On May 18 2014 06:57 Nyxisto wrote: Infrastructure in almost any big country including the US belongsto a handful or even only one or two large companies. If you don't believe me hop on Wikipedia and look it up.
Also every market has rules that ensure that competition is possible. Even venture capitalists are complaining about the proposed changes because start ups are going to have a very hard time if the law is going to get passed in its current form.(http://www.technologyreview.com/news/527006/talk-of-an-internet-fast-lane-is-already-hurting-some-startups/)
It makes sense that it only belongs to a couple companies...
People need to understand that in some fields, monopolies with regulation are better than competitive markets. The internet likes to outcry about anything that appears to change anything about the internet. This really isn't a big deal.
In general, 95% of the internet does not understand this topic well enough to be able to comment on it. There's people in favour of this change that have spent months doing research and understanding all repercussions etc. The worst thing is, many times the internet will cry out against this, postpone it for a few months to a couple years, and then this gets passed in the dark, and the internet never achieves anything.
Complaining on the internet and sending emails to the FCC is going to make a very insignificant difference. If this is really that large of an issue for you, put some honest effort in defending your "rights". Do your research, fund organizations who are also against this, join these organizations to orchestrate a national effort to shut this down with demonstrations that reach television, etc.
On May 18 2014 03:21 opisska wrote: That's just semantics, because it is the same. The reason why you want every information to be treated the same is that said information is accessible to everyone without additional expenses.
No, it's not just semantics. Netflix could charge a thousand bucks a month for their service. That would be their decision. What is not fine is if the provider of the infrastructure charges Netflix, but not Amazon. Private contracts between consumers and providers of services are totally fine. Contracts between the providers of the infrastructure and different providers of services are not.
That's not semantics. For example the Telekom here in Germany had the idea of introducing volume based rates, except for their own streaming services. That would hurt net equality because as a infrastructure provider the Telekom would be prioritizing their own data, effectively bullying all other competitors out of the market.
You still fail to provide any substance to your claim that it is not fine, apart of saying that is just "not fine". It could be argued that it is the case only if the internet infrastructure was naturally unique (in the sense of existing in only one specimen for external reasons, such as for example HV power lines or waterways which both noone will allow anyone to duplicate for practical reasons) and thus monopoly to the owner of the infrastructure was granted monopoly. But that is not the case for internet connection, even the backbone networks are (at least in the Czech Republic, which is a small and not reall extremely outstanding country, so I dare to extrapolate) in multiple redundancy (you can actually see that in practice on your traceroute as usually the competitors buy backup connectivity form each other).
Maybe in Germany, there is larger concentration on market power with Telekom, so care has to be taken, but it is definitely not a universal situation - and remedies already exist, such as the compulsory sharing of the part of infrastructure that is not convenient for the society to be multiplied (the last mile cabling). Also in many European countries, companeis similar to your Telekom, have been created by privatisation of assets originally built from public money and there also some regulation is in place, but again, just focused on this aspect of the problem.
The Netflix vs. cable providers issue from the US is actually a prime example to demostrate my point. A cable TV provider is a natural ISP, because it has the right infrastructure as a byproduct of its original business. However, if such a company wishes to sell internet services to their customers, "net neutrality" forces them to also include the services of their largest direct competitor (Netflix) while being forbidden to charge that competitor money? How is that even close to any semblance of free market? That's almost torture.
The cable provider is being paid one way or another. It's not like people get internet for free.
On May 18 2014 06:57 Nyxisto wrote: Infrastructure in almost any big country including the US belongsto a handful or even only one or two large companies. If you don't believe me hop on Wikipedia and look it up.
Also every market has rules that ensure that competition is possible. Even venture capitalists are complaining about the proposed changes because start ups are going to have a very hard time if the law is going to get passed in its current form.(http://www.technologyreview.com/news/527006/talk-of-an-internet-fast-lane-is-already-hurting-some-startups/)
It makes sense that it only belongs to a couple companies...
People need to understand that in some fields, monopolies with regulation are better than competitive markets. The internet likes to outcry about anything that appears to change anything about the internet. This really isn't a big deal.
In general, 95% of the internet does not understand this topic well enough to be able to comment on it. There's people in favour of this change that have spent months doing research and understanding all repercussions etc. The worst thing is, many times the internet will cry out against this, postpone it for a few months to a couple years, and then this gets passed in the dark, and the internet never achieves anything.
Complaining on the internet and sending emails to the FCC is going to make a very insignificant difference. If this is really that large of an issue for you, put some honest effort in defending your "rights". Do your research, fund organizations who are also against this, join these organizations to orchestrate a national effort to shut this down with demonstrations that reach television, etc.
What regulation usually tries to achieve is that competition will work in an environment that usually only favors a handful of participants and create a fair playing field.I'm not against regulation, but the right thing to regulate would be to tell ISP's that their job is to supply the infrastructure and not abuse it. What the proposed FCC changes are going to do is the opposite. It will increase the leverage of big companies over small companies, discourage innovation and hurt the customer who is very likely to pay more money in the future.
Also I'm living in the EU which has just recently passed a very reasonable net neutrality law that stops companies from throttling (http://www.zdnet.com/eu-net-neutrality-passes-vote-7000027998/) so I'm a happy camper.
On May 18 2014 06:57 Nyxisto wrote: Infrastructure in almost any big country including the US belongsto a handful or even only one or two large companies. If you don't believe me hop on Wikipedia and look it up.
Also every market has rules that ensure that competition is possible. Even venture capitalists are complaining about the proposed changes because start ups are going to have a very hard time if the law is going to get passed in its current form.(http://www.technologyreview.com/news/527006/talk-of-an-internet-fast-lane-is-already-hurting-some-startups/)
It makes sense that it only belongs to a couple companies...
People need to understand that in some fields, monopolies with regulation are better than competitive markets. The internet likes to outcry about anything that appears to change anything about the internet. This really isn't a big deal.
In general, 95% of the internet does not understand this topic well enough to be able to comment on it. There's people in favour of this change that have spent months doing research and understanding all repercussions etc. The worst thing is, many times the internet will cry out against this, postpone it for a few months to a couple years, and then this gets passed in the dark, and the internet never achieves anything.
Complaining on the internet and sending emails to the FCC is going to make a very insignificant difference. If this is really that large of an issue for you, put some honest effort in defending your "rights". Do your research, fund organizations who are also against this, join these organizations to orchestrate a national effort to shut this down with demonstrations that reach television, etc.
Give me a single realistic scenario in which ISP's charging websites for "better" service results in a positive effect for consumers
People need to understand that in some fields, monopolies with regulation are better than competitive markets.
The problem is that good regulation is a very hard problem. There's a huge incentive for the regulated entity to infiltrate the regulator, as has arguably happened with the FCC, FDA and other agencies. So now as a consumer/citizen you need to spend effort and time to make sure the regulatory agencies continue to defend your interests. But time and effort are limited resources and when society as a group stops paying attention to a certain issue special interests swoop in and destroy effective oversight, allowing the monopoly, or other regulated entity, to bear the fruit of their powerful market position.
On May 18 2014 06:57 Nyxisto wrote: Infrastructure in almost any big country including the US belongsto a handful or even only one or two large companies. If you don't believe me hop on Wikipedia and look it up.
Also every market has rules that ensure that competition is possible. Even venture capitalists are complaining about the proposed changes because start ups are going to have a very hard time if the law is going to get passed in its current form.(http://www.technologyreview.com/news/527006/talk-of-an-internet-fast-lane-is-already-hurting-some-startups/)
It makes sense that it only belongs to a couple companies...
People need to understand that in some fields, monopolies with regulation are better than competitive markets. The internet likes to outcry about anything that appears to change anything about the internet. This really isn't a big deal.
In general, 95% of the internet does not understand this topic well enough to be able to comment on it. There's people in favour of this change that have spent months doing research and understanding all repercussions etc. The worst thing is, many times the internet will cry out against this, postpone it for a few months to a couple years, and then this gets passed in the dark, and the internet never achieves anything.
Complaining on the internet and sending emails to the FCC is going to make a very insignificant difference. If this is really that large of an issue for you, put some honest effort in defending your "rights". Do your research, fund organizations who are also against this, join these organizations to orchestrate a national effort to shut this down with demonstrations that reach television, etc.
Give me a single realistic scenario in which ISP's charging websites for "better" service results in a positive effect for consumers
1. Lower cost of the internet plans (yes, it's actually a thing, the government calculates what profits natural monopolies bring in, and control them). 2. Spur innovation of ISP's. I hear USA has generally really shitty internet. I get 250Mb/s download, 15Mb/s upload at home... And my engineering school speed test reads at 800Mb/s download, 800Mb/s upload. I hear that many people in the USA get shitty speed, like 10Mb/s is the most they can get in their region. 3. Reduction in piracy. 4. Reward ISP companies more with higher profits for good service and upgrades in infrastructure. (If companies are paying premiums, they will more likely pay premiums, and greater premiums to good service providers).
Again, there would be regulation. Do you really think local/state government would really do nothing if the ISP simply decided to disable traffic to a certain website? People would lose their shit. So obviously that's for the law makers to come up with, but there could definitely be laws in place like. "Minimum 5Mb/s for any website", etc.
I'm not 100% supporting this bill, but I don't think it's nearly as significant as made out to be, that is all. For all we know, it could have some positive effects, it's just a completely new system and it's hard to predict exactly how it would behave.
People need to understand that in some fields, monopolies with regulation are better than competitive markets.
The problem is that good regulation is a very hard problem. There's a huge incentive for the regulated entity to infiltrate the regulator, as has arguably happened with the FCC, FDA and other agencies. So now as a consumer/citizen you need to spend effort and time to make sure the regulatory agencies continue to defend your interests. But time and effort are limited resources and when society as a group stops paying attention to a certain issue special interests swoop in and destroy effective oversight, allowing the monopoly, or other regulated entity, to bear the fruit of their powerful market position.
I feel like in Canada, regulation has been done quite well throughout history. It might be more difficult in the USA because numerous companies are absolutely massive international companies, with more resources to push for something like this, as well as a different social outlook on these kind of issues.
I understand what you are saying, I think it was a very well worded post, and I think this is the major issue with regards to this... But I don't know. I'm not sure of the regulating record the US has had in the past, but I do think it would work in most countries. Depends how much trust you really have in the government, and how corrupt you feel they are I suppose.
On May 18 2014 06:57 Nyxisto wrote: Infrastructure in almost any big country including the US belongsto a handful or even only one or two large companies. If you don't believe me hop on Wikipedia and look it up.
Also every market has rules that ensure that competition is possible. Even venture capitalists are complaining about the proposed changes because start ups are going to have a very hard time if the law is going to get passed in its current form.(http://www.technologyreview.com/news/527006/talk-of-an-internet-fast-lane-is-already-hurting-some-startups/)
It makes sense that it only belongs to a couple companies...
People need to understand that in some fields, monopolies with regulation are better than competitive markets. The internet likes to outcry about anything that appears to change anything about the internet. This really isn't a big deal.
In general, 95% of the internet does not understand this topic well enough to be able to comment on it. There's people in favour of this change that have spent months doing research and understanding all repercussions etc. The worst thing is, many times the internet will cry out against this, postpone it for a few months to a couple years, and then this gets passed in the dark, and the internet never achieves anything.
Complaining on the internet and sending emails to the FCC is going to make a very insignificant difference. If this is really that large of an issue for you, put some honest effort in defending your "rights". Do your research, fund organizations who are also against this, join these organizations to orchestrate a national effort to shut this down with demonstrations that reach television, etc.
Give me a single realistic scenario in which ISP's charging websites for "better" service results in a positive effect for consumers
1. Lower cost of the internet plans (yes, it's actually a thing, the government calculates what profits natural monopolies bring in, and control them). 2. Spur innovation of ISP's. I hear USA has generally really shitty internet. I get 250Mb/s download, 15Mb/s upload at home... And my engineering school speed test reads at 800Mb/s download, 800Mb/s upload. I hear that many people in the USA get shitty speed, like 10Mb/s is the most they can get in their region. 3. Reduction in piracy. 4. Reward ISP companies more with higher profits for good service and upgrades in infrastructure. (If companies are paying premiums, they will more likely pay premiums, and greater premiums to good service providers).
Again, there would be regulation. Do you really think local/state government would really do nothing if the ISP simply decided to disable traffic to a certain website? People would lose their shit. So obviously that's for the law makers to come up with, but there could definitely be laws in place like. "Minimum 5Mb/s for any website", etc.
I'm not 100% supporting this bill, but I don't think it's nearly as significant as made out to be, that is all. For all we know, it could have some positive effects, it's just a completely new system and it's hard to predict exactly how it would behave.
1. In what way will charging websites money for good service reduce prices for consumers. Best case scenario those websites move the cost to there customers. Increasing the power of (near) monopolies doesn't miraculously reduce costs. 2. How will the power of ISP's to extort websites increase innovation? American internet is shit because there is no competition and no reason for ISP's to provide a better service. This law does not increase competition it merely allows the already dominant party to exercise even more pressure. 3. A potential good side yes. to bad proxies get around that unless your massively throttling everyone by default. 4. Again nothing about this promotes ISP's to do a better job. They instead reduce everyone's rates unless you pay extra and websites cannot do anything about it since they have no power without the ISP's and refusing costs you a potential loss of thousand of visitors.
There are regulations right now, this is about the attempts being made to remove those very restrictions that prevent ISP's from extorting websites and providing unequal service. Look at all the other countries embracing and fortifying these very regulations that America now wants to remove, how does that make sense in any way other then a move by American ISP's to increase there own power.
It is not a new system/ Centuries of economics have shown us that if you deregulate a monopoly it will be abused. Your not trying to invent the wheel here.
Giving more power to big monopolists will obviously drive cost for the consumer down! Like even the most market radicals would agree that this is nonsense. In such an environment as the one we are talking about we need to guarantee that the consumer has enough leverage, not the supplier. It's such a no-brainer that I don't know how somebody could support this law.
I guess some people always need to be on the anti-side of the argument.
People need to understand that in some fields, monopolies with regulation are better than competitive markets.
The problem is that good regulation is a very hard problem. There's a huge incentive for the regulated entity to infiltrate the regulator, as has arguably happened with the FCC, FDA and other agencies. So now as a consumer/citizen you need to spend effort and time to make sure the regulatory agencies continue to defend your interests. But time and effort are limited resources and when society as a group stops paying attention to a certain issue special interests swoop in and destroy effective oversight, allowing the monopoly, or other regulated entity, to bear the fruit of their powerful market position.
I feel like in Canada, regulation has been done quite well throughout history. It might be more difficult in the USA because numerous companies are absolutely massive international companies, with more resources to push for something like this, as well as a different social outlook on these kind of issues.
I don't know maybe some regulators will always act in the interest of the general public and you can just let them do their thing and support whatever they do. However in practice that's rarely the case. It's certainly not the case for the FCC, which is headed by a former industry lobbyist.
So ideally what you want is a competitive market with no externalities that works without any regulation. If regulation is needed, either because there are natural monopolies or strong externalities, then simple rules should be preferred to complex ones, even if this means being more restrictive than what economic theory would suggest. Simple rules are easier to overview by the general public. For the same reason rules should change rarely if possible.
Saying that the FCC should allow preferred traffic and then set up rules to make sure consumers aren't hurt is just poor strategy. Now instead of one big fight (net neutrality) you are going to have many little ones over specific charges by ISPs. Trying to drum up public support for each of these will be impossible, so ISPs will basically have free reign.
but I do think it would work in most countries. Depends how much trust you really have in the government, and how corrupt you feel they are I suppose.
If corruption includes ability to influence policy against the will and interests of the general public then your confidence is completely misplaced. I say that with some reservation as I know almost nothing about Canadian politics. However this is true for the US, EU bureaucracy, as well as all individual EU country whose politics I'm remotely familiar with. Few regulators work perfectly without constant supervision by the citizenry.
On May 18 2014 06:57 Nyxisto wrote: Infrastructure in almost any big country including the US belongsto a handful or even only one or two large companies. If you don't believe me hop on Wikipedia and look it up.
Also every market has rules that ensure that competition is possible. Even venture capitalists are complaining about the proposed changes because start ups are going to have a very hard time if the law is going to get passed in its current form.(http://www.technologyreview.com/news/527006/talk-of-an-internet-fast-lane-is-already-hurting-some-startups/)
It makes sense that it only belongs to a couple companies...
People need to understand that in some fields, monopolies with regulation are better than competitive markets. The internet likes to outcry about anything that appears to change anything about the internet. This really isn't a big deal.
In general, 95% of the internet does not understand this topic well enough to be able to comment on it. There's people in favour of this change that have spent months doing research and understanding all repercussions etc. The worst thing is, many times the internet will cry out against this, postpone it for a few months to a couple years, and then this gets passed in the dark, and the internet never achieves anything.
Complaining on the internet and sending emails to the FCC is going to make a very insignificant difference. If this is really that large of an issue for you, put some honest effort in defending your "rights". Do your research, fund organizations who are also against this, join these organizations to orchestrate a national effort to shut this down with demonstrations that reach television, etc.
Give me a single realistic scenario in which ISP's charging websites for "better" service results in a positive effect for consumers
1. Lower cost of the internet plans (yes, it's actually a thing, the government calculates what profits natural monopolies bring in, and control them). 2. Spur innovation of ISP's. I hear USA has generally really shitty internet. I get 250Mb/s download, 15Mb/s upload at home... And my engineering school speed test reads at 800Mb/s download, 800Mb/s upload. I hear that many people in the USA get shitty speed, like 10Mb/s is the most they can get in their region. 3. Reduction in piracy. 4. Reward ISP companies more with higher profits for good service and upgrades in infrastructure. (If companies are paying premiums, they will more likely pay premiums, and greater premiums to good service providers).
Again, there would be regulation. Do you really think local/state government would really do nothing if the ISP simply decided to disable traffic to a certain website? People would lose their shit. So obviously that's for the law makers to come up with, but there could definitely be laws in place like. "Minimum 5Mb/s for any website", etc.
I'm not 100% supporting this bill, but I don't think it's nearly as significant as made out to be, that is all. For all we know, it could have some positive effects, it's just a completely new system and it's hard to predict exactly how it would behave.
grats because you have totaly own the guys and he just not reply anymore, was realy angry about the bullshit he have write... fiwikaki are you realy a actual person who think like you do? would realy like to talk in the real life to someone like you for understand how you think ect.... to me it look either you are brainwashed by these big company or you work for them.
nothing good come from a law like that, it just add control over the internet, make people pay more money.
they want control nothing else, internet like the only place in the world we still got some freedom and they are trying realy hard to destroy that each year.
If we could get the topic changed to something more suiting the situation now. 'Net neutrality: good time to act'? something to invite people to re-join the conversation. How much impact can we make from outside of the US?
On June 04 2014 01:14 Yourmomsbasement wrote: If we could get the topic changed to somethign more suting the situation now. 'Net nutraility: good time to act'? something to invite people to re-join the conversation. How much impact can we make from outside of the US?
Really nothing except inform people who actually occupy the country.
I don't know if it has been mentioned but this isn't just about the internet.
One major reason why the telecoms (especially Comcast) want this is to reduce competition.
Right now Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc.. are trying to supplant cable providers for entertainment. You don't need a cable box, or a subscription to gain access (legally) to any media that you can find on television. Comcast doesn't want to have to compete on a fair field with internet media providers.
Net neutrality gives them the opportunity to squeeze out anyone they want, out of any market they want, by simply pricing them out of being competitive or consistently causing connection issues.
As an aside I haven't been able to get the comments on the FCC site to work...?
I just hope if it does happen, it spurs Google and the other corporate opponents to net neutrality to invest in the internet 2-3.0. Google's purchase of a drone manufacturer in combination with Google Fiber shows they are certainly interested in using them to just tell Comcast to suck it.
On June 04 2014 01:53 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't know if it has been mentioned but this isn't just about the internet.
One major reason why the telecoms (especially Comcast) want this is to reduce competition.
Right now Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc.. are trying to supplant cable providers for entertainment. You don't need a cable box, or a subscription to gain access (legally) to any media that you can find on television. Comcast doesn't want to have to compete on a fair field with internet media providers.
Net neutrality gives them the opportunity to squeeze out anyone they want, out of any market they want, by simply pricing them out of being competitive or consistently causing connection issues.
As an aside I haven't been able to get the comments on the FCC site to work...?
I just hope if it does happen, it spurs Google and the other corporate opponents to net neutrality to invest in the internet 2-3.0. Google's purchase of a drone manufacturer in combination with Google Fiber shows they are certainly interested in using them to just tell Comcast to suck it.
This link may help to explain why the comments were down.
On June 04 2014 00:24 SmoKim wrote: For those who are new to this and why it is a (HUGE!) issue, here is a fun yet informative video on the basics of Net Neutrality
If you visit sites like BoingBoing, Digg, Upworthy, and Vimeo this morning, you'll probably see some strange behavior such as a strategically placed spinning icon meant to mimic a slow-loading site. The little JavaScript widgets are all part of Wednesday's Internet Slowdown Day—a digital day of action meant to draw attention to the perils of an Internet without net neutrality.
Doesn't the FCC say they won't allow for fast and slow lanes? The FCC hopes to balance paid prioritization by requiring minimum service levels for basic high-speed Internet service. One obvious problem is the FCC's view of what basic speeds are acceptable could fail to match up with what Internet users expect from their ISPs, and could fail to keep pace with increasing broadband speeds over time.
Which websites are participating on Wednesday?
Notable participating web companies include:
Automattic (the company behind WordPress.com), Boing Boing Cheezburger Digg Dwolla Etsy Fark Foursquare iFixit imgur Kickstarter Mozilla Namecheap The Nation Netflix reddit Upworthy Urban Dictionary Vimeo