The real looming threat to net neutrality

[kandrathe]

"The rules approved by the FCC under Democratic President Barack Obama in early 2015 prohibited broadband providers from giving or selling access to speedy internet, essentially a “fast lane”, to certain internet services over others. As part of that change, the FCC reclassified internet service providers much like utilities.

Pai wants to overturn that reclassification, but wants internet providers to voluntarily agree to not obstruct or slow consumer access to web content, two officials said late Tuesday..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fcc-...f0a02e3af3

[Taem]

"The rules approved by the FCC under Democratic President Barack Obama in early 2015 prohibited broadband providers from giving or selling access to speedy internet, essentially a “fast lane”, to certain internet services over others. As part of that change, the FCC reclassified internet service providers much like utilities.

Pai wants to overturn that reclassification, but wants internet providers to voluntarily agree to not obstruct or slow consumer access to web content, two officials said late Tuesday..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fcc-...f0a02e3af3

Kandrathe, this is quite literally what I said would happen in the other thread that I started. I said that under this Trump administration, this [selling your personal info to the highest bidder] was clearly and obviously just a tip of the iceberg in a larger agenda to do exactly what this article is stating. As I also said in the other thread, it's only a matter of time before mom-and-pop internet sites are all but inaccessible either because they didn't pay 'X' isp x$ to show their site, or the speeds at which their site is accessible is so painfully slow, you'd be better off using a 56k modem. In short, giant media conglomerates win and Trump and crew profit. The writing was already on the wall here...

[LavCat]

Good thing Bolty pays.

[Bolty]

Lav, you really think this small site is going to get priority traffic over major corporate websites? Or were you being sarcastic?

[kandrathe]

"The rules approved by the FCC under Democratic President Barack Obama in early 2015 prohibited broadband providers from giving or selling access to speedy internet, essentially a “fast lane”, to certain internet services over others. As part of that change, the FCC reclassified internet service providers much like utilities.

Pai wants to overturn that reclassification, but wants internet providers to voluntarily agree to not obstruct or slow consumer access to web content, two officials said late Tuesday..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fcc-...f0a02e3af3

Kandrathe, this is quite literally what I said would happen in the other thread that I started. I said that under this Trump administration, this [selling your personal info to the highest bidder] was clearly and obviously just a tip of the iceberg in a larger agenda to do exactly what this article is stating. As I also said in the other thread, it's only a matter of time before mom-and-pop internet sites are all but inaccessible either because they didn't pay 'X' isp x$ to show their site, or the speeds at which their site is accessible is so painfully slow, you'd be better off using a 56k modem. In short, giant media conglomerates win and Trump and crew profit. The writing was already on the wall here...

Even now, WE can't jump to conclusions with knee-jerk assumptions. There is nothing to "protest" except the opinion of Ajit Pai. Once they have a proposed rule change, then we can get busy to oppose it.

What we CAN do is understand Ajit Pai's argument, and pick it apart. We are then prepared to coherently oppose this movement.

Pai's speech to MWC in Barcelona

"Here, too, I’m hopeful. In the United States, we are in the process of returning to the light-touch approach to regulation that produced tremendous investment and innovation throughout our entire Internet ecosystem—from the core of our networks to providers at the edge.

I would like to highlight a few parts of that framework because I believe they will
provide the right foundation for 5G. And make no mistake: when it comes to 5G, the United States is committed to moving full speed ahead"

So, I think he see's the "public utility" model as a barrier to innovation, or at least the ability of the service carriers to garner enough revenue to invest in or transform their infrastructure.

He then continues to list four points of this "light-touch" regulatory framework he sees as crucial to future internet growth,

• "First, during the Clinton Administration in the 1990s, American policymakers forged a historic consensus across party lines that the Internet should be free from heavy-handed regulation. Instead of government telling broadband operators where to invest, how much to invest, or how to run their networks, we let market forces guide these decisions. Regulators made a conscious choice not to apply to the Internet the outdated rules crafted in the 1930s for a telephone monopoly. After all, complex rules designed to regulate a monopoly will inevitably push the market toward a monopoly. Instead, our policy was a modern one that gave the private sector the flexibility it needed to innovate."
  
• "Second, we encouraged facilities-based competition. In the early 2000s, the U.S. rejected the notion that the broadband market was a natural monopoly. We encouraged broadband providers to build their own networks rather than using their competitors’ infrastructure. We eliminated network-sharing obligations, which depressed investment and deterred network construction."
  
• "Third, we embraced a flexible use policy for wireless spectrum. Instead of mandating that a specific type of wireless technology be used in a particular spectrum band, the government left that choice to the private sector, which is better able to calibrate use to meet consumer demand. This enabled our wireless networks to evolve with technology, including the rollout of 4G LTE on a timeline that matched consumer demand."
  
• "Fourth and finally, we continually freed up spectrum for mobile broadband. We auctioned AWS-1 spectrum in 2006, 700 MHz spectrum in 2008, and 65 MHz of mid-band spectrum in 2015. And we are now completing our incentive auction, which will reallocate 70 MHz of spectrum from television broadcasters to wireless providers. Our auctions raised nearly $100 billion for the U.S. government, and they have also enabled operators to meet consumers’ insatiable demand for mobile connectivity."

He summarizes, "However, two years ago, the United States deviated from our successful, light-touch approach. The FCC decided to apply last-century, utility-style regulation to today’s broadband networks. Rules developed to tame a 1930s monopoly were imported into the 21st century to regulate the Internet. This reversal wasn’t necessary to solve any problem; we were not living in a digital dystopia. The policies of the Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration, and the first term of the Obama Administration had produced both a free and open Internet and strong incentives for private investment in broadband infrastructure. Two years later, it has become evident that the FCC made a mistake. Our new approach injected tremendous uncertainty into the broadband market. And uncertainty is the enemy of growth. After the FCC embraced utility-style regulation, the United States experienced the first-ever decline in broadband investment outside of a recession. In fact, broadband investment remains lower today than it was when the FCC changed course in 2015. And we have seen much concern about whether the FCC would permit or ban service plans."

Now, the question is; How do you counter HIS arguments to bring "freedom" to the internet providers to compete openly?

For context, South Korea tops in LTE network speeds, U.S. continues to lag

"The latest findings showed South Korean mobile customers experiencing average network speeds of 37.5 megabits per second, with various iterations of LTE technology most likely supporting those speeds. The country – along with Singapore – topped OpenSignal’s previous network testing, though with an average speed of 45 Mbps." "In terms of North America, Canada was No. 12 on the list with an average speed of 20.26 Mbps, the United States was No. 36 at 12.48 Mbps and Mexico was No. 49 with an average speed of 9.91 Mbps. For the U.S., the latest results were down from the 13.03 Mbps speeds recorded in the previous testing period."

https://www.fastmetrics.com/internet-con...-worldwide

My initial impression is that this framework is very much oriented toward the internet providers freedom, without regard to its effects upon the consumers. This thinking is very much oriented in our ability as consumers to choose a provider who offers the best package of speed/privacy/price, and assumes if our current provider implements a change we don't like we can effortlessly change providers. In fact, I've been facing this dilemma for a few years now. it is not so effortless. My internet is provided via my cable company(Mediacomm), which is mediocre at best, but offers the highest up(5)/down(15) speeds. The only other wired connections are DSL (1 up/10 down). I also used their Phone, and e-mail services. I realized my mistake in tying my e-mail to a service I might want to get rid of, or should I change residence out of this area. I moved all my account to a more mobile e-mail address. I also cut out the home phone years ago, as there is no need for it anymore.

I'm better positioned now to jump ship whenever a better solution comes to my area. But, the transition might be hard/confusing for less technically savvy consumers. This is much like expecting consumers to drive down health care costs by shopping for the "BEST" insurance plan on the exchange. You and I know how difficult it is to get an insurance plan among the myriads of options and prices.

In the end, it is expected that through the consumers suffering the *need* to change providers that will drive market changes. This might be more palatable were we confident some one had our backs, ie. FTC, CPB, BBB, etc. But, for most of us, the prospect of changing internet providers to "shop around" for better service, security, or price is not a pleasant thought. BUT... If someone offered me 10-20 Gig 5G service with an unlimited data plan, for a decent competitive price...

Then consider... Why is broadband more expensive in the US?

So, in general, the US internet is much slower, and much more expensive than other OECD nations.

"Americans pay so much because they don't have a choice," says Susan Crawford, a former special assistant to President Barack Obama on science, technology and innovation policy. Although there are several national companies, local markets tend to be dominated by just one or two main providers."

In my area, I still really have no choice. When our cable goes down, my boys still game by using their phones(4G LTE) as a hot spot.

[Tal]

Lav, you really think this small site is going to get priority traffic over major corporate websites? Or were you being sarcastic?

We know you've got big corporate backers Mr. Flushwithcash.

[LavCat]

Lav, you really think this small site is going to get priority traffic over major corporate websites? Or were you being sarcastic?

Tongue was firmly in cheek.

[kandrathe]

Kandrathe, this is quite literally what I said would happen in the other thread that I started. I said that under this Trump administration, this [selling your personal info to the highest bidder] was clearly and obviously just a tip of the iceberg in a larger agenda to do exactly what this article is stating. As I also said in the other thread, it's only a matter of time before mom-and-pop internet sites are all but inaccessible either because they didn't pay 'X' isp x$ to show their site, or the speeds at which their site is accessible is so painfully slow, you'd be better off using a 56k modem. In short, giant media conglomerates win and Trump and crew profit. The writing was already on the wall here...

More simply put, compared to Europe and Asia, the internet in the US sucks. The current FCC boss thinks that's because treating the Internet like a common utility has sucked all the life and innovation out of it.

How does our internet in the US remain fast & cheap? We need more options in more markets to add competition, OR, nationalize the whole thing and treat it as a interstate freeway where Congress decides how many lanes, and the speed limit. But, before you go and think nationalizing is so great, remember it's the big states who have all the representation. Remote places like Wyoming and Idaho will be left behind, unless someone funds somebody's pork project. In my state, there is always a battle between the cities, and the rural over resources.

[Lissa]

Kandrathe, this is quite literally what I said would happen in the other thread that I started. I said that under this Trump administration, this [selling your personal info to the highest bidder] was clearly and obviously just a tip of the iceberg in a larger agenda to do exactly what this article is stating. As I also said in the other thread, it's only a matter of time before mom-and-pop internet sites are all but inaccessible either because they didn't pay 'X' isp x$ to show their site, or the speeds at which their site is accessible is so painfully slow, you'd be better off using a 56k modem. In short, giant media conglomerates win and Trump and crew profit. The writing was already on the wall here...

More simply put, compared to Europe and Asia, the internet in the US sucks. The current FCC boss thinks that's because treating the Internet like a common utility has sucked all the life and innovation out of it.

How does our internet in the US remain fast & cheap? We need more options in more markets to add competition, OR, nationalize the whole thing and treat it as a interstate freeway where Congress decides how many lanes, and the speed limit. But, before you go and think nationalizing is so great, remember it's the big states who have all the representation. Remote places like Wyoming and Idaho will be left behind, unless someone funds somebody's pork project. In my state, there is always a battle between the cities, and the rural over resources.

To be blunt, trying to get more infrastructure for the internet has been tried and failed because of corporate greed. The government has given money to Verizon, AT&T, Cox, Comcast, and TWC to improve their infrastructure to increase speeds for their consumers and every one of them didn't spend said money on infrastructure, they just banked it. The internet backbone companies (those listed above) have forgotten the old adage, "you have to spend money to make money," and are so afraid to spend the money because their shareholders don't want to realize the money down the road, but want it now. So, there's your big reason for why the internet in the US basically sucks, the greed involved in the corporations isn't allowing for increases in the infrastructure to improve the internet.

[kandrathe]

Whoa! Wait. The government hands out money, no strings attached. Money they can just bank.

You blame the people who take the cash?

[DeeBye]

Meanwhile in Canada

[kandrathe]

Meanwhile in Canada

Things are looking up!. This is from a couple years ago.

"The national broadcast regulator said Thursday it was cutting the quota for the ratio of Canadian programs that local TV stations must broadcast during the day from 55 per cent to zero. That's a recognition that stations have sometimes been broadcasting the same program episodes many times over the course of a day, or even over years, simply to satisfy the old Cancon rule. "

[kandrathe]

Here is an article from Wired that blames local governments for putting in the barriers. https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to...mpetition/

Example; http://www.cannonfalls.com/main.asp?Sect...leID=26208

[kandrathe]

Here is an article from Wired that blames local governments for putting in the barriers. https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to...mpetition/

Example; http://www.cannonfalls.com/main.asp?Sect...leID=26208

Maybe the problem is that cities should contract to own the cables over time. Allowing for competition between multiple providers would also help, as would limiting the duration of exclusive contracts. Ten or fifteen years seems to be an excessively long time to be locked into a technology to me.

[EspyLacopa]

To be blunt, trying to get more infrastructure for the internet has been tried and failed because of corporate greed. The government has given money to Verizon, AT&T, Cox, Comcast, and TWC to improve their infrastructure to increase speeds for their consumers and every one of them didn't spend said money on infrastructure, they just banked it. The internet backbone companies (those listed above) have forgotten the old adage, "you have to spend money to make money," and are so afraid to spend the money because their shareholders don't want to realize the money down the road, but want it now. So, there's your big reason for why the internet in the US basically sucks, the greed involved in the corporations isn't allowing for increases in the infrastructure to improve the internet.

That's not greed, that's short-sighted idiocy.

If they were greedy, they'd actually be doing all that stuff with infrastructure becuase it would get them more money.

[Lissa]

To be blunt, trying to get more infrastructure for the internet has been tried and failed because of corporate greed. The government has given money to Verizon, AT&T, Cox, Comcast, and TWC to improve their infrastructure to increase speeds for their consumers and every one of them didn't spend said money on infrastructure, they just banked it. The internet backbone companies (those listed above) have forgotten the old adage, "you have to spend money to make money," and are so afraid to spend the money because their shareholders don't want to realize the money down the road, but want it now. So, there's your big reason for why the internet in the US basically sucks, the greed involved in the corporations isn't allowing for increases in the infrastructure to improve the internet.

That's not greed, that's short-sighted idiocy.

If they were greedy, they'd actually be doing all that stuff with infrastructure becuase it would get them more money.

No, what you're saying is the proper way to do business. The problem is, the big companies don't spend the money because their investors want quick returns, not long term returns. If the investors can't get quick returns, they take their money elsewhere. So, instead of investing the money to make more in the long run, the corporations slit their own throats in the long run for a short term gain so their investors are happy.

[EspyLacopa]

To be blunt, trying to get more infrastructure for the internet has been tried and failed because of corporate greed. The government has given money to Verizon, AT&T, Cox, Comcast, and TWC to improve their infrastructure to increase speeds for their consumers and every one of them didn't spend said money on infrastructure, they just banked it. The internet backbone companies (those listed above) have forgotten the old adage, "you have to spend money to make money," and are so afraid to spend the money because their shareholders don't want to realize the money down the road, but want it now. So, there's your big reason for why the internet in the US basically sucks, the greed involved in the corporations isn't allowing for increases in the infrastructure to improve the internet.

That's not greed, that's short-sighted idiocy.

If they were greedy, they'd actually be doing all that stuff with infrastructure becuase it would get them more money.

No, what you're saying is the proper way to do business. The problem is, the big companies don't spend the money because their investors want quick returns, not long term returns. If the investors can't get quick returns, they take their money elsewhere. So, instead of investing the money to make more in the long run, the corporations slit their own throats in the long run for a short term gain so their investors are happy.

Bolded the important part: That isn't greed, that's stupidity.

[Lissa]

To be blunt, trying to get more infrastructure for the internet has been tried and failed because of corporate greed. The government has given money to Verizon, AT&T, Cox, Comcast, and TWC to improve their infrastructure to increase speeds for their consumers and every one of them didn't spend said money on infrastructure, they just banked it. The internet backbone companies (those listed above) have forgotten the old adage, "you have to spend money to make money," and are so afraid to spend the money because their shareholders don't want to realize the money down the road, but want it now. So, there's your big reason for why the internet in the US basically sucks, the greed involved in the corporations isn't allowing for increases in the infrastructure to improve the internet.

That's not greed, that's short-sighted idiocy.

If they were greedy, they'd actually be doing all that stuff with infrastructure becuase it would get them more money.

No, what you're saying is the proper way to do business. The problem is, the big companies don't spend the money because their investors want quick returns, not long term returns. If the investors can't get quick returns, they take their money elsewhere. So, instead of investing the money to make more in the long run, the corporations slit their own throats in the long run for a short term gain so their investors are happy.

Bolded the important part: That isn't greed, that's stupidity.

No, it's greed. You really need to be involved with a large corporation to see it for what it really is. It sounds like stupidity, but the board of the corporation is doing what they're doing because if they spend money that can't be realized quickly the stock price goes down as the investors sell their shares and the value of the company drops making it so the company has less effective money. Considering that most of the high level corporate officers (we're taking VP up to the board) are mostly paid in stock (VPs usually about 1/3 or more of their yearly salary is stock and board members are looking at 70%+ of their yearly salary is stock, a drop in stock price affects their bottom line).

For those that don't invest heavily, it looks like stupidity, but those that understand investing realize it's greed.

[kandrathe]

Plucky cable billionaires defeat menace of small-town broadband

[kandrathe]

The Worst Lies From Yesterday's Anti-Net Neutrality Speech

• Net neutrality is worse for online privacy -- The FCC privacy rules that Congress just obliterated were undoubtedly stronger than the FTC status quo, because they required opt-in consent before ISPs could sell your browsing history.
  
  
• Net neutrality has harmed broadband investment -- An analysis by Free Press provided to attendees to Pai’s speech yesterday shows that ISPs’ capital expenditure increased more after net neutrality was passed than in the two years before it.
  
  
• Net neutrality accentuates digital redlining -- Pai ignores the entire notion of regulatory action, acting as if the free market is the only thing that can determine where broadband service exists. We wouldn’t accept that argument for electricity service or phone service; why accept it for internet service?
  
  
• The internet wasn’t broken before net neutrality rules -- Note how Pai said ISPs weren’t blocking traffic to certain sites, because sure, that wasn’t happening. But blocking wasn’t the only kind of harm prevented by the net neutrality order: it also had bright-line rules against paid prioritization and throttling, where ISPs would limit or boost traffic to certain websites.