Net Nuetrality, the Obama version

[Winehole23]

There's certainly more "free market" solutions to this, including winding down monopoly power in what are now seemingly compe ive areas.

what are the free market solutions to monopoly power? some historical examples would be nice.

[ElNono]

what are the free market solutions to monopoly power? some historical examples would be nice.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. A "free market" solution would be to remove monopoly power in areas where monopoly power is no longer necessary (ie: to build out a market).

Granting monopoly power is itself government regulation, so, conversely, deregulation would be a free market solution. For a historical example, you could look at the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.

Obviously, this has nothing to do with the case at hand, since ISPs are not looking to deregulate. They simply want the previous regulations to stay in place.

Funnily enough, the previous regulations were supposed to deregulate broadcast and telecommunications markets (Telecommunications Act of 1996). But they effectively opened up the door to mergers and acquisitions that basically killed any semblance of compe ion.

[boutons_deux]

"A "free market" solution would be to remove monopoly power"

that would be a dramatic govt intervention to be blocked by Repugs, (all monopoly law enforcement is political, not legal) would require other suppliers to come into the market (big investments) and who would that be. eg, SA has the TWC and grandecom duopoly with NO price compe ion, and exorbitant prices. Most cities have only one supplier because that's how the cities got supplier to invest originally. your "remove" is a mystery, how do you do it?

"Granting monopoly power is itself government regulation" no govt granted Microsoft its monopoly of desktop OS and MS office monopolies (which I think are still the ONLY divisions of MS that make a profit, which was certainly the case at one point)

[rasuo214]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. A "free market" solution would be to remove monopoly power in areas where monopoly power is no longer necessary (ie: to build out a market).

Granting monopoly power is itself government regulation, so, conversely, deregulation would be a free market solution. For a historical example, you could look at the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.

Obviously, this has nothing to do with the case at hand, since ISPs are not looking to deregulate. They simply want the previous regulations to stay in place.

Funnily enough, the previous regulations were supposed to deregulate broadcast and telecommunications markets (Telecommunications Act of 1996). But they effectively opened up the door to mergers and acquisitions that basically killed any semblance of compe ion.

Have you read up on the Bell System's history? I'm not talking about the recent ATT breakup but all the way from the start (Bell Patent, Kingsbury agreement, nationalization etc.).

[rasuo214]

"A "free market" solution would be to remove monopoly power"

that would be a dramatic govt intervaention to be blocked by Repugs, would require other suppliers to come into the market (big investments) and who would that be. eg, SA has the TWC and grandecom duopoly with NO price compe ion, and exorbitant prices. Most cities have only one supplier because that's how the cities got supplier to invest originally. your "remove" is a mystery, how do you do it?

"Granting monopoly power is itself government regulation" no govt granted Microsoft its monopoly of desktop OS and MS office monopolies (which I think are still the ONLY divisions of MS that make a profit, which was certainly the case at one point)

Huh? Reread the quoted part. That act of granting monopoly power (Natural Monopoly) is an act of government regulation. Not sure what that has to do with Microsoft.


As for the rest, local governments are big barrier to compe ion. Read this article to get an understanding of what ElNono is taking about (ElNono correct me if I'm wrong): http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need...d-compe ion/

[boutons_deux]

Microsoft achieved windows/office monopoly by legal means, not technical superiority and compei on. There was no govt act of granting MS its monopoly.

[rasuo214]

Microsoft achieved windows/office monopoly by legal means, not technical superiority and compei on. There was no govt act of granting MS its monopoly.

Okay, but that has nothing to do with what you quoted and responded to.

[ElNono]

Have you read up on the Bell System's history? I'm not talking about the recent ATT breakup but all the way from the start (Bell Patent, Kingsbury agreement, nationalization etc.).

I'm fairly familiar with it. What about it? Arguably, there's a time and place for natural monopolies, due to the investment necessary and access, but I think it's something that needs to be revisited much more often than it currently is, especially in light of technological advances.

[ElNono]

As for the rest, local governments are big barrier to compe ion. Read this article to get an understanding of what ElNono is taking about (ElNono correct me if I'm wrong): http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need...d-compe ion/

That's one area, but generally speaking, it applies evenly to the federal government too. This has moved to the political terrain many years ago, where you have to stuff dollar bills to purchase your position.

I think in this instance companies went to the States individually because they were more receptive to their lobby money and could adjudicate the matter quicker.

[boutons_deux]

companies went to the States individually because they were

... much cheaper to corrupt and less observed by investigative journalists.

Same strategy the Repugs use, take over the state govts district by gerrymandered district with out-of-state $Ms since they don't have the same leverage at national level.

[RandomGuy]

No, but it's predictable they'll try. How effective they are depends on how easy it is for them.

The point is centralizing power isn't the way to stop a monopoly. It's the way to ensure one.

The big companies are going to use these new regulatory rules as a hammer against smaller ISPs. That is as predictable as the sun coming up.

Internet service providers are already monopolies for all practical purposes.

As for who is pushing for what and why... one has to turn to a comedian, because no actual journalist is doing it.

[angrydude]

The problem is we're essentially arguing about two separate things but the net neutrality side only wants to talk about one of them, and pretend the other one doesn't exist.

I wouldn't care if there was a "Net Neutrality" bill stating that ISPs have to treat all internet traffic the same. Or even that municipal governments could create their own ISPs if they wanted.

But turning ISPs into common carriers under le 2 implies a lot more than that. And it's going to backfire. And the tears from places like Reddit when they realize they just dug their own graves will be hilarious.

[boutons_deux]

because no actual journalist is doing it.

JO +staff are most certainly serious investigative journalism.

[boutons_deux]

The other net neutrality debate: After FCC ruling, SMS still mired in ambiguity

When the Federal Communications Commission voted last week to treat internet service providers as common carriers under le II of the Communications Act of 1934, there was one aspect of the net neutrality debate that remained unaddressed -- the regulation of SMS.

There has been a lack of concrete language on how net neutrality affects content that's delivered on mobile phones via text message and Short Message Service (SMS).

For the most part, the net neutrality debate has focused on whether ISPs should be able to discriminate between the data that they deliver through their pipes. In regards to SMS, however, the net neutrality issue is whether mobile carriers like Sprint, Verizon and T-Mobile should be able to regulate the text-based content they provide to their customers.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-oth...tag=TRE17cfd61

[Winehole23]

In the US, the last mile of internet infrastructure is an enormous problem. There are two reasons for this: technical restraints holding back the bandwidth needed to support modern-day internet traffic, and a lack of compe ion between the major carriers selling internet service to the end user.


Most of America's telecommunications infrastructure relies on outdated technology, and it runs over the same copper cables invented by Alexander Graham Bell over 100 years ago. This copper infrastructure—made up of "twisted pair" and coaxial cables—was originally designed to carry telephone and video services. The internet wasn't built to handle streaming video or audio.



When your streaming video reaches that troubled last mile of copper, those packets will slam on their brakes as they transition from fiber optic cables to copper coaxial cables. Copper can only carry so much bandwidth, far less than what the modern internet demands. Only fiber optic cables, thick twists of ultra-thin glass or plastic filaments that allow data to travel at the speed of light, can handle that bandwidth. They're also both easier to maintain and more secure than copper.



As consumers demand more bandwidth for things like streaming HD movies, carriers must augment their networks—upgrade hardware, lay more fiber, hire more engineers, etc.—to keep traffic moving freely between them. But that costs big money—like, billions of dollars in some cases. Imagine the cost of swapping out the coaxial cables in every American home with fiber optic cables. It's thousands of dollars per mile according to some government records.



And here's the kicker. The last mile infrastructure is controlled by an oligarchy—three big cable companies: Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon. You know this well. One in three Americans only have one choice for broadband service; most of the others only have two internet providers to choose from.



Without compe ion, there's no incentive for internet providers to improve improve infrastructure. These massive telecom companies create a bottleneck in the last mile of service by refusing to upgrade critical infrastructure. And they can charge exorbitant prices for the sub-par service while they're at it.



So your internet is ty and slow and expensive.

http://gizmodo.com/why-americas-inte...73744/+maxread

[ChumpDumper]

The problem is we're essentially arguing about two separate things but the net neutrality side only wants to talk about one of them, and pretend the other one doesn't exist.

I wouldn't care if there was a "Net Neutrality" bill stating that ISPs have to treat all internet traffic the same. Or even that municipal governments could create their own ISPs if they wanted.

But turning ISPs into common carriers under le 2 implies a lot more than that. And it's going to backfire. And the tears from places like Reddit when they realize they just dug their own graves will be hilarious.

Talk about the other side then.

Enlighten us.

[angrydude]

Talk about the other side then.

Enlighten us.

Do you want a book report? But I know you're being disingenuous (in other words a liar) who has no interest in talking seriously.

But for the others who may be viewing this, start with figuring out what the the phrase "just and reasonable" implies and go from there.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/201

All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is declared to be unlawful:

What you can't? Not even lawyers can? These things get litigated? Welcome to the brave new world of internet regulation. I'm glad the future of the internet now lies in the hands of the SCOTUS. They never make wrong decisions. Or side with big corporations. Or understand technology.

First, the rules that came out already have people talking whether ISPs are prohibited from blocking unlawful content. So Net Neutrality isn't even neutral on the face of it! Because of course. The government doesn't care about protecting your porn viewing habits, or your pirate bay downloads.

http://watchdog.org/205577/net-neutrality-regulations/

Broadband rate regulation (price controls) is another that people are talking about. Just because they don't have em now, doesn't mean they can't. Look at the text of the statute. They clearly can if they want to. ("all charges")

http://www.techpolicydaily.com/inter...able- le-ii/

As for the other implications of le II which have nothing to do with not restricting web traffic, Google is your friend.

http://blog.acton.org/archives/72274...- le-ii.html
http://www.brookings.edu/research/pa...-utility-litan
http://www.calinnovates.org/wp-conte...hite-Paper.pdf

Here's a letter from a bunch of techies about how using le 2 is a bad vehicle for net neutrality (again, they are for net neutrality, against le II).
http://docs.techfreedom.org/Reply_Co...ion_Letter.pdf

[angrydude]

You are soon (now really) going to have be a lawyer who specializes in administrative law to understand what the is going on with the internet.

Hope you went to law school.

[ChumpDumper]

You are soon (now really) going to have be a lawyer who specializes in administrative law to understand what the is going on with the internet.

Hope you went to law school.

So what is it the government can do now that they couldn't potentially do before? I didn't see anything above that it could not have done before through law or regulation.

[ElNono]

First, the rules that came out already have people talking whether ISPs are prohibited from blocking unlawful content. So Net Neutrality isn't even neutral on the face of it! Because of course. The government doesn't care about protecting your porn viewing habits, or your pirate bay downloads.

http://watchdog.org/205577/net-neutrality-regulations/

Broadband rate regulation (price controls) is another that people are talking about. Just because they don't have em now, doesn't mean they can't. Look at the text of the statute. They clearly can if they want to. ("all charges")

http://www.techpolicydaily.com/inter...able- le-ii/

These two are welcome improvements over the status quo, IMO.

ISPs have been already largely complicit in blocking and throttling whatever they deemed "unlawful" content (ie: torrents). Sometimes even blocking (ie: DNS takeovers) or removing lawful content without actually verifying what was being requested for removal. What's "lawful" or not isn't a new dilemma introduced by this regulation, it's something that ISPs have been dealing with for a while, entirely at their discretion and generally in favor of whoever requested the takedowns, most notably without a court order. Furthermore, the redress options were limited, and again, entirely at their discretion. This became a larger problem as some content owners started to use ty automated tools to scrape for links to alleged unlawful content en-masse, triggering all sorts of false positives. The reality is that all that has been largely ineffective, because technologically speaking, it's extremely difficult to snoop into heavily encrypted connections, especially if they mask themselves as different, lawful type of connections. This is a cat and mouse game that's been raging on for years, and has no end in sight. But hey, having at least a place to file a complaint about specific instances of takedown abuse is a welcome addition.

As far as the price controls, I find it only natural to ensure that some of these companies that enjoy a government sanctioned monopoly don't abuse that position. Obviously, it's not like that in every market or every company, but you rarely hear about ty rates and services on high-compe ion markets anyways.

I wouldn't totally disagree that le II is a larger than needed hammer to deal with the current situation. I would've been in favor of actually removing some of the anti-compe ive barriers (like the monopolies in now relatively compe ive markets, banning HoA exclusive deals with ISPs, etc), but that was never an option here, as ISPs would rather keep their walled garden over anything else. From what I've read, AT&T and Comcast were furious with Verizon for challenging the previous, not le II, net neutrality regulations. They thought they could live with them, and they were largely softer than the current approach. They made the bed, now they get to lie in it.

I'm actually more curious on what happens next. I assume this is going to be litigated to and back, and will be interesting to see what arguments are raised. I'm also wondering if the ISPs are just going to wait out until a change in administration, and likely in the FCC, and perhaps head that route for a rollback. Obviously, Congress is also an option.

[boutons_deux]

FCC reserved the power to regulate broadband and wireless, to defend the status quo, not to replace the status quo with the FUD, propaganda from the network operators and from the "we hate/destroy govt" right wing s.

One place where the mythical (aka absent) "free market" network domination and monopoly screw consumers is exploitative, extractive pricing, compared with prices in other industrial countries.

Would all y'all bubbas complain if FCC cut TV, cell, Internet prices by 30%?

Forced cable TV to unbundle channels so you could buy the channels you watch rather than subsidizing the Kardashians, MTV, BET, Disney, Guy ing Fieri, Spanish-language, Hallmark, E!, TLC, Longhorn channels?

Forced network operators to allow compe ors to use, unbundle their "dark fiber", and utility poles to allow real compe ion for TV and Internet?

[Winehole23]

§ 8.5 No blocking.

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.



§ 8.7 No throttling.
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.



§ 8.9 No paid prioritization.
(a) A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.
(b) "Paid prioritization" refers to the management of a broadband provider's network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated en y.
(c) The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the pe ioner demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet.



§ 8.11 No unreasonable interference or unreasonable disadvantage standard for Internet conduct.
Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users' ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers' ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/...rules-20150312

[boutons_deux]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/...rules-20150312

Strong, EXPLICIT stuff.

I wonder which notoriously packed conservative court the BigISP will file suit? Isn't the DC 9th the court for administrative law suits?

[ElNono]

First Lawsuits Challenging FCC's New Net Neutrality Rules Arrive

A small ISP based in Texas and an industry trade group have become the first to file lawsuits challenging the FCC's recent net neutrality rules. The trade group, USTelecom, argues that the regulations are not "legally sustainable." Alamo Broadband claims it is facing "onerous requirements" by operating under le II of the Communications Act. Such legal challenges were expected, and are doubtless the first of many — but few expected them to arrive so soon. While some of the new rules were considered "final" once the FCC released them on March 12, others don't go into effect until they're officially published in the Federal Register, which hasn't happened yet.

[ElNono]

Alamo Pe ion
http://www.scribd.com/doc/259713341/Alamo-Pe ion

US Telecom Pe ion
https://www.scribd.com/doc/259713340/Ustelecom-Pe ion