FCC plans total repeal of net neutrality rules

[crazed_hoosier2]

Historically, yes....but that's breaking down due to tech advancements that were faster than the regulated providers could keep up with.

Well, let's start with historically.

You seem to be suggesting to me that regulation will prevent oligopolies -- and lack of regulation will lead to them.

How do you explain how a regulated industry came to be an oligopoly -- and, not only that, but one where consumers could never get the one thing they most begged for?

So what's breaking up their historical stranglehold? Something that is outside the purview of the regulators -- namely, OTT. Do you think they like that...or would prefer things stayed as they were?

 

[twenty02]

I don't not support this rule. I just think it'll set in motion a series of new ones that we aren't going to like. And we'll be better off without that.

How many times do I have to repeat that I don't oppose the general concept of neutral traffic shaping policies? But I know where this sort of thing leads -- and the way to avoid that is to not start down the path...even with the best intentions.

We'll get a real-life chance to see where this goes. And, if I'm wrong, not only can you tell me I was wrong....we can always go down that path if it's actually necessary. I don't think we'll have to, though.

But once you start that ball rolling, it's hard to keep it from picking up speed in unintended directions.

If the argument is that broadband providers will now exapnd their investment...and new providers will now be come to markets providing consumers further choices...then that's a good thing (or at least has the possibility to be a good thing).

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

So, again, you support reversing a good rule that exists because you're worried about bad hypothetical rules in the future. And somehow this isn't because you're reflexively opposed to regulation by default. How can you not see how illogical your argument is?

If I'm reflexively opposed to regulation, why do I support so many of them....including the example given above?

My argument isn't illogical. You're using a false premise.

 

[twenty02]

Well, let's start with historically.

You seem to be suggesting to me that regulation will prevent oligopolies -- and lack of regulation will lead to them.

How do you explain how a regulated industry came to be an oligopoly -- and, not only that, but one where consumers could never get the one thing they most begged for?

So what's breaking up their historical stranglehold? Something that is outside the purview of the regulators -- namely, OTT. Do you think they like that...or would prefer things stayed as they were?

Of course they'd like to keep things as they were...that's why they want to leverage their remaining key monopoly position (the pipe into homes) to regain what they had lost.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Well, let's start with historically.

You seem to be suggesting to me that regulation will prevent oligopolies -- and lack of regulation will lead to them.

How do you explain how a regulated industry came to be an oligopoly -- and, not only that, but one where consumers could never get the one thing they most begged for?

So what's breaking up their historical stranglehold? Something that is outside the purview of the regulators -- namely, OTT. Do you think they like that...or would prefer things stayed as they were?

Along these lines, one of my largest current customers is Spectrum (fka TWC). You should hear the guys I deal with talk about the threat posed to their business by OTT services.

I can assure you they'd prefer everything stay as it's been -- which is something they could control.

Let me put it this way: there's no way they could justify their investment based on selling unbundled HSIA.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/20/net-neutrality-repeal-fcc-251824?lo=ap_a1

Anyone cheering for this to happen likes getting bent over with no lube in sight.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Of course they'd like to keep things as they were...that's why they want to leverage their remaining key monopoly position (the pipe into homes) to regain what they had lost.

It's worse than that. They couldn't afford their current infrastructures -- let alone expand then -- if all they had to sell was ones and zeros.

Consumers would not be well-served by this development.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

If I'm reflexively opposed to regulation, why do I support so many of them....including the example given above?

My argument isn't illogical. You're using a false premise.

It's inherently illogical. You are supporting reversing a rule you actually like because you are worried about what regulators might do down the road, but claiming that this isn't some kind of anti-regulatory reflex. Without the reflex, your argument makes zero sense.

I think you've responded to every single post I made in this thread, except one: the one in which I asked you to describe specifically why this rule should be overturned. That speaks volumes.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It's inherently illogical. You are supporting reversing a rule you actually like because you are worried about what regulators might do down the road, but claiming that this isn't some kind of anti-regulatory reflex. Without the reflex, your argument makes zero sense.

I think you've responded to every single post I made in this thread, except one: the one in which I asked you to describe specifically why this rule should be overturned. That speaks volumes.

I did respond to it. The regulation isn't needed to achieve favorable outcomes for consumers -- and would likely lead to a never-ending cycle of new regulations and counter-regulations.

You haven't responded to my question about how somebody could be reflexively opposed to regulations and still support so many regulations...including one that I named.

If anybody's being illogical here, it's you. You're like Reg and the People's Front of Judea talking about how awful the Romans are...well, except for the viaduct and all that.

 

[sglowrider]

It was a technology that was funded by public money and given to the world as an open platform. This led to thousands of brilliant innovative ideas because of the start-ups over the past decades -- as it lowered the barriers to entry for start-ups. It should start that way.

Now if you allow the rich incumbent/existing companies to outspend existing startups or those of the future, rather than assisting in keeping the playing field more level, imagine how much it would limit the number of startups of the future?

It has given us so much so why change just to fatten up the bottom-line of the incumbent infra companies?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It was a technology that was funded by public money and given to the world as an open platform. This led to thousands of brilliant innovative ideas because of the start-ups over the past decades -- as it lowered the barriers to entry for start-ups. It should start that way.

Now if you allow the rich incumbent/existing companies to outspend existing startups or those of the future, rather than assisting in keeping the playing field more level, imagine how much it would limit the number of startups of the future?

It has given us so much so why change just to fatten up the bottom-line of the incumbent infra companies?

At no point in the Internet's unregulated history have startups been crowded out by the richer established operators. And we should want to keep it that way.

Regulated industries (particularly the biggest players in them) curry a helluva lot of influence over regulators. Don't ever forget that. I've gone up against them and lost...badly. The ILECs were particularly powerful as they're all unionized -- which means they own the Ds as well as the Rs.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You haven't responded to my question about how somebody could be reflexively opposed to regulations and still support so many regulations...including one that I named.

Easy: inconsistency.

Your argument is essentially one against regulatory capture. You're worried about the regulated industry having too much power over the regulators. And that's why, in this case, you support the regulators doing exactly what the regulated industry wants them to do.

Again, c'mon, man.

 

[sglowrider]

At no point in the Internet's unregulated history have startups been crowded out by the richer established operators. And we should want to keep it that way.

Regulated industries (particularly the biggest players in them) curry a helluva lot of influence over regulators. Don't ever forget that. I've gone up against them and lost...badly. The ILECs were particularly powerful as they're all unionized -- which means they own the Ds as well as the Rs.

You are talking about the traffic being stratified and defining the QOS here. Therefore there will be different pricing layers.

One of the biggest problem for startups will be managing their cashflow. And if they have to compete on QOS by paying higher for better traffic QOS against the big boys, then you are making more startups more vulnerable financially.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Easy: inconsistency.

Your argument is essentially one against regulatory capture. You're worried about the regulated industry having too much power over the regulators. And that's why, in this case, you support the regulators doing exactly what the regulated industry wants them to do.

Again, c'mon, man.

But you said there wasn't inconsistency. You said I was just reflexively opposed to regulation. But I'm not. I support many regulations. So you're just flat wrong about that.

I'm opposed to this one because it isn't necessary and I'm pretty confident it would lead to negative unintended consequences. Again, if I turn out to be wrong, not only can you have the satisfaction of telling me so, we can always pull this trigger if it actually ever becomes necessary....which I strongly doubt it will.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

But you said there wasn't inconsistency. You said I was just reflexively opposed to regulation. But I'm not. I support many regulations. So you're just flat wrong about that.

No, I said a reflexive opposition to regulation was the only thing you've offered in this particular case.

I'm opposed to this one because it isn't necessary and I'm pretty confident it would lead to negative unintended consequences. Again, if I turn out to be wrong, not only can you have the satisfaction of telling me so, we can always pull this trigger if it actually ever becomes necessary....which I strongly doubt it will.

Various service providers have already engaged in the behavior this rule intends to stop. So when does it become necessary to you?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You are talking about the traffic being stratified and defining the QOS here. Therefore there will be different pricing layers.

One of the biggest problem for startups will be managing their cashflow. And if they have to compete on QOS by paying higher for better traffic QOS against the big boys, then you are making more startups more vulnerable financially.

Perhaps. But that's consistent with the underlying economic reality. If a service utilizes X amount of available bandwidth, why should they escape the costs of that utilization?

Moreover, many (most, really) Internet-based services are not at all bandwidth intensive. Video-streaming is, to be sure. But, in such cases, I don't know why they should expect a free pass. There's no such thing as a free lunch, after all.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

No, I said a reflexive opposition to regulation was the only thing you've offered in this particular case.

But I don't have a reflexive opposition to regulation.

Various service providers have already engaged in the behavior this rule intends to stop. So when does it become necessary to you?

When a lack of such regulation creates the doomsday scenario for consumers that proponents insist it will. It never has and I don't think it ever will.

 

[Rockfish1]

But I don't have a reflexive opposition to regulation.

Just like you don't want tax cuts.

 

[sglowrider]

Perhaps. But that's consistent with the underlying economic reality. If a service utilizes X amount of available bandwidth, why should they escape the costs of that utilization?

Moreover, many (most, really) Internet-based services are not at all bandwidth intensive. Video-streaming is, to be sure. But, in such cases, I don't know why they should expect a free pass. There's no such thing as a free lunch, after all.

The whole Internet platform was practically given away for free -- and just of the benefits, we have had since.
It only the Infra companies that will benefit from this -- and may take you a while for come up with the technology innovations that they have provided since the 90s.

Innovations will suffer.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

But I don't have a reflexive opposition to regulation.

So you keep saying, but that's why it's so strange you're on the wrong side of this issue.

 

[sglowrider]

So you keep saying, but that's why it's so strange you're on the wrong side of this issue.

People are looking at this from the wrong angle. Its not just about regulation or taxes etc. Its about innovations.

A freeway/highway now is being priced and the incumbent infra companies will benefit from something they never built.

Very banana republic.

 

[iuwclurker1]

You guys suck at winning arguments. You don't know how to pin crazed down on a pretty simple example. Granted, he's one slippery snake, but still...


just saying

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Just like you don't want tax cuts.

Well, I oppose the bills currently pending before Congress, and have maintained as much in various threads here.

Given a choice between higher and lower taxes, absent any context, I'll choose lower taxes. That much is certainly true, of course. Who wouldn't -- at least among those who pay taxes? But the context now is that we're broke and getting broker.

So what I've said is that policymakers should be looking at both hiking taxes and cutting spending. But, sure, they should do far more of the latter than the former. Overspending, after all, is the primary source of our structural fiscal imbalance.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

People are looking at this from the wrong angle. Its not about regulation or taxes etc. Its about innovations.

A freeway/highway now is being priced and the incumbent infra companies will benefit from something they never built.

Very banana republic.

So for-profit companies should be able to use highways -- whether public or private -- for free? Is that what you're saying?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

People are looking at this from the wrong angle. Its not just about regulation or taxes etc. Its about innovations.

A freeway/highway now is being priced and the incumbent infra companies will benefit from something they never built.

Very banana republic.

Also, it's just flat wrong to say that Comcast "never built" their own network (or Verizon theirs, or whomever).

What in the world ever gave you that idea? Trust me, these companies built it. I've cashed a lot of their checks.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So for-profit companies should be able to use highways -- whether public or private -- for free? Is that what you're saying?

No, he's saying that companies shouldn't be allowed to charge their competitors more for the use of the sections of highway they control in order to price them out of the market.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

No, he's saying that companies shouldn't be allowed to charge their competitors more for the use of the sections of highway they control in order to price them out of the market.

Why do they control those sections of highway?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

No, he's saying that companies shouldn't be allowed to charge their competitors more for the use of the sections of highway they control in order to price them out of the market.

BTW, did you know that regulated phone companies have been doing this very thing for eons with origination/termination fees?

Yes, they're ostensibly "regulated" on a tariff. But ask anybody who's ever actually dealt with them.

Guess who wrote the tariff.

 

[Rockfish1]

People are looking at this from the wrong angle. Its not about regulation or taxes etc. Its about innovations.

A freeway/highway now is being priced and the incumbent infra companies will benefit from something they never built.

We've treated power companies like public utilities and refused to allow them to restrict what their customers did with the power. Despite this intrusion into crazed's imaginary free market, there's been an explosion of activity in the stuff-to-do-with-electricity sector. This is real, but unpossible.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

We've treated power companies like public utilities and refused to allow them to restrict what their customers did with the power. Despite this intrusion into crazed's imaginary free market, there's been an explosion of activity in the stuff-to-do-with-electricity sector. This is real, but unpossible.

Really? Tell that to Indiana's home solar customers. The legislation recently passed is a prime example of what I'm taking about...where the utilities hold a helluva lot more power than consumers do.

In in the case of G&E utilities, it's just like the ILECs. They're all unionized, and the unions lobby the Dems on behalf of their companies.

We don't need, and shouldn't want, the government anywhere near this stuff. The farther away they're held, the better.

 

[Rockfish1]

Well, I oppose the bills currently pending before Congress, and have maintained as much in various threads here.

Given a choice between higher and lower taxes, absent any context, I'll choose lower taxes. That much is certainly true, of course. Who wouldn't -- at least among those who pay taxes? But the context now is that we're broke and getting broker.

So what I've said is that policymakers should be looking at both hiking taxes and cutting spending. But, sure, they should do far more of the latter than the former. Overspending, after all, is the primary source of our structural fiscal imbalance.

You don't want a tax cut, but all the politicians you vote for promise to cut your taxes.You want the outcomes produced by net neutrality, but you oppose net neutrality rules. Maybe you want what your revealed preferences say you want.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Why do they control those sections of highway?

Usually because they own them.

 

[sglowrider]

Also, it's just flat wrong to say that Comcast "never built" their own network (or Verizon theirs, or whomever).

What in the world ever gave you that idea? Trust me, these companies built it. I've cashed a lot of their checks.

I see what your prism is now. Its a very short term view. YOu can see more hardware for now but if net neutrality is killed the following will happen:

1) Startups will struggle because of higher costs
2) Consumers will need to pay more for various services now and so fewer consumers will pay for such a level of QOS -- streaming video being the next thing golden goose they will try and rape.
3) When you combine points 1 and 2, you will kill innovation.

All it benefit will be the video stream (HD and SW companies) or bandwidth companies owned by the incumbent infrastructure companies -- who will monietise those consumers who have already cut the cord due to the crazy monthly bills you need to pay for TV.
Netflix, Amazon, Hula etc will suffer too unless they pass the cost onto the customers who had originally cut the cord to go there to start with.

Bottomline -- innovation will suffer and consumers who left the incumbents to go to services like Amazon or Netflix will suffer.

 

[sglowrider]

We've treated power companies like public utilities and refused to allow them to restrict what their customers did with the power. Despite this intrusion into crazed's imaginary free market, there's been an explosion of activity in the stuff-to-do-with-electricity sector. This is real, but unpossible.

Crazed just wants to sell more hardware to the incumbents.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Crazed just wants to sell more hardware to the incumbents.

Has nothing to do with it. First of all, I don't sell "hardware." I'm a contractor. My primary product is labor. Second of all, I felt this way long before TWC became a customer -- which was only a few years ago.

That said, I don't think consumers would be well served by HSIA service providers' business models drying up. There's nothing wrong with them receiving carriage fees for hauling traffic on behalf of content providers, as an example.

The very same thing has been happening in the regulated telecom world at least since divestiture. So it's not like regulation is some kind of way to ward off such transactions.

 

[sglowrider]

Has nothing to do with it. First of all, I don't sell "hardware." I'm a contractor. My primary product is labor. Second of all, I felt this way long before TWC became a customer -- which was only a few years ago.

That said, I don't think consumers would be well served by HSIA service providers' business models drying up. There's nothing wrong with them receiving carriage fees for hauling traffic on behalf of content providers, as an example.

The very same thing has been happening in the regulated telecom world at least since divestiture. So it's not like regulation is some kind of way to ward off such transactions.

So you are ok with consumers paying more? Companies like Netflix would not have taken off if there wasn't net neutrality. They would still be stuck to the cable companies.

As mentioned before as a person who does startups for a living, in the video space and one who has bought bandwidth (both local loop and international andwidth), you dont need additional barriers to the consumer, never mind additional financial burden to the startup.

There are very few beneficiaries to this move other than the larger infra companies. I would not have been able to build my IPTV companies plus the TAM or pool of consumers would have been significantly smaller.

Me and hundreds of thousands of Internet start-ups.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That said, I don't think consumers would be well served by HSIA service providers' business models drying up. There's nothing wrong with them receiving carriage fees for hauling traffic on behalf of content providers, as an example.

They already get paid. The reason we need net neutrality is because, thanks largely to media conglomeration, they now want to double-dip. Comcast wants to charge me for use of their last-mile infrastructure, but then wants to turn around and limit my access to Netflix in the hopes of convincing me that I'd rather buy a bigger TV package from them than pay for unreliable streaming (or, alternatively, charge Netflix a premium to cover their losses in the open market).

(NB: It's worth noting greed isn't the only motivator. Thanks to their other concerns, Comcast also has a financial interest in protecting the intellectual property of TV shows and movies produced by NBCU, so they want to prevent me from using their bandwidth to illegally download copies of their content; I'm extremely sensitive to that end of it. We should vigorously protect intellectual property. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that a lot of this is simply about using vertical integration and limited consumer choice to crowd competitors out of the market.)

EDIT: Lots of poor grammar and other mistakes.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

So you are ok with consumers paying more? Companies like Netflix would not have taken off if there wasn't net neutrality. They would still be stuck to the cable companies.

As mentioned before as a person who does startups for a living, in the video space and one who has bought bandwidth (both local loop and international andwidth), you dont need additional barriers to the consumer, never mind additional financial burden to the startup.

There are very few beneficiaries to this move other than the larger infra companies. I would not have been able to build my IPTV companies plus the TAM or pool of consumers would have been significantly smaller.

Me and hundreds of thousands of Internet start-ups.

Netflix took off before Net Neutrality rules went into effect. So did Hulu, Vudu, Crackle, and other OTTs. So that's a really bad argument.

As for consumers paying more or less or whatever....I'm for the market to sort all that out whenever and wherever possible. I think pricing for anything should be efficient and responsive to consumer demands and well-allocated provider capabilities and resources.

 

[twenty02]

Netflix took off before Net Neutrality rules went into effect. So did Hulu, Vudu, Crackle, and other OTTs. So that's a really bad argument.

As for consumers paying more or less or whatever....I'm for the market to sort all that out whenever and wherever possible. I think pricing for anything should be efficient and responsive to consumer demands and well-allocated provider capabilities and resources.

Do you realize who owns/created Hulu?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Do you realize who owns/created Hulu?

LOL. I didn't realize Comcast had a piece of that. I had to edit my previous post to look less stupid. Thanks a lot.