Last Active
Favorite Role
  • So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

    I'd like to raise an important point that I haven't seen anyone else raise on this thread yet.  Suppose that we have three options:

    1)  Congress passes a law and the president signs it saying that the FCC must use Title I regulations and not Title II to regulate the Internet, and then the FCC follows that law.
    2)  Congress passes a law and the president signs it saying that the FCC must use Title II regulations and not Title I to regulate the Internet, and then the FCC follow that law.
    3)  The FCC bounces around erratically between Title I and Title II depending on who happens to be on its board at the time, with lots of lawsuits and courts getting involved and people don't know what the situation will be a year hence.

    Option (3) is the worst of the three.  Even fairly bad regulations that are clear, predictable, well-understood, and not constantly changing are often preferable to not knowing what the regulatory regime will be.
  • So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

    Verizon throttled Netflix and YouTube after stating they don't manipulate said content less than a year before.

    If they're promising customers one thing and doing the opposite, that's fraud.  Sure, that should be illegal.  But you don't need Title II net neutrality to make it illegal.  The proposed replacement for the Title II regulations basically consists of, ISPs can do largely what they want, but have to make it clear to consumers what they're doing, so customers who don't like it can switch carriers if they want to.

    "We'll lose money because fewer people will buy from us if we do X" is actually quite a powerful incentive for companies to do what people want.
  • So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

    Quizzical said:
    I would submit that what actually happened in real life when ISPs had exactly the power you're so terrified of in the years leading up to 2015 are a better indication of how ISPs

    I'm really quite surprised by your reaction.  The internet is still very new, though it seems like it's been here forever.  Net neutrality became a thing when concerned people realized this was the next direction the companies were going.  Net neutrality didn't come out of a vacuum, it was 5-7 years ago there were discussions and rumblings in the industry about creating and monetizing fast lanes on the internet.  The only reason we're able to have discussions now is because some very smart people got out ahead of this thing.

    Real life examples?  Verizon a few months ago rolled out a throttling of Youtube and Netflix on Verizon phones.  No, they WEREN'T ready before, but now they are.  There was an article about Time Warner being ready now.

    More real life examples?  Portugal and UK are the only European countries that have "anti-net neutrality" rules, as reported by the NY Times.  In those countries, the consumer pays a basic fee, then you pay separately for packages like unlimited social media, video media. etc.  Obviously, they also charge those companies in the fast lanes, who in turn charge back those fees to customers.  This is only the legal stuff, not the borderline stuff like screwing your competitors.

    What's wrong with different carriers having different policies?  If Verizon does something that annoys you, switch to T-Mobile.  Or AT&T.  Or Sprint.  Or some regional carrier where you live.  If they can save a ton of bandwidth by doing something that annoys a tiny fraction of their customers, and thus provide better service to the rest of their customers, then good for them.  And if they drive away a large chunk of their customer base by doing things that everyone hates, then they'll lose a ton of money on it and deservedly so.

    There's a stronger case for regulation of wired connections where it's harder to have competition than wireless where there is already a lot of competition.  There is a need for regulations to force companies to do what they promise, but not so much to meddle with the fine details of what companies are allowed to offer.
  • So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

    Ozmodan said:
    Cleffy said:
    Title II regulations doesn't adhere to the tenant of the internet. Communication companies were removed from title II in the 90s. Most of what we would attribute to being the internet age was under Title I regulations. Title II regulations would handle ISPs worse as it was made for copper telephone service using switch operators.
    The FCC was budget neutral. It was funded through licensing RF spectrum. They don't really levy a tax, but operate more like a business. The subsidies they provide are gained through fees and licenses they charge to ISPs.
    Well sorry, but just because they did not do it in the past does not mean they won't do it.  To start with most of the big ISPs are monopolies.  Only a few big cities have any choice of ISP, they tend to avoid areas serviced by other providers.  So there is really nothing a subscriber can do if an ISP decides to do such.  These big ISPs are in the business of making money and as cable fees continue dropping you can bet they will be looking at these other methods of making income and it will not be good for the consumer.
    Of course they will.  It is insanely naive to believe otherwise.

    I mean, I get the anti-government ideology, but do the people who believe in that ever come up for air and look at what happens when government regulations are removed?  We have to live in the real world and deal with things as they are not as we believe they should be.  And the truth is that given half a chance the corporations would own us.  The only thing stopping them is government.
    For example, when they deregulated the airlines, it resulted in planes becoming more cramped--but with airfare much cheaper than before.  Apparently most fliers wanted cheaper flights--in multiple senses of the word--that the airlines couldn't offer while heavily regulated.
  • So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

    I don't know, why don't you ask one of the hundreds of users on MMORPG.com here from socialist countries and find out? Average speeds in the US availability is 100-200mb/s where they are looking at 100gb/s fiber. 

    But I have to ask... At what point did I mention anything about socialism or anything related to it? Market regulation is just as much part of capitalism. Do you like reimbursement and pain and suffering for when you get ripped off? That's a regulation. Do you like protection of assets? That's a regulation. And also written in the constitution. 

    You are bad at this. 
    Internet connection speeds are considerably correlated with population density.  The fewer customers you have per mile of cable you lay, the more it costs to build your network per customer you have.  There are a lot of confounding variables when it comes to comparing Internet speeds across countries.