5 ms·

The FCC has made its share of mistakes, but that doesn't necessarily mean this will be one. "Title II regulation was designed for the plain-old-telephone-syste

by nemo 12y ago

The FCC has made its share of mistakes, but that doesn't necessarily mean this will be one. "Title II regulation was designed for the plain-old-telephone-system monopolies, where there was even less choice (one provider!) than the very worst of current local broadband markets." My mom has one ISP to choose from (and dismal service.) More than half the population of the US have access to a single broadband provider. "The internet, without any FCC rules, thrived and completely eclipsed that slow-moving regulated market." When behemoth broadband providers began openly plotting to predatorily damage some of the things that had helped provide for the internet's success, it was clear to most that some kind of regulations were needed. "new federal rules will limit what ISPs can offer and charge, regardless of what paying customers prefer." I have yet to hear from a single paying customer that actually wanted what the ISPs were plotting. "Upstart services offering novel cross-subsidized speed/latency improvements will require federal pre-approval or risk outright prohibition." Yeah, they would need approval if they wanted to offer that particular service, though I am not sure how to find that disappointing. "This is not a victory for either the internet or the "little guy"." Perhaps, why not see what actually happens before making broad speculative declarations, though?

brandonmenc 12y ago
> My mom has one ISP to choose from (and dismal service.) Net Neutrality changes this how?
- zachwood 12y ago
  Net Neutrality isn't supposed to change this, it's to help ensure she's not being taken advantage of due to her lack of choices.
  - protomyth 12y ago
    Can you give a technical definition of what you believe Net Neutrality is?
- netheril96 12y ago
  Net neutrality does not change the monopoly of ISPs. Net neutrality is necessitated by the monopoly. Where the market forces have failed, only regulation can protect the consumers.
  - gojomo 12y ago
    If the problem is monopoly, why not use antitrust enforcement, rather than dictating service/pricing details? And why impose net neutrality regulations on all the markets where there are multiple competitive providers? Why not let localities where there's an actual problem fix it locally, rather than set new nationwide rules?
    - alexqgb 12y ago
      Because this is about keeping the power of ISPs in check, which is far easier to do when they only have one set of customers. Give them two (i.e., upstream and downstream) and they're in a position to play one off the other in classic middle-man fashion.
    - hga 12y ago
      "If the problem is monopoly, why not use antitrust enforcement" Because these are government created monopolies, as all enduring ones are. State and Federal for the telcos, local for the cablecos. And as has been noted elsewhere in this discussion, for some inexplicable reason, as reported (strange, how only the FCC commissioners have access to these 300+ (!) pages, and for less than 3 weeks), this new regime leaves these government created last mile monopolies intact. It's not an exaggeration nor necessarily hyperbole to call this Obamacare for the Internet, when it enshrines the existing order of things, merely wrapping it in even more regulation. And, somehow, I seriously doubt a reduction in prices for us or companies like Netflix.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > strange, how only the FCC commissioners have access to these 300+ (!) pages, and for less than 3 weeks Its not strange, its how the regulatory process always works. Until its been voted on, its not a formal regulation or regulatory proposal, and is not published. If it is passed by the commission, its published. It can be passed as a formal regulatory proposal for comment (like the NPRM from last year that this is a follow-up to) or as a regulatory order (what is most likely in this case, as they've issued a formal proposal for comment, gathered the comment, and are now finalizing how to move forward given the comment received on the proposal.)

by nemo 12y ago

brandonmenc 12y ago

> My mom has one ISP to choose from (and dismal service.) Net Neutrality changes this how?

zachwood 12y ago
Net Neutrality isn't supposed to change this, it's to help ensure she's not being taken advantage of due to her lack of choices.
- protomyth 12y ago
  Can you give a technical definition of what you believe Net Neutrality is?
netheril96 12y ago
Net neutrality does not change the monopoly of ISPs. Net neutrality is necessitated by the monopoly. Where the market forces have failed, only regulation can protect the consumers.
- gojomo 12y ago
  If the problem is monopoly, why not use antitrust enforcement, rather than dictating service/pricing details? And why impose net neutrality regulations on all the markets where there are multiple competitive providers? Why not let localities where there's an actual problem fix it locally, rather than set new nationwide rules?
  - alexqgb 12y ago
    Because this is about keeping the power of ISPs in check, which is far easier to do when they only have one set of customers. Give them two (i.e., upstream and downstream) and they're in a position to play one off the other in classic middle-man fashion.
  - hga 12y ago
    "If the problem is monopoly, why not use antitrust enforcement" Because these are government created monopolies, as all enduring ones are. State and Federal for the telcos, local for the cablecos. And as has been noted elsewhere in this discussion, for some inexplicable reason, as reported (strange, how only the FCC commissioners have access to these 300+ (!) pages, and for less than 3 weeks), this new regime leaves these government created last mile monopolies intact. It's not an exaggeration nor necessarily hyperbole to call this Obamacare for the Internet, when it enshrines the existing order of things, merely wrapping it in even more regulation. And, somehow, I seriously doubt a reduction in prices for us or companies like Netflix.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > strange, how only the FCC commissioners have access to these 300+ (!) pages, and for less than 3 weeks Its not strange, its how the regulatory process always works. Until its been voted on, its not a formal regulation or regulatory proposal, and is not published. If it is passed by the commission, its published. It can be passed as a formal regulatory proposal for comment (like the NPRM from last year that this is a follow-up to) or as a regulatory order (what is most likely in this case, as they've issued a formal proposal for comment, gathered the comment, and are now finalizing how to move forward given the comment received on the proposal.)