FCC orders net neutrality repeal

[Aeternalis]

3 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

No the ISP's themselves did, the govt already provided funding for ISPs

This is what the government did that royally boned the market. They shut out the possibility for competition by increasing the size of the existing ISPS.

 

Capitalism doesn't work like that. The state needs to stay out of it and stop subsidizing companies. That shuts out competition and creates monopolies.

[Blademaster91]

1 minute ago, Aeternalis said:

This is what the government did that royally boned the market. They shut out the possibility for competition by increasing the size of the existing ISPS.

 

Capitalism doesn't work like that. The state needs to stay out of it and stop subsidizing companies. That shuts out competition and creates monopolies.

Well yeah thanks to that it spiraled into everyone buying each other out with free money,now only really left with Comcast,ATT & Verizon with a few subsidiaries.  A government forced split up might not be the best option but kinda too late when we only have 3 or 4 ISPs left.

EU has no idea how a free market works,and AU last i checked has pretty crap internet too.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

 AU last i checked has pretty crap internet too.

 

We have slow internet in places, but this is not intrinsically due to government interference.  It is the result of only having 8 million landline connections (nationwide) and expecting that to pay for the upgrade from 70 year old copper to fibre to everywhere.   It has to be done in steps.  As far as competition and NN goes there are zero issues.  Every now and then someone has an issue with an ISP being moronic with their plans or underbuying data, but all consumers can just move to another ISP, there are no monopolies in that regard.  

[mr moose]

19 minutes ago, Aeternalis said:

This is what the government did that royally boned the market. They shut out the possibility for competition by increasing the size of the existing ISPS.

 

Capitalism doesn't work like that. The state needs to stay out of it and stop subsidizing companies. That shuts out competition and creates monopolies.

Capitalism is great (necessary) so long as there are checks and balances in place to prevent it becoming a corporate dictatorship.  Also governments subsidizing private companies should only happen if it is necessary to prop up the economy as a whole (local or national), meaning there is a specific place for it but it should be very rare.

[Aeternalis]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Capitalism is great (necessary) so long as there are checks and balances in place to prevent it becoming a corporate dictatorship.  Also governments subsidizing private companies should only happen if it is necessary to prop up the economy as a whole (local or national), meaning there is a specific place for it but it should be very rare.

Unregulated capitalism doesn't lead to corporatism. Corporatism is the biggest antithesis of capitalism besides socialism and its subsets (communism etc.etc.).

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Aeternalis said:

Unregulated capitalism doesn't lead to corporatism. Corporatism is the biggest antithesis of capitalism besides socialism and its subsets.

tell that to all the internet consumers in the US who have 3 choices.  Of course no regulation leads to unified corporate control,  There is nothing to stop them.   In fact many already argue that the US is an oligopoly.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-oligopoly-problem

 

[DutchTexan]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

consumers themselves keep telling you they have no options, what power do you think consumers have right now?

 

 

Proof? we have government regulation here in Aus and our populations average wealth is higher than yours,  we have free health care, low unemployment and the choice of 50+ ISP's. Your understanding of the implications of regulation are wrong.  there is nothing intrinsic to the US economy or consumers that mitigates the benefits of government regulation,  what you do have is too much corporate control in government and you seem happy to protect that.   And don't try to argue there is a difference between the US and any other similar first world country,  consumers are the same, societies and economies all operate on the same principals, barring some rare cases of extreme cultural difference what works in one country works in all.  

 

None of that actually addresses any of the problems, that's just an open ended accusation that qualifies nothing. 

 

No, you need a government that will support the people when they make their own decisions.  If you had been listening to the consumers you'd know that they want regulation to stop ISP's  holding them to ransom. They want independent authorities to ensure no one takes unfair advantage of their position.  That is how a free market thrives. 

 

 

You can go ahead and tell me everything that you think is wrong about the US and exactly what you know is wrong and how to fix it. I'm not going to pretend to understand your island. All I was pointing out was that you can't truly represent an American interests in the same that I can't represent an Australians interest. 

 

I can google facts and figures or argue national statistics, but I just don't feel the need to get all defensive? Why do you?

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

 

Electricity requires a cable, a cable no party is legally allowed to stop you from getting. That's precisely my point, if internet was a utility then every option is available to you not only the ones you can get based on agreements with land owners or land lords. I don't think you understood the point I was making.

 

You have all the electricity options because it's a utility, if it were not you would have less options.

Okay, now I see where you were getting to. I didn't realize you were trying explain an interest from physically stopping me from having options. That's a good example. I could see how having internet classified as a utility would really be beneficial in that situation.

 

Forcing everyone to be on a level playing field only makes sense.

 

Sometimes things sound really good, but end up doing the opposite. That's the point of view I am coming from. Like the employer mandate in the US. It sounds really, really good. It only makes sense. But all it really does in reality is stop small businesses from growing passed 49 employees. Or even worse, it creates a business environment where employees without any insurance or any benefits end up underemployed, making even less money. It's supposed to protect workers, but it ends up doing significant damage to those specific individuals who need that protection the most.

 

Let's talk about throttling. If it is malicious then it is malicious. Obviously. If it is necessary, then it is necessary. Obviously? Is all throttling pure evil to you? Or could it be a positive thing for competition? If not all bandwidth is equal, how could that be a good thing? I'm sure there are many that can illuminate negatives, but what about the positives?

 

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

When you dismiss what everyone is telling you (even those in your own country) then you close yourself of to new information, this is why you are almost alone in your arguments, it is not a geographical issue.  How many options for internet do you have again?

No... you are saying I am dismissing what people are telling me. Alls I did was make statements of location. You are (once again) telling me what and why I think whatever it is you think that I think... while within the same breath, telling me exactly what I should and shouldn't do... that ignorance is irritating.

 

I noticed no one in the 'conversation' actually lived in the US. That's a point worth making. If you don't live in the US, then you can't truly know what it's like to live in the US. That doesn't mean you can't have an idea, opinion or conversation about it.

 

I don't represent America or Texas, I'm just saying I absolutely, for sure know what it's like to pay my bills and live where I live. 

 

Or should I just talk shit about Australia? That way you can understand what I am saying via your very own defensive rebuttal.

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

When you dismiss what everyone is telling you (even those in your own country) then you close yourself of to new information, this is why you are almost alone in your arguments, it is not a geographical issue.  How many options for internet do you have again?

Save your breath. Its no use. I have a feeling he is part of the far right. Either a Trump supporter or a member of the Tea Party. These guys cant be reasoned with. 

[Aeternalis]

32 minutes ago, mr moose said:

tell that to all the internet consumers in the US who have 3 choices. 

This is the fault of the government by preventing growth of other isps.

[Aeternalis]

3 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Save your breath. Its no use. I have a feeling he is part of the far right. Either a Trump supporter or a member of the Tea Party. These guys cant be reasoned with. 

Yes, because every capitalist is a trump bootlicker. /s This is a statement of pure ignorance and bias.

[divito]

2 minutes ago, Aeternalis said:

This is the fault of the government by preventing growth of other isps.

Really, do explain.

[DutchTexan]

8 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Save your breath. Its no use. I have a feeling he is part of the far right. Either a Trump supporter or a member of the Tea Party. These guys cant be reasoned with. 

Anything else you'd like to share about me?

[Aeternalis]

5 minutes ago, divito said:

Really, do explain.

1. The government giving money to the existing isps reduces the chance for competition. Subsidation does nothing but increase the size of already monopolistic powers. The taxes on small companies don't help.

 

2. There are regulations and state laws that snuff out competition.

 

Examples:

 

California - if a city builds its own network and then a private company (an ISP, in this case) shows up "ready, willing, and able to acquire, construct, improve, maintain, and operate broadband," the city has to give it over or lease it to that company. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1151-1200/sb_1191_bill_20080708_chaptered.html

 

Nevada - One law says that only counties with fewer than 50,000 people can start a telephone utility and counties with fewer than 55,000 people can start a cable utility. A separate law says that cities with fewer than 25,000 people can start cable and telephone utilities, which includes broadband internet. That means big cities aren't a free market.

 

 

[leadeater]

32 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

Let's talk about throttling. If it is malicious then it is malicious. Obviously. If it is necessary, then it is necessary. Obviously? Is all throttling pure evil to you? Or could it be a positive thing for competition? If not all bandwidth is equal, how could that be a good thing? I'm sure there are many that can illuminate negatives, but what about the positives?

Not sure if I mentioned in this specific thread but QoS is part of every modern network and is a current practice by all ISPs, it's actually a necessity to ensure the network operates as expected. Flooding links can cause the network to consider a path down which can trigger a redistribution of traffic flow making the congestion worse overall not better, that's why networks are configured in a way to always ensure these inter switch and router communication can happen above all else.

 

Next is things like VoIP services, those are given a higher priority and can be identified by protocol or by a dedicated virtual network (VLAN) running over the same links.

 

QoS isn't bad but it can be applied in bad ways, such as putting arbitrary limits on the bandwidth customers can use for a specific service. You can QoS Netflix traffic in such a way it's only limited in times of congestion, there is no actual need to bandwidth cap that traffic all the time. Creating service specific fast lanes and charging for them is nothing short of a money grab and has no technical basis of requirement.

 

I'd like to make sure in these contexts there is a difference between paying for a connection that is limited to 30Mbps and one that is 100Mbps but only 10Mbps for Netflix unless you pay another $5 per month to get fast lane access.

[divito]

35 minutes ago, Aeternalis said:

1. The government giving money to the existing isps reduces the chance for competition. Subsidation does nothing but increase the size of already monopolistic powers. The taxes on small companies don't help.

 

2. There are regulations and state laws that snuff out competition.

 

Examples:

 

California - if a city builds its own network and then a private company (an ISP, in this case) shows up "ready, willing, and able to acquire, construct, improve, maintain, and operate broadband," the city has to give it over or lease it to that company. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1151-1200/sb_1191_bill_20080708_chaptered.html

 

Nevada - One law says that only counties with fewer than 50,000 people can start a telephone utility and counties with fewer than 55,000 people can start a cable utility. A separate law says that cities with fewer than 25,000 people can start cable and telephone utilities, which includes broadband internet. That means big cities aren't a free market.

 

 

You realize, these were put into place before Net Neutrality was even a concept right? These kinds of occurrences were a result of the "free market" and exactly why NN was established, and why consumers enjoy even part of the benefits. It simply doesn't go far enough.

Territories and regional "understandings," data throttling, and municipalities signing contracts with ISPs limiting competition are the entire crux of what brought NN into being. We in Canada face many of the same challenges, and I can't even imagine it being as bad as the US if we were to repeal aspects that make reselling and such possible.

[mr moose]

48 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

You can go ahead and tell me everything that you think is wrong about the US and exactly what you know is wrong and how to fix it. I'm not going to pretend to understand your island. All I was pointing out was that you can't truly represent an American interests in the same that I can't represent an Australians interest. 

 

I can google facts and figures or argue national statistics, but I just don't feel the need to get all defensive? Why do you?

Okay, now I see where you were getting to. I didn't realize you were trying explain an interest from physically stopping me from having options. That's a good example. I could see how having internet classified as a utility would really be beneficial in that situation.

 

Forcing everyone to be on a level playing field only makes sense.

 

Sometimes things sound really good, but end up doing the opposite. That's the point of view I am coming from. Like the employer mandate in the US. It sounds really, really good. It only makes sense. But all it really does in reality is stop small businesses from growing passed 49 employees. Or even worse, it creates a business environment where employees without any insurance or any benefits end up underemployed, making even less money. It's supposed to protect workers, but it ends up doing significant damage to those specific individuals who need that protection the most.

 

Let's talk about throttling. If it is malicious then it is malicious. Obviously. If it is necessary, then it is necessary. Obviously? Is all throttling pure evil to you? Or could it be a positive thing for competition? If not all bandwidth is equal, how could that be a good thing? I'm sure there are many that can illuminate negatives, but what about the positives?

 

 

No... you are saying I am dismissing what people are telling me. Alls I did was make statements of location. You are (once again) telling me what and why I think whatever it is you think that I think... while within the same breath, telling me exactly what I should and shouldn't do... that ignorance is irritating.

 

I noticed no one in the 'conversation' actually lived in the US. That's a point worth making. If you don't live in the US, then you can't truly know what it's like to live in the US. That doesn't mean you can't have an idea, opinion or conversation about it.

 

I don't represent America or Texas, I'm just saying I absolutely, for sure know what it's like to pay my bills and live where I live. 

 

Or should I just talk shit about Australia? That way you can understand what I am saying via your very own defensive rebuttal.

 

Really? I live in a city that has won worlds most livable city 6 years running.  I have free health care, I have disposable income, I have access to jobs regardless of my education, I have freedom of association and I have 50+ ISP's to choose from and we have one of the worlds most robust economies.  I can live with a few things being more expensive than in America and I can certainly live with government regulation to ensure it continues.   If you think I am just shit canning for the sake of it then you haven;t been following the discussion.

 

 

41 minutes ago, Aeternalis said:

This is the fault of the government by preventing growth of other isps.

 

Righto then.  Carry on...

[Aeternalis]

20 minutes ago, divito said:

You realize, these were put into place before Net Neutrality was even a concept right? These kinds of occurrences were a result of the "free market"

...What?

 

This isn't a result of a free market. Corporatism isn't a free market, it's a state controlled market. The state controlling the market and destroying it was why NN was made.

 

Quote

municipalities signing contracts with ISPs limiting competition are the entire crux of what brought NN into being.

 

Literally the antithesis of capitalism and a free market.

 

 

[Aeternalis]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Really? I live in a city that has won worlds most livable city 6 years running.  I have free health care, I have disposable income, I have access to jobs regardless of my education, I have freedom of association and I have 50+ ISP's to choose from and we have one of the worlds most robust economies.  I can live with a few things being more expensive than in America and I can certainly live with government regulation to ensure it continues.   If you think I am just shit canning for the sake of it then you haven;t been following the discussion.

 

 

 

Righto then.  Carry on...

Your healthcare isn't free, it's paid for by your taxes, as is every one else's healthcare and many other things.

 

If you don't believe that the government is the cause of the failure of the isp market you fail to understand basic economics.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Aeternalis said:

Your healthcare isn't free, it's paid for by your taxes, as is every one else's healthcare and many other things.

 

If you don't believe that the government is the cause of the failure of the isp market you fail to understand basic economics.

says the person who doesn't understand the context of free in the discussion of government regulation of consumer services.

[divito]

3 minutes ago, Aeternalis said:

...What?

 

This isn't a result of a free market. Corporatism isn't a free market, it's a state controlled market. The state controlling the market and destroying it was why NN was made.

 

Literally the antithesis of capitalism

Whether it was the state or individual municipalities, letting things go without regulation was the problem. People keep saying NN was limiting competition and was too regulating, when it was actually a response to all these issues that had already limited competition and was detrimental to consumers. Repealing it and going back to corporatism isn't the answer.

[Aeternalis]

Just now, mr moose said:

says the person who doesn't understand the context of free in the discussion of government regulation of consumer services.

Feel free to explain how taxes make something free.

[Aeternalis]

Just now, divito said:

Whether it was the state or individual municipalities, letting things go without regulation was the problem. People keep saying NN was limiting competition and was too regulating, when it was actually a response to all these issues that had already limited competition and was detrimental to consumers. Repealing it and going back to corporatism isn't the answer.

NN wasn't the regulation that screwed over the market, it was the government intervening in the market.

 

Again, unregulated capitalism is the antithesis of corporatism.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Aeternalis said:

Feel free to explain how taxes make something free.

If you don't pay tax because you are below the tax free threshold you still get full health care.

 

[Aeternalis]

Just now, mr moose said:

If you don't pay tax because you are below the tax free threshold you still get full health care.

 

There's a tax free threshold only because if you taxed them at all they would have next to no money left.

[divito]

1 minute ago, Aeternalis said:

NN wasn't the regulation that screwed over the market, it was the government intervening in the market.

 

Again, unregulated capitalism is the antithesis of corporatism.

Which was the result of lobbyists and legislation on behalf of the oligopolies, not just the "government intervening."  

I don't blame the government as blanketed as you would, I blame the lack of true unadulterated regulation as a result of lobbying and all the propaganda along with it. Allowing companies to have the influence that they do, and force the exclusivity that they have in certain regions eliminates any reasonable competition.