Consumer Protection

[adman29]

So, for the past couple of years I've been doing a local program called Youth In Government, where you basically become part of a legislature for 3 days out of the year, acting as senators and representatives, passing bills and such. This year I wrote a bill focusing on consumer protection in the realm of ISP's, and kind of wanted to know what you guys thought of it (Please leave constructive criticism) :

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vb48AzmaBCw97UWS9D-qkB3oFL5tjsoFlMB1BXd2_-o/edit?usp=sharing

 

However here's the thing, since next year is going to be my final year in the program, I'd like to know what all of you would like to see in the bill, and hopefully some of your suggestions could be picked up by a senator in my state! 

 

[meritmaster]

Section 2: The State of Oklahoma will require all internet service providers to provide a minimum amount of bandwidth to all customers as follows:

January 2016: 50 Mbps

January 2018: 100 Mbps

January 2020: 200 Mbps

January 2022: 400 Mbps

January 2024: 800 Mbps

January 2026: 1 Gbps

January 2027: A committee known as the Oklahoma Network Oversight Committee will convene to decide if it will be necessary to extend these guidelines for a future 10 years.

 

The bill you propose would do nothing but restrict the free market, limit citizens to what they can do with their private property, and create opportunity for the government to control the flow of information; this section, section, is a perfect example.

Under section 2, you lay down a plan to set a minimum bandwidth bar for a private company to offer to its private customer, but this a total break away from a free market, as this a aspect of socialist economy, or a 'controlled economy"; this blockades the service provider to offer a cheap inexpensive speed to a customer equipped with less money, thus making fairly hard for the little man to get an internet connection.

You also up the bar as years go on, and this shouldn't be up to the government, but instead the private company, the party who decides how fast they develop their technology, as they develop their technology at there own pace, as mistakes cannot be made; if a company wanted to offer 5 MBPS speed only, and never research to get technology capable of outputing faster internet to it's customers, then that company will end up being put out of business by competitors, as technology will naturally progress through the free market, like it has been majorly for 200 years, or so.

 

 

Section 3: If an internet service provider fails to meet one of these guidelines the penalties are as follow:

 

1st Offense: A fine of $10,000

2nd Offense: A fine of $150,000

3rd Offense: $500,000 and said ISP will no longer be allowed to operate in the state of Oklahoma for 10 years.

 

You then announce in section 3 a plan for punishing ISPs, you suggest a system of fines, and eventually a possible expulsion from the state, but this doesn't seem sane at all. The ISP would not be able to output such speeds for everyone, thus making them not able to do what is requested, which will end up in said fines, but if they cannot output it, then how can they possibly deliver? Since they couldn't deliver they will be fined, and eventually kicked out of the state, this will the leave the state with one less ISP, and probably a big one like Comcast, so if they could not deliver what you want, and when you wanted it, then who could? No one, and your state would be left with little to no ISP's, or for at least 10 years, if they even decide to come back.

 

 

Section 5: Any revenue generated from these fines will be placed directly into the Oklahoma General Fund for future use.

 

 

 

Well... this doesn't sound good at all, and opens the door to corruption, and abuse; this could be used for steal money, funnel it in to the "Gerneral Fund", and special interest groups in politics can use it for their own desires. "General funds" aren't always a good thing.

[mr moose]

I feel that the main driver of any economy is demand,  demand and competition should drive up speed and lower cost, not legislation.  By forcing minimum speeds and imposing fines you artificially limit the entry requirements for new business in that any new ISP will require significantly more funds in order to assure it meets the legal requirements to provide said services.  These limitations will reduce competition.

 

Until a demand is known, the minimum required bandwidth could be set higher than is reasonably required.  As compression algorithms and software become more efficient the requirement for more bandwidth diminishes. Without knowing what advances or innovations will be made in communication software/technology,  to set the estimated bandwidth requirement for a ten year period is more or less just guessing. 

 

 

Just my immediate thoughts.

 

EDIT: one more thought,  law should protect business and consumers from anti competitive behavior and anti trust behaviour, not fine a company for poor performance.

[Michael McAllister]

I feel that the main driver of any economy is demand,  demand and competition should drive up speed and lower cost, not legislation.  By forcing minimum speeds and imposing fines you artificially limit the entry requirements for new business in that any new ISP will require significantly more funds in order to assure it meets the legal requirements to provide said services.  These limitations will reduce competition.

 

Until a demand is known, the minimum required bandwidth could be set higher than is reasonably required.  As compression algorithms and software become more efficient the requirement for more bandwidth diminishes. Without knowing what advances or innovations will be made in communication software/technology,  to set the estimated bandwidth requirement for a ten year period is more or less just guessing. 

 

 

Just my immediate thoughts.

 

I'll have to slightly disagree here.  The fact that plenty of other regions globally are taking steps to increase broadband speed significantly is all the evidence you really need to show that there is a demand.

As an example in the US, there is Google Fiber.  How many forums have you been on where users are apathetic towards the expansion of faster broadband at lower prices?  How many people have you come across that would out right pass on the chance to have 100 times the speed at a quarter of the price?

[mr moose]

I'll have to slightly disagree here.  The fact that plenty of other regions globally are taking steps to increase broadband speed significantly is all the evidence you really need to show that there is a demand.

As an example in the US, there is Google Fiber.  How many forums have you been on where users are apathetic towards the expansion of faster broadband at lower prices?  How many people have you come across that would out right pass on the chance to have 100 times the speed at a quarter of the price?

My argument is that if you have a market with true competition, then the consumer demand for faster speeds will see it eventuate.  At the moment I assume the reason most Americans (and Australians for that matter) haven't seen speed increases is not due to to lack of laws forcing them to,  but due to the ISPs monopoly meaning they don't have to because customers don't have a choice/alternative. 

 

I think laws should be in place to stop monopolies and big business extortion which in turn will promote competition and that combined with consumer demand will promote faster speeds and cheaper prices.

I would like business that can't provide a fast enough product to fail because their customer swap to another provider, not because the government fined them. 

[Michael McAllister]

My argument is that if you have a market with true competition, then the consumer demand for faster speeds will see it eventuate.  At the moment I assume the reason most Americans (and Australians for that matter) haven't seen speed increases is not due to to lack of laws forcing them to,  but due to the ISPs monopoly meaning they don't have to because customers don't have a choice/alternative. 

 

I think laws should be in place to stop monopolies and big business extortion which in turn will promote competition and that combined with consumer demand will promote faster speeds and cheaper prices.

I would like business that can't provide a fast enough product to fail because their customer swap to another provider, not because the government fined them. 

 

I agree with you.  You didn't really qualify in this scenario that true competition does exist, hence my confusion.  If I may make a parallel observation, this is very similar to the idea of free speech.  If everyone agreed on everything, free speech laws wouldn't need to exist.

[mr moose]

I agree with you.  You didn't really qualify in this scenario that true competition does exist, hence my confusion.  If I may make a parallel observation, this is very similar to the idea of free speech.  If everyone agreed on everything, free speech laws wouldn't need to exist.

 

I do tend to fail in this regard. I make the mistake of not stating the qualifiers for my reasoning.

[adman29]

The bill you propose would do nothing but restrict the free market, limit citizens to what they can do with their private property, and create opportunity for the government to control the flow of information; this section, section, is a perfect example.

Under section 2, you lay down a plan to set a minimum bandwidth bar for a private company to offer to its private customer, but this a total break away from a free market, as this a aspect of socialist economy, or a 'controlled economy"; this blockades the service provider to offer a cheap inexpensive speed to a customer equipped with less money, thus making fairly hard for the little man to get an internet connection.

You also up the bar as years go on, and this shouldn't be up to the government, but instead the private company, the party who decides how fast they develop their technology, as they develop their technology at there own pace, as mistakes cannot be made; if a company wanted to offer 5 MBPS speed only, and never research to get technology capable of outputing faster internet to it's customers, then that company will end up being put out of business by competitors, as technology will naturally progress through the free market, like it has been majorly for 200 years, or so.

 

 

You then announce in section 3 a plan for punishing ISPs, you suggest a system of fines, and eventually a possible expulsion from the state, but this doesn't seem sane at all. The ISP would not be able to output such speeds for everyone, thus making them not able to do what is requested, which will end up in said fines, but if they cannot output it, then how can they possibly deliver? Since they couldn't deliver they will be fined, and eventually kicked out of the state, this will the live the state with one less ISP, and probably a big one like Comcast, so if they could not deliver what you want, and when you wanted it, then who could? No one, and your state would be left with little to no ISP's, or for at least 10 years, if they even decide to come back.

 

 

 

Well... this doesn't sound good at all, and opens the door to corruption, and abuse; this could be used for steal money, funnel it in to the "Gerneral Fund", and special interest groups in politics can use it for their own desires. "General funds" aren't always a good thing.

Ok, I see where you're coming from on the general fund, however in Oklahoma it's worked fine without corruption for the past 40 years. There's a ton of guidelines relating to when you can and cannot use it, along with needing approval from the governor and a majority of the congress.

 

The punishment of ISP's is to make sure they meet these guidelines. The main argument is to make sure they meet a minimum bandwidth to provide. I understand your use of demand to push forward technology, however in Oklahoma there is huge amounts of demand for content creators, and small business, and ISP's won't provide except for ludicrous amounts of money. (i.e. at my current school district 1GBPs is ~2000$/mo plus an ~$100000 charge for installation). Finally an ISP won't be willing to give up ~4,000,000 potential customers for not providing an upgrade that in all honesty is quite cheap. We already have fiber going to most of the neighborhoods in the state, however it splits off to copper cutting speed at a drastic rate. 

 

I see your argument in section 1 how the "little man" couldn't get the bandwidth due to it costing way too much, however since everyone is getting the same, the lowest amount ought to level out in price, and don't forget -- it's only a minimum, not a maximum, therefore they can charge more for providing more for whatever the minimum is that year.   

 

Thanks for your concerns, but in Oklahoma the industry is currently stagnant, and hasn't been moving anywhere. The ISP's need a kick in the pants to know that they can't be charging stupid amounts of money ($30 for DSL speeds), and that we have to move forward. Is there anything that you'd like to see added to the bill though?

[dalekphalm]

Frankly, your minimum speed requirements, plus your "3 strikes" policy, are both incredibly impractical.

 

In bigger cities, no problem, Meeting 50 Mbps in 1 year is possible, but in rural areas? How much of Oklahoma are small towns or spread out rural areas?

 

An ISP feeding in a town of 20 people with Fibre Optic, where they have to lay 40 miles (Or potentially much longer) of Fibre just to get there? It would take them decades (if ever) to make that money back.

 

Unless the State is going to lay down it's own fibre optic lines to these rural areas, I can't possibly see this happening.

 

I like the idea of what you want to accomplish, but you need to be realistic here.

[meritmaster]

I'll have to slightly disagree here.  The fact that plenty of other regions globally are taking steps to increase broadband speed significantly is all the evidence you really need to show that there is a demand.

As an example in the US, there is Google Fiber.  How many forums have you been on where users are apathetic towards the expansion of faster broadband at lower prices?  How many people have you come across that would out right pass on the chance to have 100 times the speed at a quarter of the price?

  The fact that plenty of other regions globally are taking steps to increase broadband speed significantly is all the evidence you really need to show that there is a demand.

 

America isn't like other regions, and in fact that's why we left Europe. We are not a collective society, we are a individual society, with this comes individual property rights, and you cannot tell someone what to do with their property, as it's their property; the collective does not decide what individuals do with their property, and even if it's better for said property. 

On a progress stand point, letting the free market take it's natural course, is the best solution, as that's how technology has always increased at dramatic rates.

 

[mr moose]

America isn't like other regions, and in fact that's why we left Europe. We are not a collective society, we are a individual society, with this comes individual property rights, and you cannot tell someone what to do with their property, as it's their property; the collective does not decide what individuals do with their property, and even if it's better for said property. 

On a progress stand point, letting the free market take it's natural course, is the best solution, as that's how technology has always increased at dramatic rates.

 

 

But when it comes to ISPs, America does not have a free market.  It has an organised monopoly.  So any new policy needs to first address that before it can address the best approach to increasing internet speed.   It may well be the case that a region does not have sufficient client density to make network investment a viable proposal.  Such a situation would see a long drawn out upgrade path,  many other countries (like Australia) are looking at government funded infrastructure upgrades because even with healthy competition establishing a fibre network is still infeasible.

[meritmaster]

Ok, I see where you're coming from on the general fund, however in Oklahoma it's worked fine without corruption for the past 40 years. There's a ton of guidelines relating to when you can and cannot use it, along with needing approval from the governor and a majority of the congress.

 

The punishment of ISP's is to make sure they meet these guidelines. The main argument is to make sure they meet a minimum bandwidth to provide. I understand your use of demand to push forward technology, however in Oklahoma there is huge amounts of demand for content creators, and small business, and ISP's won't provide except for ludicrous amounts of money. (i.e. at my current school district 1GBPs is ~2000$/mo plus an ~$100000 charge for installation). Finally an ISP won't be willing to give up ~4,000,000 potential customers for not providing an upgrade that in all honesty is quite cheap. We already have fiber going to most of the neighborhoods in the state, however it splits off to copper cutting speed at a drastic rate. 

 

I see your argument in section 1 how the "little man" couldn't get the bandwidth due to it costing way too much, however since everyone is getting the same, the lowest amount ought to level out in price, and don't forget -- it's only a minimum, not a maximum, therefore they can charge more for providing more for whatever the minimum is that year.   

 

Thanks for your concerns, but in Oklahoma the industry is currently stagnant, and hasn't been moving anywhere. The ISP's need a kick in the pants to know that they can't be charging stupid amounts of money ($30 for DSL speeds), and that we have to move forward. Is there anything that you'd like to see added to the bill though?

 

 

The punishment of ISP's is to make sure they meet these guidelines. The main argument is to make sure they meet a minimum bandwidth to provide. I understand your use of demand to push forward technology, however in Oklahoma there is huge amounts of demand for content creators, and small business, and ISP's won't provide except for ludicrous amounts of money. (i.e. at my current school district 1GBPs is ~2000$/mo plus an ~$100000 charge for installation). Finally an ISP won't be willing to give up ~4,000,000 potential customers for not providing an upgrade that in all honesty is quite cheap. We already have fiber going to most of the neighborhoods in the state, however it splits off to copper cutting speed at a drastic rate. 

 

 

I figured that's what the punishment was, but i protested your guidelines, as being economically insane, and impossible. Growth doesn't happen by collective demand, but individual inspired to grow certain technology; it's never happen that way, and technological growth only thrives in the free market, and by individuals with incentive to progress technology, as an example people like Telsa.  I also noted it being impossible, because there is no way ISPs can provide that speed to everyone, and defiantly not with unlimited data; you would run out all the ISPs, as your state would not be profitable. 

The ISP have the right to demand ludicrous amounts of money, and the customer has the right to not accept the service; you don't have a right to internet, nor do you own their equipment, so you have no say on how they sell their private property, and if you don't like that, then make your own ISP.

I see your argument in section 1 how the "little man" couldn't get the bandwidth due to it costing way too much, however since everyone is getting the same, the lowest amount ought to level out in price, and don't forget -- it's only a minimum, not a maximum, therefore they can charge more for providing more for whatever the minimum is that year.   

 

Not everyone can afford 65 dollars a month for internet, and 30 dollars for light users is a much more reasonable option. 

 

Thanks for your concerns, but in Oklahoma the industry is currently stagnant, and hasn't been moving anywhere. The ISP's need a kick in the pants to know that they can't be charging stupid amounts of money ($30 for DSL speeds), and that we have to move forward. Is there anything that you'd like to see added to the bill though?

 

You can't bully people into selling their property at lower cost, that's unconstitutional, and a thug like political mentality that leads to nothing but failure. If you don't like the prices, then don't buy the product, you're not guaranteed anything from a private company, so get your own equipment, and cable lines; i hope you can afford it, and then sell the servicet at unprofitable prices. 

Why do you feel so entitled to the internet? You're selling your soul for lower prices.

[adman29]

Ok, I see all of your concerns, and I appreciate them. Thanks for your suggestions and concerns, and I'll see what I can work in for next year