Netflix's dealings with other broadband providers, people familiar with the matter said.

In exchange for payment, Netflix will get direct access to Comcast's broadband network.

The deal comes just 10 days after Comcast agreed to buy Time Warner Cable Inc. The acquisition, if approved, would establish Comcast as by far the dominant provider of broadband in the U.S., serving 32 million households before any divestitures it might make. It also comes amid growing signs that congestion deep in the Internet is causing interruptions for customers trying to stream Netflix movies and TV shows.

People familiar with the situation said Netflix Chief Executive Reed Hastings didn't want streaming speeds to deteriorate further and become a bigger problem for customers.

 

[eyer]

So, eyer...

You do seem to like the idea of the government taking over control of the internet.

Did I miss something?

Obviously you did, because the issue at hand - as I've continuously repeated in this thread - isn't whether or not government is going to, or should take control over something they already have full control of...

...the issue at hand is if Congress - the Peoples' branch of government - is going to unquestionably claim its constitutional accountability for that control. And, as I've also continuously maintained in this thread, Congress' draft discussion Bill most certainly does that.

As a unalienable lover of individual liberty with a political mind schooled by the framers and, thus, a political spirit endeared to the constitutionally-limited powers accorded to federal government Congress itself created...

...I have no problem at all with Congress being fully accountable to the People for such a vital facet of America's future.

Now, if the People choose not to hold the Congress accountable for the FREEDOM America's Internet should justly represent as that future unfolds...

...well, then, America will get precisely the Internet it deserves.