F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules... Thanks Trump.

[SaiWa]

Why don't you read the last few posts.

ah okay. carry on!

{<Mcgoat}

 

[kpt018]

A common argument I've heard is that less regulation = more competition, and yet it seems a lot of regulation promotes competition (not saying all regulation is good), and as we've seen over the last few decades, deregulation has concentrated corporate power and actually seems to make the market less free.

Yeah but in this case the "regulation" was to keep the internet free, not restrict it. This adds barriers that libertarian and right winger types claim to hate.

I really want to see the libertarians defend this one, not that I think they can.

 

[ChainFlow]

Libertarians tell me we're ok because markets always correct for stuff like this and competition will drive prices down guys!

Free markets for the motherfucking win!

It’s awesome that libertarians prefer to look at the market as an idealized dream that has nothing to do with what’s happening on the ground! I love how they disregard billion dollar barriers to entry in order to pretend markets are open to any entrants and that established ostensible competitors like TWC and Comcast haven’t admitted that they avoid entering each other’s territories to maximize profits through their rent-seeking behavior! If only there weren’t all these pesky regulations, all these issues would be fixed through the magic of Austrian Astrology - I mean, economics!

 

[kpt018]

It’s awesome that libertarians prefer to look at the market as an idealized dream that has nothing to do with what’s happening on the ground! I love how they disregard billion dollar barriers to entry in order to pretend markets are open to any entrants and that established ostensible competitors like TWC and Comcast haven’t admitted that they avoid entering each other’s territories to maximize profits through their rent-seeking behavior! If only there weren’t all these pesky regulations, all these issues would be fixed through the magic of Austrian Astrology - I mean, economics!

haha, yeah astrology is about as scientific as a lot of their thinking.

 

[My Spot]

Oh noes, what will we do without something that didn't exist before 2015?!

 

[deviake]

Yeah but in this case the "regulation" was to keep the internet free, not restrict it. This adds barriers that libertarian and right winger types claim to hate.

I really want to see the libertarians defend this one, not that I think they can.

I don't see how anyone could, it's pretty black-and-white. I mean, hell, technically laws against murder are "regulations", but I don't think anyone would argue that getting rid of those laws would promote freedom. That's not a 1-1 analogy but I think it works. That ideology sounds good in theory I guess, but in practice it hasn't worked out at all, which is why wealthy business interests continually try to deregulate things.

 

[deviake]

Oh noes, what will we do without something that didn't exist before 2015?!

Net Neutrality has always existed, it was just given extra protections in the last few years.

 

[My Spot]

Net Neutrality has always existed, it was just given extra protections in the last few years.

So did the sky ever fall before 2015?

 

[kpt018]

I don't see how anyone could, it's pretty black-and-white. I mean, hell, technically laws against murder are "regulations", but I don't think anyone would argue that getting rid of those laws would promote freedom. That's not a 1-1 analogy but I think it works. That ideology sounds good in theory I guess, but in practice it hasn't worked out at all, which is why wealthy business interests continually try to deregulate things.

Agreed, which is why I think it's one of the many gigantic holes in their arguments. This ruling is a perfect example of how flawed their thinking is.

 

[Breakitdown]

A great win for business.

 

[deviake]

So did the sky ever fall before 2015?

ISPs have tried to violate Net Neutrality multiple times over the years. Unless this decision is reversed, they'll now have free reign to do whatever they please, and they will have no regulations and very little competition to keep them in line.

The first search result:

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

 

[kpt018]

A great win for business.

You could be joking here, but if we take it serious it's only good for ISPs and the companies that can somehow use this to their advantage. My initial take is it is terrible for startup tech companies, which is ultimately bad for everyone since those companies make shit we all like and use.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I said it once I'll say it a minion times, old out of touch men making important decisions about technology for younger generations.

Pathetic

 

[ChainFlow]

So did the sky ever fall before 2015?

You’re either uninformed or dishonest/trolling. Never really sure with you.

MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

The rules were instituted because around 2007-2010 the ISPs began exploring new ways of rent-seeking and market-abusing behavior. For instance, ISPs that also offered phone service blocked VOIP services that competed with their phone offering because that was money they weren’t making. Verizon admitted that they wanted to start charging content providers for priority access to their customers (instead of just upgrading their capacity so everyone got faster connections, because that takes money and charging twice for the same service you offered yesterday costs 0$). And lots and lots more.

The rules were instituted because the ISPs wanted to take the market in a new, different direction. They kept the internet on the same playing field it had been for a long time. This lets them go back to exploring how many times they can get paid for doing the same damn thing they always have.

Under NN:
Comcast customer wants to watch Netflix. He pays comcast for internet, he pays Netflix for service. Done.

Without it:
Verizon customer wants to watch Netflix. He pays verizon for internet, he pays Netflix for service. Verizon charges Netflix for the ability to send the customer HD video because it didn’t wanna pay for infrastructure upgrades that would deliver HD to everyone. Netflix has to up their prices or eat the cost. And, possibly, Verizon charges customer for the ability to stream HD video (to make up for their lost TV service $$).

This isn’t complicated.

 

[Breakitdown]

You could be joking here, but if we take it serious it's only good for ISPs and the companies that can somehow use this to their advantage.

Not seeing an issue here on any level. Sorry, but being against something because it's "good" for a company is a laughable line of reasoning.

Again, a great win for business. Don't like it? Start your own ISP and compete.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Either Princeton or Harvard did a study that showed that politicians almost always vote in favor of corporations like95% of the time over what the general public wants.

This is a perfect example

 

[kpt018]

Not seeing an issue here on any level. Sorry, but being against something because it's "good" for a company is a laughable line of reasoning.

Again, a great win for business. Don't like it? Start your own ISP and compete.

I'm arguing that your assumption that it is good for business is wrong. It's good for certain businesses, but not for many others. And I think it's really bad for consumers, which is the reason I oppose it.

It's also weird that you would say because it's good for a company is a laughable line of reasoning (when it's just true or not) but then keep parroting it's a great win for business (same logic?).

 

[ChainFlow]

Not seeing an issue here on any level. Sorry, but being against something because it's "good" for a company is a laughable line of reasoning.

Again, a great win for business. Don't like it? Start your own ISP and compete.

Bullshit.
https://arstechnica.com/information...t-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/

Starting your own ISP is a recipe for bankruptcy. Incumbents will sue you, cut your lines, cut prices until you go out of business, etc. And it costs 10s of millions of startup.

 

[Breakitdown]

Either Princeton or Harvard did a study that showed that politicians almost always vote in favor of corporations like95% of the time over what the general public wants.

This is a perfect example

Good to hear. The general public is comprised of cretins for the most part.

 

[Breakitdown]

Bullshit.
https://arstechnica.com/information...t-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/

Starting your own ISP is a recipe for bankruptcy. Incumbents will sue you, cut your lines, cut prices until you go out of business, etc.

Not seeing an issue here? So because it's difficult to start your own ISP we should decide what a business can/can't charge for their service(s)?

What a gruesome pretext.