OT - Net Neutrality

[johnnygoodman]

Howdy,

Since we're OT, and there's a moderator on this forum, and its not me, I will do a thing I've long wanted to around here and give my opinion!

People talk about the free market without specifying if they are including natural monopolies or not.

Say there's one set of railroad tracks, one tollway or similar. There's no hope of another set going next to it, the costs are beyond the free market to pay. This is a natural monopoly. It offers a thing you want/need and competitors in a free market can't duplicate it.

A natural monopoly seems different to me than a true free market. In a true free market, if you don't like the service from Widget Seller A, you can go across the street to Widget Seller B. Not so with the internet.

We're talking as if we just deregulated a natural monopoly would turn into a true free market. As if internet deregulation is the same as airline deregulation. I can go across the terminal to pick an new airline but I can't do that to get internet. There's one, and building a second in parallel is beyond the free market to pay.

So if we have one of a thing, and we want it, and we can't have the free market work on it as we enjoy with many other products and services, what do we do?

I think we make it neutral and let the free market work through it by ensuring that the cost of accessing users and customers is equal to the scrappy start ups and the huge internet giants alike. We have worked like that in the last decade and we've seen amazing progress and innovations. There's someone right now coming up with the next big thing, when they go to bring it to market, I don't want an internet company with a natural monopoly saying "So...you can reach these users at standard speed, that'll be $1000 a month".

As a user, I don't want to buy the "Netflix, Amazon, Spotify" plan and be restricted into these monolith services. If SomeNewService comes out, I want switching costs to be low. I want what the internet promised, a free marketplace of ideas. I've had it, I like it and I want to keep it.

I admit that internet speeds and service in America are poor. I forgive the speeds because there's so much land to cover in America. Service is poor in my mind because they know they are the only game in town. This seems to my mind to be similar pattern to the only game in town problem we have in the CPAP space.

I don't what bright new thing deregulation of a natural monopoly brings us. I see a lot of downsides and restrictions of freedom possible though.

Lastly, I really don't get why conservative Republicans are against this policy. I really wonder if they would be had it been enacted under President Bush. It seems to me because President Obama was at the helm they are duty bound to consider it a bad idea. I wish they'd take a moment and think it over. This is a pro small business, open access policy. It keeps market free and the US competitive. It increases free speech and local control and power. It is a big policy in favor of local people and institutions. I really don't get it and I have to break with the conservative side of the spectrum on this one.

Only governments can effectively trust bust and manage natural monopolies. They don't do much we need, but we do need them for this.

I support network neutrality.

Johnny

[DreamStalker]

For or against ... I still don't think it makes a "net" (pun intended ) difference unless we replace the government of the corporate monopolies, by the corporate monopolies, for the corporate monopolies.

[Wulfman...]

Howdy,

<snip)

I support network neutrality.

Johnny

Some "light" reading for you, Johnny.........
This is a confusing subject and much of the dialog from both sides seems to be convoluted. ( Is anybody surprised? )

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/33 ... singenuous

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles ... 10247.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/fredcampbe ... f455583745

https://fee.org/articles/goodbye-net-ne ... mpetition/

Neutrality was Deceptive

But when you look closely at the effects, the reality was exactly the opposite. Net neutrality closed down market competition by generally putting government and its corporate backers in charge of deciding who can and cannot play in the market. It erected barriers to entry for upstart firms while hugely subsidizing the largest and most well-heeled content providers.

https://cei.org/content/point-net-neutr ... -consumers

http://www.theblaze.com/podcasts/net-ne ... ly-neutral


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Vinton Cerf, a co-inventor of the Internet Protocol and current vice president of Google, argues that the Internet was designed without any authorities controlling access to new content or new services.[146] He concludes that the principles responsible for making the Internet such a success would be fundamentally undermined were broadband carriers given the ability to affect what people see and do online.[128] Cerf has also written about the importance of looking at problems like Net Neutrality through a combination of the Internet's layered system and the multistakeholder model that governs it.[147] He shows how challenges can arise that can implicate Net Neutrality in certain infrastructure-based cases, such as when ISPs enter into exclusive arrangements with large building owners, leaving the residents unable to exercise any choice in broadband provider.[148]

Arguments against

Opponents of net neutrality regulations include Internet service providers (ISPs), broadband and telecommunications companies, computer hardware manufacturers, economists and notable technologists. Many of the major hardware and telecommunications companies specifically oppose the reclassification of broadband as a common carrier under Title II. Corporate opponents of this measure include Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, IBM, Intel, Cisco, Nokia, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Juniper, D-Link, Wintel, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Panasonic, Ericsson, and others.[85][166][167]

Nobel Memorial Prize-winning economist Gary Becker's paper titled, "Net Neutrality and Consumer Welfare", published by the Journal of Competition Law & Economics, argues that claims by net neutrality proponents "do not provide a compelling rationale for regulation" because there is "significant and growing competition" among broadband access providers.[168][169] Google Chairman Eric Schmidt states that, while Google views that similar data types should not be discriminated against, it is okay to discriminate across different data types—a position that both Google and Verizon generally agree on, according to Schmidt.[170][171] According to the Journal, when President Barack Obama announced his support for strong net neutrality rules late in 2014, Schmidt told a top White House official the president was making a mistake. Google has since supported net neutrality.[171]

Individuals who oppose net neutrality include TCP/IP inventor Bob Kahn,[172][173], Marc Andreessen,[174] Scott McNealy,[175] Peter Thiel,[168] David Farber,[176] Nicholas Negroponte,[177] Rajeev Suri,[178] Jeff Pulver,[179] John Perry Barlow,[180] Mark Cuban[181] and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.

Several civil rights groups, such as the National Urban League, Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH, and League of United Latin American Citizens, also oppose Title II net neutrality regulations,[182] who said that the call to regulate broadband Internet service as a utility would harm minority communities by stifling investment in underserved areas.[183][184]


http://www.dailywire.com/news/18613/7-r ... on-bandler

6. It's crony capitalism in favor of web giants like Facebook and Google. That's why they support net neutrality, since it targets their competitors.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... rnets-well

Google and Facebook are also the largest supporters of net neutrality, ostensible freedom fighters for the open Internet. Pull away the curtains on the high-minded rhetoric, though, and their corporate self-interest is plain. Well-capitalized Internet-service providers such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast are the only plausible rivals for their kind of dominance — and net neutrality applies only to ISPs, not to companies that run websites.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... nt-control


I'm against the so-called "net neutrality". I believe it is the opposite of what it's supposed to be and was created by Obama's big donors to rig the system in their favor. Things seemed to be working fine before it went into effect.


Den

.

[DreamStalker]

Howdy,

<snip)

I support network neutrality.

Johnny

... snip ...
I'm against the so-called "net neutrality". I believe it is the opposite of what it's supposed to be and was created by Obama's big donors to rig the system in their favor. Things seemed to be working fine before it went into effect.


Den

.

Hey Den!

Good to see you back.

I was for it before I was against it .... ... but now I realize it just don't matter cuz they already have us all by the short ones regardless of who is for or against it.

[Wulfman...]

Howdy,

<snip)

I support network neutrality.

Johnny

... snip ...
I'm against the so-called "net neutrality". I believe it is the opposite of what it's supposed to be and was created by Obama's big donors to rig the system in their favor. Things seemed to be working fine before it went into effect.


Den

.

Hey Den!

Good to see you back.

I was for it before I was against it .... ... but now I realize it just don't matter cuz they already have us all by the short ones regardless of who is for or against it.

Yeah, I hear ya!
They're also trying to put it under the FTC instead of the FCC. Will that help? Who knows, but I suppose if they screw it up, they can change things down the road.

I just thought it a little curious that Johnny would be in favor of it......considering the "heavy hitters" he has to deal with in his line of work (Resmed and Philips/Respironics), dictating things.......like the Internet goons could. A number of parallels could be drawn in those circumstances. Who you buy from, what quantities, how you can sell them, etc., etc., etc. And, if they don't like it, they can shut you down in a heartbeat.

Not necessarily "back", but felt the need to drop in and throw out some of the opinions on the other side of this issue.
I had been reading for quite some time that it was being portrayed as the opposite of what it was being sold as, so I decided to do some further research after I saw this thread posted.


Den

.

[jnk...]

It got to a point on cpaptalk.com that a more active moderator was needed to keep bullies from abusing the bandwidth of the forum. It may, or may not, have got to that point for the internet as a whole. I have no idea. I'm not well-enough informed to know.

Reading the ancient history of AT&T makes it even more confusing to figure out how a government decides when it is best to foster or hinder any given monopoly or set of monopolies for the interests of all parties involved.

I think Henley put it best: "The more I know, the less I understand."

[DreamStalker]

It got to a point on cpaptalk.com that a more active moderator was needed to keep bullies from abusing the bandwidth of the forum. It may, or may not, have got to that point for the internet as a whole. I have no idea. I'm not well-enough informed to know.

Reading the ancient history of AT&T makes it even more confusing to figure out how a government decides when it is best to foster or hinder any given monopoly or set of monopolies for the interests of all parties involved.

I think Henley put it best: "The more I know, the less I understand."

Not much to know really except that understanding it is easy peasy ... the government and corporate monopolies are FOR their own interests and AGAINST ours.

It's all good for Bezos ... he just joined the $100,000,000 club to rule the world with Gates! Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

[jnk...]

My point is that there are times when experts seem truly to believe that fostering a monopoly is the best way to achieve growth, standardization, universal access, efficiency, and functional innovation. Then the same experts may later decide the exact opposite for the exact same reasons. Utilities are strange birds that way. When you let fly and when you clip wings seems to be timing thing, in practice.

[Wulfman...]

Dreamstalker,

I think you need to add three more zeros to that Bezos figure. You only have one hundred MILLION and it should be BILLION.
A billion here and a billion there.......pretty soon it adds up to REAL money.


Den

.

[DreamStalker]

Dreamstalker,

I think you need to add three more zeros to that Bezos figure. You only have one hundred MILLION and it should be BILLION.
A billion here and a billion there.......pretty soon it adds up to REAL money.


Den

.

Indeed ... it should be 100 BILLION! Damn keyboard always hitting the submit button before I finish.

RE: Johnny's post (maybe we can get him to come back and explain more of himself.

From Johnny’s perspective (if I understood correctly), the railroad monopolies of the mid-1800’s were a good thing to conquer and tame the vast North American interior continent … good for the capitalistic European invaders but not so good for the local native populations I suppose (same was true for most continents and their native populations).

And now the internet is much like the railroad tracks of the late 1800’s … and we are now the local natives ... but who are the invaders? Google? NSA? Putin? Bezos? DHS? China? ... and will history repeat itself for the local population?

[Wulfman...]

Dreamstalker,

I think you need to add three more zeros to that Bezos figure. You only have one hundred MILLION and it should be BILLION.
A billion here and a billion there.......pretty soon it adds up to REAL money.


Den

.

Indeed ... it should be 100 BILLION! Damn keyboard always hitting the submit button before I finish.

RE: Johnny's post (maybe we can get him to come back and explain more of himself.

From Johnny’s perspective (if I understood correctly), the railroad monopolies of the mid-1800’s were a good thing to conquer and tame the vast North American interior continent … good for the capitalistic European invaders but not so good for the local native populations I suppose (same was true for most continents and their native populations).

And now the internet is much like the railroad tracks of the late 1800’s … and we are now the local natives ... but who are the invaders? Google? NSA? Putin? Bezos? DHS? China? ... and will history repeat itself for the local population?

Yeah. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts ABSOLUTELY."

There are multiple "sides" to the "builders" of this country.......Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Morgan, Ford to name only a few.
I watched the series of episodes on the History Channel and found it quite fascinating. Some started with nothing, some had huge egos, some did very good things with their wealth. Keep in mind that much of that was before the concept of Income and Estate Taxes were created. Lots of their estates are now being supported by the taxpayers. Go figure.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Built_America

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2167393/


Den

.

[DreamStalker]

Dreamstalker,

I think you need to add three more zeros to that Bezos figure. You only have one hundred MILLION and it should be BILLION.
A billion here and a billion there.......pretty soon it adds up to REAL money.


Den

.

Indeed ... it should be 100 BILLION! Damn keyboard always hitting the submit button before I finish.

RE: Johnny's post (maybe we can get him to come back and explain more of himself.

From Johnny’s perspective (if I understood correctly), the railroad monopolies of the mid-1800’s were a good thing to conquer and tame the vast North American interior continent … good for the capitalistic European invaders but not so good for the local native populations I suppose (same was true for most continents and their native populations).

And now the internet is much like the railroad tracks of the late 1800’s … and we are now the local natives ... but who are the invaders? Google? NSA? Putin? Bezos? DHS? China? ... and will history repeat itself for the local population?

Yeah. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts ABSOLUTELY."

There are multiple "sides" to the "builders" of this country.......Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Morgan, Ford to name only a few.
I watched the series of episodes on the History Channel and found it quite fascinating. Some started with nothing, some had huge egos, some did very good things with their wealth. Keep in mind that much of that was before the concept of Income and Estate Taxes were created. Lots of their estates are now being supported by the taxpayers. Go figure.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Built_America

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2167393/


Den

.

Yep yep.

Maybe we just need more geeks

[DeepFriedDuck]

I don't buy the idea that we are talking about a natural monopoly. Here, I have the choice of cable, DSL and 4G wireless cell phone internet. We're playing one against the other and getting some decent contracts.

More options are coming. Don't regulate it. You'll kill innovation and new investment.

[Wulfman...]

I don't buy the idea that we are talking about a natural monopoly. Here, I have the choice of cable, DSL and 4G wireless cell phone internet. We're playing one against the other and getting some decent contracts.

More options are coming. Don't regulate it. You'll kill innovation and new investment.

The "access" to the Internet (including speed) is one issue, the "content" (where you can go) is another issue.


Den

.

[Goofproof]

I don't buy the idea that we are talking about a natural monopoly. Here, I have the choice of cable, DSL and 4G wireless cell phone internet. We're playing one against the other and getting some decent contracts.

More options are coming. Don't regulate it. You'll kill innovation and new investment.

The "access" to the Internet (including speed) is one issue, the "content" (where you can go) is another issue.


Den

.

And not everyone has a variety of those options; I want the speed I contract for, the no outside control of what I download or where I do it from, and the quantity of download I pay for or no cap. Mess with that, I'll find someone else to overcharge me, or I'll pull the plug. Don't believe it ask the Pig and Dish Network. Now all they get is to send me weekly dual offers, I will shred them the rest of my life! Their loss! $$$$$