Posted on 02/27/2015 11:59:42 AM PST by Kaslin
How predictable… The Federal Communications Commission voted on strict party lines to adopt Obama’s 332 page “Net Neutrality” proposal. Given that everything the government touches ends up as a rousing success-story, I’m sure you’ll be able to keep your internet if you like your internet. According to Fox News:
The commission, following a contentious meeting, voted 3-2 to adopt its so-called net neutrality plan -- a proposal that remained secret in the run-up to the final vote. On its surface, the plan is aimed at barring service providers from creating paid "fast lanes" on the Internet, which consumer advocates and Internet companies worry would edge out cash-strapped startups and smaller Internet-based businesses. Chairman Tom Wheeler said it would ensure an "open, unfettered network."
Of course… Because if there is one thing the government is known for it is protecting truly free markets, right? At issue is a concern that service providers might unfairly target certain companies for preferential (or discriminatory) treatment. However, I can’t help but notice that this is largely a problem that doesn’t actually exist. Apparently the big government fanatics over at Obama’s FCC believe it is prudent governance to restrict freedom because someone might (someday) abuse it.
How terribly Orwellian. I think George Washington is credited with a quote about such overzealous governance:
"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
Democrats fear that a lack of competition within the industry is leading to monopolistic injustice; and evidently believe that slapping a 21st century technology with rules designed for rotary telephones, will somehow level the playing field. (I call it socialism for broadband… Let’s make sure everyone has equally atrocious internet service.)
On almost every level, the proposal seems to be a solution in search of a problem. While the Liberals at the FCC opine about too few service providers, it’s probably worth pointing out that affordable access to the internet has been growing exponentially for years. Over the course of the last 20 years, the internet has become more accessible, substantially faster, and profoundly more user friendly. In today’s America, quality access to the web is almost considered a given. Heck, even remote corners of rural America tend to have Wi-Fi hotspots at local coffee shops, public libraries, and public schools. And almost anyone in America can get their hands on a web-enabled smartphone.
Moreover, it should be worth noting that “competition” isn’t exactly suffering among service providers. While certain companies might have relative control over small geographical areas, innovation has been shifting the balance of power for the last few decades to more dynamic competitive methods of delivering the internet. (Remember when cable providers weren’t the ones who you called to get hooked up to the interwebs?)
America’s transition from dial-up, to DSL, to cable, and now to fiber, seems to demonstrate that competition and innovation are alive and well within the industry. As a result, the consumer is routinely introduced to new and improved methods for watching Netflix and checking their status updates. Accessibility to quality service has never been greater, and as a result the richness of the internet has fundamentally impacted the way Americans interact with the world.
Due to such stunning advancements in accessibility, the internet has become the largest democratizing machine for information since moveable type. The internet is an entertainment hub, a news source, the world’s largest library, a communication device, a soapbox, and a conduit for information. This great explosion in tech, industry, and democratized accessibility did not happen because of government “oversight”… It emerged due to government’s general inability to regulate, tax, and control the 20th century’s most influential contribution to human discourse.
And now Obama’s FCC will get their bureaucratic hands on it in an effort to fix an injustice that doesn’t even seem to exist. In an effort to ensure an “open” internet, the FCC will impose upon an already-unfettered marketplace regulations originally written for telephone companies in the 1930s. If you like your internet as it is, you’re probably in luck… Nothing will be changing anytime soon with the FCC breathing down the necks of would-be innovators. After all, there’s probably a reason that our home phone service has remained largely unchanged while the unregulated interwebs have become an exponentially growing marketplace of ideas and innovation.
Far from being “progressive”, Obama & Co seem dedicated to clinging to an early 20th Century model of centralized power, and restricted free-market advancement… All in the name of preventing an abuse that hasn’t even materialized in the real world.
In fact, the term “progressive” is almost as misleading as the term “Net Neutrality”.
I don’t think this goes into effect for a while. They “voted on it” ... yes ... but it’s not going to be implemented right now, so the public will have time to look it over.
And Congress will have time to respond, too, if they do. AND ... there will also be parties who are involved in the application of these regulations who will most likely file lawsuits to sort out their differences with the regulations.
I’ll be surprised to even see any action, in any real way, before a year from now ... :-) ...
Oh ... one more thing ...
You said ... “Why shouldn’t mass consumption of capacity cost more?”
— — —
The fact of the matter is that IT DOES COST MORE ... in every single instance. ALL PARTIES are PAYING THE FULL FREIGHT for their own connection.
For example, with my service, there are five levels of service that a customer can pay for. You pay not only for the quantity that you’ll use it a month, but you’ll also pay for how fast it is delivered to you.
Therefore, maybe a person just wants e-mail and and just text for webpages ... you’ll pay the lowest amount. Maybe you want graphics on your webpages, then you’ll pay a little more. Perhaps you want to want a movie in your house once in a while, you’ll pay even more. Then maybe you have two or three people in your house watching different movies ... you’ll pay even more. Then perhaps you’re downloading files, transferring files, saving movies and watching several, and maybe a few others in your house are listening to different streaming musicm too ... you’ll PAY EVEN MORE!!
SO, YOU SEE ... you are ALREADY PAYING for exactly what your consuming!
AND ... the service sending the movies and/or streaming music ... they are paying THE FULL FREIGHT for EXACTLY what is necessary to SERVE EACH AND EVERY CUSTOMER of theirs!!
This THIRD CHARGE for the Fast Lane ... is NOTHING BUT A SCAM!!
The problem out in the country are the houses are really far apart. And the driveways can be very long.
Not exactly the most profitable place to be stringing cable or fiber.
AT&T offered DSL but now they appear to have stopped that. Instead, they push Uverse, their version of cable. Much more profit there than DSL. And, since it’s cable, it requires a cable be run to the house. Now they are right back where they started.
The beauty of DSL is that it can use already existing copper phone lines. And at least 99% of the homes out in the country have copper lines. But there isn’t near the ROI in DSL as there is in cable. Naturally, they are going for the bucks.
Generally...
Government did not build the internet. It is more accurate to say that government agencies funded those who conceived of the protocols which described a virtual network built atop a physical network. Parts of the physical network where built by government agencies, parts by educational institutions, and parts by telcos and cable-tv companies.
The first widespread availability to the general public was provided by telcos and by companies leasing telco facilities (such as Earthlink). Telcos/cable companies built their infrastructure, the government did not.
What you describe is the current situation: payment for consumption. Payment for consumption is what the FCC seeks to ban (among other things).
Yeah ... companies don’t build or invent products ... they just pay the people who do ... LOL ...
The government did not build the twisted pair or coax last mile. The government did not build the back haul.
DARPA funded the development of the concept of a logical network. That network is atop physical networks of various topology and protocol.
Those things are totally useless ... except that the government did what it did ... :-) ...
Paying for consumption is what exists, rightly so. FCC wants to eliminate that.
“fast lane” is rhetoric. Rhetoric sold by gimmedats.
> the US Government did not charge business for building the Internet
No kidding.
> I’ve got 100 Megabits down and 10 up. I’m paying well over the necessary amount to get movies, which about 15 Megabits down should work well. I OVERPAY for that
What do you pay for ADSL? Why do you claim it is “excessive”?
> third charge
????
I don’t see anything that shows or says that the government wants to eliminate the different service levels.
FOR EXAMPLE, in another but related service area ... the government hasn’t eliminated the different “levels of consumption” for cell phones. You can buy ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SERVICE with all different combinations of the various components of these services.
AND ... the “fast lane” is exactly what Netflix has had to pay various telecommunications companies ON TOP OF their Internet Service which covers the amount of customers they have. Netflix has reported this, plus the cost of paying IN ADDITION TO THEIR INTERNET SERVICE.
Netflix has been SCAMMED ... which then translates into the CONSUMER BEING SCAMMED, because all of this comes right back to the consumer for paying for the service a business provides!
THAT KIND OF SCAMMING of the consumer should be OUTLAWED, and I trust it will be!
No Throttling, No Paid Prioritization
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0226/DOC-332260A1.pdf
> Netflix has been SCAMMED ... which then translates into the CONSUMER BEING SCAMMED, because all of this comes right back to the consumer for paying for the service a business provides!
You are not paying for access to Netflix. You are paying for access to a network. Netflix is paying for access to a network. You are paying for an allotment of consumption of network resources. Netflix is paying for an allotment of consumption network resources. What’s the problem?
>> Had to look that one up.
Thanks. I was leaning towards “gimmie some a dat!”
>> They consist of about 20 or 30 pages (that was reported)
>> At least get the page count for the regulations correct
Finally, someone that has the ultimate source. Does it have a name?
Actually they just upgraded to a higher level just recently ... it’s 150 Mbps down and 20 Mbps up ... for $100 per month.
And I didn’t claim it was excessive, but that the service level is FAR IN EXCESS of what is needed for viewing a movie in the highest resolution ... 15 Mbps would be adequate for that, so I am paying far in excess of what is required to view that movie ... by about 135 Mbps!
The THIRD CHARGE is what happens when telecommunications companies want to SCAM MORE MONEY OUT OF CONSUMERS.
It works this way ... ON MY SIDE, I have more than adequate service levels to view a movie (requiring only about 15 Mbps, while I am getting and PAYING FOR 150 Mbps).
ON THE OTHER SIDE ... Netflix gets AND PAYS FOR the required speed and capacity to cover the number of customers it had to be able to stream movies OUT OF their Internet connection!
BUT ... what Netflix and I find out is that it is NOT ENOUGH to pay on my side and on Netflux’s side the more than adequate speeds and capacity for streaming movies.
What is REQUIRED by certain telecommunications companies (using Comcast as an example, because it’s documented) ... is that EVEN THOUGH I HAVE PAID FOR MY COMCAST INTERNET SERVICE [speaking as if I am with Comcast] — and Netflix has paid for theirs — there is now a THIRD CHARGE ... in that Comcast says to Netflix ... if you want this to work right with our Comcast Customers, you (Netflix) will have to PAY US A THIRD CHARGE (to reach our customers in the “fast lane” ... no matter the fact that our customer has ALREADY PAID FOR adequate service, and no matter that you (Netflix) have ALREADY PAID FOR adequate service to stream all the Netflix customers.
Comcast has just SCAMMED NETFLIX and its own Comcast Customers by making them pay the THIRD CHARGE for the “fast lane” (in order that it “works right” with their customers!).
That’s nothing more than BIG BUSINESS THEFT of its very own customers.
THAT THIRD CHARGE, and this sort of SCAMMING, will be ILLEGAL with Net Neutrality!!
The problem is that while I am paying for adequate service levels (that’s one cost on my side) ... and Netflix is paying for adequate service levels (that’s a cost on Netflix’s side) ... thereby making two costs (one for me and one for Netflix) ... the telecommunications company DEMANDS A THIRD CHARGE ... namely paying millions of dollars IN ADDITION TO THE TWO CHARGES ALREADY ... in order to get a “fast lane” to reach those individual customers for streaming ... NO MATTER THE FACT that each side has ALREADY PAID for all the necessary speed and access!
The THIRD CHARGE to get the “fast lane” is nothing but a SCAM and it will be ILLEGAL with Net Neutrality!
It was reported in a Free Republic posting of a news article, but there was no “name” given. I would just wait for about three weeks and it will be released then ... and you can see and count the pages for ther actual regulations!
I’ll be waiting, too ... to see it for myself ... :-) ...
I’m glad to see that those regulations will ELIMINATE that THIRD CHARGE for a “fast lane” ... which has been (in the past, prior to today) ... nothing but SCAMMING of the public!
No throttling and equal access for all data types is EXACTLY what is needed!
You are free to choose what content you wish to consume, you are also free to choose your network provider. It is the later, choice of network provider, which is weak. This will not be remedied by government control. Any other company is free to build and operate a network or provide content. And they are.
It is desirable to have many content providers and many network providers. This problem will not be solved by government control, it will be cemented. If the demand is great enough some company will fill the need.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.