10 ms·

It's not just Facetime, there's all manner of related stuff. https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freep

by tech2 9y ago

It's not just Facetime, there's all manner of related stuff. https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... Each time I see a NN post I'm generally too late and it's been run rampant with defenders of "light touch" regulation... no, just no. If the companies had competition, then, maybe. Sadly they're entrenched monopolies (and more are merging each day, further limiting choice). NN is the way to go.

bentruyman 9y ago
Except in this case (cellular service), there is at least some competition. And FaceTime isn't particularly a good example, as AT&T reversed their policy without Net Neutrality rules in place. Competition, at least in this one example, worked.
- dsp1234 9y ago
  AT&T reversed their policy without Net Neutrality rules in place After official complaints lodged with the FCC. Also, this was during the time period of the 2010 open internet order[0] and the 2014 court case[1], where ISPs and the FCC thought that the FCC had the authority to enforce "no blocking" violations. So, saying "without Net Neutrality rules in place" is incorrect. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v....
  - bentruyman 9y ago
    Sure. And the "no blocking" rule was eventually struck down. My point is there were no existing laws that would have forced AT&T to reverse their decision.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  Not necessarily. They faced regulatory issues with some states. The carriers deployed proxy infrastructure to inspect and control traffic and were definately experimenting with limiting apps deemed disruptive in the 2013-2014 timeframe. If you had an app that generated lots of small packets in a short period of time, you’d run into it on some networks.
Feniks 9y ago
Payed shills more like. America is a big country and surprisingly isolated and intellectually lazy so most folks won't even notice what net neutrality is like beyond their borders. Enjoy your Verizon net.
- strictnein 9y ago
  > "Payed shills more like" > "America is ... intellectually lazy" The "people who disagree with me are payed to" viewpoint is one of the most intellectually lazy viewpoints, second only to the idea that those who disagree with you are evil.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
But that's the bigger issue isnt it? That is we keep using bandaids when the root problem is lack of competition. Has anyone heard if Google is considering restarting Fiber? I was always under the impression that they hope the implied competition was enough. It had seemed to be working. But then it was squashed.
- veidr 9y ago
  > But that's the bigger issue isnt it? Yes, but so what? There is no chance we're going to get meaningful competition among Internet providers in the USA. So you can choose an imperfect but helpful solution that exists today, or a perfect theoretical solution that doesn't and won't.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    But it's not a solution to a problem. It's a solution to a symptom. We do this all the time and then wonder why we waste so much time revisiting things. Or. You can "accept" NN in the short term knowing it's going to cause a negative reaction in the market. That tension will build, the market will become more aware, and then demand the problem be addressed and solved. The point is, the current solution being proposed by so many actual keep the powerful status quo intact. They win either way. Is that a win for the rest of us? I think not.
- SubiculumCode 9y ago
  It is time it is treated as a utility and price regulated like one. oh and $66 for the base package cable internet package (for me), way too much.
  - jrnichols 9y ago
    > It is time it is treated as a utility and price regulated like one. Having lived in an area that had Pacific Gas & Electric, who has infrastructure so old and decrepit that it literally exploded and destroyed part of a town, i'm not so sure that I want my internet access being treated like a utility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion also, their amazingly out of control prices, rolling blackouts, etc. Seeing people say that they want the internet treated like a utility kind of scare me.
rayiner 9y ago
Citing market power as a reason for special regulations in cellular, where in almost every major city there are 3-4 completely fungible carriers, makes no sense. Verizon and AT&T have about 1/3 of the market, T-Mobile and Sprint have a little under 1/3, and in any given market there are smaller players like Boost Mobile. That's an entirely normal level of competition for the economy at large. In smart phones, in contrast, Android has 82% of the market, Apple has 18% of the market, and Windows is well under 0.5%. In search engines, Google has about 2/3 of the market, Microsoft has about 1/4, and Yahoo has a bit over 10% (but they use Microsoft's back-end). In soft drinks, Coca Cola has 42%, Pepsi has 27%, and Dr. Pepper Snapple has 17%. In parcel service, UPS has about half the market, FedEx about 30%, and the Postal Service about 15%.
- zaptheimpaler 9y ago
  1. AT&T claimed it has NEVER blocked third party apps when that concern was raised in relation to Net Neutrality. 2. AT&T DID block Facetime, and wanted to allow access only on special plans. 3. The magic of the free market and competition did not step them 4. Special regulations about not blocking third party apps could have stopped them. This issue is always framed as some lofty philosophical debate about "free market vs. regulation!!!" by companies. In reality its perfectly clear that neither extreme works or even exists currently, just a precarious balance we as consumers have to protect that companies are always trying to erode.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    It's fine if you think the government should intervene aggressively for consumer protection. But it's inaccurate to suggest that cellular is somehow unusual in the level of market concentration as the reason for such regulations.
    - zaptheimpaler 9y ago
      Market power/concentration can be both common/usual relative to some context (eg the US) and yet too high to maximize consumer welfare, or too high relative to another context.
danjoc 9y ago
>Sadly they're entrenched monopolies Let's not forget, the monopoly exists because the FCC auctioned off the available frequency bands to these companies. Let's not forget the US Govt blocked an attempted Sprint + T-Mobile merger to produce a viable third competitor in the space, ironically, in the name of competition. We could have had a spread spectrum solution with open airwaves. We have with unlicensed WiFi frequency bands, and there's plenty of competition in that space. Well, at least until the FCC tries to meddle in that too. https://www.wired.com/2016/03/way-go-fcc-now-manufacturers-locking-routers/ https://www.wired.com/2016/03/way-go-fcc-now-manufacturers-l... "Light touch"? Yes. How about "no touch" or just "get out". Everything the FCC touches turns to a pile of ash and ruin. Where's my fiber optics? It's almost 2018. I live in a metro area with more than 1M people. Where's my fiber optics? This is ridiculous.
- kelnos 9y ago
  > Let's not forget the US Govt blocked an attempted Sprint + T-Mobile merger to produce a viable third competitor in the space, ironically, in the name of competition. Not sure what you mean here. T-Mobile's efforts in the last few years (the "uncarrier" marketing push, among other things), has cemented their position as the "third competitor" already (in part due to the failed AT&T buyout), and AT&T and Verizon have been forced to offer better plans to compete with T-Mo's offerings. I don't see how a Sprint merger is necessary or useful to the competitive landscape at this time.
  - danjoc 9y ago
    >Not sure what you mean here. What I mean is T-Mobile + Sprint is still third by customer count. And not really a close third. If competition is a problem, then ideally, the government would either allow a real third competitor, or in absence of that, break up the bigger two. They blocked the former and did not pursue the latter. >I don't see how a Sprint merger is necessary or useful to the competitive landscape at this time. Spectrum. Combined, they would be a force to be reckoned with.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

by tech2 9y ago

bentruyman 9y ago

Except in this case (cellular service), there is at least some competition. And FaceTime isn't particularly a good example, as AT&T reversed their policy without Net Neutrality rules in place. Competition, at least in this one example, worked.

dsp1234 9y ago
AT&T reversed their policy without Net Neutrality rules in place After official complaints lodged with the FCC. Also, this was during the time period of the 2010 open internet order[0] and the 2014 court case[1], where ISPs and the FCC thought that the FCC had the authority to enforce "no blocking" violations. So, saying "without Net Neutrality rules in place" is incorrect. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v....
- bentruyman 9y ago
  Sure. And the "no blocking" rule was eventually struck down. My point is there were no existing laws that would have forced AT&T to reverse their decision.
Spooky23 9y ago
Not necessarily. They faced regulatory issues with some states. The carriers deployed proxy infrastructure to inspect and control traffic and were definately experimenting with limiting apps deemed disruptive in the 2013-2014 timeframe. If you had an app that generated lots of small packets in a short period of time, you’d run into it on some networks.

Feniks 9y ago

Payed shills more like. America is a big country and surprisingly isolated and intellectually lazy so most folks won't even notice what net neutrality is like beyond their borders. Enjoy your Verizon net.

strictnein 9y ago
> "Payed shills more like" > "America is ... intellectually lazy" The "people who disagree with me are payed to" viewpoint is one of the most intellectually lazy viewpoints, second only to the idea that those who disagree with you are evil.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

But that's the bigger issue isnt it? That is we keep using bandaids when the root problem is lack of competition. Has anyone heard if Google is considering restarting Fiber? I was always under the impression that they hope the implied competition was enough. It had seemed to be working. But then it was squashed.

veidr 9y ago
> But that's the bigger issue isnt it? Yes, but so what? There is no chance we're going to get meaningful competition among Internet providers in the USA. So you can choose an imperfect but helpful solution that exists today, or a perfect theoretical solution that doesn't and won't.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  But it's not a solution to a problem. It's a solution to a symptom. We do this all the time and then wonder why we waste so much time revisiting things. Or. You can "accept" NN in the short term knowing it's going to cause a negative reaction in the market. That tension will build, the market will become more aware, and then demand the problem be addressed and solved. The point is, the current solution being proposed by so many actual keep the powerful status quo intact. They win either way. Is that a win for the rest of us? I think not.
SubiculumCode 9y ago
It is time it is treated as a utility and price regulated like one. oh and $66 for the base package cable internet package (for me), way too much.
- jrnichols 9y ago
  > It is time it is treated as a utility and price regulated like one. Having lived in an area that had Pacific Gas & Electric, who has infrastructure so old and decrepit that it literally exploded and destroyed part of a town, i'm not so sure that I want my internet access being treated like a utility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion also, their amazingly out of control prices, rolling blackouts, etc. Seeing people say that they want the internet treated like a utility kind of scare me.

rayiner 9y ago

Citing market power as a reason for special regulations in cellular, where in almost every major city there are 3-4 completely fungible carriers, makes no sense. Verizon and AT&T have about 1/3 of the market, T-Mobile and Sprint have a little under 1/3, and in any given market there are smaller players like Boost Mobile. That's an entirely normal level of competition for the economy at large. In smart phones, in contrast, Android has 82% of the market, Apple has 18% of the market, and Windows is well under 0.5%. In search engines, Google has about 2/3 of the market, Microsoft has about 1/4, and Yahoo has a bit over 10% (but they use Microsoft's back-end). In soft drinks, Coca Cola has 42%, Pepsi has 27%, and Dr. Pepper Snapple has 17%. In parcel service, UPS has about half the market, FedEx about 30%, and the Postal Service about 15%.

zaptheimpaler 9y ago
1. AT&T claimed it has NEVER blocked third party apps when that concern was raised in relation to Net Neutrality. 2. AT&T DID block Facetime, and wanted to allow access only on special plans. 3. The magic of the free market and competition did not step them 4. Special regulations about not blocking third party apps could have stopped them. This issue is always framed as some lofty philosophical debate about "free market vs. regulation!!!" by companies. In reality its perfectly clear that neither extreme works or even exists currently, just a precarious balance we as consumers have to protect that companies are always trying to erode.
- rayiner 9y ago
  It's fine if you think the government should intervene aggressively for consumer protection. But it's inaccurate to suggest that cellular is somehow unusual in the level of market concentration as the reason for such regulations.
  - zaptheimpaler 9y ago
    Market power/concentration can be both common/usual relative to some context (eg the US) and yet too high to maximize consumer welfare, or too high relative to another context.

danjoc 9y ago

>Sadly they're entrenched monopolies Let's not forget, the monopoly exists because the FCC auctioned off the available frequency bands to these companies. Let's not forget the US Govt blocked an attempted Sprint + T-Mobile merger to produce a viable third competitor in the space, ironically, in the name of competition. We could have had a spread spectrum solution with open airwaves. We have with unlicensed WiFi frequency bands, and there's plenty of competition in that space. Well, at least until the FCC tries to meddle in that too. https://www.wired.com/2016/03/way-go-fcc-now-manufacturers-locking-routers/ https://www.wired.com/2016/03/way-go-fcc-now-manufacturers-l... "Light touch"? Yes. How about "no touch" or just "get out". Everything the FCC touches turns to a pile of ash and ruin. Where's my fiber optics? It's almost 2018. I live in a metro area with more than 1M people. Where's my fiber optics? This is ridiculous.

kelnos 9y ago
> Let's not forget the US Govt blocked an attempted Sprint + T-Mobile merger to produce a viable third competitor in the space, ironically, in the name of competition. Not sure what you mean here. T-Mobile's efforts in the last few years (the "uncarrier" marketing push, among other things), has cemented their position as the "third competitor" already (in part due to the failed AT&T buyout), and AT&T and Verizon have been forced to offer better plans to compete with T-Mo's offerings. I don't see how a Sprint merger is necessary or useful to the competitive landscape at this time.
- danjoc 9y ago
  >Not sure what you mean here. What I mean is T-Mobile + Sprint is still third by customer count. And not really a close third. If competition is a problem, then ideally, the government would either allow a real third competitor, or in absence of that, break up the bigger two. They blocked the former and did not pursue the latter. >I don't see how a Sprint merger is necessary or useful to the competitive landscape at this time. Spectrum. Combined, they would be a force to be reckoned with.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]