Have the FCC Chairman fired and Firefox any company that tries to hire him. That should make the next chairman think twice.
The end of net neutrality? - Page 2
Forum Index > General Forum |
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
Have the FCC Chairman fired and Firefox any company that tries to hire him. That should make the next chairman think twice. | ||
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
For instances, some types of data/communication may be desirable to have higher transmission priority over other types, but not to have paid premiums nor to prioritize one file/user of a given category of file/data over another file/user of that same category of data (video, text, etc.) nor to restrict or throttle access to certain services/sites. | ||
phar
United States1080 Posts
On May 17 2014 11:19 hypercube wrote: We need to start fighting back instead of just defending the status quo. Have the FCC Chairman fired and Firefox any company that tries to hire him. That should make the next chairman think twice. This FCC Chairman comes directly from the telecom lobby. You're not gonna be able to blackmail him from going back to the telecom industry if he does a whole bunch of pro-telecom-industry actions while in office. | ||
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On May 17 2014 12:05 phar wrote: This FCC Chairman comes directly from the telecom lobby. You're not gonna be able to blackmail him from going back to the telecom industry if he does a whole bunch of pro-telecom-industry actions while in office. The point isn't to blackmail him. The point is to make the next one think twice. | ||
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
| ||
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
| ||
Advantageous
China1350 Posts
| ||
BigFan
TLADT24918 Posts
On May 17 2014 08:01 tshi wrote: didn't the blackout thing work last time? There might be a bigger one if it keeps moving through. oh, that's what it was! I recalled reading something like this last year and thought this was a bumped thread lol. | ||
BungaBunga
Italy23 Posts
Even I had to read up on several things to understand what's going on. That is gonna be a big issue in general as technology advances: People are more easily manipulated because they don't understand the underlying technical concepts. | ||
sabas123
Netherlands3121 Posts
| ||
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
#1 concern for providers seems to be teaming up with internet sites that provide TV/Movies. NetFlix/Comcast for example. This means that if you want to use another movie/tv provider on Comcast (google/amazon) you are pretty much going to be SOL. Disconnects, reduced speeds. These sort of pairings of companies and providers are going to become the norm now. | ||
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
In this situation, you can't really talk about natural monopoly as compared to water or electricity supply and thus such arguments do not apply. I would even go so far to suggest that the neutrality regulation may be detrimental to the growth of the infrastrcture and the competition - if this requirement was not in place, different providers could compete not only in technical parameters of the connection and price, but also in what content they offer, what is prioritized etc... So is the technical situation in the US so much different, or is this just an overblown bubble of regulationism? In the current situation, where reasonable competition exists, I don't see how the government is entitled to force private entities to allow transfer of any data through their private infrastructure that they have built for their own money. To be clear, I understand why the argument "this is my pipe I do what I want" fails for, say, water supply, but internet is much different. To put it shortly, if the state is of the opinion that everyone has the right to put anything he whishes on the internet and have it instantly accessible to anyone, then the state should provide technical means to do so, not force private companies to perform such service for free. You also do not have a general right to have anything you produce broadcast on TV for free and do not see huge movements to change that. | ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
In such an environment market mechanisms simply don't work. That's why it would be the job of the government to make sure that everyone is treated fairly. Countries should just write net neutrality into statute like the Netherlands already did. Also your TV comparison is flawed. The goal of net neutrality is not to give everyone access to everything for free. It only means that the company that maintains the infrastructure treats every information that passes through their network equally. A better comparison would be that the company owning the TV infrastructure would only broadcast HBO shows in 360p unless HBO or you pay them extra. Or your city letting you pay fees for driving a Audi on their streets instead of a Ford. | ||
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
I am not convinced by this theory of concentration of infrastucture. Czech Republic is a pretty small country, yet we have at least half a dozen companies with their own baseline networks all over the country. The amount of peering entities in the Prahgue NIX is huge, so there must be many other small networks. [quote]The goal of net neutrality is not to give everyone access to everything for free. It only means that the company that maintains the infrastructure treats every information that passes through their network equally./quote] That's just semantics, because it is the same. The reason why you want every information to be treated the same is that said information is accessible to everyone without additional expenses. | ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On May 18 2014 03:21 opisska wrote: That's just semantics, because it is the same. The reason why you want every information to be treated the same is that said information is accessible to everyone without additional expenses. No, it's not just semantics. Netflix could charge a thousand bucks a month for their service. That would be their decision. What is not fine is if the provider of the infrastructure charges Netflix, but not Amazon. Private contracts between consumers and providers of services are totally fine. Contracts between the providers of the infrastructure and different providers of services are not. That's not semantics. For example the Telekom here in Germany had the idea of introducing volume based rates, except for their own streaming services. That would hurt net equality because as a infrastructure provider the Telekom would be prioritizing their own data, effectively bullying all other competitors out of the market. | ||
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
However, this is mostly a fight between the Cable Internet companies (variable bandwidth) and Netflix. Which has also been bungled at every step of the way. As much as a "functional" version of Net Neutrality is needed, no one is covered in glory in those this all has gone down. Even with a fall of the defacto Neutrality for the past decades, it's still going to be interesting to see what happens. Realize that in most areas of the country, it's not a monopoly but a duopoly. There's normally two companies, and they normally have deals with State Authorities for the lines. (There are still State regulations on certain aspects) So don't expect Cable Pricing schemes to show up. (Minus the fact I think those are pretty evil, but there's not much of an easy way to get those changed... which is why everyone went Satellite.) | ||
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On May 18 2014 03:42 Taf the Ghost wrote: Don't underestimate a Size aspect to US carriers. Most of the complaints about US Internet Speeds come from people in countries significant smaller but with much higher Population Density, and it carries over to issues like this. Carriers tend to be regional. And those Regions are big. However, this is mostly a fight between the Cable Internet companies (variable bandwidth) and Netflix. Which has also been bungled at every step of the way. As much as a "functional" version of Net Neutrality is needed, no one is covered in glory in those this all has gone down. Even with a fall of the defacto Neutrality for the past decades, it's still going to be interesting to see what happens. Realize that in most areas of the country, it's not a monopoly but a duopoly. There's normally two companies, and they normally have deals with State Authorities for the lines. (There are still State regulations on certain aspects) So don't expect Cable Pricing schemes to show up. (Minus the fact I think those are pretty evil, but there's not much of an easy way to get those changed... which is why everyone went Satellite.) It's not so much about cable pricing but ISPs starting their own streaming services and charging their competitors to gain an edge. | ||
EngrishTeacher
Canada1109 Posts
| ||
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On May 18 2014 03:32 Nyxisto wrote: No, it's not just semantics. Netflix could charge a thousand bucks a month for their service. That would be their decision. What is not fine is if the provider of the infrastructure charges Netflix, but not Amazon. Private contracts between consumers and providers of services are totally fine. Contracts between the providers of the infrastructure and different providers of services are not. That's not semantics. For example the Telekom here in Germany had the idea of introducing volume based rates, except for their own streaming services. That would hurt net equality because as a infrastructure provider the Telekom would be prioritizing their own data, effectively bullying all other competitors out of the market. You still fail to provide any substance to your claim that it is not fine, apart of saying that is just "not fine". It could be argued that it is the case only if the internet infrastructure was naturally unique (in the sense of existing in only one specimen for external reasons, such as for example HV power lines or waterways which both noone will allow anyone to duplicate for practical reasons) and thus monopoly to the owner of the infrastructure was granted monopoly. But that is not the case for internet connection, even the backbone networks are (at least in the Czech Republic, which is a small and not reall extremely outstanding country, so I dare to extrapolate) in multiple redundancy (you can actually see that in practice on your traceroute as usually the competitors buy backup connectivity form each other). Maybe in Germany, there is larger concentration on market power with Telekom, so care has to be taken, but it is definitely not a universal situation - and remedies already exist, such as the compulsory sharing of the part of infrastructure that is not convenient for the society to be multiplied (the last mile cabling). Also in many European countries, companeis similar to your Telekom, have been created by privatisation of assets originally built from public money and there also some regulation is in place, but again, just focused on this aspect of the problem. The Netflix vs. cable providers issue from the US is actually a prime example to demostrate my point. A cable TV provider is a natural ISP, because it has the right infrastructure as a byproduct of its original business. However, if such a company wishes to sell internet services to their customers, "net neutrality" forces them to also include the services of their largest direct competitor (Netflix) while being forbidden to charge that competitor money? How is that even close to any semblance of free market? That's almost torture. | ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Also every market has rules that ensure that competition is possible. Even venture capitalists are complaining about the proposed changes because start ups are going to have a very hard time if the law is going to get passed in its current form.(http://www.technologyreview.com/news/527006/talk-of-an-internet-fast-lane-is-already-hurting-some-startups/) | ||
| ||