I still have to laugh at this. Especially at the part were "Net Neutrality" has actually existed for a very Long Time and it has NEVER Stopped the prices of communication services from going up.
but then to the Lefties....State is Mother, Father ,and GAWD!!!!
__________________ Banned 30 days for the Crime of "ETC"... and when I "ETC" I do it HARD!!!
The FCC's controversial vote on net neutrality protections is scheduled to take place tomorrow, and as we get down to the wire, opposition to the proposal hasn't slowed. Today, 18 state attorneys general sent a letter to the FCC asking for the commission to delay the vote, The Verge reports. Their plea centers on evidence that fake comments that used real individuals' names were submitted during the FCC's public comment period. "A careful review of the publicly available information revealed a pattern of fake submissions using the names of real people. In fact, there may be over one million fake submissions from across the country," they wrote. "This is akin to identity theft on a massive scale – and theft of someone's voice in a democracy is particularly concerning." -snip
Well, I think I should make a post on Net Neutrality cause it seems like no one has any idea what it is or how it functions. So, there are three mandates inside of the net neutrality bill.
Transparency mandate; broad bands have to expose their network practices. Do they block or slow certain traffic?
No Blocking: Broadband providers may not block legal content or devices from their networks.
Non-discrimination rule: What exactly does that rule look like? How does it work in practice? We have a version like it with antitrust laws. If you have power against your rivals and you discriminate in a way that harms consumers. That is already illegal. The non-discrimination rule was created as a de facto ban on allowing broadband providers to enter into arrangements with a particular content provider to prioritize their traffic to give them premium delivery within the network. The debate is how should that rule be structured. I don’t think the entire internet is going to be fundamentally changed without this regulation. Certain kinds of services like Netflix which are very bandwidth intensive which right now take about 30-40% of peak traffic in the US or certain services which require premium delivery. Doing telemedicine, VOIP or talking on the phone. These services are fundamentally different than browsing the internet. So the issue is that some of those providers may very want to pay for premium delivery of their content. I think that is very much for good. The smaller providers stand to benefit more from being able to pay for prioritization. That perhaps can help them level the playing field. Those are going to be good for consumers so the burden should be on the government or private plaintiff to assert why a particular arrangement should harm consumers. Comcast has never been trying to slow down Netflix. The question is should Comcast be able to prioritize certain services? Should Netflix or the competitor of Netflix be able to pay for premium delivery within Comcast's network? Netflix has so demonized this issue that they have caused the SSC to change course by conflating the internet with Comcast. The internet is not Comcast. Net Neutrality is about my connection to Comcast. Netflix is claiming that they should not have to pay anything at altogether their content to the Comcast network. Netflix has made it seem like that the regular users have to subsidize heavy Netflix users. That is not a net neutrality issue.
Responses to some objections: What about the paywalls levied bandwidth-intensive services? Well, I think the first thing to note is that Net Neutrality was only implemented in 2015. Before then there were no substantial pay-walls on traffic. The second thing to note about this objection is that the no-blocking mandate is staying. This means that they cannot block traffic just merely slow it down. And due to competition, any significant paywall levied on consumers is not good for the brand. When you pay your premium, you are essentially paying for all of those services. It is also funny cause internet is cheaper in Australia where they have net neutrality then the states. The second concern I have seen levied at proponents of net neutrality is the supposed monopolies that ISP's have over specific areas. This is a fair concern, but it is a concern spawned by government regulation. Let me explain. Well, the US has one of the least competitive internet markets in the entire world. The federal government did make it hard for telephone companies to compete with cable companies. They were barred from doing that for a long time. And Google Fiber had trouble to provide a third pipe due to local governments. Those barriers to entry are govt. created. The only other real trouble is getting the right way to get your fiber or cable or whatever under the public street. The only real natural monopoly is the conduit under the street. There are cities that have an area where anyone can rent space in and then you can deploy your broadband system there. And that lowers broadband deployment costs by 90%, And google fiber has been great, as it has basically done that. There are cities like Baltimore which have made it impossible to deploy its fiber network that they gave up. Verizon was unable to enter the market there. We have a lot of good data that verizon is causing cable companies to significantly upgrade their speeds. Google fiber has done the same. So the markets are already working. To the extent that we want net neutrality its probably gonna be the on the market anyway. And to the extent of deviation from that its gonna be on the margins and its generally gonna be in ways that doesn’t hurt consumers. Besides, Satellite ISP's will cause this entire debate to become esoteric. So, I hope that helps you guys have a better understanding of what is actually going on, so no one keeps freaking out about it. Do not complain about net neutrality, complain about the state regulation that makes it an issue.
Added formatting for you and tried to add coherency. I also corrected some spelling and omitted word mistakes. It took my 6 minutes according to my clock. That was also with stopping to message my honey a couple of times.
Perhaps that will get people to read your post.
I disagree about small ISPs being able to pay into other network owners to get prioritized: cost prohibitive. Netflix was rumored to have paid a huge sum of money to get their content less-throttled by Verizon. Small ISPs will not have the capital or influence to broker deals like Netflix did with Verizon.
Also, not only do we need true net neutrality, we need the Sherman Antitrust Act, that you mentioned, to be enforced at the regional level where certain ISPs have regional monopolies. I would only argue this for utilities and internet should be viewed as a utility.
In regards to Netflix, it was Comcast, not Verizon. As a result of this sum of money paid, their traffic speeds increased. Small ISP prioritization would be beneficial for specific users that use specific websites. The Antitrust act is only necessary due to government regulation. You do not continue to tinker with a government created problem. There is no need to break up the ISP's there is a need; however, to eradicate the bureaucracy that plague the inner cities. But as I already said, the advent of satellite ISP's makes this problem irrelevant. As far as capital influence goes, it does not have to be massive service. It can be niche, as long as there is some demand for the service. Reddit comes to mind.
Last edited by DarthSkywalker0 on Dec 14th, 2017 at 06:11 PM
As a result, the consumer received faster traffic, that is not a negative outcome for anyone sans Netflix. I also had one flaw in your correction. Australia has no net neutrality. That was a flaw in my initial post. That probably caused the confusion.
Last edited by DarthSkywalker0 on Dec 14th, 2017 at 06:17 PM
According to some of the Little Antifa Lefty Loonies I know...apparently the Net was always FREE before this whole Net Neut thing....I never realized that...
__________________ Banned 30 days for the Crime of "ETC"... and when I "ETC" I do it HARD!!!
A 2 dollar increase in pricing does indicate any mass effect upon the consumer. But, the entire argument is fallacious as Netflix raised these prices in October while net neutrality existed. Netflix's stock was not really affected at all in the change in Comcast and Verizon's policies and one can easily equate the increse to the influx of new shows. Netflix is bound by the laws of supply and demand so any change in price will not severely affect the consumer. And as I already mentioned, the influx of competition that will arise from the satellite market will make this debate extraneous. You have to trust capitalism monopolies are nigh impossible in a true capitalist system.
Last edited by DarthSkywalker0 on Dec 14th, 2017 at 08:07 PM
I think you meant to say "does not" however, I disagree. That's about a 17% price hike which should be quite disturbing for most people. To be fair, some of that cost was due to Netflix focusing harder on providing original content. Regardless, this gives us a very good idea of how damaging these costs are and why net neutrality is important. When digital content providers are forced to pay road tolls just to deliver their digital content to you, that will be directly applied to the costs of the content.
These types of costs are not absorbable by small ISPs.
Therefore, internet should be classified as a utility and regional ISP monopolies busted up. If we love capitalism so much, then we should be doing things that support a robust and grand capitalist system in the information age. Stifling competition amongst ISPs and increasing innovation timelines due to prohibitive costs from road tolling ISPs is not very capitalistic. That's anti-capitlistic.
Be herein lies the "no true Scotsman fallacy" and we are both wrong about what this means for capitalism.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Dec 14th, 2017 at 08:20 PM
I mean 17% is a big increase compared to Netflix's previous price. But the increase in price clearly had little consumer purchase based on a supply-demand curve the fear of competition. And as I already said, there is no reason to believe that this increase has anything to do with net neutrality. Netflix never raised their prices when the deal first came into effect so I really question the validity of this entire paragraph. And as I already said, if we remove state regulations that prohibit competition and wait for the satellite industry competition between ISP's will make this entire debate irrelevant.
It depends on the way in which the deal is structured. A small ISP could perhaps give Netflix a more favorable deal which would change their cost structure to be more amenable to the consumers.
Anti-trust laws have never been as effective as competition in regards to lowering prices. The prices for steel, petroleum, oil, refined sugar, zinc, and many others dropped at a faster rate than after the advent after the Anti-Trust Laws. In fact the price of a ton kerosine in the 1880s, is less then today. The greatest innovations in product productivity happened before Anti-Trust Laws. To quote the FEE,
If you let the market turn it creates the ideal size for corporations and brings down prices. This is why the internet is so cheap in Australia. The price of Netflix in Australia is the same as it is here despite their lack of net neutrality legislation.
The resistance is real. Am in a red state that's not on the list unfortunately, but I guess it's more telling how many are doing this rather than which ones, tho hopefully more will have the balls to step up.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 11th, 2017 07:18 PM
