Critics of net neutrality claim the government can't adequate regulate network services, and may impose rules that do more harm than good. They also assert that companies can regulate themselves.
These ass-clowns have a lot of nerve making these claims considering the events of the past few years; look at how well the financial industry and oil companies regulated themselves after the US government deregulated their industries this past decade. No publically-owned company in a capitalist market is capable of policing itself, especially when there's only 3-5 competitors who own everything.
They only face greater bandwidth limitation due to the present limitation in RF technology to manage that bandwidth and refine it. In ten years the bandwidth they have will be no different, yet the services and coverage will have expanded rapidly.
AT&T wants a bandwidth grab that they will never give up [same with Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile] and that means the Military and DoD would have to relinquish hold over some of it.
IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. You've been coddled for 50 years. Get over yourselves Telcos and start paying back all your subsidies and tax sheltering the US has given to you. The money alone could pay for a large chunk of these useless wars.
Get your facts straight. You've got everything bass-ackwards. The subsidies were during the age of Ma Bell when ATT was a handmaiden of the government. Now these same companies have to bid and pay billions in frequency auctions to the government. Secondly, in all this mindless net neutrality debate, I've yet to hear a clear, convincing case of where someone's been denied anything. The military doesn't run anything anymore. It relinquished control in 1994. MaBell was broken up in 1984. The key goal is competition. Government involvement means singular, centralized control. The major success of the Internet has been that it's so far kept a few steps ahead of the mindless political class and bureaucraps in D.C.
These ass-clowns have a lot of nerve making these claims considering the events of the past few years; look at how well the financial industry and oil companies regulated themselves after the US government deregulated their industries this past decade. No publically-owned company in a capitalist market is capable of policing itself, especially when there's only 3-5 competitors who own everything.
That's because they use their money to get in bed with the government. Government is just another company... with a pedigree.
That's because they use their money to get in bed with the government. Government is just another company.
But that's avoidable to a large degree; don't vote for the presidential ticket that includes former-CEO's of giant, regulated corporations. Sure you can't avoid government corruption entirely, but voting down the blatantly-obvious corporate shills would go a long way.
To quote Steve you need to educate yourself. The entire RF spectrum is highly regulated and always has been. Every single service has bandwith limitations be it AM radio, ham radio, marine, public safety or whatever. You realky should understand what you are talking about before speaking.
Exactly, they are always trying to confuse these two issues. Of course more data costs more. But if you censor my communications, be prepared to have the government correct you, and pay a settlement to the victims of the censorship. Ultimately the president can replace the CEO of the companies and have them broken up.
On spectrum, Verizon clearly attempted to monopolize spectrum proactively. There is PLENTY of spectrum still unused. It should be allocated on a rental basis not ownership. There is an overall surplus of spectrum. We won't run out in our lifetime. But, some of it may need to be nationalized and rented out again, because it was improperly sold. Imagine if we sold the entire water supply to the USA. We could be blackmailed for trillions of dollars to use that water. Or, instead, the government could rule that the "scarcity" of drinking water is an illegal collusive behavior, and the asset should be broken up, without a possibility of price collusion.
You scare me.
The most corruption, collusion and coercion has always been on the part of governments, but for them, the individual means nothing, unless it is the "right" kind of individual, that is, yet it's easy to fall through the cracks.
Armchair dictators calling for a bigger dictatorship is the preamble for bad things happening.
No dictator ever became one to be evil. There is always some "noble" purpose and widespread support, even for hitler. You should look up nazism in wikipedia for a brief reminder.
In freedom, we let the consumer be the judge, and keep barriers to entry low so there is always a fresh selection. The carriers "own" their bands because of government collusion, go figure --could it be because governments are always desperate for more and more revenue?
Don't fall in the trap, stand for lawfulness and let the markets sort it out.
Except this isn't what AT&T is doing. Instead they regulate by control of what you can do on their network. For example no Facetime over 3G, no tethering unless you pay $20 for NO BANDWIDTH. The list goes on but it is a huge mistake to buy into AT&Ts excuse for the new plans. If such plans where about controlling access the why these silly restrictions?
Because BOTH are necessary. As you say, streaming, Facetime, and other data hungry applications will absolutely kill the cellular network. But even without them, they're getting killed by the standard internet surfing anyway, and will only get more so as smartphone usage balloons at a faster rate than they can build infrastructure. Even the vaunted LTE will be painful at first.
So, yes, AT&T needs to cap the usage a little bit, and I think that a tiered plan is a good way to do that. Of course, it offers them an opportunity to make more $$$ at the end of the day too, mostly at the expense of the data addicted.
Too bad we can't have roll-over bytes and family byte plans. :-)
But that's avoidable to a large degree; don't vote for the presidential ticket that includes former-CEO's of giant, regulated corporations. Sure you can't avoid government corruption entirely, but voting down the blatantly-obvious corporate shills would go a long way.
It's true. Frankly, just voting at all would go a long way, but we have a nasty habit of non-participation until the damage is already done.
These corporations love to feed on popular mistrust of government to shoe people away from regulation. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Regulation is the lifeblood of a stable business environment. It fosters healthy competition, it acts to protect consumers from duplicity, and it prevents small companies from being stamped out by large ones.
Every single man, woman and child in the U.S. should be writing their representatives and the FCC itself. No company owns the internet.
Right now we live in an age of early adopters as far as mobile goes. If a much larger portion of the population goes mobile the system will have problems as currently used. There is no sound way around that, that doesn't involve some control over that mobile access.
A similar debate has happened here in New Zealand with mobile termination rates. The industry said they can self govern but the years have proven this to be rubbish and as a result the government has now stepped in and will control the MTRs themselves.
Government intervention is often required to PROMOTE competition because time and time again infrastructure providers hold everyone else by the danglies and ultimately the ones getting screwed are the consumers.
The idea that the government can't cope with this is stupid and they are in reality the ONLY ones who can cope with this. Look at China and tell me that a government can't control this sort of thing.
In my not so humble opinion ALL infrastructure including phone lines, cell towers, oil and gas, power lines and power stations should be controlled by the government and then they can open up the service provision to third parties which in turn will lead to increased competition that will ultimately lead to consumers winning out.
Big Business CANNOT regulate itself and America is living proof of that. New Zealand is now living proof of that. Russia is now living proof of that. And there are many countries that are living proof of that. Government intervention is required for the sake of the people.
And before you Americans go on about how Socialism is evil I say to you they who live in glass houses should not cast stones. Capitalism has done more to destroy society than Socialism ever has. I live in New Zealand and we have moved from a Socialist nation to a Capitalist nation and the country has rapidly gone downhill since. Socialism is not perfect but it's far less evil than Capitalism I can assure you having seen the two with my own eyes.
It's true. Frankly, just voting at all would go a long way, but we have a nasty habit of non-participation until the damage is already done.
These corporations love to feed on popular mistrust of government to shoe people away from regulation. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Regulation is the lifeblood of a stable business environment. It fosters healthy competition, it acts to protect consumers from duplicity, and it prevents small companies from being stamped out by large ones.
Every single man, woman and child in the U.S. should be writing their representatives and the FCC itself. No company owns the internet.
Wrong.
Over-regulation is the path to fascism. It allows the big, established corporations to exclude the smaller ones and the newcomers. It encourages government collusion.
And politicians with no corporate experience, trying to steer corporate America could be even more risky.
Mao didn't kill most of the people he is accused of by shooting them. He did it by imposing poor economic decisions, hence causing the biggest famine in the history of humanity. However, I'm sure he didn't have any ill intentions at all --I'm sure in his mind he anticipated just the opposite to happen.
The idea that the government can't cope with this is stupid and they are in reality the ONLY ones who can cope with this. Look at China and tell me that a government can't control this sort of thing...
China has been successful in compartmentalizing the economics decision-making process from politics. They carefully select the best people to do it, and are given enough independence to prevent political decisions from seriously affecting their plans and policies.
They are certainly doing something right. Having their politicians calling all the shots, for sure isn't it.
Actually i'm sure that it does. Net nuetrality only works if there is enough bandwidth available at anyone time for the current users to freely engage whatever service is available. Cell networks on the otherhand can only handle limited workloads as anybody that has tried to use a cell phone at a convention or airport during a snow delay can attest to. In the end to many users in one location means congestion with respect to the available bandwidth. Now look at this in the context of Facetime and streaming television, the bandwidth isn't there and frankly is probably why AT&T resists running facetime over 3G.
In the end that won't work either as bandwidth would go to people with big bucks trying to use services that make no sense on a mobile network.
For example why should the "broadcast" of television shows be permitted on cell networks when there is already spectrum allocated for Broadcast TV. Even more so the same question can be asked about FM and AM radio. Streaming will kill cellular networking if it is adopted widely. The question then becomes who should regulate what is transmitted over such services. To put it bluntly it is a mistake to leave that decision up to the telcos.
[snip]
More precisely should a user have to give up Facetime in preference the streaming of TV shows. One has to look at this in context, the cellular system was built around the idea of personal communications yet in the case of AT&T they seem to have a preference for TV over Facetime. So already AT&T is blowing it with respect to what many users see the system as.
In the end AT&Ts new billing system can only be seen as a scam if they don't allow free access to that bandwidth you are supposedly paying for. Think about it real hard what is the point in their plan if i can't access the bandwidth intensive services i want anyway?
In the end I really believe that the only way to keep mobile networking viable is to heavily regulate the services and keep the telcos competeing on a level playing field. This due to the monopoly nature of the companies and the nature of the spectrum which in and of itself limits competition. In part that will mean that the FCC will have to apply a heavy hand in a couple of ways. First they will have to outlaw broadcasting over mobile when such broadcasts are offered over other services. This means no FM or TV stations broadcasting over mobile networks. The second part is that an individual should get the bandwidth he pays for and be free to use it anyway he likes that hasn't been specifically prohibited by the FCC.
[[snip]]
Dave
Dave --
The allocation of scarce resources is not as new of a problem as you might think, and if we applied your prescription for how to deal with the problem to other scarce resources we would end up living in a very different society than we live in today (which some people would probably like, but I would not). You are essentially arguing that a government agency should decide what uses of cellular bandwidth are appropriate and which are not. While that might be better than allowing AT&T/Verizon to make those decisions (a point which is highly debatable), I think that a better solution would be to allocate the scarce resource using price. This is the solution we use for most other scarce goods and it works pretty well. Take oil, for example. If we applied your solution to oil, then there would be a government agency deciding which uses of oil are appropriate and which are not. Perhaps all cars with low fuel efficiency would be outlawed, perhaps there would be no jet skis or other products going to "people with big bucks trying to use services that make no sense." (who decides that exactly?)
I'm not arguing against regulation entirely. I think that regulation is important, but the purpose of the regulation should be to enable a functioning market and deal with externalities. A functioning market in which externalities have been addressed through regulation or taxes is the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources. A more centrally planned approach (like what you are suggesting) is far more challenging to implement because it is too difficult for the central planner to figure out which "services make no sense" and which do. The central planner cannot possible know the needs and preferences of 300 million people, nor can the central planner know what new technologies/products might be developed in the future. Even if the central planner has the best intentions and is the smartest person alive, he's still going to make a lot of mistakes.
In the case of oil, the best system would probably be to take the current market and adjust it by removing all subsidies, both for oil and alternatives to oil, and then impose a simple tax on oil. No micromanaging central planners -- people can still ride jet skis if they want, so long as they are willing to pay the price. And why not? Jet skis are fun!
In the case of cellular, I think the best solution would be to allow the telecoms to charge people for the use of their network, but not to micromanage how people use the network. If someone wants to watch TV over the cellular network and is willing to pay the price, I say let them do it. My guess is that most people won't do it because it's a pointless waste of money. But who are we to tell people how to spend their money? So long as externalities are being accounted for in the price, I say let people do what they want. That approach has worked very well for most other scarce resources -- I'll bet it can work here, too.
Yes exactly! In order for mobile to work in its allocated spectrum there has to be limitations on what is handled on that band width. This is no different than any other FCC managed part of the spectrum
Sure it does, if wireless is not managed bandwidth goes to the people paying the big bucks. Don't believe me then look at what AT&T is doing now. No Factime, extra for tethering and the general screwing we get.
Just about anybody using that tower.
The problem is as you point out with the telcos. This is whyvregulation from the FCC is needed. The only effective contol would be a limitation on streaming which takes up a considerable amount of spectrum. My point is that control is needed to keep mobile viable and that the telcos are not the ones that should be excercising that control.
It is a question of which is worst in the long run. I believe the FCC could do a better job if permitted. First they could deal with these silly limitations and data plans. Second they can effectively ban services that use other portions of the spectrum. Point blank there is no good reason for a radio or TV station to be broadcasting over a cell network, they already have transmitters for that on their own soectrum. It is simpky a waste of spectrum
Dave
Have hard time understanding the point you are trying to make here.
I was pointing out that it does not matter if I stream Sheff's BBQ from my site or FoodMob from YouTube, if we are both using h.264 in same resolution it means that the same damn amount of bandwith is used up.
Net neutrality guarantees that my site (Sheff's BBQ in this case) would stream just as fast as YouTube and that I would not have to pay a tax to appear on Verizon's network.
ATT to me looked like they meant that no regulation (allowing them to limit sites that appear on their network) is needed because wireless spectrum is so small that there is only that many sites they can provide, which is BS, because the limit is on bandwith, NOT on #of sites.
I think you meant that cell tower users care if I watch netflix vs read NY Times, but that is not net neutrality, that is BANDWIDTH limitations, which can be solved by WiMax or some other type of wireless networks that ATT (and others) NEEDS to deploy.
I remember complaining to my ISP that I was only getting 80 kbps when I was signed up for 128. They told me to be happy, since it's MUCH faster then dialup. I know it's different, ATT and Verizon need to overcome the crunch, not tell me to "be happy" that I can at least use these certain sites (Reminds me of AOL did back in the day.)
The FCC needs to keep the airways free for us and not for the telecoms or google (so much for them doing no evil). One sure way to stifle creativity and use of mobile devices is to allow these companies to impose usage restrictions, no matter how well intentioned...and we know what the road to hell is paved with.
These doofuses need to stop damaging themselves by making wild threats about censoring the very centrally governed wireless mega-networks of the USA. If they mean to keep their networks intact (which is by no means assured, if they behave in ways contrary to effective communication), they need to respect basic principles of noncensorship. Otherwise they can easily be dismantled by force until such compliance is seen. They really need to quit this.
Over-regulation is the path to fascism. It allows the big, established corporations to exclude the smaller ones and the newcomers. It encourages government collusion.
Mao didn't kill most of the people he is accused of by shooting them. He did it by imposing poor economic decisions, hence causing the biggest famine in the history of humanity. However, I'm sure he didn't have any ill intentions at all --I'm sure in his mind he anticipated just the opposite to happen.
Why is it every time we start talking about regulating against the excesses of a couple of greedy corporations, someone has to start talking about the evils of communists past? No one is saying that we should carry red books and start burning monasteries - what we are saying is that the public has to be protected from corporate censorship of the consumers right to freedom of information. Nobody in Verizon should be able to tell you what you can't see/use. If you want to consume more data, then you should pay for it. That is where the so called power of the market comes in. The power of the market does not happen when there is a duopoly controlling resources (that is real collusion) - because the consumer has nowhere else to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor
Dave --
In the case of cellular, I think the best solution would be to allow the telecoms to charge people for the use of their network, but not to micromanage how people use the network. If someone wants to watch TV over the cellular network and is willing to pay the price, I say let them do it. My guess is that most people won't do it because it's a pointless waste of money. But who are we to tell people how to spend their money? So long as externalities are being accounted for in the price, I say let people do what they want. That approach has worked very well for most other scarce resources -- I'll bet it can work here, too.
Nikola Tesla was employed by Thomas Edison with the promise of $50,000 (more than $1,100,000 in today's US currency) for improving Edison's electric generators. That is, Tesla was persuaded to advance Edison's technology by the potential for profit. Tesla came through. Edison reneged. Tesla quit. Tesla invented communication technologies independent of radio (which he also advanced). Radio won one of the first format wars. But, who's to say that Tesla's communication format won't be revived or that its equal won't win in the arena of mobile internet? Of course, Tesla died penniless and his intellectual property was seized by the government. That's fair.
Companies don't need regulation. They have our best interests at heart. The Market will magically sort out all of our problems. Look at Wall Street -it is a shining example of how the push for deregulation (especially derivatives - which never had any at all) results in a prosperous economy that all benefit from.
Oh, wait.... *ring ring* "Hello Mr Greenspan. Yes, we know you have guided public policy towered deregulation under both parties. Yes, 40 years, uh huh. What do you mean, you were wrong? But..." *click*
Bummer
Don't get me started. The only place you can find a true "free market" is at a garage sale or flea market, the idea that financial markets were completely "hands off" by the government is preposterous.
Comments
Critics of net neutrality claim the government can't adequate regulate network services, and may impose rules that do more harm than good. They also assert that companies can regulate themselves.
These ass-clowns have a lot of nerve making these claims considering the events of the past few years; look at how well the financial industry and oil companies regulated themselves after the US government deregulated their industries this past decade. No publically-owned company in a capitalist market is capable of policing itself, especially when there's only 3-5 competitors who own everything.
They only face greater bandwidth limitation due to the present limitation in RF technology to manage that bandwidth and refine it. In ten years the bandwidth they have will be no different, yet the services and coverage will have expanded rapidly.
AT&T wants a bandwidth grab that they will never give up [same with Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile] and that means the Military and DoD would have to relinquish hold over some of it.
IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. You've been coddled for 50 years. Get over yourselves Telcos and start paying back all your subsidies and tax sheltering the US has given to you. The money alone could pay for a large chunk of these useless wars.
Get your facts straight. You've got everything bass-ackwards. The subsidies were during the age of Ma Bell when ATT was a handmaiden of the government. Now these same companies have to bid and pay billions in frequency auctions to the government. Secondly, in all this mindless net neutrality debate, I've yet to hear a clear, convincing case of where someone's been denied anything. The military doesn't run anything anymore. It relinquished control in 1994. MaBell was broken up in 1984. The key goal is competition. Government involvement means singular, centralized control. The major success of the Internet has been that it's so far kept a few steps ahead of the mindless political class and bureaucraps in D.C.
These ass-clowns have a lot of nerve making these claims considering the events of the past few years; look at how well the financial industry and oil companies regulated themselves after the US government deregulated their industries this past decade. No publically-owned company in a capitalist market is capable of policing itself, especially when there's only 3-5 competitors who own everything.
That's because they use their money to get in bed with the government. Government is just another company... with a pedigree.
That's because they use their money to get in bed with the government. Government is just another company.
But that's avoidable to a large degree; don't vote for the presidential ticket that includes former-CEO's of giant, regulated corporations. Sure you can't avoid government corruption entirely, but voting down the blatantly-obvious corporate shills would go a long way.
To quote Steve you need to educate yourself. The entire RF spectrum is highly regulated and always has been. Every single service has bandwith limitations be it AM radio, ham radio, marine, public safety or whatever. You realky should understand what you are talking about before speaking.
Dave[/QUOTE]
Oh the irony...
Exactly, they are always trying to confuse these two issues. Of course more data costs more. But if you censor my communications, be prepared to have the government correct you, and pay a settlement to the victims of the censorship. Ultimately the president can replace the CEO of the companies and have them broken up.
On spectrum, Verizon clearly attempted to monopolize spectrum proactively. There is PLENTY of spectrum still unused. It should be allocated on a rental basis not ownership. There is an overall surplus of spectrum. We won't run out in our lifetime. But, some of it may need to be nationalized and rented out again, because it was improperly sold. Imagine if we sold the entire water supply to the USA. We could be blackmailed for trillions of dollars to use that water. Or, instead, the government could rule that the "scarcity" of drinking water is an illegal collusive behavior, and the asset should be broken up, without a possibility of price collusion.
You scare me.
The most corruption, collusion and coercion has always been on the part of governments, but for them, the individual means nothing, unless it is the "right" kind of individual, that is, yet it's easy to fall through the cracks.
Armchair dictators calling for a bigger dictatorship is the preamble for bad things happening.
No dictator ever became one to be evil. There is always some "noble" purpose and widespread support, even for hitler. You should look up nazism in wikipedia for a brief reminder.
In freedom, we let the consumer be the judge, and keep barriers to entry low so there is always a fresh selection. The carriers "own" their bands because of government collusion, go figure --could it be because governments are always desperate for more and more revenue?
Don't fall in the trap, stand for lawfulness and let the markets sort it out.
Except this isn't what AT&T is doing. Instead they regulate by control of what you can do on their network. For example no Facetime over 3G, no tethering unless you pay $20 for NO BANDWIDTH. The list goes on but it is a huge mistake to buy into AT&Ts excuse for the new plans. If such plans where about controlling access the why these silly restrictions?
Because BOTH are necessary. As you say, streaming, Facetime, and other data hungry applications will absolutely kill the cellular network. But even without them, they're getting killed by the standard internet surfing anyway, and will only get more so as smartphone usage balloons at a faster rate than they can build infrastructure. Even the vaunted LTE will be painful at first.
So, yes, AT&T needs to cap the usage a little bit, and I think that a tiered plan is a good way to do that. Of course, it offers them an opportunity to make more $$$ at the end of the day too, mostly at the expense of the data addicted.
Too bad we can't have roll-over bytes and family byte plans. :-)
Thompson
But that's avoidable to a large degree; don't vote for the presidential ticket that includes former-CEO's of giant, regulated corporations. Sure you can't avoid government corruption entirely, but voting down the blatantly-obvious corporate shills would go a long way.
It's true. Frankly, just voting at all would go a long way, but we have a nasty habit of non-participation until the damage is already done.
These corporations love to feed on popular mistrust of government to shoe people away from regulation. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Regulation is the lifeblood of a stable business environment. It fosters healthy competition, it acts to protect consumers from duplicity, and it prevents small companies from being stamped out by large ones.
Every single man, woman and child in the U.S. should be writing their representatives and the FCC itself. No company owns the internet.
Right now we live in an age of early adopters as far as mobile goes. If a much larger portion of the population goes mobile the system will have problems as currently used. There is no sound way around that, that doesn't involve some control over that mobile access.
It's not a question of "if" but "when".
Thompson
Government intervention is often required to PROMOTE competition because time and time again infrastructure providers hold everyone else by the danglies and ultimately the ones getting screwed are the consumers.
The idea that the government can't cope with this is stupid and they are in reality the ONLY ones who can cope with this. Look at China and tell me that a government can't control this sort of thing.
In my not so humble opinion ALL infrastructure including phone lines, cell towers, oil and gas, power lines and power stations should be controlled by the government and then they can open up the service provision to third parties which in turn will lead to increased competition that will ultimately lead to consumers winning out.
Big Business CANNOT regulate itself and America is living proof of that. New Zealand is now living proof of that. Russia is now living proof of that. And there are many countries that are living proof of that. Government intervention is required for the sake of the people.
And before you Americans go on about how Socialism is evil I say to you they who live in glass houses should not cast stones. Capitalism has done more to destroy society than Socialism ever has. I live in New Zealand and we have moved from a Socialist nation to a Capitalist nation and the country has rapidly gone downhill since. Socialism is not perfect but it's far less evil than Capitalism I can assure you having seen the two with my own eyes.
It's true. Frankly, just voting at all would go a long way, but we have a nasty habit of non-participation until the damage is already done.
These corporations love to feed on popular mistrust of government to shoe people away from regulation. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Regulation is the lifeblood of a stable business environment. It fosters healthy competition, it acts to protect consumers from duplicity, and it prevents small companies from being stamped out by large ones.
Every single man, woman and child in the U.S. should be writing their representatives and the FCC itself. No company owns the internet.
Wrong.
Over-regulation is the path to fascism. It allows the big, established corporations to exclude the smaller ones and the newcomers. It encourages government collusion.
And politicians with no corporate experience, trying to steer corporate America could be even more risky.
Mao didn't kill most of the people he is accused of by shooting them. He did it by imposing poor economic decisions, hence causing the biggest famine in the history of humanity. However, I'm sure he didn't have any ill intentions at all --I'm sure in his mind he anticipated just the opposite to happen.
...
The idea that the government can't cope with this is stupid and they are in reality the ONLY ones who can cope with this. Look at China and tell me that a government can't control this sort of thing...
China has been successful in compartmentalizing the economics decision-making process from politics. They carefully select the best people to do it, and are given enough independence to prevent political decisions from seriously affecting their plans and policies.
They are certainly doing something right. Having their politicians calling all the shots, for sure isn't it.
Actually i'm sure that it does. Net nuetrality only works if there is enough bandwidth available at anyone time for the current users to freely engage whatever service is available. Cell networks on the otherhand can only handle limited workloads as anybody that has tried to use a cell phone at a convention or airport during a snow delay can attest to. In the end to many users in one location means congestion with respect to the available bandwidth. Now look at this in the context of Facetime and streaming television, the bandwidth isn't there and frankly is probably why AT&T resists running facetime over 3G.
In the end that won't work either as bandwidth would go to people with big bucks trying to use services that make no sense on a mobile network.
For example why should the "broadcast" of television shows be permitted on cell networks when there is already spectrum allocated for Broadcast TV. Even more so the same question can be asked about FM and AM radio. Streaming will kill cellular networking if it is adopted widely. The question then becomes who should regulate what is transmitted over such services. To put it bluntly it is a mistake to leave that decision up to the telcos.
[snip]
More precisely should a user have to give up Facetime in preference the streaming of TV shows. One has to look at this in context, the cellular system was built around the idea of personal communications yet in the case of AT&T they seem to have a preference for TV over Facetime. So already AT&T is blowing it with respect to what many users see the system as.
In the end AT&Ts new billing system can only be seen as a scam if they don't allow free access to that bandwidth you are supposedly paying for. Think about it real hard what is the point in their plan if i can't access the bandwidth intensive services i want anyway?
In the end I really believe that the only way to keep mobile networking viable is to heavily regulate the services and keep the telcos competeing on a level playing field. This due to the monopoly nature of the companies and the nature of the spectrum which in and of itself limits competition. In part that will mean that the FCC will have to apply a heavy hand in a couple of ways. First they will have to outlaw broadcasting over mobile when such broadcasts are offered over other services. This means no FM or TV stations broadcasting over mobile networks. The second part is that an individual should get the bandwidth he pays for and be free to use it anyway he likes that hasn't been specifically prohibited by the FCC.
[[snip]]
Dave
Dave --
The allocation of scarce resources is not as new of a problem as you might think, and if we applied your prescription for how to deal with the problem to other scarce resources we would end up living in a very different society than we live in today (which some people would probably like, but I would not). You are essentially arguing that a government agency should decide what uses of cellular bandwidth are appropriate and which are not. While that might be better than allowing AT&T/Verizon to make those decisions (a point which is highly debatable), I think that a better solution would be to allocate the scarce resource using price. This is the solution we use for most other scarce goods and it works pretty well. Take oil, for example. If we applied your solution to oil, then there would be a government agency deciding which uses of oil are appropriate and which are not. Perhaps all cars with low fuel efficiency would be outlawed, perhaps there would be no jet skis or other products going to "people with big bucks trying to use services that make no sense." (who decides that exactly?)
I'm not arguing against regulation entirely. I think that regulation is important, but the purpose of the regulation should be to enable a functioning market and deal with externalities. A functioning market in which externalities have been addressed through regulation or taxes is the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources. A more centrally planned approach (like what you are suggesting) is far more challenging to implement because it is too difficult for the central planner to figure out which "services make no sense" and which do. The central planner cannot possible know the needs and preferences of 300 million people, nor can the central planner know what new technologies/products might be developed in the future. Even if the central planner has the best intentions and is the smartest person alive, he's still going to make a lot of mistakes.
In the case of oil, the best system would probably be to take the current market and adjust it by removing all subsidies, both for oil and alternatives to oil, and then impose a simple tax on oil. No micromanaging central planners -- people can still ride jet skis if they want, so long as they are willing to pay the price. And why not? Jet skis are fun!
In the case of cellular, I think the best solution would be to allow the telecoms to charge people for the use of their network, but not to micromanage how people use the network. If someone wants to watch TV over the cellular network and is willing to pay the price, I say let them do it. My guess is that most people won't do it because it's a pointless waste of money. But who are we to tell people how to spend their money? So long as externalities are being accounted for in the price, I say let people do what they want. That approach has worked very well for most other scarce resources -- I'll bet it can work here, too.
Yes exactly! In order for mobile to work in its allocated spectrum there has to be limitations on what is handled on that band width. This is no different than any other FCC managed part of the spectrum
Sure it does, if wireless is not managed bandwidth goes to the people paying the big bucks. Don't believe me then look at what AT&T is doing now. No Factime, extra for tethering and the general screwing we get.
Just about anybody using that tower.
The problem is as you point out with the telcos. This is whyvregulation from the FCC is needed. The only effective contol would be a limitation on streaming which takes up a considerable amount of spectrum. My point is that control is needed to keep mobile viable and that the telcos are not the ones that should be excercising that control.
It is a question of which is worst in the long run. I believe the FCC could do a better job if permitted. First they could deal with these silly limitations and data plans. Second they can effectively ban services that use other portions of the spectrum. Point blank there is no good reason for a radio or TV station to be broadcasting over a cell network, they already have transmitters for that on their own soectrum. It is simpky a waste of spectrum
Dave
Have hard time understanding the point you are trying to make here.
I was pointing out that it does not matter if I stream Sheff's BBQ from my site or FoodMob from YouTube, if we are both using h.264 in same resolution it means that the same damn amount of bandwith is used up.
Net neutrality guarantees that my site (Sheff's BBQ in this case) would stream just as fast as YouTube and that I would not have to pay a tax to appear on Verizon's network.
ATT to me looked like they meant that no regulation (allowing them to limit sites that appear on their network) is needed because wireless spectrum is so small that there is only that many sites they can provide, which is BS, because the limit is on bandwith, NOT on #of sites.
I think you meant that cell tower users care if I watch netflix vs read NY Times, but that is not net neutrality, that is BANDWIDTH limitations, which can be solved by WiMax or some other type of wireless networks that ATT (and others) NEEDS to deploy.
I remember complaining to my ISP that I was only getting 80 kbps when I was signed up for 128. They told me to be happy, since it's MUCH faster then dialup. I know it's different, ATT and Verizon need to overcome the crunch, not tell me to "be happy" that I can at least use these certain sites (Reminds me of AOL did back in the day.)
These doofuses need to stop damaging themselves by making wild threats about censoring the very centrally governed wireless mega-networks of the USA. If they mean to keep their networks intact (which is by no means assured, if they behave in ways contrary to effective communication), they need to respect basic principles of noncensorship. Otherwise they can easily be dismantled by force until such compliance is seen. They really need to quit this.
That's doofi.
Wrong.
Over-regulation is the path to fascism. It allows the big, established corporations to exclude the smaller ones and the newcomers. It encourages government collusion.
Mao didn't kill most of the people he is accused of by shooting them. He did it by imposing poor economic decisions, hence causing the biggest famine in the history of humanity. However, I'm sure he didn't have any ill intentions at all --I'm sure in his mind he anticipated just the opposite to happen.
Why is it every time we start talking about regulating against the excesses of a couple of greedy corporations, someone has to start talking about the evils of communists past? No one is saying that we should carry red books and start burning monasteries - what we are saying is that the public has to be protected from corporate censorship of the consumers right to freedom of information. Nobody in Verizon should be able to tell you what you can't see/use. If you want to consume more data, then you should pay for it. That is where the so called power of the market comes in. The power of the market does not happen when there is a duopoly controlling resources (that is real collusion) - because the consumer has nowhere else to go.
Dave --
In the case of cellular, I think the best solution would be to allow the telecoms to charge people for the use of their network, but not to micromanage how people use the network. If someone wants to watch TV over the cellular network and is willing to pay the price, I say let them do it. My guess is that most people won't do it because it's a pointless waste of money. But who are we to tell people how to spend their money? So long as externalities are being accounted for in the price, I say let people do what they want. That approach has worked very well for most other scarce resources -- I'll bet it can work here, too.
Nicely put. My sentiments exactly.
Some history:
Nikola Tesla was employed by Thomas Edison with the promise of $50,000 (more than $1,100,000 in today's US currency) for improving Edison's electric generators. That is, Tesla was persuaded to advance Edison's technology by the potential for profit. Tesla came through. Edison reneged. Tesla quit. Tesla invented communication technologies independent of radio (which he also advanced). Radio won one of the first format wars. But, who's to say that Tesla's communication format won't be revived or that its equal won't win in the arena of mobile internet? Of course, Tesla died penniless and his intellectual property was seized by the government. That's fair.
Companies don't need regulation. They have our best interests at heart. The Market will magically sort out all of our problems. Look at Wall Street -it is a shining example of how the push for deregulation (especially derivatives - which never had any at all) results in a prosperous economy that all benefit from.
Oh, wait.... *ring ring* "Hello Mr Greenspan. Yes, we know you have guided public policy towered deregulation under both parties. Yes, 40 years, uh huh. What do you mean, you were wrong? But..." *click*
Bummer
Don't get me started. The only place you can find a true "free market" is at a garage sale or flea market, the idea that financial markets were completely "hands off" by the government is preposterous.