& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
brooks7
50%
50%
brooks7,
User Rank: Light Sabre
3/3/2015 | 4:52:33 PM
Re: Title II is a Gigabit Killer
I think we can skip the whole we need more competition.  That is not a regulation issue.  It is a "There is nobody who is going to lay a whole new network issue."  Competition means that another set of wires is built to overlay the US.  

So, now we can talk about structural separation.

seven

 
kq4ym
50%
50%
kq4ym,
User Rank: Light Sabre
3/3/2015 | 3:49:57 PM
Re: Title II is a Gigabit Killer
The debate will continue for years of course, and the courts and regulator's office will be busy trying to sort through all the arguments. I suspect even though the "internet pioneers" have good arguments, it's going to be hard to stop the train quickly for those in agreement.
KBode
50%
50%
KBode,
User Rank: Light Sabre
3/3/2015 | 1:32:12 PM
Re: Title II is a Gigabit Killer
Absolutely. I would much prefer more competition, and I think net neutrality rules are a sad substitute. We definitely agree there.
cnwedit
50%
50%
cnwedit,
User Rank: Light Beer
3/3/2015 | 12:28:09 PM
Re: Title II is a Gigabit Killer
I think we can all agree that Net Neutralty is a good thing in that blocking content or discrimination is bad. 

Unfortunately, what the FCC has done will do nothing to promote competition. One think that KBode and I agree on is that competition is what would drive faster Internet access at more reasonable spaces and even - dare I say it - decent customer service. 

But that is not part of the NN debate, sadly. 
burn0050
50%
50%
burn0050,
User Rank: Light Bulb
3/3/2015 | 11:57:01 AM
Re: Title II is a Gigabit Killer
While I disagree with the decision to go all the way to Title II, I think net neutrality is a good thing. We are behind Estonia and Republic of Moldova in average broadband speeds! We INVENTED the internet, we should be at the top of the list for price/speed, but we are currently at 26, according to Netindex.

John Oliver et al never said "Go title II on their asses"; all they said was keep the internet neutral, and I would say they were informed. The broadband companies wanted to make more money, but in the process they were going to set up barriers to startups that wouldn't be able to afford to compete on the "high speed" tier.

The broadband companies have been screwing over american consumers and taxpayers for years. They have taken money and promised to install service and never done it - do we see that money refunded back? No. They have a slush fund collection that they've never used to provide real rural broadband.

The way things were going, there would be no competition for broadband services, because the incumbent players have been changing laws in their favor. Ma Bell was broken up because of monopoly. The we deregulated, and guess what? We are back down to 3 or 4 players, who have the markets sewn up.

If they had been playing fair, and not having the worst customer service on the planet, perhaps consumers wouldn't have gotten pissed enough to make this happen. 
KBode
50%
50%
KBode,
User Rank: Light Sabre
3/3/2015 | 11:52:43 AM
Re: Title II is a Gigabit Killer
"Ironically, I am by nature, on almost every other issue, part of the crowd crying for more regulation. So I'm surrounded by folks who love Net Neutrality. But when I ask them what "freeing the Internet" means, they don't really have a clue."

Yes, people who don't know what they're talking about is bad. I'd argue the lion's share of people on both sides of the issue have no idea what they're talking about. I think the "regulations are always bad -- full stop" folks are just as bad as the "save the Internet (even though I don't know what we're saving it from) folks. 

We obviously need to see the final rules, but everything I see so far is that these are going to be fairly modest regs that give HUGE leeway to all manner of business operations, only being used when an incumbent gatekeeper steps out of line. I think the hand wringing from Pulver and friends is totally detached from what's actually happening.

"As for revisiting this in a year, I don't think that is enough time. It will still be tied up in the courts. We won't know how this plays out for a few years yet."

We agree there, but my point would be the same. If these rules really are as horrible as the anti-regulation crowd believes they are, it should be pretty apparent in short order. If things stay the same (or improve) I assume they'll be quick to admit error? 

Anyway not trying to "twist your words," I've just spent the last two weeks listening to a lot of hyperbole about how evil "Obamacare for the Internet is." :)
cnwedit
50%
50%
cnwedit,
User Rank: Light Beer
3/3/2015 | 11:29:01 AM
Re: Title II is a Gigabit Killer
Okay, now I feel like you are twisting my words. I'm not saying everyone who believes in Title II is uninformed. You were the one who brought up the four million folks backing NN as a reason for its passage, not me. I'm talking about all the people who filled out form letters and sent them to the FCC because John Oliver or someone else told them to. 

Ironically, I am by nature, on almost every other issue, part of the crowd crying for more regulation. So I'm surrounded by folks who love Net Neutrality. But when I ask them what "freeing the Internet" means, they don't really have a clue.

Does Tim Wu -sure, and so does Tim Berners-Lee, another fan of the current decision. As for Google, I'm not sure they are as enthusiastic in their support as you might think. 

And killing off the Internet as a business tool is bad for everyone. The boom in video traffic is what drives folks to buy higher tier services and pay more for them. Do I think that Verizon, Comcast, et al, want to charge Netflix users more to get more bandwidth, lower latency, etc., Sure they do, they are greedy US businesses, just like Coca-Cola, GE, and Wal-Mart. 

As for revisiting this in a year, I don't think that is enough time. It will still be tied up in the courts. We won't know how this plays out for a few years yet. 
KBode
50%
50%
KBode,
User Rank: Light Sabre
3/3/2015 | 11:19:26 AM
Re: Title II is a Gigabit Killer
"But following the uniknformed masses doesn't make for good regulation."

Is Tim Wu uninformed? Is Google? Sprint? Netflix? Barbara van schewick? Dane Jasper? Public Knowledge? Tom Wheeler? Tucows? I think dismissing what happened as the uninfromed wanderings of lemmings out of touch with the issues isn't very fair -- or accurate.

"That's why I simply don't believe broadband ISPs were about to do anything to kill Internet growth - because it would be bad for their business."

On the contrary, double dipping on content providers is VERY good for business. So are heavy-handed usage caps, or things like AT&T Sponsored Data, which lets companies pay AT&T to get a leg up in the race against other app developers so that THEIR app is cap-exempt. Abusing your monopoly over the last mile is GREAT for business -- provided you're just clever enough to keep the PR blowback to a minimum.

"Wheeler himself wanted to go in that direction before Obama and the Oliver masses pushed him toward this solution."

Actually everybody was set on net neutrality rules in 2010, and Verizon sued to overturn them, resulting in the courts telling the FCC they needed to reclassify ISPs as common carriers if they wanted to impose net neutrality provisions able to withstand a lawsuit. After fielding input, Wheeler realized his "hybrid" approach would be on similarly legally unsound footing. Though it's worth remembering, if Verizon hadn't sued to overturn the 2010 rules (rules AT&T and Comcast actually liked), we wouldn't be in this particular situation. Blaming that all on John Oliver and friends just isn't accurate.

"And - this is probably the crux of our disagreement - imposing Title II rules doesn't strike me as "modest" regulation."

Perhaps we can revisit this in a year and make a tally of how much things have changed for companies trying to innovate. If the "regulation is always horrible" crowd is right, things should be in a pretty sorry state.

 






 
cnwedit
50%
50%
cnwedit,
User Rank: Light Beer
3/3/2015 | 10:40:17 AM
Re: Title II is a Gigabit Killer
With all due respect to John Oliver, most of the four million folks who "demanded" Net Neutrality don't really understand these issues. I give a lot of credit to the folks who were able to stir up that volume of effort. But following the uniknformed masses doesn't make for good regulation. That's why we try to put folks with some expertise on the regulatory bodies, versus electing them via popular vote.

And you can't deny that many of those same people inflaming the masses today were insistent back in the early 2000s that Netflix and Skype were at risk without rock-solid Net Neutrality provisions. Nothing happened on the regulatory front and those businesses thrived. 

That's why I simply don't believe broadband ISPs were about to do anything to kill Internet growth - because it would be bad for their business. 

And - this is probably the crux of our disagreement - imposing Title II rules doesn't strike me as "modest" regulation. There are other things that could have happened - granted they require Congressional action and that's damn near impossible these days - that wouldn't have been this drastic. Wheeler himself wanted to go in that direction before Obama and the Oliver masses pushed him toward this solution. 

As for knee jerk response, that's exactly how I characterize the "free the Internet" chant from those who don't know what they mean by that. My "knee jerk" response is about 15 years in the making. 
KBode
50%
50%
KBode,
User Rank: Light Sabre
3/3/2015 | 10:29:23 AM
Re: Title II is a Gigabit Killer
"In the 15 years that the FCC has been paying lip service, as you say, look at the dramatic innovation on the Internet side - businesses like Skype and Netflix have blossomed, as have a ton of things that weren't even in the pipeline back then. How we shop, how we book travel and compare prices, even how we arrange transporation - everything has changed."

A reminder though: net neutrality rules are about ensuring things STAY that way -- not about layering those companies with onerous obligations. The FCC (pushed by unprecedented consumer input) isn't aiming for any other objective other than ensuring AT&T, Verizon and Comcast can't discriminate. 

"Whether or not Wheeler would impose new rules isn't the issue - the guy or gal after him might have a different mindset and there's nothing stopping that person from going to rate regulation or unbundling rules."

Absolutely everything over the last fifteen years has veered toward deregulation. Every single step of the way we've deregulated the telecom market. Now, with what appears to be just a modest implementation of regulations that numerous ISPs claim does no harm and consumers demanded, people are claiming we're on the cusp of apocalypse? I think it's over-dramatic and not in line with what's actually happening.

As for Pulver's concerns being brushed aside, similarly we can't brush aside the four million comments to the FCC, most of which clearly supported this push. 

I don't know, I find most of the opposition to this push to be knee jerk and purely based on a hatred of government, when there really is such a thing as balaned regulation driven by consumer interest.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>


Featured Video
Flash Poll
Upcoming Live Events
September 17-19, 2019, Dallas, Texas
October 1-2, 2019, New Orleans, Louisiana
October 10, 2019, New York, New York
October 22, 2019, Los Angeles, CA
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events