Being European :rejoice
What’s there realistically to do? Outside of voting in 18?Realistically? Nothing. Vote in 18.
Yeah states rights only matter when it comes to hating non whites and LGBT people. :doge
I am not trying to be antagonistic or ignorant about this, but really... so what?Local ISP's get access through larger ISP's so they'll need to play their game too. And I think what you mean is that we'll pay more than we are now unregulated internet access if we choose to do so (basically the internet we have now!). Oh and when ISP's start charging content providers for the bandwidth their services are taking (along with charging you) then Netflix, Hulu and all of that can go up too. You're right. Win/Win.
Let's look at the doomsday scenario here. Net neutrality is no more. Do you really think that all the basement coders on Slashdot will just go away? I don't. They'll still want a way to run their own mini ISPs, host their own stuff, run their own mail servers and Usenet servers..... I think the market will decide. If there's a market for unfettered access to the wider internet, then somebody will make it happen, and most likely make a TON of cash in the process.
Worst case, I see a two-tiered internet. Companies that sell a commercialised internet for folk who only buy Apple products and essentially need Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, Wikipedia and Google and smaller bespoke operations that will provide internet access akin to what we have now. These actually already exist in most major developed countries. Here's one off the top of my head (https://www.aaisp.net.uk/).
I'm entirely comfortable with this. Let net neutrality die. Then give us our tiny ISPs back from the days where a local ISP had a customer base in the thousands rather than the tens of millions. We'll have a choice and we can pay for a better, neutral, even potentially more unregulated internet if we choose to do so. The market will decide.
Then give us our tiny ISPs back from the days where a local ISP had a customer base in the thousands rather than the tens of millions
I am not trying to be antagonistic or ignorant about this, but really... so what?
Let's look at the doomsday scenario here. Net neutrality is no more. Do you really think that all the basement coders on Slashdot will just go away? I don't. They'll still want a way to run their own mini ISPs, host their own stuff, run their own mail servers and Usenet servers..... I think the market will decide. If there's a market for unfettered access to the wider internet, then somebody will make it happen, and most likely make a TON of cash in the process.
Worst case, I see a two-tiered internet. Companies that sell a commercialised internet for folk who only buy Apple products and essentially need Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, Wikipedia and Google and smaller bespoke operations that will provide internet access akin to what we have now. These actually already exist in most major developed countries. Here's one off the top of my head (https://www.aaisp.net.uk/).
I'm entirely comfortable with this. Let net neutrality die. Then give us our tiny ISPs back from the days where a local ISP had a customer base in the thousands rather than the tens of millions. We'll have a choice and we can pay for a better, neutral, even potentially more unregulated internet if we choose to do so. The market will decide.
Because any time the citizenry are dealing with regulatory capture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture), it's government that faces away from the public it's supposed to be serving. This is about setting up a completely anti-competitive environment, including having the government saying they can prevent States from enacting their own requirements for net neutrality.
2005 – North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked VoIP service Vonage.
2005 – Comcast blocked or severely delayed traffic using the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. (The company even had the guts to deny this for months until evidence was presented by the Associated Press.)
2007 – AT&T censored Pearl Jam because lead singer criticized President Bush.
2007 to 2009 – AT&T forced Apple to block Skype because it didn’t like the competition. At the time, the carrier had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and even then the net neutrality advocates were pushing the government to protect online consumers, over 5 years before these rules were actually passed.
2009 – Google Voice app faced similar issues from ISPs, including AT&T on iPhone.
2010 – Windstream Communications, a DSL provider, started hijacking search results made using Google toolbar. It consistently redirected users to Windstream’s own search engine and results.
2011 – MetroPCS, one of the top-five wireless carriers at the time, announced plans to block streaming services over its 4G network from everyone except YouTube.
2011 to 2013 – AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon blocked Google Wallet in favor of Isis, a mobile payment system in which all three had shares. Verizon even asked Google to not include its payment app in its Nexus devices.
2012 – AT&T blocked FaceTime; again because the company didn’t like the competition.
2012 – Verizon started blocking people from using tethering apps on their phones that enabled consumers to avoid the company’s $20 tethering fee.
2014 – AT&T announced a new “sponsored data” scheme, offering content creators a way to buy their way around the data caps that AT&T imposes on its subscribers.
2014 – Netflix started paying Verizon and Comcast to “improve streaming service for consumers.”
2014 – T-Mobile was accused of using data caps to manipulate online competition.
how will this affect my porn consumption
Because any time the citizenry are dealing with regulatory capture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture), it's government that faces away from the public it's supposed to be serving. This is about setting up a completely anti-competitive environment, including having the government saying they can prevent States from enacting their own requirements for net neutrality.
So within this scenario, when a bunch of hobbyists decide they want a better internet and set up some grassroots wireless internet provider that provides completely neutral access, how does this fit into an anti-competitive environment? It's not that hard to set up an ISP if you are technically competent. There are many more small to tiny ISPs in existence than you realise.
If people care enough about a neutral internet, they'll be willing to pay for it and providers will appear to fill the niche. If people don't, then the lack of net neutrality isn't a major issue. Don't forget that the internet originally sprung up independently of the big telcos. This could happen again.
I'm entirely comfortable with this. Let net neutrality die. Then give us our tiny ISPs back from the days where a local ISP had a customer base in the thousands rather than the tens of millions. We'll have a choice and we can pay for a better, neutral, even potentially more unregulated internet if we choose to do so. The market will decide.
So within this scenario, when a bunch of hobbyists decide they want a better internet and set up some grassroots wireless internet provider that provides completely neutral access, how does this fit into an anti-competitive environment? It's not that hard to set up an ISP if you are technically competent. There are many more small to tiny ISPs in existence than you realise.
If people care enough about a neutral internet, they'll be willing to pay for it and providers will appear to fill the niche. If people don't, then the lack of net neutrality isn't a major issue. Don't forget that the internet originally sprung up independently of the big telcos. This could happen again.
I'm entirely comfortable with this. Let net neutrality die. Then give us our tiny ISPs back from the days where a local ISP had a customer base in the thousands rather than the tens of millions. We'll have a choice and we can pay for a better, neutral, even potentially more unregulated internet if we choose to do so. The market will decide.
As much as I want Tiny ISP's back: That'll never happen. The infrastructure and laws are not simply there. Even Google and/or city-ran ISP's run into roadblocks.
Right but would their future competition be able to deal with the increased regulatory burden required to enter the market? Generally speaking, regulations tend to advantage large companies that are already entrenched in a market. The monopolies that currently exist in many markets are due to favoritism on a governmental level, where new entrants to a market are charged exorbitant prices to use local underground and pole real estate.What regulatory burden does adhering to net neutrality incur?
And shouldn't certain types of users be able to pick the plans that suit their needs best?They are, provided they're not stuck in a local monopoly.
And have we had a situation where an up and coming service was unable to compete against say a Youtube, or a Netflix due to predatory bandwidth pricing? I look around and haven't seen any evidence of this so far.Best to wait until they're successful, then squeeze them.
In most every location in the United States, municipalities have granted local monopolies to a single cable provider, etc.
Where I live now I have Comcast or no cable. Five years ago I could have Charter or no cable. Not because there aren't other providers nearby, in fact five years ago I could have crossed the street and gotten a different, even worse, cable provider. But again, only them or no cable.
DSL is a similar situation, so is fiber.
The mobile providers rely on the use of so much piggybacking that they effectively undid their coverage domination areas and allowed THE MEXICANS AND GERMANS to rush in and steal a huge marketshare. Especially through prepaid plans.
And I would argue that the government granted de facto monopolies are the problem here. The collusion between local and state (mainly local) governments to give preferential treatement to certain companies for certain areas allows these companies the ability to do whatever the hell they want in most non-urban centers.So does market share. Both are a problem. How is it solved by repealing net neutrality?
The federal government itself also discourages competition between cable companies because bureaucrats are loathe to allow companies to buy out their own competition, especially in the same field.Monopolies bad, consolidation good? I'm afraid I don't follow.
And I would argue that the government granted de facto monopolies are the problem here. The collusion between local and state (mainly local) governments to give preferential treatement to certain companies for certain areas allows these companies the ability to do whatever the hell they want in most non-urban centers.So does market share. Both are a problem. How is it solved by repealing net neutrality?The federal government itself also discourages competition between cable companies because bureaucrats are loathe to allow companies to buy out their own competition, especially in the same field.Monopolies bad, consolidation good? I'm afraid I don't follow.
Right but would their future competition be able to deal with the increased regulatory burden required to enter the market? Generally speaking, regulations tend to advantage large companies that are already entrenched in a market. The monopolies that currently exist in many markets are due to favoritism on a governmental level, where new entrants to a market are charged exorbitant prices to use local underground and pole real estate.
And shouldn't certain types of users be able to pick the plans that suit their needs best?
And have we had a situation where an up and coming service was unable to compete against say a Youtube, or a Netflix due to predatory bandwidth pricing? I look around and haven't seen any evidence of this so far.
citing that "there is nothing to be gained by local competition in the telephone industry."
Between 1921 and 1934, the ICC approved 271 of the 274 purchase requests of AT&T.
I want to point this out because you mentioned telephone companies of old, but after Bell's patent expired there were thousands of telephone companies formed in the wake. Before they had a chance to figure out their own method of interconnecting their networks, AT&T acquired approval from the federal government to eliminate them in favor of AT&T's network in exchange for the federal government not bringing an antitrust case against AT&T.
Then after the first World War, AT&T was formally given a government protected monopoly by Congress: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Graham_ActQuoteciting that "there is nothing to be gained by local competition in the telephone industry."QuoteBetween 1921 and 1934, the ICC approved 271 of the 274 purchase requests of AT&T.
I should of course disclose that I'm not convinced by the argument that public utilities are natural monopolies either.
To my above questioning of ISP's capabilities of doing what's feared, I should add that I also question the FCC's ability to enforce net neutrality as well. The FCC didn't even fine Comcast, basically asked them merely to disclose practices and their order was still thrown out by the Court of Appeals. They tossed the core of the case against Verizon too.
A natural monopoly is a monopoly in an industry in which high infrastructural costs and other barriers to entry relative to the size of the market give the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, an overwhelming advantage over potential competitors. This frequently occurs in industries where capital costs predominate, creating economies of scale that are large in relation to the size of the market; examples include public utilities such as water services and electricity
My perspective is that if the government paid for the creation of the infrastructure, even in part, there is a strong obligation to the taxpayers who funded it to represent their investment.This would include literally everything in history. Past, present and future.
Not: "Okay, thanks for building that for us. Now it's yours."
As to natural monopoly, what specifically do you take issue with? Literally by definition they(and public utilities) would categorically fit the bill.Except I'm disputing the basics of the notion and concept. Even in their current state public utilities are often not even local monopolies other than entrenchment by regulatory fiat. I can't buy electricity from other companies for the same reason I can't buy cable services from other companies. Let alone electricity that is specifically produced by a specific method by said company.QuoteA natural monopoly is a monopoly in an industry in which high infrastructural costs and other barriers to entry relative to the size of the market give the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, an overwhelming advantage over potential competitors. This frequently occurs in industries where capital costs predominate, creating economies of scale that are large in relation to the size of the market; examples include public utilities such as water services and electricity
Natural monopoly is not to say no competitors exist, as you could theoretically argue that you don’t have to use your local energy company, you can cook by fire, heat your home with heating oil, move into a new home elsewhere, or buy solar panels, but that is not a viable option for many people.
Except I'm disputing the basics of the notion and concept. Even in their current state public utilities are often not even local monopolies other than entrenchment by regulatory fiat. I can't buy electricity from other companies for the same reason I can't buy cable services from other companies. Let alone electricity that is specifically produced by a specific method by said company.
Take away every barrier and regulation you want, and are you honestly convinced that enough entrepreneurs are going to be able to come along in every market and have the capital and attrition capability to compete with the established market leader? Like with electricity, cable, water, or gas?Why would it matter if they do or not? We currently operate under the insane notion that no one should even be allowed to compete with an established monopoly provider in markets where one has been established by fiat. They obviously would currently hold a monopoly share of the market when it was freed and thus significant advantage going forward, but not one placed there for any of the "natural" reasons you outlined. As such, I consider it much like the term "market failure" to be a post-hoc justification for establishing a monopoly based on unjustified premises.
However, I don't think I quite follow how someone could question the validity of such a market concept? Surely we recognize that there are markets that exist that carry those traits? That for instance, building extensive infrastructure to deliver something like electricity, sanitation, and cable/fiber internet to consumers costs a pretty large sum of money? Which requires a large sum of money to break even and create a return on investment?This is every future market segment that may come to exist. If natural monopolies exist and can self-sustain, why are there no examples of them historically? (Even just after The Two Revolutions to make things both post-Smith and probably easier to trace on Google.)
I find it a complete mockery of the term "monopoly" (let alone "natural") to believe there are 3000 separate natural electricity monopolies in the United StatesYou should've listed the number of electricity companies in the world to really drive the point home.
The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier
According to Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, the best way to explain network neutrality is that a public information network will end up being most useful if all content, websites, and platforms (e.g., mobile devices, video game consoles, etc.) are treated equally.His original paper doesn't actually seem to describe why he chose the name rather than something closer to common carrier.
The concept of a "dumb network", comprising "dumb pipes", has been around since at least the early 1990s. The term "dumb network" refers to a network which is set up but has little or no control or management of the way users make use of the network. The term "dumb pipes" is analogous to water pipes used in a city water supply system; in theory, these pipes provide a steady supply of water to all users, regardless of the identity of the user or the users' activities with the water.DUMB SERIES OF TUBES
This is every future market segment that may come to exist. If natural monopolies exist and can self-sustain, why are there no examples of them historically? (Even just after The Two Revolutions to make things both post-Smith and probably easier to trace on Google.)
Benji, I don’t mean to be a dick, but there seems to be a major disconnect in this conversation. Maybe I’m not explaining myself clearly, but I think I am.Yes, there is, and you aren't being a dick and are doing just fine. That's why I put the thing on top of my last post about this being too much of a digression into benjiville. But I think you may have missed my statement about premises because it's arguably the most clarifying one for this disconnect and confusion but I did kinda toss it in at the end off handedly.
But to pull another example more in my wheelehouse, take large general hospitals with an ER. No manner of deregulation or anything else besides incredible subsidization is going to justify a competitor investment in a relatively small city disconnected from a larger population hub, except in rare exceptions, from investing in a major encompassing ER hospital. Because the demand, supply, and ROI is not there for another competitor to enter that particular market space.And like I said that doesn't seem like a good reason to continue justifying legal protection for a monopoly. If the worst case scenario of removing the gilded protections, like certificates of need, is nothing changes, what's been lost?
You mean why are there not examples of natural monopolies cropping up around things like sanitation when people used to just throw their shit on the street or in the nearest river? IDK, good question.I meant why are there no examples of sustained natural monopolies period? Maybe I'm just ignorant (maybe?) but I've never heard of a single one. You'd think they were a regular occurrence in nature rather than needing to be established by law.
Heck in many instances, to even establish a market you have to pay people to go build it, like the government did for ATT and internet for rural areas.That's not establishing a market, that's shifting costs. And in that case the government paid AT&T and others billions to promise to build things they never did and still haven't and probably won't. They have never even met the at the time FCC Broadband standard, let alone the one they got the money for. They instead are meeting their own "standard" through expanding fixed wireless, they never even laid fiber to replace the copper except where Google Fiber and Fios were butting in. I doubt they even come close to their seven year promise on their own standard, the FCC's is probably complete nonsense.
The number of electricity companies does not actually indicate whether something is capable of being a natural monopoly or not(as a side note there are a little over 3000 counties in America as well, which technically, provides space for quite a lot of natural monopolies, even more when you consider the number of cities). In my city we have two electricity companies. But if you live on Lafayette street, you can only use one company. While yes, there is a regulatory component, the thing being spoken about though is that none of these companies really have the capacity to overtake the other or provide competition once the other has established their market share.Where did all these natural monopolies or this natural duopoly come from in the first place? Just got there first? Why is outlawing competition so essential if their permanent status of unchecked dominance is assured by the forces of nature?
...
But we are supposed to think that some other competitor is capable or willing to unsubsidized build out a competing network for that community?
Why is outlawing competition so essential if their permanent status of unchecked dominance is assured by the forces of nature?
cause unregulated monopoly maximizes profits by underproducing ur welcomeWhy would removing their protected monopoly status leave them entirely unregulated? The regulations for the industry would remain in place. Not to mention, all kinds of non-monopoly companies are regularly regulated extensively.
And like I said that doesn't seem like a good reason to continue justifying legal protection for a monopoly. If the worst case scenario of removing the gilded protections, like certificates of need, is nothing changes, what's been lost?
As to the previous, market share in and of itself isn't an issue because market share is often unstable especially in environments where a disruptive tech can change everything. I remember the days when no one could see a future that didn't have AOL as a major player especially after it bought out Netscape and CompuServe, or where Internet Explorer wasn't going to be the thing that killed browser innovation because no company could ever touch Microsoft. IBM All of these had what was considered unassailable market share, and all of them lost it. It was widely regarded that the antitrust suit that was brought against Microsoft was pointless at the end of the day because their market share dropped due to competition, naturally.
3 DUMB MOTHERFUCKERS TEETH NEED TO GET KICKED IN. NOW. :maf
ESPECIALLY PAI'S. THAT GOOFY FUCKHEAD.
3 DUMB MOTHERFUCKERS TEETH NEED TO GET KICKED IN. NOW. :mafI keep saying it, if revolutionary France had the internet, the government would've brought up the idea of killing net neutrality....once.
ESPECIALLY PAI'S. THAT GOOFY FUCKHEAD.
3 DUMB MOTHERFUCKERS TEETH NEED TO GET KICKED IN. NOW. :mafI keep saying it, if revolutionary France had the internet, the government would've brought up the idea of killing net neutrality....once.
ESPECIALLY PAI'S. THAT GOOFY FUCKHEAD.
RIPIt's likely that the states will ignore federal law and push their own agenda, despite the wording in the FCC policy. As a recourse, it will go to the SCOTUS, and hopefully be overturned. We haven't seen much pushback on legalizing marijuana, and that is a case of very serious federal laws being flagrantly violated.
My hope is that there will be a full NN bill when the Dems retake Congress next year, but that's a long shot. :-\
https://youtu.be/HK8a3yZDVUM
https://youtu.be/HK8a3yZDVUM
I keep saying it, if revolutionary France had the internet, the government would've brought up the idea of killing net neutrality....once.You and I remember the French Revolution very differently.
Which is the formerly FRANCE Telecom now ORANGE?!?
I am not trying to be antagonistic or ignorant about this, but really... so what?
Let's look at the doomsday scenario here. Net neutrality is no more. Do you really think that all the basement coders on Slashdot will just go away? I don't. They'll still want a way to run their own mini ISPs, host their own stuff, run their own mail servers and Usenet servers..... I think the market will decide. If there's a market for unfettered access to the wider internet, then somebody will make it happen, and most likely make a TON of cash in the process.
Worst case, I see a two-tiered internet. Companies that sell a commercialised internet for folk who only buy Apple products and essentially need Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, Wikipedia and Google and smaller bespoke operations that will provide internet access akin to what we have now. These actually already exist in most major developed countries. Here's one off the top of my head (https://www.aaisp.net.uk/).
I'm entirely comfortable with this. Let net neutrality die. Then give us our tiny ISPs back from the days where a local ISP had a customer base in the thousands rather than the tens of millions. We'll have a choice and we can pay for a better, neutral, even potentially more unregulated internet if we choose to do so. The market will decide.
why wait ten years, the U.S. has never effectively had federally enforced net neutrality and I've never been able to get anything approaching an uncapped gigabit connection for under $20 a month
r.i.p. in peace kurt russell
yeah, but i'm not sure about the metrics you've chosen for comparison regarding the FCC continuing its policy of the prior ten years
the fastest internet i can pay for is $80 a month for 75 mbps with a 1TB monthly cap, though if i moved five miles across the city to some specific apartments i could get that gigabit starting at $60 a month for a two year contract
ten years ago i think we would have had much more similar terms available to each of us than the current gap
and this is despite my mother's grandparents being swedish immigrants
I'm not sure that any of the facts in these cases are similar.
The FCC has ordered the status of ISPs to be reverted from how they were 2015-2017 to how they were 2005-2015. Even though it didn't to my current knowledge even enact or enforce any new rules under the new classification it placed ISPs under for the last two years. The FCC can change this to the 2015-2017 status at any time it wishes.
Sweden not only has its own rules, notably in this conversation never having had any requiring "net neutrality" that I can find, but the EU's rules as well. With the EU holding the heavy hand on establishing telecom regulations considering its geographical and multinational scope. Especially in comparison to an agency needing a mere switch of one vote on a five person committee.
And that's even assuming the FCC's reclassification is the key factor in the first place, most of its authority is derived from laws dating to 1996 and 1934. The only reason the FCC's reclassification order holds any significance that I can tell is because it's protected from being challenged in court and thus seen as an ideal tool to enact regulations via.
By the way the CEO of Orange (formerly France Telecom, one of the largest European company in the industry) is not a supporter of Net Neutrality. His argument is that you'll need a tiered Internet for smart cars, smart devices, etc... The argument being those are much less network intensive or something.
I think there is an argument for network management that places certain things as a higher priority than others, I.e. self driving car traffic should be more important than streaming Netflix. If Netflix usage gets to a point where it will encroach on actual no shit safety issues, there is a case for throttling.
The problem, IMO, is when network optimization is used as a smokescreen to enable rent-seeking.
From what I understand, map accuracy is more important for self driving cars than say, google maps requiring frequent updates. I always figured that meant some sort of online connection would be required at least some of the time.