A regulated and taxed internet

[3rdnlng]

Personally, an unregulated internet is an ideal internet in my view. With these ISPs attempting to essentially force their own regulation on it in the form of taxing high bandwidth private content providers, the idea of a truly unregulated system is slipping away. So the question becomes: who should decide the rules. I know most of you will side with private industry, which in your view is represented by the ISPs here, but the content generators are generally smaller private companies. Ultimately, as always, the **** flows downhill. The ISPs are trying to pass the cost along to the content providers who will ultimately have to pass the cost along to the consumers. The ISPs only have their own interests at heart. This entire concept stifles innovation, erects barriers to entry and inhibits the free market beauty of anyone being able to act on a novel business idea.

Let's say that there are two companies that use electricity in their quest to make a profit. Company "A" uses it for standard things like lights and office equipment. Company "B" uses it extensively (about 100 times what Company "A" uses) to produce a product. The electric company feels that it is unfair that Company "B" is only charged what Company "A" is charged. They want to charge Company "B" more while Company "B" feels that the expense of their usage should be spread out over everyone,.and lobbies the government to make that happen. The people in charge of the government who have been lavished with untold millions of dollars from George Soros et al in the form of campaign contributions and grants in favor of Company "B's" position come up with a plan that rivals the ACA in its non-transparency and will allow the government to control content and muzzle dissent. I can see why you feel that: "This entire concept stifles innovation, erects barriers to entry and inhibits the free market beauty of anyone being able to act on a novel business idea."

[GG]

If you scroll up a few posts, you'll note a post I made, which you responded to, in which I state that exact intent, and even provide a time-line.

 

Is scrolling up too much effort as well?

 

This is what happens when people do their own homework. But since you are the resident scholar in this topic, perhaps you can point out to the community college types, exactly where in this thread you state the exact intent and even provide a time line.

 

I'm even willing to help you out - this is the entirety of your contribution to this thread:

 

 

Proceed...

 

You've opined.

 

By all means continue to do so.

 

I'll gladly oblige, once you've completed your position statement.

 

That's not an argument. That's a fiat declaration.

 

If you've made a prior argument, please link it.

 

Stop being a !@#$.

 

It's not my job to research every post you've made, or argument you've participated in.

 

Those arguments closed with those threads.

 

You're free to link or quote those arguments, as I do when I reference mine, or you're free to be a !@#$.

 

Both GG and yourself are just about the furthest thing from Socrates that exists on this web forum, so I'll politely thank both of you to forego the patronizing tone of Socratic questioning as a substitute for debate. Feel free to substitute a detailed expression of your opinions in the future. That will help to prevent you from appearing to be a huge flapping !@#$.

 

Oh, I can explain it in painstaking detail. And I'm opposed, because, as you stated, it's a solution begging for a problem.

 

I'll explain it either tonight or tomorrow, at length, because when you opined, you did not.

 

And then there's also the common courtesy of sourcing material one is referencing on the internet, even if it's their own material.

 

You not sourcing your work is my fault?

...

 

Try making a justification that wouldn't be laughed out of community college.

 

So you'd like to be held to a lower intellectual standard?

 

Perhaps you'd also like a participation trophy?

 

All this, because you find it oddly meritorious to flaunt the most basic of intellectual standards.

 

Don't worry. I'm sure people take you very seriously, what with all of your unsourced declaratives.

 

Sourcing your work is hard.

 

Quixotic indeed.

 

I share your opinion, nitwit.

 

My issue is with the lazy way you participate.

 

If you scroll up a few posts, you'll note a post I made, which you responded to, in which I state that exact intent, and even provide a time-line.

 

Is scrolling up too much effort as well?

 

[Rob's House]

What's your opposition to the concept? Simply anti government regulation? I'm genuinely curious.

My opposition? I'm still waiting for someone to give a halfway plausible explanation for why it's desirable. Until someone, anyone, can do that why would I support it?

 

It seems to me there are 3 groups of people that support this. The first are unabashed statists who want government control over virtually everything. The second are those with a reflexive opposition to anything corporate, they hear this restricts Comcast, who they know to be a corporation that acts all corporationy and makes money, so it must be good. That's really about as deep as their reasoning goes. The third are just lemmings that get on board because their friend invited them to like net neutrality on FB, they did, and now they're invested in it.

 

Personally, an unregulated internet is an ideal internet in my view. With these ISPs attempting to essentially force their own regulation on it in the form of taxing high bandwidth private content providers, the idea of a truly unregulated system is slipping away. So the question becomes: who should decide the rules. I know most of you will side with private industry, which in your view is represented by the ISPs here, but the content generators are generally smaller private companies. Ultimately, as always, the **** flows downhill. The ISPs are trying to pass the cost along to the content providers who will ultimately have to pass the cost along to the consumers. The ISPs only have their own interests at heart. This entire concept stifles innovation, erects barriers to entry and inhibits the free market beauty of anyone being able to act on a novel business idea.

Anti-trust laws should be sufficient to prevent this theoretical place you speculate we could eventually reach. Edited February 26, 2015 by Rob's House

[GG]

Personally, an unregulated internet is an ideal internet in my view. With these ISPs attempting to essentially force their own regulation on it in the form of taxing high bandwidth private content providers, the idea of a truly unregulated system is slipping away. So the question becomes: who should decide the rules. I know most of you will side with private industry, which in your view is represented by the ISPs here, but the content generators are generally smaller private companies. Ultimately, as always, the **** flows downhill. The ISPs are trying to pass the cost along to the content providers who will ultimately have to pass the cost along to the consumers. The ISPs only have their own interests at heart. This entire concept stifles innovation, erects barriers to entry and inhibits the free market beauty of anyone being able to act on a novel business idea.

 

Exactly how do private enterprises have the power to tax their customers?

[Azalin]

The ISPs are trying to pass the cost along to the content providers who will ultimately have to pass the cost along to the consumers.

 

More specifically the cost required to increase the network's capability to both carry and reliably deliver ever increasing amounts of data requires an investment in expanding ISPs' capabilities to handle the load. That's pretty much expected - the more people use the net, the more the net has to be able to carry. But there is a significant difference in the load induced on the network from one content provider to the next. Sites with static content (like TBD) don't generate much downstream traffic, as opposed to a subscription movie site, which deals in vast amounts of both audio and video, which is a massive amount of data, and can slow the network down.

 

The ISPs are constantly upgrading their networks (I work for one of the major telecom companies, and you should see the equipment we've installed in my facility since 2001 - it's incredible) in order to meet customers' demands. When the ISP has to go above & beyond anticipated growth in their ability to meet customer demands due to the extra burden created by certain content providers, then I believe it's fair to charge those content providers a higher rate for their usage. Using Netflix as an example, the ISP would charge Netflix a higher rate than they would TwoBillsDrive. Any cost that would be passed on to the customer would, as you say, come from Netflix, not from the ISP. But that's only if Netflix doesn't do anything to move the same content in the form of less data, which is a possible option that doesn't seem to come up in the conversation.

 

One of the things that I'm worried about with the FCC insinuating itself into the industry is that they will likely be imposing a similar regulatory structure to the way they regulated telephone service. Both the FCC and the PUC (Public Utilities Commission - there's 54 of them, one in each state, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, and one other I can't remember) set pricing for telephone service, the phone companies didn't. Back in those days (and even today whenever dealing with land lines) the telephone company had to apply to both entities to get permission to lower their rates for basic services as well as for the old-fashioned bells & whistles (caller ID, star69, etc). Will our monthly internet access bills start listing the same kind of surcharges that we had on our phone bills (line access fee, etc)? This is the most likely source of any increase to the consumer on the ISP side as far as I can see.

 

Given a few short years and continued non-interference by government entities, any existing problems in data delivery capabilities will have sorted themselves out. I don't see any advantage to federal involvement in this at all.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Azalin

[IDBillzFan]

It seems to me there are 3 groups of people that support this. The first are unabashed statists who want government control over virtually everything. The second are those with a reflexive opposition to anything corporate, they hear this restricts Comcast, who they know to be a corporation that acts all corporationy and makes money, so it must be good. That's really about as deep as their reasoning goes. The third are just lemmings that get on board because their friend invited them to like net neutrality on FB, they did, and now they're invested in it.

 

Four: the handful of people getting the 100s of millions of dollars that Soros (who is part of the first group you cite) is using to "make it rain" in order to put this in place.

I don't see any advantage to federal involvement in this at all.

 

Only one: see my post above.

[GG]

Given a few short years and continued non-interference by government entities, any existing problems in data delivery capabilities will have sorted themselves out. I don't see any advantage to federal involvement in this at all.

 

To put things in perspective, an internet equivalent of an 800-number is illegal under net neutrality.

[B-Man]

Funny....................

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

This is what happens when people do their own homework. But since you are the resident scholar in this topic, perhaps you can point out to the community college types, exactly where in this thread you state the exact intent and even provide a time line.

 

I'm even willing to help you out - this is the entirety of your contribution to this thread:

 

It would be this part, right here:

 

"I'll explain it either tonight or tomorrow, at length, because when you opined, you did not."

[GG]

It would be this part, right here:

 

"I'll explain it either tonight or tomorrow, at length, because when you opined, you did not."

 

Take your time then. I'm sure it will be quite illuminating for us simpletons.

[Gene Frenkle]

Let's say that there are two companies that use electricity in their quest to make a profit. Company "A" uses it for standard things like lights and office equipment. Company "B" uses it extensively (about 100 times what Company "A" uses) to produce a product. The electric company feels that it is unfair that Company "B" is only charged what Company "A" is charged. They want to charge Company "B" more while Company "B" feels that the expense of their usage should be spread out over everyone,.and lobbies the government to make that happen. The people in charge of the government who have been lavished with untold millions of dollars from George Soros et al in the form of campaign contributions and grants in favor of Company "B's" position come up with a plan that rivals the ACA in its non-transparency and will allow the government to control content and muzzle dissent. I can see why you feel that: "This entire concept stifles innovation, erects barriers to entry and inhibits the free market beauty of anyone being able to act on a novel business idea."

The government currently regulates the power companies. That aside, Netflix, Youtube and Mom & Pop's Online Store are not direct customers of Comcast, Time Warner, etc... These companies are already paying their hosting companies based on the bandwidth their customers are using. The consumer ISPs like Comcast and Time Warner are simply supplying connectivity to the end user. They trying to restrict how their paying end users are using the bandwidth they have purchased. They are essentially trying to extort Netflix-like companies based on the usage patterns of their shared customer base.

 

The best direct comparison is with the cable companies, though it's still a crappy comparison because the content providers do not (currently) have to negotiate with the consumer ISPs directly to make their content available to internet consumers. If you start a website today, you do not have to negotiate separate deals with Comcast, Time Warner, etc... to make your website available to people who wish to access it. If the ISPs are running out of bandwidth because of customer usage patterns, they should charge their end users for bandwidth usage directly instead of trying to throttle usage by blocking or throttling individual private content providers. Otherwise you'll run into situations like MSG or HBO not being available to customer on TWC because of failed contract negotiations: "We're sorry, but Netflix is not currently available on Comcast."

My opposition? I'm still waiting for someone to give a halfway plausible explanation for why it's desirable. Until someone, anyone, can do that why would I support it?

 

It seems to me there are 3 groups of people that support this. The first are unabashed statists who want government control over virtually everything. The second are those with a reflexive opposition to anything corporate, they hear this restricts Comcast, who they know to be a corporation that acts all corporationy and makes money, so it must be good. That's really about as deep as their reasoning goes. The third are just lemmings that get on board because their friend invited them to like net neutrality on FB, they did, and now they're invested in it.

 

Anti-trust laws should be sufficient to prevent this theoretical place you speculate we could eventually reach.

So, like with so many other things, you are opposed to it because of your view of the people who support it. What a well-thought-out and informed opinion. How about doing some reading on what this is all about before forming an opinion. Strange concept, I know.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Gene Frenkle

[Gene Frenkle]

I thought of another analogy.

 

Let's say I lease a Hummer and you lease a Prius. Let's also say that the roads we drive on are privately owned. You and I pay a flat fee to the private road provider company. We also both pay a fee to the companies we are respectively leasing from. The private road provider company decides that my Hummer is causing more damage to their roads than your Prius. Instead of charging me more directly for the added wear and tear my choice of automobile causes their roads, the private road company issues an ultimatum to GM: pay us more for the vehicles your customers are using or we will restrict your access to the roads we own. Currently, GM and Toyota have no direct relationship with the private road company. A settlement cannot be reached between GM and the road company. Hummers are blocked from the roads. I, the consumer who has no say in any of this, suddenly cannot drive the vehicle I purchased on these private roads. There are no other reasonable options to use another company's private roads because, well, the private road company holds a virtual monopoly on providing roads in my area. I got screwed.

 

Screw your Prius and please, for the love of god, think of the Hummers!

[Rob's House]

So, like with so many other things, you are opposed to it because of your view of the people who support it. What a well-thought-out and informed opinion. How about doing some reading on what this is all about before forming an opinion. Strange concept, I know.

My impression of those who support it was a separate musing that has nothing to do with my opposition. I very clearly stated more than once that I've yet to hear anyone offer any remotely plausible reason why I should support it and no one has offered anything.

 

To your credit you at least tried, but all you offered was some contrived hypothetical that will probably never materialize, and you've not made the case for how this would help in that hypothetical scenario even if it were to occur. You don't sound all that different from the guy building a bunker and stockpiling weapons for the impending collapse.

I thought of another analogy.

 

Let's say I lease a Hummer and you lease a Prius. Let's also say that the roads we drive on are privately owned. You and I pay a flat fee to the private road provider company. We also both pay a fee to the companies we are respectively leasing from. The private road provider company decides that my Hummer is causing more damage to their roads than your Prius. Instead of charging me more directly for the added wear and tear my choice of automobile causes their roads, the private road company issues an ultimatum to GM: pay us more for the vehicles your customers are using or we will restrict your access to the roads we own. Currently, GM and Toyota have no direct relationship with the private road company. A settlement cannot be reached between GM and the road company. Hummers are blocked from the roads. I, the consumer who has no say in any of this, suddenly cannot drive the vehicle I purchased on these private roads. There are no other reasonable options to use another company's private roads because, well, the private road company holds a virtual monopoly on providing roads in my area. I got screwed.

 

Screw your Prius and please, for the love of god, think of the Hummers!

That's the weak link. There is no monopoly. In fact, options are becoming more plentiful by the day. Your whole argument is that we need a massive federal power grab over the whole internet because a relative handful of people in rural areas don't currently have multiple ISPs in their area. Edited February 26, 2015 by Rob's House

[3rdnlng]

I thought of another analogy.

 

Let's say I lease a Hummer and you lease a Prius. Let's also say that the roads we drive on are privately owned. You and I pay a flat fee to the private road provider company. We also both pay a fee to the companies we are respectively leasing from. The private road provider company decides that my Hummer is causing more damage to their roads than your Prius. Instead of charging me more directly for the added wear and tear my choice of automobile causes their roads, the private road company issues an ultimatum to GM: pay us more for the vehicles your customers are using or we will restrict your access to the roads we own. Currently, GM and Toyota have no direct relationship with the private road company. A settlement cannot be reached between GM and the road company. Hummers are blocked from the roads. I, the consumer who has no say in any of this, suddenly cannot drive the vehicle I purchased on these private roads. There are no other reasonable options to use another company's private roads because, well, the private road company holds a virtual monopoly on providing roads in my area. I got screwed.

 

Screw your Prius and please, for the love of god, think of the Hummers!

Tell ya what, you give me the hummer and you can have my Prius.

[Gene Frenkle]

My impression of those who support it was a separate musing that has nothing to do with my opposition. I very clearly stated more than once that I've yet to hear anyone offer any remotely plausible reason why I should support it and no one has offered anything.

 

To your credit you at least tried, but all you offered was some contrived hypothetical that will probably never materialize, and you've not made the case for how this would help in that hypothetical scenario even if it were to occur. You don't sound all that different from the guy building a bunker and stockpiling weapons for the impending collapse.

That's the weak link. There is no monopoly. In fact, options are becoming more plentiful by the day. Your whole argument is that we need a massive federal power grab over the whole internet because a relative handful of people in rural areas don't currently have multiple ISPs in their area.

It's already materialized in the power struggle between cable companies and cable content providers many, many times. Maybe the monopoly argument isn't completely true anymore, but you're making the consumer chose content based on the ISP they choose. The consumer is locked into contracts with the ISPs, who you think should be allowed to restrict access to whatever content they choose whenever they like. Internet Service Providers should provide internet service - that's it. They do not produce the content. They simply benefit from the service demand which stems from the content. Content providers are already paying to have their content served up by hosting providers. End users are already paying for service from the ISPs. Why should the ISPs be allowed to double-dip and/or restrict access to something they neither produced or payed for? It's insanity.

 

Your argument is that there is not a monopoly? Ok, fine. You think I support a federal power grab over the "whole internet"? Bullschitt. I support no restrictions whatsoever. It's up to these ISPs to decide how to make a profit within an unrestricted system, IMO. Net Neutrality is simply about making private companies unable to censor, restrict or otherwise impede access to content. That's it. If you want restrictions, move to China you !@#$ing commie!

Edited February 26, 2015 by Gene Frenkle

[IDBillzFan]

Tell ya what, you give me the hummer...

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this isn't that kind of forum.

[Gene Frenkle]

FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules For 'Open Internet'

 

The Federal Communications Commission approved the policy known as net neutrality by a 3-2 vote at its Thursday meeting, with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler saying that the policy will ensure "that no one – whether government or corporate – should control free open access to the Internet."

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382/net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board

[Chef Jim]

FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules For 'Open Internet'

 

The Federal Communications Commission approved the policy known as net neutrality by a 3-2 vote at its Thursday meeting, with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler saying that the policy will ensure "that no one – whether government or corporate – should control free open access to the Internet."

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382/net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board

 

I'm not up on this at all but was the government regulation of the internet decided by 5 people?

[Azalin]

Internet Service Providers should provide internet service - that's it. They do not produce the content. They simply benefit from the service demand which stems from the content.

 

ISPs absolutely do provide content. Have you ever heard of AT&T's Uverse? It's digital television piped over the internet. You're also forgetting that voice calls are now mostly done across the internet. With ISPs like Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner (with their own digital television and digital voice service), and any of the other big companies, you have a perfect example of an ISP using their own network to deliver their own product.

[Gene Frenkle]

 

I'm not up on this at all but was the government regulation of the internet decided by 5 people?

Yup. You can thank the Baby Jesus that (three of) these five people made a good decision for you on a topic that will affect your life but that you are relatively unaware of. Your internet content will not be restricted and you can forget about that neutral net? thing you kinda remember but never really understood. I kid, I kid. Sorta.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/25/fcc-net-neutrality-vote/24009247/