5 ms·

Although legal action against ISP censoring and monopolization sounds beneficial, I'd prefer that government entities remove themselves from open Internet pursu

Although legal action against ISP censoring and monopolization sounds beneficial, I'd prefer that government entities remove themselves from open Internet pursuits entirely. It should be by the people, for the people.

Karunamon 13y ago
"The people" don't have any power in this matter.
- drcube 13y ago
  They can serve their own content while boycotting Time Warner's.
  - falcolas 13y ago
    As it stands, no, the people have no such right. Time Warner is currently under no obligation to server any content that they don't want to. That's the problem.
    - drcube 13y ago
      The point is not that they can avoid using Time Warner's infrastructure, it's that Time Warner will eventually stop offering content if nobody wants to view it. Then they will have no more incentive to throttle third party content. I'm not suggesting that this will work, I'm disputing that the people don't have any power. People almost always have some influence over their situation. That doesn't mean they have a magic bullet, but there is almost always hope.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        Two things you're forgetting: 1) Internet isn't a luxury anymore, it's a necessity. One can't live in society today with much success without some form of Internet access. 2) The free market is not at work when it comes to the proverbial "pipe" that's been laid - the Internet backbone. Getting a fiber cable to your house, to your neighborhood, and to your city was a task that cost a lot of money, and was paid for in part by the US government and state governments. Despite this fact, companies like Time Warner do not share "their" infrastructure to 3rd party ISPs. This, in turn creates an artificial monopoly where Time Warner unfairly benefits from publicly funded infrastructure. People can't avoid Time Warner, because in many places, they have literally no other option. There is no hope for these folks.
        massysett 13y ago
        How many people have no access to Verizon Wireless, AT&T wireless, Tmobile, Sprint, or telephone DSL? There is competition in the residential Internet business. If you say that "all those alternatives are too slow," I say: too slow for what? Too slow or too throttled for Internet video: perhaps. But the argument you are making is that "one can't live without some form of Internet access." Most people have Internet access available, in multiple forms. I agree that Internet is not a luxury, but 10 or 50 megabit Internet is. True, you need Internet to apply for jobs and even in some cases to interact with your government. Do you need 50 megabits for that? No. People can avoid Time Warner. They might not get their Netflix with their slower Internet, but the government should not be getting involved to preserve something as trivial as streaming video.
        diminoten 13y ago
        > How many people have no access to Verizon Wireless, AT&T wireless, Tmobile, Sprint, or telephone DSL? Different product, same problem, possibly even the same company. Switch out "Time Warner" with "Verizon" (a reality for some), and the problem exists anew. There is not competition in the residential Internet business.
      - nitrogen 13y ago
        I would guess that most people are more interested in watching something than they are in fighting Time Warner Comcast. As such, if the cable ISPs throttle Netflix (or de facto throttle it by choosing suboptimal peering arrangements), even if consumers would have preferred Netflix, they will watch cable because they don't have any other option.
  - tomswartz07 13y ago
    They can serve all they want, but the unfortunate fact remains that companies like Time Warner and Comcast are needed to actually provide the network service. It's like having a gas station in the middle of a desert, with no roads within a 50 mile radius.
    - gojomo 13y ago
      What federal agency dictates what services and prices a gas station in the middle of desert can offer?
      - tomswartz07 13y ago
        The same one that enforces taxes on the gasoline? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States
JackpotDen 13y ago
>It should be by the people, for the people. I agree, but I'm not sure how you can maintain these things without being owned by the people (govt) or a corp. I guess a regulatory body like the FCC then?
gtaylor 13y ago
If internet service were a luxury product, I'd agree. However, an internet connection is every bit as important as having a phone (land or cell) these days. Assuming we completely de-regulate, you'd still have municipal governments striking these anti-competitive monopoly deals. In fact, there'd be no barrier to it at all, since we're de-regulated in this case. Don't like Comcast? Better not move to City A, because they "own" it, even though some of the fiber was paid for by the residents.
- gojomo 13y ago
  If that's the problem, why not prohibit municipalities from creating local monopolies? Why have the FCC dictate limits on the design of network pricing and services everywhere, even where there are many options?
  - gtaylor 13y ago
    That sounds like regulation, to me.
    - gojomo 13y ago
      Limiting governments from making corrupt or short-sighted mistakes isn't usually considered 'regulation', but even if it is, this 'regulation' is also simultaneously local-franchise 'deregulation'. And it's more sensible, since competition is a cure-all, than federal 'neutrality' rules about what services are allowable.
      - gtaylor 13y ago
        Looking back the this parent's original statement: > I'd prefer that government entities remove themselves from open Internet pursuits entirely. What you are describing doesn't follow this. You are in support of regulation, the thread OP isn't.
jwarkentin 13y ago
That only works in places where a free market exists. In the case of ISPs there are generally very limited options and no room for new competitors. That being the case, we don't have much of a free market or opportunity for proper capitalism to govern the entities involved. In situations such as that, unfortunately, we need a governing entity to set some ground rules to protect the consumers.
- gojomo 13y ago
  There's always room for new competitors, if that were the goal. About 20 years ago, almost no place had 'broadband' - only dial-up. Since then, most places have gained 2 or more wired broadband options, and 2 or more wireless options, that are all many multiples faster than dial-up. The wireless technology keeps improving. New wired infrastructure can be run – as with Google Fiber or other initiatives. The sensors and robots for such installs also keep improving. And for sticky 'last mile' wire bottlenecks, sharing of that conduit could be required, or a 'minimal universal neutral' service option be required where there are no other options. Instead, the FCC seeks to limit how all broadband services, everywhere, must work, to respond to an abuse threat that remains almost entirely theoretical. That itself is an anti-competition, anti-differentiation move. It also adds another lever of power by which the FCC's other regulatory tendencies – such as censoring indecency or enabling wiretapping – could be applied to the internet. (In the UK, Australia, and South Korea it is agencies like the FCC which maintain compulsory national internet black-lists.)

Karunamon 13y ago

"The people" don't have any power in this matter.

drcube 13y ago
They can serve their own content while boycotting Time Warner's.
- falcolas 13y ago
  As it stands, no, the people have no such right. Time Warner is currently under no obligation to server any content that they don't want to. That's the problem.
  - drcube 13y ago
    The point is not that they can avoid using Time Warner's infrastructure, it's that Time Warner will eventually stop offering content if nobody wants to view it. Then they will have no more incentive to throttle third party content. I'm not suggesting that this will work, I'm disputing that the people don't have any power. People almost always have some influence over their situation. That doesn't mean they have a magic bullet, but there is almost always hope.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      Two things you're forgetting: 1) Internet isn't a luxury anymore, it's a necessity. One can't live in society today with much success without some form of Internet access. 2) The free market is not at work when it comes to the proverbial "pipe" that's been laid - the Internet backbone. Getting a fiber cable to your house, to your neighborhood, and to your city was a task that cost a lot of money, and was paid for in part by the US government and state governments. Despite this fact, companies like Time Warner do not share "their" infrastructure to 3rd party ISPs. This, in turn creates an artificial monopoly where Time Warner unfairly benefits from publicly funded infrastructure. People can't avoid Time Warner, because in many places, they have literally no other option. There is no hope for these folks.
      - massysett 13y ago
        How many people have no access to Verizon Wireless, AT&T wireless, Tmobile, Sprint, or telephone DSL? There is competition in the residential Internet business. If you say that "all those alternatives are too slow," I say: too slow for what? Too slow or too throttled for Internet video: perhaps. But the argument you are making is that "one can't live without some form of Internet access." Most people have Internet access available, in multiple forms. I agree that Internet is not a luxury, but 10 or 50 megabit Internet is. True, you need Internet to apply for jobs and even in some cases to interact with your government. Do you need 50 megabits for that? No. People can avoid Time Warner. They might not get their Netflix with their slower Internet, but the government should not be getting involved to preserve something as trivial as streaming video.
        diminoten 13y ago
        > How many people have no access to Verizon Wireless, AT&T wireless, Tmobile, Sprint, or telephone DSL? Different product, same problem, possibly even the same company. Switch out "Time Warner" with "Verizon" (a reality for some), and the problem exists anew. There is not competition in the residential Internet business.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      I would guess that most people are more interested in watching something than they are in fighting Time Warner Comcast. As such, if the cable ISPs throttle Netflix (or de facto throttle it by choosing suboptimal peering arrangements), even if consumers would have preferred Netflix, they will watch cable because they don't have any other option.
- tomswartz07 13y ago
  They can serve all they want, but the unfortunate fact remains that companies like Time Warner and Comcast are needed to actually provide the network service. It's like having a gas station in the middle of a desert, with no roads within a 50 mile radius.
  - gojomo 13y ago
    What federal agency dictates what services and prices a gas station in the middle of desert can offer?
    - tomswartz07 13y ago
      The same one that enforces taxes on the gasoline? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States

JackpotDen 13y ago

>It should be by the people, for the people. I agree, but I'm not sure how you can maintain these things without being owned by the people (govt) or a corp. I guess a regulatory body like the FCC then?

gtaylor 13y ago

If internet service were a luxury product, I'd agree. However, an internet connection is every bit as important as having a phone (land or cell) these days. Assuming we completely de-regulate, you'd still have municipal governments striking these anti-competitive monopoly deals. In fact, there'd be no barrier to it at all, since we're de-regulated in this case. Don't like Comcast? Better not move to City A, because they "own" it, even though some of the fiber was paid for by the residents.

gojomo 13y ago
If that's the problem, why not prohibit municipalities from creating local monopolies? Why have the FCC dictate limits on the design of network pricing and services everywhere, even where there are many options?
- gtaylor 13y ago
  That sounds like regulation, to me.
  - gojomo 13y ago
    Limiting governments from making corrupt or short-sighted mistakes isn't usually considered 'regulation', but even if it is, this 'regulation' is also simultaneously local-franchise 'deregulation'. And it's more sensible, since competition is a cure-all, than federal 'neutrality' rules about what services are allowable.
    - gtaylor 13y ago
      Looking back the this parent's original statement: > I'd prefer that government entities remove themselves from open Internet pursuits entirely. What you are describing doesn't follow this. You are in support of regulation, the thread OP isn't.

jwarkentin 13y ago

That only works in places where a free market exists. In the case of ISPs there are generally very limited options and no room for new competitors. That being the case, we don't have much of a free market or opportunity for proper capitalism to govern the entities involved. In situations such as that, unfortunately, we need a governing entity to set some ground rules to protect the consumers.

gojomo 13y ago
There's always room for new competitors, if that were the goal. About 20 years ago, almost no place had 'broadband' - only dial-up. Since then, most places have gained 2 or more wired broadband options, and 2 or more wireless options, that are all many multiples faster than dial-up. The wireless technology keeps improving. New wired infrastructure can be run – as with Google Fiber or other initiatives. The sensors and robots for such installs also keep improving. And for sticky 'last mile' wire bottlenecks, sharing of that conduit could be required, or a 'minimal universal neutral' service option be required where there are no other options. Instead, the FCC seeks to limit how all broadband services, everywhere, must work, to respond to an abuse threat that remains almost entirely theoretical. That itself is an anti-competition, anti-differentiation move. It also adds another lever of power by which the FCC's other regulatory tendencies – such as censoring indecency or enabling wiretapping – could be applied to the internet. (In the UK, Australia, and South Korea it is agencies like the FCC which maintain compulsory national internet black-lists.)