After the Net Neutrality Travesty, I'm Convinced

"Wheelerguy" (wheelerguy) 02/27/2015 at 04:27 • Filed to: None

2

15

Yep. Fuck Big Telecom. Hell, fuck all of Corporate America. Fuck the whole lot of them that go to the boardroom and talk bottom line. They're gonna sue the FCC for "pandering to Peasant America", they're gonna win, and they'll gonna force to pay two hundred million times more money than they're doing now just to post on Oppo. Oh, and they're gonna take down Hola VPN, pulverize its assets, assassinate the ones that made it, and they're gonna make Republicans pass internet restrictions that would make Bernie, The Devil Incarnate proud.

But I'm in the Philippines, where the internet is working relatively fine. Or will it?

Have a fixed Gallardo GT3 and a Murcielago R-SV for your troubles.

Now, is there anyone working at an ISP to provide their side to this lonely story?

All Motor Is Best Motor > Wheelerguy 02/27/2015 at 05:09

4

What blows my mind is all these dumbass fuckwits (yes I said it) who think the net neutrality being passed is a bad thing . They've been brainwashed by other dumbass fuckwits (yes I said it again) who proclaim "BOO, MORE GOVERNMENT POWER = BAD" when they don't realize the only thing stopping the consumer from being entirely fucked over in this case IS the government. The FCC is a very good thing for this country. Do they censor live TV and radio? Sure, but they are also fighting to make the internet a much better place. Anyone who argues otherwise should go shoot themselves in the crotch.

davedave1111 > All Motor Is Best Motor 02/27/2015 at 05:28

3

Of course it's a bad thing. Are you including the EFF in your group of fuckwits, because even they've come out against the regulations now they've noticed the hooks inside the bait.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015…

This blogpost touches on the issues in a little more depth.

http://hemiposterical.blogspot.pt/2015/02/net-ne…

And that's not even talking about the ludicrous travesty of a 'fix' for a problem caused by over-regulation (or just bad regulations) in the first place. Nowhere else in the world has the same problems as the US in this regard, so it's clearly a matter of the regulatory structure.

samssun > All Motor Is Best Motor 02/27/2015 at 07:09

3

Specifically how are they "fighting to make the internet a much better place" by piling on 1930s utility regulation to the freest information exchange system ever developed? Utilities do not innovate, they are commoditized goods locked into a rigid way of doing business by endless dictates.

My cell phone bill is 30% taxes. My electric and gas bills have 10+ "franchise fees", "distribution taxes", and "universal service fees", 70 years after that goal was accomplished, because government does not let go of anything it gets power over.

You have the control freaks at the FCC saying they aren't going to apply price or content controls, but of course maintain the power to do so. You have Hillary on record decrying the amount of unapproved information available, and every professional victimhood group drooling over getting speech they don't like banned.

Do you really want to take what's currently a pretty open system and submit it to political whims? Would you as a business owner sink capital into innovation with piles of regs and taxes looming, or would you just leave things as-is, cut costs to the bone, spend more on defensive lobbying, and pass on the fees to the customer?

treesmakewater > All Motor Is Best Motor 02/27/2015 at 07:26

2

im usually against more government power. That being said, we as a people needed this ruling for a long time.

McMike > Wheelerguy 02/27/2015 at 07:35

0

Can't be unseen.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > davedave1111 02/27/2015 at 08:07

2

But at the same time, our under-regulation has caused us to have some of the highest prices for internet service while also having some of the fewest options. I get that we have fewer people serviced for any given investment of infrastructure, but couple that with some pretty low speeds overall (google fiber boosts up our average a LOT) and we do need a net neutrality ruling to prevent the price fixing and monopolies that happen. Cable TV monopolies are bad enough as it is. But most people maybe one option for broadband internet. And if you have fewer choices, it's likely that you pay a crapton for it because it's the only game in town.

Look up Time Warner Cable. May God have mercy on your soul if it's the only choice you have. And here's the kicker - you NEED internet now. It is a utility now. TV is not. But without access to the internet, you're pretty well hosed as an individual. To scuttle this whole idea simply because of a passage in the bill sent for a vote is absurd. Critique the vagueness of that part all you want, but the alternative to that bill not passing is bad. We can continue to expect companies like comcast and time warner to do dick-all about making these services better because they have effective monopolies in most markets. Yes, it is a side-effect of our low population density. But again - it is a necessary service that you need. Hence why your utilities are regulated as they are. So it doesn't cost half a million dollars to get power to farm houses.

Afterburner > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/27/2015 at 09:04

0

You don't NEED the internet unless you've structured your life around it. This is a common decree, and its driving me crazy. I get along just fine without internet or cable at my home. Its all over the city for free plus or minus a cup of coffee.

crowmolly > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/27/2015 at 09:16

0

Just to offer a different perspective:

Low population density is a big deal. FiOS is pretty modern technology but it still isn't piped to many houses in population-dense states because they won't make the money back for many, many years.

There is certainly a ton of corporate greed involved, especially when coax lines have been in place for 30+ years and have been paid for many times over. However expanding a network is a huge and expensive undertaking and the payoff is very slow over time. Monopolies suck as a consumer because you're stuck paying a ridiculous price with equally ridiculous service. But in some cases that's the only way you have service at all, as the telecom company would never make such a shitty investment without a guarantee of payback.

This is also why there are a TON of Americans with well water and septic tanks. There's no WAY the utility bills would even pay maintenance costs, let alone initial investment of a water and sewer grid.

I am hoping that something can come out of this that somewhat resembles a meeting in the middle. They need to get paid to maintain and expand, but there's no reason for so much dicking around with services offered and raising rates.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Afterburner 02/27/2015 at 09:59

0

.....So your life is structured around easy internet access in any coffee shop. Great! You're in an area that isn't nearly as affected by this issue because you have options upon options. But the vast majority of homes have limited options and the companies that service them have monopolies on those markets and treat their customers accordingly. Withholding speed, jacking up rates, poor customer service, terrible service time estimates......don't buy the BS that those prices are caused by government regulations. They aren't. They are actually quite lightly regulated. They just take advantage of their sole position for most marketplaces.

And going back to my point of it being a necessity - sure YOU might not use the internet that much. Great. Enjoy yourself. But to get a job? To buy most things at a lower price? To participate in groups and clubs? Education? You need a reliable source of internet or you face being at a disadvantage without it and it is much more cost effective, even at the higher rates, to have that access be at home (mobile data is FAR too expensive and limited for most people so no, that isn't a viable competitor to home internet)

Tohru > Wheelerguy 02/27/2015 at 10:01

1

I work at an ISP. I do sales. I wish we could get more competition. Where I live I only have one choice for Internet (not the ISP I work for) and for 20Mb up/5Mb down it costs $85/mo.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > crowmolly 02/27/2015 at 10:08

0

I'm well aware it is a big deal, that's why I said it over and over. And in countries like Korea, the infrastructure is set up so that a few providers often share the infrastructure. So say you get "wired up" by one provider.....You can switch providers and still use that same hookup that was provided in the first place. So I understand why S. Korea is the world leader for affordable, lightning fast internet - they literally built up their modern infrastructure around it.

The idea behind this bill (not necessarily the wording) is twofold - first off, it is designed to prevent price fixing while also ensuring that low population areas get serviced. Secondly, it is meant to stop these providers picking and choosing and playing favorites with who gets to use their service. I highlighted this with someone else in a real world example - comcast vs. netflix. Comcast reduced speeds for netflix to free up speed. Comcast said they would increase netflix's speeds back to "normal" if Netflix agreed to pay them a bunch of money. Meanwhile, Comcast got burned a few years back when customers paid for the highest speed package but were treated with speeds not that much faster than the lower tiers. Sometimes it would be fast, other times it wouldn't. But comcast basically said "Oh, well when we said you get XX mb/s, we really mean 'sometimes you can get as fast as XX' but we make no promises that you'll consistently get it". Whether or not they got dinged for false advertising by the courts, I don't recall. But to counter net neutrality, these companies are firing back and lobbying for laws that would effectively free them up to do these things and have legal backing.

crowmolly > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/27/2015 at 10:23

0

Trust me, I am with you on just about all of that. I have a dislike for Comcast's BS that I can't even describe. It is far worse than typical consumer BS. Dealing with them on a corporate infrastructure level was a flat out nightmare.

Switching providers is fine if the lines are neutrally owned by the government or a joint effort but not so much if they are owned by a single company that may not exist as anything other than a zombie business entity.

Example.

Two years ago I switched our corporate telecom to a new provider.

Here's how it went down:

I used to approve the expenses for company A. They were my official "carrier" and my tech support when needed.

Company B actually owns the copper in my area since they planted and pole'd it. They rent use to company C, who rented to D, who merged with company E, that sold to company F who finally rented to my carrier, company A.

So all of those business entities were involved. At the end of the day Company B owns and maintains the lines so they need to get paid, even though Companies A, C, and F all sell service to customers using the B's lines.

This is the type of shit that needs to be sorted out. Company A especially has no right to fuck me if there's no investment cost to recover.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > crowmolly 02/27/2015 at 10:33

1

If that sort of situation can get sorted out and agreed on across the country, then there may yet be peace in the middle east in my lifetime. Sadly, I doubt either will happen. But for now we can take a few steps in a good direction and take it from there.

crowmolly > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/27/2015 at 10:39

0

I concur. Progress is progress no matter how small. I get that the companies need to be able to operate but there's no reason to be so awful to customers.

davedave1111 > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/28/2015 at 04:35

0

"But at the same time, our under-regulation has caused us to have some of the highest prices for internet service while also having some of the fewest options."

Where on earth do you get the idea that's a symptom of under-regulation? It's a classic sign of monopoly-via-regulation.

"And if you have fewer choices, it's likely that you pay a crapton for it because it's the only game in town."

Absolutely. And the FCC hands out - or rather, doesn't hand out - licenses to possible upstart competitors. They're the ones who create the monopolies you're complaining about.

"To scuttle this whole idea simply because of a passage in the bill sent for a vote is absurd."

Did anyone do that? I must have missed it. Highlighting a particularly egregious example is not the same as saying it's the only example.

"We can continue to expect companies like comcast and time warner to do dick-all about making these services better because they have effective monopolies in most markets. Yes, it is a side-effect of our low population density. "

No, it simply isn't. That's easily provable by looking at other countries around the world with similar lack of population density. For god's sake, the Ukraine has better internet than you do - or at least, it did before the war started - and significantly lower population density.

The ISPs in the US don't just have _effective_ monopolies, they have actual, regulator-mandated monopolies.

Even if that's not a good enough argument not to give the current regulator more power, I think a lot of people are failing to realise just what a ludicrous degree of power the FCC will have if this is ever passed. Instant promotion to the second most powerful body in the US, ahead of the two Houses? Creation of a nationwide censor not subject to any oversight? That's an insane response to the problem of slow Netflicks. Anyone would think bureaucrats were known for attempting to expand their power base whenever possible, or something.