FCC votes to regulate the internet

[bicker]

"The FCC has overstepped its bounds and we intend to put a bridle on them and rein them in," said Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), expressing the views of the new Republican leadership on key FCC oversight committees.

Walden, incoming chair of the House Communications Subcommittee, was joined by Energy & Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Communications Subcommittee Vice Chairman Lee Terry and committee/subcommittee member Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) in pledging to get all the commissioners to the Hill to explain the move, while at the same time the legislators would work to overturn it by any legislative means necessary.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ar..._Leaders_Vow_to_Block_Net_Neutrality_Vote.php

 

[MarkBarbieri]

A couple of other opinions in opposition:

Representative Marsha Blackburn on RealClear Politics
FCC Commissioner Meredith Baker in the Washington Post

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Nevermind...DH (my computer guru, IT master) has explained it to me. It seems to be in his opinion "A good thing".

So did my dh and he works for the Deathstar.

 

[Jennasis]

So did my dh and he works for the Deathstar.

No way! That's awesome. My hubby works on the Enterprise!

 

[LuvOrlando]

I suppose anything is possible, but I don't really see the connection. This regulation effectively says, "All content must be let through." It's essentially the opposite of what someone seeking to avoid embarrassment would put forward.

I must be getting jaded as I get older because I have been noticing more and more often how people will tell blatant lies to get in the door and once they get into the house feel they have the license to trash it anyway they see fit. Once called out on their behavior bureaucrats like to say "Oh, but you invited me in, how can you tie my hands now?" No-one likes guests like that

 

[CaliforniaDreamin]

I'm, of course, opposed to the FCC acting in direct contradiction to the will of Congress, but putting that aside, it should be noted tthe hyperbole-laden (and unnecessarily vague) missive from thehat this isn't the catastophe unsurprisingly clueless Phil Kerpen, on the Fox News website.

Ha, you noticed that, too? You could base a movie of the week on that script

 

[FireDancer]

As any heavy consumer would be. However, there is no defense for your objection, other than just getting something for nothing.

I am paying for my bandwidth which is all I should be paying for, not what is sent over it. They are accepting my online payment every month so I am not getting something for nothing. The internet isn't and should never be a utility like water or electricity and should not be metered as such. I am willing to pay for my pipe, not the traffic sent over it.

If I am paying for 2Mbit/s down then I should be able to be pulling the entire 2Mbit of my paid for bandwidth through that pipe for every second of the month. If I want more (ie higher bandwidth) I will pay the increased charge for 5Mbit/s and at that point I should be able to be saturating that pipe for every second of the month with 5Mbit of data because I have paid for it.

 

[bicker]

I am paying for my bandwidth which is all I should be paying for, not what is sent over it.

That's like paying for how fast your gasoline tank fills up, instead of paying for how much gasoline you put into the tank.

They are accepting my online payment every month so I am not getting something for nothing.

The context of the discussion, though, is how the terms and conditions and the offerings themselves may change in the future.

The internet isn't and should never be a utility like water or electricity and should not be metered as such.

Again, says you. However, again, that's a perspective that simply places consumption over all other considerations, including employment, and economic growth, both of which are considered far higher in priority by practically everyone.

 

[DWGal210]

But still unanswered:

What costs does the provider have that should be passed along to the consumer?? That I still don't understand.

 

[bicker]

But still unanswered:

What costs does the provider have that should be passed along to the consumer?? That I still don't understand.

Actually, I did answer that earlier.

Pricing isn't about how much things cost - it is about how much they're worth to the consumer. Only suckers, and not-for-profits, charge based on cost.

Regardless, there is a difference in cost. The more folks use broadband for heavy data, the bigger the infrastructure needs to be to support that usage. Building the infrastructure up costs money, and maintaining a larger infrastructure costs more money than maintaining a smaller infrastructure.

Regardless, that's irrelevant. All that matters is that consumers derive that much value from what's offered. ISPs are commercial enterprises, not charities.

​

This is a very critical point: If you expect your service providers to simply pass their costs along to you, then you're going to be very disappointed living anywhere other than in a socialist economy. Here in the United States, there are two economic objectives that our government pursues above all others, regardless of which party is in charge: Employment and capital growth. That has shaped our consumer marketplace, and the tenets by which it operates.

 

[FireDancer]

Again, says you. However, again, that's a perspective that simply places consumption over all other considerations, including employment, and economic growth, both of which are considered far higher in priority by practically everyone.

The introduction of real competition into the marketplace will take care of that, not giving more money to the monopolies that currently provide the Internet to most people. We have had an all you can eat Internet for a long time now and have still managed to grow and innovate.

The Internet is vastly different today than in 1997 and that has all growth and innovation happened without placing a meter on my router.

 

[bicker]

I think that there's a difference, now, though. The changing that is happening in Internet usage represents far more orders of magnitude impact on infrastructure than changes in Internet usage had in past years. We've gone from talking about Megs to Gigs very very fast. Also, much of broadband deployment was paid for with subscription television and telephone revenues - so these changes in the marketplace are essentially "biting the hand that feeds you". This explains why things won't go forward in the same direction that they had been going up to now.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

The introduction of real competition into the marketplace will take care of that, not giving more money to the monopolies that currently provide the Internet to most people. We have had an all you can eat Internet for a long time now and have still managed to grow and innovate.

The Internet is vastly different today than in 1997 and that has all growth and innovation happened without placing a meter on my router.

None of this will be news to you, but I am going to post it anyway.

The industry will find it very difficult to switch to a metered market for corporate America (especially those with secure, end to end, networks), but I could see it happening for home use. Many ISPs feel that they have sold one thing, only to have that thing manipulated over time. In other words, they felt that they sold a data connection, and now that connection streams a whole lot more content than data. An example - my cable provider sells me a data circuit, and I use it for everything, including voice. With the advent of free VoIP solutions, my cable company is no longer able to charge me for a phone, and it galls them. They want to get paid for that type of content, and the government is saying that they can't. Their only option is to change the way that they price their goods. If they do as bicker has suggested (which would only be a decision to follow the lead of wireless providers), they will stop selling bandwidth and start selling metered data transmission.

 

[bicker]

I think we really need to throw down a challenge to anyone who thinks they can make more money doing things differently than the manner in which ISPs wish to do things, going forward, in light of the "manipulation" of what ISPs have been offering, which DisneyBamaFan alluded to - manipulation typified in the switching of television video traffic from cable and satellite broadcast to Internet video. If you think you can make more money the way you want to sell service, then build your own network - don't co-op the network that investors in ISPs paid for. That kind of interference in free enterprise is simply inappropriate in the United States.

A lot of municipalities and not-for-profits have considered the idea of offering a consumer-oriented broadband service, but they've mostly all abandoned the idea - not because of the competition from the incumbents but because they don't see financial viability pricing the service the way consumers would want the service priced.

 

[FireDancer]

None of this will be news to you, but I am going to post it anyway.

The industry will find it very difficult to switch to a metered market for corporate America (especially those with secure, end to end, networks), but I could see it happening for home use. Many ISPs feel that they have sold one thing, only to have that thing manipulated over time. In other words, they felt that they sold a data connection, and now that connection streams a whole lot more content than data. An example - my cable provider sells me a data circuit, and I use it for everything, including voice. With the advent of free VoIP solutions, my cable company is no longer able to charge me for a phone, and it galls them. They want to get paid for that type of content, and the government is saying that they can't. Their only option is to change the way that they price their goods. If they do as bicker has suggested (which would only be a decision to follow the lead of wireless providers), they will stop selling bandwidth and start selling metered data transmission.

I think the bolded is the crux of what I mean. I consider data data so unless they find a way to jam merchandise through that fiber and copper all they are sending is data. When I talk about not discriminating against data types what I mean is that the ISP shouldn't care if that data is a phone call, a television show, an email, or a Disboards post. A bit is just a bit. That is what I mean when I talk about net neutrality.

If the ISPs were divorced from the content providers like cable companies (and if the NBC Comcast merger goes through Networks) a lot of this push to classify certain data as premium would end IMO.

We'll see what happens I guess.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I think the bolded is the crux of what I mean. I consider data data so unless they find a way to jam merchandise through that fiber and copper all they are sending is data. When I talk about not discriminating against data types what I mean is that the ISP shouldn't care if that data is a phone call, a television show, an email, or a Disboards post. A bit is just a bit. That is what I mean when I talk about net neutrality.

If the ISPs were divorced from the content providers like cable companies (and if the NBC Comcast merger goes through Networks) a lot of this push to classify certain data as premium would end IMO.

We'll see what happens I guess.

Oh, I agree with you, but I know that these ISP tend to be large conglomerates that are losing business to the very data pipes that they once sold with no thought of the future. They now face their own shortsightedness. I will not try to guess the future, but "unlimited data" is getting phased out by wireless carriers. They have learned, and they are willing to lose customers to make the change.

 

[bicker]

When I talk about not discriminating against data types what I mean is that the ISP shouldn't care if that data is a phone call, a television show, an email, or a Disboards post. A bit is just a bit. That is what I mean when I talk about net neutrality.

No one is suggesting that they're going to do any kind of packet-type discrimination. You're yet-again raising a red herring.

If the ISPs were divorced from the content providers like cable companies (and if the NBC Comcast merger goes through Networks) a lot of this push to classify certain data as premium would end IMO.

How about we push through regulations to regulate this issue if anyone ever actually discriminates on the basis of the kind of data it is, in the future?

In a broader sense, we need to keep comments like "I don't want..." on the part of a consumer on context. When you say something like that, what you're saying is that you don't want to do businesses with the broadband service providers who choose to package their offering in a different manner. That's surely your prerogative, but it would be up to you to find some other supplier willing to make you offerings on your terms or live without service entirely. A contract requires agreement on both sides; otherwise, walk away and don't do business with each other.

 

[FireDancer]

No one is suggesting that they're going to do any kind of packet-type discrimination. You're yet-again raising a red herring.

How about we push through regulations to regulate this issue if anyone ever actually discriminates on the basis of the kind of data it is, in the future?

I know that at least on provider was throttling BitTorrent traffic. I'd have to go back and look up who it was but I think it was Comcast.

And just because at the moment there aren't ISPs doing that kind of discrimination doesn't mean they haven't had meetings in which they talked about the possibility of doing so. I think if Comcast could only provide Hulu to you as a customer if you paid for an Internet package that includes Hulu they would and that is what I want to prepare against now, not after it happens. When you pay for a connection to the Internet that connection should be to everything on the Internet and I don't want to see some content excluded on an ISP level because you didn't buy a package.

I have no problem with Hulu charging me for access on their end, I do have a problem with an ISP charging for it when they should just be a common carrier of bits, not a gatekeeper.

We can agree to disagree, I'm not trying to convince anyone, just stating my opinion.

 

[bicker]

I know that at least on provider was throttling BitTorrent traffic.

Key word: "Was." It has been made clear that that won't fly. No one is doing it anymore. And if anyone does, we can pass a regulation to prohibit it. It wasn't necessary though: The market took care of it without government intervention.

I have no problem with Hulu charging me for access on their end, I do have a problem with an ISP charging for it when they should just be a common carrier of bits, not a gatekeeper.

Well, again, you're raising a red herring.

We can agree to disagree, I'm not trying to convince anyone, just stating my opinion.

As long as we're clear what we're disagreeing about (i.e., whether this is a real issue or a red herring).

 

[FireDancer]

Well, again, you're raising a red herring.

Maybe but I would rather preclude that possibility before it is implemented than let it happen first and try to deal with it after the fact.

Just because the ISPs got caught once and stopped doesn't mean they may not try it again. I would much rather preclude that kind of traffic manipulation before it is considered than sit here and say well it hasn't happened so it never will. It is time to be proactive and not reactive.