Its not like I have any options to change my ISP (the other "phone company" ISP maxes out at 3Mbps).
I'm certainly no big fan of Google, Facebook or YouTube, but I don't think the ISPs should be able to hold the pipes hostage to huge payments.
You share a common misunderstanding of the issue because of how it is being presented. It is not merely about the “last mile” as pro-net neutrality advocates say. Rather, is about the role of the federal government (and specifically the FCC) on regulating the internet in general. Republicans in 2014 advocated for legislation that would ensure that the last mile would be protected. Read the Harvard Business Review’s article on this from just about a year ago. It helps explain the situation better. It’s called The Tangled Web of Net-Neutrality.
I've read the article you mention and here is a quote from it:
"For over a century, economists have long cautioned that treating infrastructure as a quasi-public monopoly should only be considered a last resort to overcome severe market failings."
I think what we have here is indeed "severe market failings."
Many people, even in large metropolitan areas like LA, have only one broadband provider, as the previous poster mentioned. In that situation there can't be any free market completion. The problem with the federal reclassification of the Internet as a utility or the last mile are completely different subjects altogether. If ISPs get to charge a premium to edge providers such as Google, Apple, Netflix, and Facebook, the cost will go up for end users. Anytime a major corporation's cost go up, they just pass those increased costs on to the end consumer. It is the municipalities that created a monopoly for a single ISP that is the problem. If a competing ISP could run new fiber for the last mile, then we might have free market competition, but right now the providers do not compete for end users.
The Internet is NOT the modern version of the 125 year old telephone network.
Declarative statements are not very persuasive.
Then let me clarify. The Telecommunications Act of 1934 established a protected monopoly in the name of ensuring accessibility to the telephone network for all. That protected monopoly (namely AT&T for the most part but not exclusively) was allowed to charge rates that would allow the building out of infrastructure as well as provide reliable service to customers and what was deemed a fair rate of return on investment. Competition was effectively banned. You had one choice for service in your community and that was that. That all went bye-bye when competition was artificially introduced after the 1984 breakup of AT&T. I say artificially because so-called competitors were allowed to lease facilities (switch ports, cable pairs, etc.) from the imbedded carrier at prices set by the government. So while you as a customer were getting billed by a competitor, say Acme Telephone Company, your were still getting your dial tone from AT&T’s switches and copper facilities. And they called it “competition.” And guess what? Over the ensuing years that artificial competition fell by the wayside until other providers, like cable TV companies, could actually sell alternative service independent of the imbedded network. Cellphone technology upset the applecart even more.
Net neutrality is basically trying to impose the same rules, called Title II, to the Internet but without the guarantee of a fair rate of return on investment by the carriers. The government wants them to build out the network but gives no incentive to do so. In fact the government wants to punish the big carriers for their size and influence. But the biggest drawback is the inaction of the government to legislate the rules. So we are left with one administration establishing net neutrality and the next administration repealing it. And the next election cycle may change things back once more. Why would ANY company want to commit to vast capital spending if the rules change with every political swing of the seesaw?
Can someone please explain to me (without political rhetoric) why it is wrong to require that ISPs treat all traffic equally? Its not like I have any options to change my ISP (the other "phone company" ISP maxes out at 3Mbps).
I completely agree with you. I don't understand why so many people here think it's perfectly fine for ISPs to hold the internet hostage. I can see it now: whenever I renew my sites, there will be a slow pipe, medium pipe and fast pipe options with the fast pipe beyond the means of anyone but a large company. I'm certainly no big fan of Google, Facebook or YouTube, but I don't think the ISPs should be able to hold the pipes hostage to huge payments.
You share a common misunderstanding of the issue because of how it is being presented. It is not merely about the “last mile” as pro-net neutrality advocates say. Rather, is about the role of the federal government (and specifically the FCC) on regulating the internet in general. Republicans in 2014 advocated for legislation that would ensure that the last mile would be protected. Read the Harvard Business Review’s article on this from just about a year ago. It helps explain the situation better. It’s called The Tangled Web of Net-Neutrality.
Thanks for the HBR article reference. However, the article mostly argues against ISPs being classified as Public Utilities. It still advocates "the treat-all-traffic-equally" principle (rather strongly):
The better solution would be to make the net neutrality rules a matter
of federal law. [...]
The Republican bill, for example, would have preemptively banned ISPs
from blocking websites, slowing traffic, or offering prioritization for
content as a paid service (so-called “fast lanes”).
The Internet is NOT the modern version of the 125 year old telephone network.
Declarative statements are not very persuasive.
Then let me clarify. The Telecommunications Act of 1934 established a protected monopoly in the name of ensuring accessibility to the telephone network for all. That protected monopoly (namely AT&T for the most part but not exclusively) was allowed to charge rates that would allow the building out of infrastructure as well as provide reliable service to customers and what was deemed a fair rate of return on investment. Competition was effectively banned. You had one choice for service in your community and that was that. That all went bye-bye when competition was artificially introduced after the 1984 breakup of AT&T. I say artificially because so-called competitors were allowed to lease facilities (switch ports, cable pairs, etc.) from the imbedded carrier at prices set by the government. So while you as a customer were getting billed by a competitor, say Acme Telephone Company, your were still getting your dial tone from AT&T’s switches and copper facilities. And they called it “competition.” And guess what? Over the ensuing years that artificial competition fell by the wayside until other providers, like cable TV companies, could actually sell alternative service independent of the imbedded network. Cellphone technology upset the applecart even more.
Net neutrality is basically trying to impose the same rules, called Title II, to the Internet but without the guarantee of a fair rate of return on investment by the carriers. The government wants them to build out the network but gives no incentive to do so. In fact the government wants to punish the big carriers for their size and influence. But the biggest drawback is the inaction of the government to legislate the rules. So we are left with one administration establishing net neutrality and the next administration repealing it. And the next election cycle may change things back once more. Why would ANY company want to commit to vast capital spending if the rules change with every political swing of the seesaw?
A couple things: 1) I don't see how any of that shows that Internet service is not like telephone service (actually the above reinforces that notion).
2) I am assuming then, that if the FCC set a reasonable rate of return for the carriers then you'd be ok with it? Somehow I don't think so, but that was your implication. Also, if changing the rules under each administration is a bad thing, I'd also assume you would be against what the current administration is doing - changing the rules. After all, we don't want any swings of the seesaw now do we? And, if we were to believe all of this, the carriers still won't invest since there is a real possibility of a change of administration in just 3 short years and who would commit vast capital spending with that possibility on the horizon?
It seems to me that the FCC regulations were reasonable - make impermissible blocking, throttling, or paid priority. The fact that they relied, in part, on authority granted to it under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is of no real consequence. What remains is that most people agree with the prohibition of blocking, throttling, and paid priority. It appears that the only real issues are: 1) It was enacted by the FCC rather than the FTC or Congress, and 2) They used Title II, in part, as the basis for their authority to regulate and that means that bad things will happen. I suppose there is a 3rd option: The carriers have not done that and never would (they really promise), so we should let the industry police itself because there is ample historical evidence that industries do a great job when left to police themselves.
I see a possible fourth option. Allow these companies to charge whatever they want so they can try and get a fair rate of return on their investment, but in return they have agree to be stripped of their geographical monopoly status. I would wager not a single one of them would take this deal.
Thing is when competition exists, the market will only bear a reasonable price so they are unlikely to get what they would consider a fair rate of return. After all what qualifies as fair, in my industry if I have no competition I can safely say anything less than a billion percent is unfair, however in a market where I have to compete all the sudden 10% doesn’t seem so bad.
I like how the monopoly status is just a thing that should be fixed by someone else at some nebulous time in the future, but hey let’s kill net neutrality now, which is the only real regulation they have since I don’t like the “progressive agenda”. Perhaps, legislation could have been introduced that would have adressed both these issues together since they are intertwined. I would support that regardless of which party put it forth. I would even go so far as to argue with a true free market (no regional monopolies), net neutrality may not even be needed. That of course is not what’s being suggest though, is it? What is being done is leaving a broken system in place and removing the only regulation that has been applied to them in how many years.
Net neutrality is actually a new policy forced onto the industry by a so-called progressive agenda.
You are confusing "net neutrality" with "Title II" in your claims. Net neutrality has, in point of fact, always been in place. What was new with the previous FCC order was Title II "public utility" regulation. You might want to do further research on what "net neutrality" is and how that differs from Title II, as you are undermining your own arguments by getting a basic fact like that wrong.
Net neutrality is actually a new policy forced onto the industry by a so-called progressive agenda.
You are confusing "net neutrality" with "Title II" in your claims. Net neutrality has, in point of fact, always been in place. What was new with the previous FCC order was Title II "public utility" regulation. You might want to do further research on what "net neutrality" is and how that differs from Title II, as you are undermining your own arguments by getting a basic fact like that wrong.
Title II is from the Communications Act of 1934. "Net Neutrality" is a relatively new term.
I see a possible fourth option. Allow these companies to charge whatever they want so they can try and get a fair rate of return on their investment, but in return they have agree to be stripped of their geographical monopoly status. I would wager not a single one of them would take this deal.
That's certainly an option the carrier have. I was referring to the reasons people have for not wanting "net neutrality" since most people like the actual prohibitions contained therein. They all seem to be rooted in political or economic philosophy (i.e. That regulation is a great idea but I can't support it because I am against regulations as a matter of policy).
What I find funny is that the carriers can charge whatever they want. While the FCC, under Title II, can restrict rate increases, they have not actually done so. I suspect if they all went crazy and raised rates 100%, the FCC would have done something. I don't think the FCC would have done much if the increase was reasonable and designed to fund network expansion - especially in under-served markets.
Of course the carriers won't take this deal or any other deal. They don't need to. They have one of their own running things now.
I see a possible fourth option. Allow these companies to charge whatever they want so they can try and get a fair rate of return on their investment, but in return they have agree to be stripped of their geographical monopoly status. I would wager not a single one of them would take this deal.
That's certainly an option the carrier have. I was referring to the reasons people have for not wanting "net neutrality" since most people like the actual prohibitions contained therein. They all seem to be rooted in political or economic philosophy (i.e. That regulation is a great idea but I can't support it because I am against regulations as a matter of policy).
What I find funny is that the carriers can charge whatever they want. While the FCC, under Title II, can restrict rate increases, they have not actually done so. I suspect if they all went crazy and raised rates 100%, the FCC would have done something. I don't think the FCC would have done much if the increase was reasonable and designed to fund network expansion - especially in under-served markets.
Of course the carriers won't take this deal or any other deal. They don't need to. They have one of their own running things now.
My comment was in agreement with what you had stated and simultaneously meant to point out the nonsensical reasoning used by another poster. You laid out your argument far more elequently than I, so my agreement may have appeared muddled.
In any case if they all raised their rates 100% it likely still wouldn’t cause the FCC to use its regulatory power. Why not, because whom are they going to use as a benchmark for what this service should cost? Likely, the arrived at conclusion will be due to market conditions this is now just what it costs to provide this service after all provider x charges about the same as provider y and z. I guess they could look to other countries as an example, however most of them already have a better, higher speed communications infrastructure than we do at a lower cost and this has not served as the impetus for any pricing regulatory action.
I see a possible fourth option. Allow these companies to charge whatever they want so they can try and get a fair rate of return on their investment, but in return they have agree to be stripped of their geographical monopoly status. I would wager not a single one of them would take this deal.
That's certainly an option the carrier have. I was referring to the reasons people have for not wanting "net neutrality" since most people like the actual prohibitions contained therein. They all seem to be rooted in political or economic philosophy (i.e. That regulation is a great idea but I can't support it because I am against regulations as a matter of policy).
What I find funny is that the carriers can charge whatever they want. While the FCC, under Title II, can restrict rate increases, they have not actually done so. I suspect if they all went crazy and raised rates 100%, the FCC would have done something. I don't think the FCC would have done much if the increase was reasonable and designed to fund network expansion - especially in under-served markets.
Of course the carriers won't take this deal or any other deal. They don't need to. They have one of their own running things now.
My comment was in agreement with what you had stated and simultaneously meant to point out the nonsensical reasoning used by another poster. You laid out your argument far more elequently than I, so my agreement may have appeared muddled.
In any case if they all raised their rates 100% it likely still wouldn’t cause the FCC to use its regulatory power. Why not, because whom are they going to use as a benchmark for what this service should cost? Likely, the arrived at conclusion will be due to market conditions this is now just what it costs to provide this service after all provider x charges about the same as provider y and z. I guess they could look to other countries as an example, however most of them already have a better, higher speed communications infrastructure than we do at a lower cost and this has not served as the impetus for any pricing regulatory action.
We are on the same page! I was just clarifying my post a bit.
Time for Congress to reverse this decision. Equal access should be the only access.
“Net Neutrality” isn’t neutral, it’s Federal interference in private markets and in matters which can be addressed by States, if the people so demand it.
AppleInsider said: ISPs have nevertheless been caught throttling traffic from the likes of Netflix and YouTube, looking to manage bandwidth without investing in infrastructure upgrades. A purely neutral approach would see those services operating at full speed whenever possible -- creating intense data consumption as video increasingly switches to 4K resolution.
Netflix has a speed tool. Use that and compare the results to Speed Test. If Netflix reports a slower speed than Speed Test then you can be certain that your ISP is throttling Netflix streaming. Using that tool it was discovered in November of 2017 that Verizon was limiting video streams to 10mbps. Verizon claims it is part of their video optimization program. By the way, currently that is illegal.
Stop spreading fake news! The Verge and others admitted that it turned out that Verizon was not throttling just Netflix, but all video during a temporary test for overall video optimization. This is why people need to think critically, not taught in most schools anymore. Critical thinking would cause someone to wonder why if this post was true, and not merely propaganda, that Netflix, the FCC, etc., wouldn't have fined/sued Verizon. So a little research showed that it was fake news. Here's the column from the Verge, note it included Verizon's denials, which is good, and then the update at the bottom, where the Verge concedes that the original information that Verizon was throttling Netflix was fake news. Of course, you had to read all the way to bottom to get to the retraction.
Take a second and see how many places have access to 25/5 bandwidth, which is what the FCC considers a minimum speed to be considered broadband. Until literally every customer in the US has two choices for 25/3, then the main FCC argument by Pai that US users have choices, is bogus.
Take a second and see how many places have access to 25/5 bandwidth, which is what the FCC considers a minimum speed to be considered broadband. Until literally every customer in the US has two choices for 25/3, then the main FCC argument by Pai that US users have choices, is bogus.
Elon Musk's satellite based Internet service (aka "a free market solution") will be able to provide broadband speeds in places where it is impractical or just too costly to connect. I'm betting Musk solves this better than the FCC ever could. It is not the job of the Federal government to provide Internet services to people. They should only "set the table" for competition.
Take a second and see how many places have access to 25/5 bandwidth, which is what the FCC considers a minimum speed to be considered broadband. Until literally every customer in the US has two choices for 25/3, then the main FCC argument by Pai that US users have choices, is bogus.
Elon Musk's satellite based Internet service (aka "a free market solution") will be able to provide broadband speeds in places where it is impractical or just too costly to connect. I'm betting Musk solves this better than the FCC ever could. It is not the job of the Federal government to provide Internet services to people. They should only "set the table" for competition.
In a few years. Not today. The problem is today. Today, Pai's argument is dangerously fallacious, by his own rules.
Take a second and see how many places have access to 25/5 bandwidth, which is what the FCC considers a minimum speed to be considered broadband. Until literally every customer in the US has two choices for 25/3, then the main FCC argument by Pai that US users have choices, is bogus.
Elon Musk's satellite based Internet service (aka "a free market solution") will be able to provide broadband speeds in places where it is impractical or just too costly to connect. I'm betting Musk solves this better than the FCC ever could. It is not the job of the Federal government to provide Internet services to people. They should only "set the table" for competition.
In a few years. Not today. The problem is today. Today, Pai's argument is dangerously fallacious, by his own rules.
What’s the difference between now and years from now for people who have no Internet anyway?
Comments
"For over a century, economists have long cautioned that treating infrastructure as a quasi-public monopoly should only be considered a last resort to overcome severe market failings."
I think what we have here is indeed "severe market failings."
Many people, even in large metropolitan areas like LA, have only one broadband provider, as the previous poster mentioned. In that situation there can't be any free market completion. The problem with the federal reclassification of the Internet as a utility or the last mile are completely different subjects altogether. If ISPs get to charge a premium to edge providers such as Google, Apple, Netflix, and Facebook, the cost will go up for end users. Anytime a major corporation's cost go up, they just pass those increased costs on to the end consumer. It is the municipalities that created a monopoly for a single ISP that is the problem. If a competing ISP could run new fiber for the last mile, then we might have free market competition, but right now the providers do not compete for end users.
Net neutrality is basically trying to impose the same rules, called Title II, to the Internet but without the guarantee of a fair rate of return on investment by the carriers. The government wants them to build out the network but gives no incentive to do so. In fact the government wants to punish the big carriers for their size and influence. But the biggest drawback is the inaction of the government to legislate the rules. So we are left with one administration establishing net neutrality and the next administration repealing it. And the next election cycle may change things back once more. Why would ANY company want to commit to vast capital spending if the rules change with every political swing of the seesaw?
and that is what I am most interested in.
Link to the full article is below.
https://hbr.org/2017/03/the-tangled-web-of-net-neutrality-and-regulation
1) I don't see how any of that shows that Internet service is not like telephone service (actually the above reinforces that notion).
2) I am assuming then, that if the FCC set a reasonable rate of return for the carriers then you'd be ok with it?
Somehow I don't think so, but that was your implication. Also, if changing the rules under each administration is a bad thing, I'd also assume you would be against what the current administration is doing - changing the rules. After all, we don't want any swings of the seesaw now do we? And, if we were to believe all of this, the carriers still won't invest since there is a real possibility of a change of administration in just 3 short years and who would commit vast capital spending with that possibility on the horizon?
It seems to me that the FCC regulations were reasonable - make impermissible blocking, throttling, or paid priority. The fact that they relied, in part, on authority granted to it under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is of no real consequence. What remains is that most people agree with the prohibition of blocking, throttling, and paid priority. It appears that the only real issues are: 1) It was enacted by the FCC rather than the FTC or Congress, and 2) They used Title II, in part, as the basis for their authority to regulate and that means that bad things will happen. I suppose there is a 3rd option: The carriers have not done that and never would (they really promise), so we should let the industry police itself because there is ample historical evidence that industries do a great job when left to police themselves.
Thing is when competition exists, the market will only bear a reasonable price so they are unlikely to get what they would consider a fair rate of return. After all what qualifies as fair, in my industry if I have no competition I can safely say anything less than a billion percent is unfair, however in a market where I have to compete all the sudden 10% doesn’t seem so bad.
I like how the monopoly status is just a thing that should be fixed by someone else at some nebulous time in the future, but hey let’s kill net neutrality now, which is the only real regulation they have since I don’t like the “progressive agenda”. Perhaps, legislation could have been introduced that would have adressed both these issues together since they are intertwined. I would support that regardless of which party put it forth. I would even go so far as to argue with a true free market (no regional monopolies), net neutrality may not even be needed. That of course is not what’s being suggest though, is it? What is being done is leaving a broken system in place and removing the only regulation that has been applied to them in how many years.
What I find funny is that the carriers can charge whatever they want. While the FCC, under Title II, can restrict rate increases, they have not actually done so. I suspect if they all went crazy and raised rates 100%, the FCC would have done something. I don't think the FCC would have done much if the increase was reasonable and designed to fund network expansion - especially in under-served markets.
Of course the carriers won't take this deal or any other deal. They don't need to. They have one of their own running things now.
In any case if they all raised their rates 100% it likely still wouldn’t cause the FCC to use its regulatory power. Why not, because whom are they going to use as a benchmark for what this service should cost? Likely, the arrived at conclusion will be due to market conditions this is now just what it costs to provide this service after all provider x charges about the same as provider y and z. I guess they could look to other countries as an example, however most of them already have a better, higher speed communications infrastructure than we do at a lower cost and this has not served as the impetus for any pricing regulatory action.