The FCC just KILLED Net Neutrality

[Master Disaster]

4 hours ago, Spenser1337 said:

Can you source where trump pushed for the repeal of nn?

It was trump who replaced the previous chairman with Pai and it was trump who made sure 3 of the 5 voters would back the repeal.

 

Trumps name might not show up on any of the paperwork but don't let that kid you, he was very much behind this. He used his powers to basically rig the vote in the favour of business.

[Hellion]

5 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

The folks crying on the internet are one of the following groups:

1. Basement dwellers

2. Misinformed kids that believe everything the tech YouTubers say

3. People that are genuinely concerned about data throttling

The point I'm making is where were the protests and boycotts?

 

Actions speak louder then words. No one cares about words typed on the internet. 

[MadyTehWolfie]

14 hours ago, TheCherryKing said:

Net neutrality is an ineffective policy that claims to treat all data as equal. Instead of solving problems with monopolies it just regulates the monopoly. Proper competition is the best way to ensure ISP's don't get out of control. Instead of the government keeping ISP's in check the ISP's will keep each other in check. "Instead of giving a man a fish teach him how to fish"

-Throws right in the trash bin-

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

And absolutely flabbergasting that there are people who think that this is ok and that the system (which hasn't worked for at least a decade and introduced the very problems that NN is supposed to solve) will somehow magically correct itself and make everything better.  

 

There is no competition therefore you can't rely on competition to keep the bastards honest.  

 

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why, if NN is so pointless and ineffective,  did the ISP's spend $101M on it? and why fabricate all those letters? plus why has the FCC gone to such lengths to repeal it?  That's an awful lot of work for something that is supposedly inconsequential. 

I honestly dont know. Im on your side NN is a good thing.

[TheCherryKing]

39 minutes ago, Hellion said:

The point I'm making is where were the protests and boycotts?

 

Actions speak louder then words. No one cares about words typed on the internet. 

Here's a protest near me: 

Wouldn't boycotting the ISP's mean that those boycotting couldn't get online. Seems a bit counterproductive...

 

[asus killer]

1 hour ago, Suika said:

I entered this thread expecting more legitimate arguments and discussion as to why repealing NN is a good thing, and have been greatly disappointed.

 

1) NN hasn't been doing anything, so repealing it won't change anything.

 

Sure, but if it wasn't doing anything, then why bother spending so much time and effort to repeal it and not replace it with proper legislation? I don't see the argument here at all.

 

2) ISPs can more easily invest in new infrastructure.

 

Except NN didn't prevent investments at all. ISPs reported that NN didn't affect their ability to invest in new and improved infrastructure, nothing changed between 2014 and 2016, this argument is completely moot.

 

3) The internet was fine before NN, the internet will be fine without it.

 

This sounds more like you're willing to gamble the fate of the internet than it does confidence that issues won't happen at all. There are way too many Americans with no other options for service providers that a company like Comcast can impose restrictions on Netflix traffic and sell their own service to customers with little to no repercussions. NN at the least served as the idea that no, this is not OK, consumers and businesses deserve better.

basically from what i can understand common people that defend repealing NN, are just either political party indoctrinated or just hate the government for any reason, and this is a reason as good as any.

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, Jon Jon said:

To be completely fair though, I hate how people talk about America being a democracy.

We are a republic.

 

To be honest, understanding that answers a lot of peoples' frustrations associated with how laws get enacted, repealed, etc. in this country.

 

It's why I state that the issues of access to information need to be put in place into our constitution, since in a republic, the constitution protects the "minority" from the "majority". The majority technically being the people elected into power.

 

Issues like limiting access to information can then be disputed at the legal level.

 

However, people complaining about Netflix getting throttled in certain regions of the country (more than likely where bandwidth isn't plentiful) need to understand that bandwidth isn't free and the people that manage IT infrastructure do not come cheap. Just like with electricity, gas, and water, you pay more for what you consume. It's up to Netflix (and other content providers) to negotiate the rates associated with how much bandwidth their traffic can leverage. I remember there being a dispute between Netflix and Comcast years passed, which resulted in data throttling due to them being unable to strike a deal.

 

People need to understand that these resources aren't infinite, and that there are operational costs associated.

 

Otherwise, the logic behind net neutrality should be dictated everywhere, so we all get to pay the same amount of money for electricity, gas, water (any service that connects our homes to a shared grid) and the companies associated just have to figure out how to support that, regardless of usage.

 

To take it even further, then theoretically, paying for different bandwidth tiers should also be considered "fast lanes" as you are not getting new medium connected to your house to support the different speeds. You should be limited by the physical media chosen to connect your house, just like in your home and connections to your router.

 

We need to view these things from a less "foaming at the mouth" perspective, and more of a logical and knowledgeable one.

 

I am not saying that you are, but these are the questions and topics I never see anyone discussing. It's more of "bandwagon me too" mentality arguments with no logical or factual basis.

 

How do we reduce costs associated with managing these networks? How do we get broadband access to all Americans?

 

Unless someone can cite otherwise, NN has NOT gotten broadband to more regions of the country, but neither has its lack of existence. Maybe it's time that we treated the internet like we do water, gas, and electricity and have programs instilled that get this access to everyone at an affordable rate, you know, real MAGA type stuff. These topics I haven't seen discussed in a productive way, and these are our real problems.

 

I don;t think anyone has confused network limitations with intentional throttling of specific content.  That after is the base problem.   Also  I can't find a quote/post to support the claim that people think NN was supposed to help with infrastructure.

 

5 hours ago, Spenser1337 said:

Direct quote from the new bill: 
No throttling. FCC release, p.83

Many of the largest ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, etc.) have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs

I don't think that says what you think it does.  The first bit are comments from ISP's, not binding law, and the second bit about FTC being able to enforce is dependent on a whole lot of other conditions being met.

 

From the very next paragraph:

Quote

 

many major BIAS providers have now explicitly  promised to adhere to net neutrality principles. These kinds of promises are enforceable by the FTC, assuming it has  jurisdiction over the BIAS provider.”). We reject arguments to the contrary.

See

 Catherine Sandoval Reply Ex. C (“Major ISPs post policy statements on their websites proclaiming that the ISP does not block or throttle data, but these policies are excluded from their consumer contracts. . . [the commitments] are neither written in the language of promise nor condition, nor are they integrated into user agreements, rendering them unenforceable in contract.”).

 

 

Only a promise to principals not an enforceable law applicable to all ISP's,  not always enforceable even if it was written in law anyway and excluded from many consumer contracts side stepping said law.

 

29 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

I don't think anybody here has actually READ THE WHOLE DOCUMENT in the first place. Is anybody gonna read the whole thing and give their analysis or is everybody going to blindly believe whatever the talking heads they follow say ? If everybody here is as agitated and concerned about this issue as they claim to be, reading a measly document of this size should be nothing.....

Maybe not here, but like all extremely long documents, there are better educated people (like Mignon L. Clyburn)  who have and we rely on their explanations.  Also I have skimmed through it and find it to be mostly hot air.  No real defined laws, simply repealing title two and claiming self regulation is enough.

[Hellion]

1 hour ago, TheCherryKing said:

Here's a protest near me: 

Wouldn't boycotting the ISP's mean that those boycotting couldn't get online. Seems a bit counterproductive...

 

Less then a dozen people in Florida of all places waited until a week before the voting took place?

 

That's a pretty poor example.

 

Of all the people whining you think a stronger movement outside the whitehouse would have been a thing. Instead everyones content to bitch and complain into infinity while actually accomplishing nothing.

[lobster_zoidberg]

In 2011, Pai was then nominated for a Republican Party position on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama

[TheCherryKing]

1 hour ago, Hellion said:

Less then a dozen people in Florida of all places waited until a week before the voting took place?

 

That's a pretty poor example.

 

Of all the people whining you think a stronger movement outside the whitehouse would have been a thing. Instead everyones content to bitch and complain into infinity while actually accomplishing nothing.

Protesting is protesting! This is one of the many protests here. 

[Jon Jon]

6 hours ago, Captain Chaos said:

 

The whole Netflix throttling thing had nothing to do with bandwidth, it was all about people choosing Netflix over Comcast's own streaming service and the lost revenue from that.  The fact that the throttling stopped literally the day that they struck a deal is plenty of evidence that the bandwidth existed and they only had to flip the proverbial switch.  Unless you choose to believe that they did massive upgrades to their whole infrastructure in the course of an afternoon.

 

As for bandwidth not being plentiful, since the early 1990s ISPs have received roughly $400 BILLION in exchange for upgrading their infrastructure to fiber (all the way to people's homes) and making that fiber available to competitors.  If lack of bandwidth or lack of competition is an issue anywhere nowadays, it's because they pocketed the money without actually living up to their part of the deal.

 

 

Can you cite that information, as I was not aware?

 

Also, what was the true allocation of those funds over the course of many years?

 

I would argue that $400 billion is NOT enough to run fiber across the entirety of the continental United States, hence why many areas still do not have broadband.

 

Being from the NYC area, where bandwidth is plentiful, I've never experienced any of this stuff, so I would love to know and understand the above if you can provide the detail.

Thanks!

[Guest]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Maybe not here, but like all extremely long documents, there are better educated people (like Mignon L. Clyburn)  who have and we rely on their explanations.  Also I have skimmed through it and find it to be mostly hot air.  No real defined laws, simply repealing title two and claiming self regulation is enough.

From what I've read, it just means we will be going back to the ole title I rules, where the FTC should prevent "deceptive acts or practices", while using a responsive approach (Read: wait and see, then maybe do something).  I've yet to hear from others on whether the FTC would remotely be able to handle the situation (Eg prevent our concerns), and if so, better than the FCC.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Guest
Added eg.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

I don't think anybody here has actually READ THE WHOLE DOCUMENT in the first place. Is anybody gonna read the whole thing and give their analysis or is everybody going to blindly believe whatever the talking heads they follow say ? If everybody here is as agitated and concerned about this issue as they claim to be, reading a measly document of this size should be nothing.....

Ok, after having gone through a quick read of the whole document, I can summarize a few points. For the most part, it is a long winded report on the effects of repealing title II and further explaining how things would work without it, modifying transparency rules (and by effect further deregulating these), and eliminating the FCC's conduct rules. Two quick issues that I noticed was the FCC stating that no agency has the power to properly enforce Title II but continues to say that the FTC would cover what Title II did, and the focus on market based policies without a good addressing of the current state (Where a significant number of users have access to only one ISP).

 

I'll get back to this latter with a more in depth analysis since I'm going back for a more thorough reading along with some annotations (Hurrah for Edge annotation!). This may take me a little bit as a) its 210 pages of long winded dense and boring text, b) I need some sleep, c) I would like to enjoy more of my day, and d) I'm annotating the whole document (I'll share it later). I'll probably be done with this by Monday/Tuesday if I don't procrastinate too much.

[CostcoSamples]

I'm glad its dead.  I don't buy into the popular narrative that it was a good thing.

[lobster_zoidberg]

There is summary of sorts at the end of the document, which lists specifically what they are changing. And here it is:

 

===============================================================================================

 

 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC1712-04

187.APPENDIX A Final Rules

The Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR Parts 1, 8, and 20 as follows:

PART 1 – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

1.

 

Amend section 1.49 by revising paragraph (f)(1)(i) to read as follows:

§ 1.49 Specifications as to pleadings and documents.

* * * * *(f) * * *(1) * * *(i) Formal complaint proceedings under Section 208 of the Act and rules in §§1.720 through 1.736, and pole attachment complaint proceedings under Section 224 of the Act and rules in §§1.1401 through1.1424;* * * * *2.

 

Amend the heading of part 8 to read as follows:

PART 8: INTERNET FREEDOM

 3.

 

Amend the authority citation for part 8 to read as follows:AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 201(b), 218, 257, and 303.4.

 

Amend section 8.1 to read as follows:

§8.1 Transparency.

 

 Federal Communications Commission FCC-CIRC1712-04

188(a) Any person providing broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate informationregarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadbandInternet access services sufficient to enable consumers to make informed choices regarding the purchaseand use of such services and entrepreneurs and other small businesses to develop, market, and maintainInternet offerings. Such disclosure shall be made via a publicly available, easily accessible website orthrough transmittal to the Commission.(b) Broadband Internet access service is a mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides thecapability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints, includingany capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, butexcluding dial-up Internet access service. This term also encompasses any service that the Commissionfinds to be providing a functional equivalent of the service described in the previous sentence or that isused to evade the protections set forth in this part.(c) A network management practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimatenetwork management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology ofthe broadband Internet access service.5.

 

Remove and delete in their entirety sections 8.2, 8.3, 8.5, 8.7, 8.9, 8.11, 8.12, 8.13, 8.14, 8.15,8.16, 8.17, 8.18, and 8.19.

PART 20: COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES

6.

 

Amend Section 20.3 as follows:

§ 20.3 Definitions.

* * * * *

Commercial mobile radio service

. * * ** * * * *(b) The functional equivalent of such a mobile service described in paragraph (a) of this section.* * * * *

 Interconnected Service.

A service:(a) That is interconnected with the public switched network, or interconnected with the public switchednetwork through an interconnected service provider, that gives subscribers the capability to communicateto or receive communication from all other users on the public switched network; or(b) * * ** * * * *

Public Switched Network 

. The network that includes any common carrier switched network, whether bywire or radio, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, and mobile service providers, thatuses the North American Numbering Plan in connection with the provision of switched services

 

======================================================================================================================

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, tjcater said:

From what I've read, it just means we will be going back to the ole title I rules, where the FTC should prevent "deceptive acts or practices", while using a responsive approach (Read: wait and see, then maybe do something).  I've yet to hear from others on whether the FTC would remotely be able to handle the situation (Eg prevent our concerns), and if so, better than the FCC.

And there in lies the problem as outlined by Catherine Sandoval in the actual document, that if an ISP does not claim they are not limiting specific traffic, then there is little the FTC can do.   It essentially seems that the lack of a promise not to throttle is enough to legally throttle.

[LAwLz]

14 hours ago, asus killer said:

oh no, not this again. And you all wonder why the US is in this state *facepalm*

 

That is for mobile phone internet only. And it's just something you can get if you prefer, but in parallel you have on that ISP the traditional way of getting internet for your phone, a monthly fee and you get the 1GB or more or less and even have most of those most used app not counting for the cap.

 

I get people not speaking/reading Portuguese, but come on

That's not an example of what can happen, not someone saying it is already happening and it will become exactly like that.

There is nothing stopping US ISPs from copying that phone carrier's pricing structure and concept, but also remove the "traditional data plans".

What is written in Portuguese or where the image is from actually has very little to do with the point people are trying to raise. That it's horrible if things becomes like that.

 

 

12 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

I don't think anybody here has actually READ THE WHOLE DOCUMENT in the first place. Is anybody gonna read the whole thing and give their analysis or is everybody going to blindly believe whatever the talking heads they follow say ? If everybody here is as agitated and concerned about this issue as they claim to be, reading a measly document of this size should be nothing.....

Which document are you talking about? The statement made after NN was repealed (which among other things includes a promise by ISPs to not be dicks, but makes it perfectly legal for them to be and break their promise) or the telecommunications act of 1934?

If it's the former then no. If it's the latter (telecommunications act) then yes I have read the relevant sections of the document. It's actually not that much to read. It'ws like one or two A4 pages of text, and everything else is just information about what the process should be for breaking the rules, how it should be determined, how it should be fined and things like that.
It starts at page 35.

 

 

 

@mr moose @tjcater

I see that you two are talking about the FTC.

Here is the thing about the FTC, which the FCC are currently trying to hype to be the new power to regulate ISPs and make sure they don't cross any line... The FTC might lose all their regulatory power over ISPs. AT&T has brought the FTC to court (and already won, but the ruling was overtuned and is awaiting final judgement) for trying to regulate ISPs.

The problem is that AT&T and some other ISPs are already classified as common carriers because the telephone systems are common carriers. The FTC has no authority to regulate common carriers because that's the FCC's job. However, the repeal of these rules makes it so that the FCC can regulate the telephone services AT&T provides, but not the ISP portion of services.

If (quite big, but possible if) AT&T wins in court then we will end up in this situation:

 

AT&T breaks let's say the transparency, and the FTC steps in to fine them for breaking the rules. AT&T can claim that since they provide telephone services, they are a common carrier which has been ruled to not fall under the FTC's authority. Therefore, the FTC has no power to enforce any regulations on AT&T.

OK, so they are a common carrier (the company itself that is) and the FTC can not regulate them... So let's go to the FCC? They have authority over common carriers.

Oh wait, broadband services no longer falls under common carrier regulations. That means that while the FCC can punish AT&T for breaking the rules for their telephone services, they can not regulate anything related to broadband.

 

So at the end of the day, nobody holds authority over ISPs who also happens to be telephone service providers.

 

So all the talk about the FTC being able to step in is actually a red herring. They are already in the process of undermining and creating loopholes in the new regulation system.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

AT&T breaks let's say the transparency, and the FTC steps in to fine them for breaking the rules. AT&T can claim that since they provide telephone services, they are a common carrier which has been ruled to not fall under the FTC's authority. Therefore, the FTC has no power to enforce any regulations on AT&T.

OK, so they are a common carrier (the company itself that is) and the FTC can not regulate them... So let's go to the FCC? They have authority over common carriers.

Oh wait, broadband services no longer falls under common carrier regulations. That means that while the FCC can punish AT&T for breaking the rules for their telephone services, they can not regulate anything related to broadband.

Fudge, well I hope they lose if Title II is completely gone (Seems like the outcome now).

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

So at the end of the day, nobody holds authority over ISPs who also happens to be telephone service providers.

I guess we will end up seeing more telephone services cropping up now

[mr moose]

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That's not an example of what can happen, not someone saying it is already happening and it will become exactly like that.

There is nothing stopping US ISPs from copying that phone carrier's pricing structure and concept, but also remove the "traditional data plans".

What is written in Portuguese or where the image is from actually has very little to do with the point people are trying to raise. That it's horrible if things becomes like that.

 

 

Which document are you talking about? The statement made after NN was repealed (which among other things includes a promise by ISPs to not be dicks, but makes it perfectly legal for them to be and break their promise) or the telecommunications act of 1934?

If it's the former then no. If it's the latter (telecommunications act) then yes I have read the relevant sections of the document. It's actually not that much to read. It'ws like one or two A4 pages of text, and everything else is just information about what the process should be for breaking the rules, how it should be determined, how it should be fined and things like that.
It starts at page 35.

 

 

 

@mr moose @tjcater

I see that you two are talking about the FTC.

Here is the thing about the FTC, which the FCC are currently trying to hype to be the new power to regulate ISPs and make sure they don't cross any line... The FTC might lose all their regulatory power over ISPs. AT&T has brought the FTC to court (and already won, but the ruling was overtuned and is awaiting final judgement) for trying to regulate ISPs.

The problem is that AT&T and some other ISPs are already classified as common carriers because the telephone systems are common carriers. The FTC has no authority to regulate common carriers because that's the FCC's job. However, the repeal of these rules makes it so that the FCC can regulate the telephone services AT&T provides, but not the ISP portion of services.

If (quite big, but possible if) AT&T wins in court then we will end up in this situation:

 

AT&T breaks let's say the transparency, and the FTC steps in to fine them for breaking the rules. AT&T can claim that since they provide telephone services, they are a common carrier which has been ruled to not fall under the FTC's authority. Therefore, the FTC has no power to enforce any regulations on AT&T.

OK, so they are a common carrier (the company itself that is) and the FTC can not regulate them... So let's go to the FCC? They have authority over common carriers.

Oh wait, broadband services no longer falls under common carrier regulations. That means that while the FCC can punish AT&T for breaking the rules for their telephone services, they can not regulate anything related to broadband.

 

So at the end of the day, nobody holds authority over ISPs who also happens to be telephone service providers.

 

So all the talk about the FTC being able to step in is actually a red herring. They are already in the process of undermining and creating loopholes in the new regulation system.

 

Yep, it certainly looks that way.   That is also the problem Catherine Sandoval expressed.     It seems to be much like the alternative medicine scene at the moment,  the FDA has no authority over supplements because they are neither food nor drugs and the FTC has no authority because they are food and drugs.   meanwhile miracle snake oil sales are through the roof because no one is holding them to account. 

[leadeater]

45 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Yep, it certainly looks that way.   That is also the problem Catherine Sandoval expressed.     It seems to be much like the alternative medicine scene at the moment,  the FDA has no authority over supplements because they are neither food nor drugs and the FTC has no authority because they are food and drugs.   meanwhile miracle snake oil sales are through the roof because no one is holding them to account. 

What I can't figure out is why ISPs don't fall under the FCC no matter what. Like based on what the FCC standards for and what internet services actually are an authority for communications is the most appropriate authority for it.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

What I can't figure out is why ISPs don't fall under the FCC not matter what. Like based on what the FCC standards for and what internet services actually are an authority for communications is the most appropriate authority for it.

Because American politics and constitution?  I don't really understand it either.   It's not that complicated yet for some reason they love to tie everything up in years of unnecessary bureaucracy.  

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

What I can't figure out is why ISPs don't fall under the FCC not matter what. Like based on what the FCC standards for and what internet services actually are an authority for communications is the most appropriate authority for it.

Parts of them still have to deal with a lot of FCC regulations. That hasn't changed. It's a discussion about the statutory regulation scheme around the Infrastructure aspects. Or, is what you pay your ISP "Trade" or "Communication"? And, as publicly traded companies, they also deal with the SEC (Security & Exchange Commission). 

 

The Propaganda campaigns turned what is a fairly dry, if important, topic and made it about "FREEDOM!", but what most were really responding to was "I want my Internet!". It was little more than professional fearmongering. No one ever wants to talk about FCC regulation of Bell Telecom brutally stifled telecom development in the country for decades, though it hilarious gave us all of the computer tech. ("Bell Labs" pretty much invented the modern technology world as something of a happy accident within Bell.) 

[asus killer]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

That's not an example of what can happen, not someone saying it is already happening and it will become exactly like that.

There is nothing stopping US ISPs from copying that phone carrier's pricing structure and concept, but also remove the "traditional data plans".

What is written in Portuguese or where the image is from actually has very little to do with the point people are trying to raise. That it's horrible if things becomes like that.

in my opinion that is exactly where things go wrong in the discussion of NN in the US. Because if any ISP in America gave that option to someone how can that be a bad thing? what should not happen is having no alternatives to that. This is the type of speech that makes Ajit Pai look good on this discussion.

That's just fear mongering and fake news.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

No one ever wants to talk about FCC regulation of Bell Telecom brutally stifled telecom development in the country for decades, though it hilarious gave us all of the computer tech. ("Bell Labs" pretty much invented the modern technology world as something of a happy accident within Bell.) 

The Bell thing is slightly different though, in that it was a government approved monopoly and the regulations were in an effort to try and ensure Bell developed the communications networks and kept fair pricing and quality of service.

 

The current ISP scheme isn't quite the same, they aren't government approved and recognized monopolies even though realistically they are. No one was proposing to classify them as such either and regulate them like Bell was, that didn't work and lead to the AT&T break-up.

 

So we have history showing us that a sanctioned and regulated monopoly was bad for consumers and now we have unsanctioned questionably regulated monopolies and people are surprised that also isn't working. I wonder what the commonality is between this, monopolies maybe? .

 

I've said it before, nothing will change until the current ISPs are forced to split out their businesses along with local internet exchanges and last mile cabling becoming fair access for any ISP.

[Taf the Ghost]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The Bell thing is slightly different though, in that it was a government approved monopoly and the regulations were in an effort to try and ensure Bell developed the communications networks and kept fair pricing and quality of service.

 

The current ISP scheme isn't quite the same, they aren't government approved and recognized monopolies even though realistically they are. No one was proposing to classify them as such either and regulate them like Bell was, that didn't work and lead to the AT&T break-up.

 

So we have history showing us that a sanctioned and regulated monopoly was bad for consumers and now we have unsanctioned questionably regulated monopolies and people are surprised that also isn't working. I wonder what the commonality is between this, monopolies maybe? .

 

I've said it before, nothing will change until the current ISPs are forced to split out their businesses along with local internet exchanges and last mile cabling becoming fair access for any ISP.

I wouldn't mind that final end-game, which is part of the reason I brought up Bell in the first place. Nothing from the past is perfectly applicable to the current situation, either. And I'm more than down for some Trust Busting. And I'm looking at you Google, who's illegally cross-subsidized YouTube to the tune of 10s of billions of dollars.

 

But that's also why the fearmongering propaganda campaign was so important to the Google faction. All of the FTC vs FCC stuff let's them hide their motives, while also completely destroying discussion around the actual issues. And the bigger one is that Internet is a local issue. All 50 States and other territories have approached it slightly differently. But, I'm not sure I've even heard of a locality pulling it off just yet, in the States. Though I feel like there's some oddities that come to mind. I think Google was required to put in local high-speed internet around one of their Datacenters. I think one of the Oregon ones, though my Google-fu is coming up short.

 

This discussion reminds me, too much, of dealing with certain factions obsessed with the fact Americans don't use trains. They keep pointing to Japan without ever discussioning the whys, the hows and the reality of Japanese high-speed and local train service. They also never want to discuss the much of the reason it took off is that much of the land was cleared... by the American Bombing Campaign of WW2. Rail lines are surprisingly easy to plan & lay when large portions of the planned rollout are burned to a crisp. (They also want to ignore that in a country roughly the size of California, their high-speed rail system cost upwards of 1 Trillion USD. There's a reason Americans uses Cars & Planes.)

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Though I feel like there's some oddities that come to mind. I think Google was required to put in local high-speed internet around one of their Datacenters. I think one of the Oregon ones, though my Google-fu is coming up short.

Microsoft did the same, if anyone actually wants fibre to the home locate a large public cloud data center and buy as close to it as possible lol.

 

4 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

This discussion reminds me, too much, of dealing with certain factions obsessed with the fact Americans don't use trains. They keep pointing to Japan without ever discussioning the whys, the hows and the reality of Japanese high-speed and local train service. They also never want to discuss the much of the reason it took off is that much of the land was cleared... by the American Bombing Campaign of WW2. Rail lines are surprisingly easy to plan & lay when large portions of the planned rollout are burned to a crisp. (They also want to ignore that in a country roughly the size of California, their high-speed rail system cost upwards of 1 Trillion USD. There's a reason Americans uses Cars & Planes.)

That's also not counting the complete culture difference between the two countries too. Japan is very happy with a tightly controlled rail system for all types of travel, local and inter city where in the US there is a much different culture. Road trips, caravaning, spur of the moment travel etc and multiple different car culture groups, totally different public wants from a transportation network. Also no matter how fast you make a train it's not going to beat a plane over a reasonable distance and even factoring in the cost of aircraft it's probably cheaper than the rail lines and support infrastructure.