quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Bottom line, for this libertarian/classical liberal: Competition does not currently universally, or even widely, exist in the broadband delivery market. In the face of a lack of competition, there must be regulation .

We read you loud and clear.

Are you asserting monopolies should be unregulated?

quote:

Originally posted by Prefontaine:

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Bottom line, for this libertarian/classical liberal : Competition does not currently universally, or even widely, exist in the broadband delivery market. In the face of a lack of competition, there must be regulation .

We read you loud and clear.

Come on really? Does he need to be rail roaded? He is a libertarian, sorry. Sadly today we must label everyone and fit them into a box, simpleton style, instead of using our brains.

He is right about the confirmation bias. Instead of reading and understanding what he is typing, and learning from the references we must default to liberal or Republican? I’m not that stupid.

I’ve got 20 years in Comms and have worked for 4 carriers and 3 ISP’s. I know bandwidth and carrier infrastructure better than most, from the CO, POP, serving wire center, data center, right down to the last mile. I know their motivation, and it’s money for their own pockets. Instead of a highway, they want a toll road. Why? They’ll make more money. It is certainly not for the average citizen or customer of the ISP.

This subject is certainly not as simple as Republican vs. Democrat or left vs. right. But that’s always what these discussions always seem to turn into.

Having worked in IT, and in regulated industry..... The large telecoms will make money coming or going.

If no regulation, they make money. If regulation, the large players will have to spend money on compliance costs. However, they *will* own the regulators, so they will still make money plus they will be assured of never facing new competition again.

quote:

Are you asserting monopolies should be unregulated?

Yes, unless they violate Anti-Trust Laws.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Bottom line, for this libertarian/classical liberal: Competition does not currently universally, or even widely, exist in the broadband delivery market. In the face of a lack of competition, there must be regulation .

We read you loud and clear.

Are you asserting monopolies should be unregulated?

Why are you in such a hurry to regulate?

A very helpful way to think of regulation is, like chemo drugs. You really, in general Do Not Want them. They're poison, and have unavoidable side effects that remind you that they are, in fact, poison.

But there are occasions where not taking them is worse than deliberately taking poison. In those cases, you take them, as little as absolutely necessary and try to live with the side effects. (And there will always be side effects.)

It's not 'an apple a day......' prophylactic territory here.

quote:

Originally posted by GregY:
Even if the 'therefore there must be regulation' argument were compelling (for the sake of argument), there is an enormous gulf between the propositions:

'There must be regulation' and 'There must be *this* regulation'.

I agree. As does most libertarians; many, if not most, classical liberals, and and a good deal of the tech. community.

This may come as a surprise, being as the tech. community is widely-regarded as being mostly in favour of NN, but, at the same time, most of that same community varies between having no opinion of the FCC to a negative one. At least IME.

quote:

Originally posted by GregY:
It was a regulatory power grab.

If it was a power grab, then why did the FCC initially forgo it in favour of letting the ISPs that were to be regulated under it write their own rules?

If it was a power grab, then why did the FCC wait so long, in the meantime pleading with Congress to act, before exercising it?

Personally, I regard it as having been an act of desperation.

Did you know Tom Wheeler, the previous FCC Chair, was also formerly a venture capitalist and a lobbyist for the TelCom industry? The point there being it was contrary to his nature to do what was ultimately done.

quote:

Originally posted by GregY:
And regulatory capture is a thing.

No argument.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Bottom line, for this libertarian/classical liberal : Competition does not currently universally, or even widely, exist in the broadband delivery market. In the face of a lack of competition, there must be regulation .

We read you loud and clear.

This is dumb. I see him as arguing to help educate (and maybe learn), not necessarily to win.

I appreciate it. Sure some of my posts sound dickish, but I'd be a fool not to ingest and appreciate the data that ensigmatic is throwing our way. He's right when he complains that people aren't reading the stuff he's posting. I'm not saying I agree with NN as it is, but people have to be willing to learn and give in when they're wrong too.

Classic liberal is probably the closest thing to where most of us land anyway. So much of "classic liberal" is live and let live, and seems to closely align with the hashtag the founders used in 1776: #FUCKOFF

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:

Classic liberal is probably the closest thing to where most of us land anyway. So much of "classic liberal" is live and let live, and seems to closely align with the hashtag the founders used in 1776: #FUCKOFF

Maybe it's just me but I am not seeing much "classic liberalism" with increased regulation sans any violation of current laws.

Ok with title 2 1934 there was NO advancement in telephones until 1964ish when a huge technical breakthrough occurred! The Touch Tone Telephone!
Under the current Gov involvement there has been no advancements in Internet technology...
Keep the Government out of things, we are all better off.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
Maybe it's just me but I am not seeing much "classic liberalism" with increased regulation sans any violation of current laws.

Is that not a form of circular reasoning? Of course a law that does not exist cannot be violated.

It has been proven that ISPs deliberately interfered with the free exchange of Internet traffic based on source and/or destination and/or content. People were paying for a certain amount of bandwidth and/or data consumption, then were being told, sometimes surreptitiously, how they could or could not use it.

That's roughly analogous to an electric or natural gas utility telling you how you could use the energy for which you pay.

All Network Neutrality is, at its heart, is the mandate that all data shall be treated equally. If I'm paying for 50/10 Mb/s of bandwidth, it's nobody's business how I use that--whether it be streaming movies, file-sharing with business colleagues, or downloading pr0n.

And even then the FCC has exercised a light hand. E.g.: There's not supposed to be "Internet fast lanes" for chosen content or services, yet that's exactly what T-Mobile has been doing. But T-Mobile is taking all comers, rather than picking winners and losers, so they remain unmolested.

The difference between what TMO's doing and what Comcast did with Netflix? TMO's clearly offering a value add to their customers, without penalizing anybody. Comcast was subtracting value for their customers in order to pressure Netflix. (It worked, btw. Only a desirable outcome if you subscribe to "might makes right.") In short: The FCC's exercising judgement. Don't I often see complaints around here about government failing to exercise judgement?

quote:

Originally posted by GregY:
Why are you in such a hurry to regulate?

A very helpful way to think of regulation is, like chemo drugs. You really, in general Do Not Want them. They're poison, and have unavoidable side effects that remind you that they are, in fact, poison.

But there are occasions where not taking them is worse than deliberately taking poison. In those cases, you take them, as little as absolutely necessary and try to live with the side effects. (And there will always be side effects.)

That is an excellent analogy, IMO, Greg! Thank you. (I'll use that, some day, if you don't mind.)

I'm not in a hurry to regulate. This is actually something of an exception for me. (I was actually initially opposed to NN.) If broadband was truly an open, competitive market I'd be in favour of no more regulation than "truth in advertising." I.e.: That people were getting what they were told they'd get. But it is not. In most areas of the country it's a monopoly, Ajit Pai's claims to the contrary.

Veeper, Prefontaine: Thanks for the kind words.

quote:

All Network Neutrality is, at its heart, is the mandate that all data shall be treated equally. If I'm paying for 50/10 Mb/s of bandwidth, it's nobody's business how I use that--whether it be streaming movies, file-sharing with business colleagues, or downloading pr0n.

It's none of the Government's business to interfere ether.

It wasn't that long ago when we both were using dialup and then came ISDN then T1's and DSL.
Hell, GB service is here!
So Government bandwidth control is not necessary ~ technology will work out the details as will the free market.
There has been network traffic priority forever, this is nothing new.

As for transparency and truth in advertising - no arguments here.

Keep Gov't OUT, it will only stifle innovation, raise costs and inhibit infrastructure improvements.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
Ok with title 2 1934 there was NO advancement in telephones until 1964ish when a huge technical breakthrough occurred! The Touch Tone Telephone!

Not even close to reality.

DTMF (aka: "Touch-Tone") was developed by AT&T's Bell Labs. The Communications Act of 1934 was still in force, and Bell Labs was responsible for a whole raft of other discoveries and developments prior to that, including the transistor, invented in 1956.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
Under the current Gov involvement there has been no advancements in Internet technology...

The ISPs have been reclassified under Title II all of two years.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
It wasn't that long ago when we both were using dialup and then came ISDN then T1's and DSL.
Hell, GB service is here!

And guess what pushed it? Yeah, it was the FCC requiring the Local Exchange Carriers to unbundle local access. It was only after that, and the super-heated dot-com bubble funding innovative CLECs, that the big TelComs finally started offering anything better or more cost-effective than ISDN or T1s.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Davenator,

If you wish to support ante neutrality, follow these directions and tell the FCC.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
The ISPs have been reclassified under Title II all of two years.

Doesn’t that prove the point? The last two years have been the first time there has been a net decrease in non-recession internet infrastructure spending.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
The ISPs have been reclassified under Title II all of two years.

Doesn’t that prove the point?

No. His assertion was there'd been no advancements in Internet technology. (And I suspect that's a false assertion, too.)

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
The last two years have been the first time there has been a net decrease in non-recession internet infrastructure spending.

Cite? Wouldn't happen to be Ajit Pai, again, would it?

This ARS Technica article, Title II hasn’t hurt network investment, according to the ISPs themselves, suggests otherwise.

I will tell you this: There is an over-abundance of "dark fiber" from the dot-com bust. Companies were laying fiber right-and-left because VCs would give them money to do so, even if there were no customers. That was one of the many astonishing things I and others watched happen in the lead-up to the bust. (When the bubble popped, many of us said "It's about time.")

Secondly: Most of the low-hanging fruit in last mile delivery has been picked. What's left is the less-profitable service areas: Hard-to-wire and low-income urban areas, and big stretches of sparsely-populated rural and semi-rural areas.

I would note these are the kinds of areas that, had the FCC and state PSCs/PUCs not "incentivized" the TelComs to do so, would not have telephone service to this day.

Many of you criticizing government involvement in communications infrastructure, please understand this: Once-upon-a-time the U.S. phone system was regarded as the best, most reliable in the world, far and away. This was a phone system that grew under the onus of Title II. Conversely: Our broadband system is widely regarded as a bad joke. Whether by number of subscribers as percentage of population or by broadband speed: We are way out of first place.

Cites: Average internet speed by country as of 1st quarter 2017 (in Mbps), List of countries by number of broadband Internet subscriptions

Pretty sad for "the richest country in the world," I should think.

Btw: If NN is all that Evil, would someone care to explain why, after two years of NN, my ISP was willing to bump me from 12/3 Mb/s to 50/10, reduce my monthly charge, and give me a three-year commitment?

The state of Broadband speeds, data caps, and widespread availability here in the US is sad.

Fully ten years ago kids in Japan could already stream, unlimited, full HD TV to their phones. And not that I care about that particular thing, but I do care about the capability.

Yes, I understand the CONUS is very large and spread out, but we're either the best and are either truly leaders in technology and freedom or we aren't, and, apparently, we aren't.

So who is being oppressed by 18 Megs per second?

Lets be honest, the large majority of internet use is for entertainment.

So I don't feel bad if someone can't stream HD porn for free. Not the least bit. They can get by on SD.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
The ISPs have been reclassified under Title II all of two years.

Doesn’t that prove the point?

No. His assertion was there'd been no advancements in Internet technology. (And I suspect that's a false assertion, too.)

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
The last two years have been the first time there has been a net decrease in non-recession internet infrastructure spending.

Cite? Wouldn't happen to be Ajit Pai, again, would it?

It was from the FCC.
https://www.scribd.com/documen...dom-order#from_embed

Here is why I cannot get behind the .gov being involved....They stifle any kind of growth, period! I live in an area that is only serviced by satellite ISP. With NN, there is not much incentive for newcomers to get me some decent service. I am also very skeptical as to why the .gov wanted in on this to begin with. Especially since the .gov has not had any interest in protecting the citizens of this country for a very long time...Munch on that for a minute....Yeah, didn't sit right with me either!

The deal with NN is simple in my eyes. "Fixing" something that wasn't broken in the first place is what the government does. It creates jobs for them. Basically, they need to create regulatory bodies to make sure that everyone is in compliance. It's a scheme that ensures them and their friends a job. Who is truly benefiting from NN? How many new positions came about because of NN? Anyone look at those numbers? Salaries based on those numbers? Yeah, no thanks Uncle Sam!