Social Feed

Jackonearth said:

Then why did the ISPs fight so hard to kill net neutrality?

Click to expand...

I'm still not clear on why they think it was worth the money.

ncted said:

I'm still not clear on why they think it was worth the money.

Click to expand...

It was the complying with the onerous regulations that cost them money

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

Juan said:

It was the complying with the onerous regulations that cost them money

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

Click to expand...

I assume you are joking, unless you mean the regulation preventing them from overcharging people just because they could is onerous, in which case, that is a matter of opinion. Honestly, the existing provision that allowed zero rating seemed like it was all they really needed. No one was telling them they couldn't cap data usage or charge big consumers more. The US version of Net Neutrality is/was so neutered (see what I did there?), the only reason it seems like they fought NN was because they thought it was something they should do, not because it was costing them any money, or preventing them from building and managing their networks. It is as if the people ultimately responsible for the Internet at this point have no clue how it actually works. All they understand is some kind of feudal worldview.

They claimed they didn't want to be regulated under Title II. Fine, give back all those billions of dollars in Title II money you took to build your networks, and we'll give it to someone who is willing to not prioritize traffic for money.

ncted said:

I assume you are joking, unless you mean the regulation preventing them from overcharging people just because they could is onerous, in which case, that is a matter of opinion. Honestly, the existing provision that allowed zero rating seemed like it was all they really needed. No one was telling them they couldn't cap data usage or charge big consumers more. The US version of Net Neutrality is/was so neutered (see what I did there?), the only reason it seems like they fought NN was because they thought it was something they should do, not because it was costing them any money, or preventing them from building and managing their networks. It is as if the people ultimately responsible for the Internet at this point have no clue how it actually works. All they understand is some kind of feudal worldview.

They claimed they didn't want to be regulated under Title II. Fine, give back all those billions of dollars in Title II money you took to build your networks, and we'll give it to someone who is willing to not prioritize traffic for money.

Click to expand...

No..they were regulating it like traditional phone service..creating tariffs and other taxes...end result would be subscriber paying more for less service

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

Juan said:

No..they were regulating it like traditional phone service..creating tariffs and other taxes...end result would be subscriber paying more for less service

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

Click to expand...

Title II allows states and municipalities to assess taxes on the service (i.e. to us customers), yes, but that does not equal less service (broadband investment and last-mile speeds actually increased after NN went into effect). The FCC however, had imposed no taxes or tariffs, nor did they express any intention to do so.

If the telcos had said we don't want to be regulated under Title II, then they never should have accepted the government handout to build their networks in the first place. That is kind of how things are supposed to work with government and public money, by the way. The government collects taxes, which they they use to make things better in some way for the populace (building the Internet in this case) by contracting companies to do the work per the standards and specifications the government decides on. It isn't like Verizon and AT&T just decided to do this all on their own. The initial capital costs were too high. We paid them to do it, and everything was fine until they got greedy and decided to throw out decades of established procedure for dealing with bandwidth increases at peering points to extort money from Netflix and others (who were already paying their ISPs for their bandwidth BTW), that NN became necessary for the FCC to require. Before that, it was the defacto standard. It is the effing Tragedy of the Commons all over again.

ncted said:

Title II allows states and municipalities to assess taxes on the service (i.e. to us customers), yes, but that does not equal less service (broadband investment and last-mile speeds actually increased after NN went into effect). The FCC however, had imposed no taxes or tariffs, nor did they express any intention to do so.

If the telcos had said we don't want to be regulated under Title II, then they never should have accepted the government handout to build their networks in the first place. That is kind of how things are supposed to work with government and public money, by the way. The government collects taxes, which they they use to make things better in some way for the populace (building the Internet in this case) by contracting companies to do the work per the standards and specifications the government decides on. It isn't like Verizon and AT&T just decided to do this all on their own. The initial capital costs were too high. We paid them to do it, and everything was fine until they got greedy and decided to throw out decades of established procedure for dealing with bandwidth increases at peering points to extort money from Netflix and others (who were already paying their ISPs for their bandwidth BTW), that NN became necessary for the FCC to require. Before that, it was the defacto standard. It is the effing Tragedy of the Commons all over again.

Click to expand...

Wow..you just like paying higher rates

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

Juan said:

Wow..you just like paying higher rates

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

Click to expand...

No, I don't want a suit in an office deciding that I have to pay more to get Netflix than DirecTV Now or what have you just because of why my ISP might be. Getting rid of NN doesn't result in lower prices any more than having NN raises prices. The only thing that can be done to keep broadband prices low is competition.

I happen to be lucky and live someplace where I can get broadband from 3 different providers, each for less than $50/month (no contract). That same service elsewhere without competition costs more just because they can, not because it costs the ISPs any more. Of course, incumbent ISPs do their best to make sure there is no competition in their markets. I wouldn't be surprised if an investigation one day shows collusion between ISPs to stay out of each others' markets.

You know one of the side effects of NN? It makes it easier for new companies to get into the broadband market because they are guaranteed to get interconnects from the incumbents, with their traffic treated the same as everyone else's traffic traversing the existing networks. This is exactly the kind of thing the big telcos don't want to happen because it encourages competition.

People ask, "why should the big telcos allow competitor traffic to traverse their network without charging a premium?" The answer is simple. When the government invented the Internet, along with those same telcos, that is how it was designed. If they didn't want it setup that way, why did they build it that way?

ncted said:

When the government invented the Internet

Click to expand...

I thought Al Gore invented the internet

comfortably_numb said:

I thought Al Gore invented the internet

Click to expand...

Actually, while the original ARPANET was a government funded and developed project, the internet today is mostly due to the hard work of members of the IEEE standards committees, particularly the 802 working group. This is made up of a collection of commercial, government, educational and private members.

Zookster said:

BREAKING NEWS: Senate votes to overturn Ajit Pai's net neutrality repeal
Unfortunately, the thin margin means it has little chance in the House.

Click to expand...

And it would have to be signed by the President.

jayn_j said:

Actually, while the original ARPANET was a government funded and developed project, the internet today is mostly due to the hard work of members of the IEEE standards committees, particularly the 802 working group. This is made up of a collection of commercial, government, educational and private members.

Click to expand...

It wasnt the senator from Tennessee?

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

Juan said:

It wasnt the senator from Tennessee?

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

Click to expand...

Senator Albert Gore, Jr. authored the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991, commonly referred to as "The Gore Bill", after hearing the 1988 concept for a National Research Network submitted to Congress by a group chaired by Leonard Kleinrock. The bill was passed on 9 December 1991 and led to the National Information Infrastructure (NII) which Al Gore called the information superhighway.