here we go, Repug Senate and House pushing hard to enrich BigCable and screw consumers, yawn
Public Knowledge Urges Senate to Reject House’s Cable Giveaway
Today the House of Representatives passed satellite legislation that includes a cable giveaway that harms the set-top box market by voice vote. The STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014, the new House counterpart to the Senate’s STAVRA bill, contains a provision that could drive up cable prices, reduce consumer choice and impede video innovation. Public Knowledge urges the Senate to reject this approach or adopt the Markey amendment, which preserves the opportunity for compe ion in the set-top box market -- and consumer choice.
The following can be attributed to Martyn Griffen, Government Affairs Associate of Public Knowledge:
“We strongly support Congress acting to guarantee that satellite customers don’t lose service. However, this STELA Reauthorization bill contains a provision pushed by Comcast and the cable industry that would harm the set-top box market, restricting consumer choice for people who don’t even subscribe to satellite. We’ve opposed a House version of the bill before and continue to oppose a Senate version that incorporates a similar provision.
“This bill may be slightly different, but it retains the same problems. It eliminates consumer protections without installing a new safety net in their place. As we told the Senate, harming consumer choice without directing the Federal Communications Commission to create new protections is just bad policy. Make no mistake, this provision is a giveaway to cable providers. It’s also completely unnecessary, sacrificing consumer choice while risking service for millions of satellite customers. Put simply, passing this bill would be bad for anyone who isn’t Comcast or a cable company, and we can’t support that.
“Congress has previously passed clean satellite reauthorizations without attaching cable giveaways. We encourage Congress to step up once again by either rejecting or fixing this version of the STELA Reauthorization bill to protect consumers.”
https://www.publicknowledge.org/pres...cable-giveaway
I have to admit, the proposed internet based TV subscriptions based on a little tricky software/hardware like Sony's proposed playstation access seems like a giant ing for the cable and phone companies that have spent megabillions building their networks that these new subscription services want to access for free in the name of "net neutrality". Why is it that we accept the concept of water meters, gas meters, and electricity meters, but want to reject bandwidth meters?
aka, usage fees. Users do pay ISPs for data volume.
Not sure how content providers, servers should contribute to bandwidth consumption.
The network operators should be pleased that content providers supply free content, eg netflix, gave servers, etc, that runs up the customers' usage fees.
We always had the meters, it's on your internet plan. You pay for X speed, and certain ISPs will also limit your total amount of transfer to Y GB. That's not 'net neutrality'.
It's like power companies charging "transport" fees (ie: you can purchase electricity from any provider you want, but the utility gets to tack a 'transport' fee because it's their wires reaching your home). Now, what happens if the power company decides to intermittently cut down power from certain power providers demanding a fee from said providers to guarantee reliable transport service? It just created a bull artificial barrier to extract payment from the provider. This is why utilities are regulated the way they are. They're given a monopoly to the last mile, but they're not allowed to wield that monopoly power against compe ion.
You're already paying for that transport fee to ISPs. It's your ISP bill. Then you pay Netflix/Hulu/etc for the specific service you want.
What ISPs are now doing, is slowing down Netflix/Hulu/etc so they agree to pay a fee for "preferred" access to the ISP network. In other words, they want payment not only from the customer, but also from the provider. The reason they can do this is that in a lot of places only one ISP owns the last mile to a house. They're wielding their monopoly power to extract ransom from providers. They didn't used to do this, because they had a direct benefit from the internet growing, and because services didn't use to overlap with other services they offered. What they should really do is build their own Netflix, compete on equal grounds, and let the consumer decide. But why compete when you can just degrade the compe ion?
"What ISPs are now doing, is slowing down Netflix/Hulu/etc so they agree to pay a fee for "preferred" access to the ISP network."
I assume the network operators won't invest in more bandwidth to provide the faster service, but maintain current infrastructure, bandwidth and deliver the higher speed by throttling non-preferred users.
and when the network operator is also content-provider, they can slow down Other Peoples' Content to privilege their own content.
Technologically, it boils down to the fact that more or less, any broadband service can now transmit video at a decent enough quality. In the past, IPSs loved the bigger bandwidth usage, it meant customers had to "upgrade" their plans for the faster internet and they could cash in. In cities where there was ISP compe ion, the compe ion is fierce, prices have bottomed out. Even the cheapest broadband plan from FIOS (25/25) is good enough for fairly high-quality video. So now they find themselves without customers needing upgrades, and that spigot closed. Now they're looking to make up the difference by charging the other way of the wire through artificial limitations.
Here's a good read on how they do this:
http://blog.level3.com/open-internet...tal-mea-culpa/
If they (ISP's) aren't allowed to make up the difference by charging content providers then how do you think they will make up the difference?
There is pretty fierce compe ion here in Austin, along with the thousands of jobs those companies filled.
City government is the last en y I want to give my internets money. They just turn around and give it to big companies so they can profit and enrich their investors.
With four companies offering max internet speeds of at least 300Mbps, why spend tax money to compete with them?
That's up to them. Verizon has already started toying with injecting an advertising ID on mobile communications (another dubious practice). Invest in building a better Neflix-clone? Produce their own content to compete?
There's clearly solutions that don't involve screwing up the consumer or third party content providers. They're risky, obviously. None of them are as sure as wielding their monopoly power.
The analogy between bandwidth and power is off.
Bandwidth is there whether it's used or not. It takes very little effort to push bandwidth when it's under capacity (off-peak hours).
Power costs considerably more to ramp up in generation regardless of the time.
I only skimmed through this thread, but seemingly missing from the discussion is a very simple fact:
ISPs in most major markets are operating as monopolies because it is simply the most cost-effective way to do so given the massive investment in infrastructure that goes into providing broadband to millions of homes. Broadband is a Natural Monopoly. Read about Natural Monopolies here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
Most Natural Monopolies (public utilities) are regulated so that said Monopolies are restricted from abusing their marketing position and engaging in Monopoly pricing, which leads to a reduction in overall economic welfare. Especially since most Natural Monopolies (and ISP's certainly fall into this category) are created via massive government subsidies and granting of exclusive territories.
The case against Net Neutrality would be if ISPs were operating in a compe ive market seeking a return on their own investment. However, ISPs aren't in a compe ive space and have Natural Monopolies that have been granted to them via government subsidies, which is a textbook example of where Government regulation is needed to improve economic outcomes. This doesn't mean the Government will necessarily be GOOD at regulating, only that they should regulate (and they should be held accountable for doing a good job in regulating, which they often times don't).
Hi everyone.
See you again in several months.
...And with that, Scott dropped the mic and left.
Well put.
And the conservative ideologue's minds short-circuit because, well - regulation is always bad and its necessity doesn't fit within their preconceived worldview.
If your keeping score, the conservative ideologues responding in this thread seem to have next to no understanding of the actual issues at hand.
It's super weird having Comcast be a such a huge content provider and ISP. I don't know what their ideal revenue structure would look like compared to what they would be willing to pay to deliver over other the lines of other ISPs.
But yeah, "conservatives" are especially ignorant about this issue.
And who wanted the Romney version of it.
"Big government sucks unless it's used to push wars for oil and my religious beliefs!"
Netflix now accounts for 35% of bandwidth usage in the US and Canada
http://qz.com/299989/netflix-now-accounts-for-35-of-bandwidth-usage-in-the-us-and-canada/
Yet Another Study Proclaims U.S. Broadband Awesome If You Intentionally Ignore All The Warts
To be clear, the United States is indisputably mediocre when it comes to broadband. It doesn't really matter if you look at data from FCC, the the OECD, OOkla's Net Index or walk next door and ask your neighbor. We're average or worse on metrics like speed (three quarters of the country has no compe ive option at speeds faster than 25 Mbps), penetration, price and adoption, and we're among the worst anywhere when it comes to customer service. In fact U.S. broadband customer service is so bad, people rank the IRS, banking industry, insurance companies and the airlines higher.
That said, it's endlessly amusing to watch the broadband industry (and its varied assortment of fauxcademics, sock puppets, think tankers, lobbyists and PR tendrils) time and time and time again declare that U.S. broadband is secretly incredibly awesome, and the people stuck paying $100 for a sub 3 Mbps DSL connection and mandatory (though unwanted) landline aren't looking at the numbers right.
The latest study of this type comes courtesy of our friends over at the Verizon, Comcast and AT&T funded American Enterprise Ins ute, whose latest analysis (pdf) compares U.S. broadband to only other G7 countries, since a broader global comparison makes us look worse. Unsurprisingly, the AEI finds we're compe ive under this criteria if you look at specific metrics in just the right way, ignore all previous studies, tilt your head just the right way, and ignore the industry's awful customer service. The study resulted in websites like Vox recently running articles with headlines like "American broadband is better than you think." Much of the AEI data is sound, it's just highly selective and selectively re-arranged.
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneu...ll-warts.shtml
If the AEI, API, CATO, Heritage, ALEC, Repugs lips are moving, they're lying.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-06-2014 at 01:56 PM.
Net Fix: le II, the two words that terrify the broadband industry
Heavy-handed. Archaic. Disastrous.
Those are just some of the ways critics describe le II of the Communications Act of 1934, which lets the Federal Communications Commission set rates and ensure equal access to traditional phone service.
As the FCC gets ready to propose new rules governing the Internet, the broadband industry -- the cable, wireless and telecommunications companies providing Internet service in the United States -- is using even more colorful epithets to describe le II. That's because the FCC, led by Chairman Tom Wheeler and backed by President Barack Obama, wants the broadband industry to abide by the same rules governing old-style telephone utilities. To do that, broadband will have to be governed by le II.
On one side stand Internet service providers and their supporters, who argue that stringent regulations on what they can and can't charge will stifle network investment and strangle innovation. Michael Powell, a former Republican chairman of the FCC who is now CEO of lobbyist trade group the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, said in 2013 that any attempt to reclassify broadband under le II amounts to "World War III." The broadband industry players have already said they plan to legally challenge any attempts to bring le II into the picture.ING LIARS and FUD MEISTERS
By any other name
le II was written into the original Communications Act to protect consumers from the AT&T monopoly in 1934. It banned "unjust or unreasonable discrimination" in providing phone services. That's the same principle Net neutrality proponents want to see extended to Internet access.
So what about le II has broadband providers freaking out?
For starters, there's Section 201, which gives the FCC the right to dictate the prices Internet service providers can charge for their services. The providers fear the FCC may set rates too low to allow them to recoup the costs associated with building out their networks. That, in turn, would deter them from making future investments, they argue.
http://www.cnet.com/news/net-fix- ...tag=CAD090e536
It would also mean everybody's poles can be used by everybody else, like Google Fiber.
Net Fix: Why FCC's Wheeler is 'defying the greatest lobbyists in the world'
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is at the center of a historic debate over how we'll all use the Internet. Fans applaud a consumer-friendly approach. Critics say he'll strangle innovation. Both sides agree he's not afraid to do what he thinks is right.
"Chairman Wheeler is on the edge of making history by defying the greatest lobbyists in the world -- from the telco and cable industry -- to secure an open and fast Internet for all Americans," Hastings said. "You have to go back to Joseph Kennedy Sr. running the SEC to find as surprising and courageous an example of policy leadership given the person's prior background."
In June 2014, comedian John Oliver even compared the former lobbyist's appointment to asking a "dingo to babysit a baby" in a 13-minute sketch that propelled the Net neutrality issue into the national spotlight. Oliver's video has gotten nearly 8 million views on YouTube.
But what the critics failed to highlight, say people who know Wheeler, is that his stints as entrepreneur and venture capitalist make him more likely to side with an underdog rather than with a market power.
"The Tom I know is a scrappy entrepreneur," said Noah Glass, founder and CEO of Olo, a company in which Wheeler is an investor and board member. "I know Tom as a David strategizing how to fight the Goliaths, and not as the Goliath looking to crush the Davids. So it was shocking to hear how people have represented him."
Wheeler supporters also point out that it's been 31 years since he lobbied for the cable industry and 11 years since he left the wireless industry. To put things in perspective, Apple Computer had just introduced the Macintosh and "Ghostbusters" was the hit of the year when Wheeler left his post as the head of NCTA.
"He is no more a former lobbyist than I am a former high school student," said Reed Hunt, a fellow Democrat who served as FCC chairman from 1993 to 1997.
http://www.cnet.com/news/why-fccs-wh...tag=CAD090e536
ing amazing times! If Wheeler goes le II, BINGO!
Internet is not a communication service carried by common carriers? :LOL
FCC Chairman: Commission Should Approve Cities’ Requests To Preempt State Laws That Block Local Broadband
Today, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler released a statement unambiguously giving a thumbs-up to the pe ions from both cities, and asking the commission to vote in their favor:
Communities across the nation know that access to robust broadband is the key to their economic future — and the future of their citizens. …
They should be able to make their own decisions about building the networks they need to thrive. After looking carefully at pe ions by two community broadband providers asking the FCC to pre-empt provisions of state laws preventing expansion of their very successful networks, I recommend approval by the Commission so that these two forward-thinking cities can serve the many citizens clamoring for a better broadband future.
http://consumerist.com/2015/02/02/fc...cal-broadband/
and the "free market" frauds went crazy angry!
Every time I start to think there are some people with serious whine problems on SpursTalk, politicians remind me that they are the absolute gods of hyperbole and idiocy. They are seriously rewriting the definition of pathetic.any attempt to reclassify broadband under le II amounts to "World War III."
FCC Chief Announces Big Win For Net Neutrality Advocates
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...ushpmg00000003
le II is Not Net Neutrality, and Net Neutrality is Not Utility Regulation
le II is not net neutrality.
This post is doing something that well-trained advocates know is often inadvisable: highlighting your opponents' arguments in order to rebut them. This exercise can give those arguments more visibility and credence than they merit. However, in this case the arguments are so widespread it's worth addressing them head-on. So, again: le II is not net neutrality. Not only that, but net neutrality is not "utility" regulation.
This is a point Public Knowledge has made again and again: While le II of the Communications Act provides the firmest legal grounding for net neutrality rules, le II and net neutrality are not one and the same. While le II contains broad prohibitions on unjust and unreasonable conduct by telecommunications providers, the FCC has to determine exactly what that means as applied to a given service, such as broadband. Practices that were allowed for other telecommunications services, like telephony, might be unreasonable for broadband--and vice versa. While PK has argued that the FCC should use its le II authority to enact net neutrality rules for broadband, we have never said the le II is useful only for net neutrality. le II will also help the FCC refocus its universal service program on broadband more directly, protect subscriber privacy, and ensure public safety and network reliability, among other things.
Net neutrality is not the same as universal service or public safety. We are not "moving the goalposts" and expanding the definition of net neutrality by pointing out that a bill that ostensibly protects net neutrality could have negative consequences for broadband in areas other than net neutrality. While we agree that certain provisions of le II should be forborne from (or put in abeyance) by the FCC with respect to broadband since they either have no applicability or are not needed for the broadband market today, the FCC should not voluntarily give up the authority it needs to protect broadband consumers in areas beyond net neutrality.
Similarly, despite nearly-universal misapprehension on this point, net neutrality is not utility regulation. Net neutrality says that ISPs must, in part, act like common carriers--they must carry traffic in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory way. In some important ways net neutrality falls short of full common carriage, but for these purposes we can concede that net neutrality is common carrier regulation, because even full common carrier regulation is not identical to utility regulation. Lots of things are common carriers--buses, taxis, and delivery services, among other things. While the specifics vary, these services are required to operate in reasonable and nondiscriminatory ways. But no one suggests that the fact that because UPS is a common carrier, it is therefore a utility. Even net neutrality plus a number of the other things mentioned above (universal service, privacy, etc) do not add up to utility regulation.
https://www.publicknowledge.org/news...ity-regulation
the FCC has announced it will enforce its own rules, forbid throttling and regulate unfair interconnection activities. we'll see...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
