I get to agree with Obama on something

[CitizenBBN]

I like to give credit where credit is due, and he's right on this issue: net neutrality.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/10/obama-wants-ban-on-internet-fast-lane-deals/

the service providers want to cut deals with Netflix, Youtube etc. for faster throughput, but that means everyone else's sites go slower. it could create huge imbalance where the big companies squeeze out any small upstarts. someone comes up with a better google than google, but no one goes to it b/c it's slower than google b/c google has bought up the bandwidth.

This is basic anti-trust, free market stuff. The role of government is to prevent monopoly and keep open competition, and the net being neutral is what has allowed all this to flourish. The providers and the big companies that would pay them want to erect this as a barrier to entry. It would centralize internet content like how TV works now, rather than the opposite direction we have been going.

He's got this one right. If push comes to shove put them in as a utility if necessary to keep the net flowing. Time Warner doesn't need to be deciding which websites I visit run at what speed, and therefore steer me to particular choices, big corporate deep pocket choices.

If we had more competition among providers it would take care of itself, but we don't and I don't see it coming any time soon. Wireless just isn't developing to give us a competitive low entry cost alternative to the wired providers, and with that wire comes the monopoly power of the utiliity.

[Darrell KSR]

He's got this one right.

Give him time.

[CitizenBBN]

Give him time.

lol. No doubt he'll want to appoint the Net Neutrality Czar, and then negotiate a deal with the providers where they get everything they want and he declares victory. sound about right?

But in principle he's on the right side of this issue. The providers are painting it as government regulation, but this is the kind of regulation that protects free markets and keeps a level playing field, a proper role of government.

[CitizenBBN]

Seriously, the problem is that if the providers become a utility the government will no doubt expand to start regulating every aspect of the services provided, which is very bad indeed.

The principle should be simple, and not require any regulation or reclassification so long as providers want to not become utility companies: no special pricing for faster or better access. Simple as that. No need for boards or bureaucrats, the legal system can take care of anyone who breaks the law.

But likely what we'll get is the worst of both worlds. More government regs AND big business creating barriers to entry. That's how its gone for decades in this country in every other industry, no reason to think this will be any different. Big business and big government hand in hand washing each others backs.

[Doc]

I can hear it now

"You didn't build this net neutrality it on your own. The government built it for you"

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/11/republicans-warn-chilling-effect-from-obamas-push-for-more-internet-regulation/

[PedroDaGr8]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/11/republicans-warn-chilling-effect-from-obamas-push-for-more-internet-regulation/

Sorry but the Repubs are ONE HUNDRED percent wrong on this one. This is the type of government regulation that is entirely necessary and actually an essential role of government: prevention of anti-competitive practices. Not all government regulation is bad, much or most of it yes, but there are certain essential functions that a government must necessarily fill. This is one of them, but because its coming up under Obama, some of the Republicans are against it strictly for that reason. Others (both dem and rep) are against it because they received a lot of donations from the telco lobbies. Quite simply, the tel com companies want the near monopoly/oligopoly that they have in various markets but don't want to deal with any controls on how they abuse their position of power.

Personally, I think this is a good stop gap measure, namely to prevent the paid-prioritization, but there are better more critical ones on the horizon. Quite simply, we need to break up these monopolies and oligopolies. Force them to lease the lines to any ISP that wants to exist. This is what was done in great britain (BT owns the lines and leases them at a fair market rate to ISPs). Prices fell through the floor because most customers have a choice of 8-9 ISPs. This happened in a matter of a few years, they went from one of the highest priced in Europe to one of the lowest.

[CitizenBBN]

What Pedro said.

The GOP's position is the Big Business position, the same BS that has driven creation of the Tea Party and made them lose their way. Anti-trust regulation is essential for the functioning of free markets, most critically when talking about utilities b/c of the physical nature of the business and the apparently infinite economies of scale involved.

No doubt a lot of them are on the take from the telcos, just as many of them supported the perversion of copyright law while taking donations from MPAA and RIAA.

The GOP should be for free markets, not big business. There is a difference, many times a huge difference, as big business would gladly accept government protection to insure no free markets and thus no competition.

I like Pedro's suggestion. None is ideal when faced with this particular economic phenomenon as it's a problem the free market cannot easily solve for itself, but that solution does allow a lot of competition. It would delay moving to fiber, etc. as there would be less innovation in the physical infrastructure, but everywhere else it would flourish. Probably the best option given the tradeoffs. If the alternative is Time Warner/Comcast in control of content and with the ability to stifle internet innovation and competition it's a no brainer.

[bigsky]

the GOP is supporting the usual cronyism

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/17/fcc-official-warns-obama-backed-net-neutrality-plan-will-bring-backdoor-tax-on/

[CitizenBBN]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/17/fcc-official-warns-obama-backed-net-neutrality-plan-will-bring-backdoor-tax-on/

Goes to darrell's prophetic comment about him messing it up.

I'd be fine with providers being able to charge even a surcharge for use above X amount, which would still keep them from picking who gets preferential treatment, or an application of the TC of 96, but I agree making them a utility is a last resort. It's overkill and more expensive, but if the providers refuse to work out some kind of balance of concerns it's the nuclear option in the room.

Ideally we hammer out a deal that protects net neutrality without having to be a fully regulated utility. Very doable. Wont' happen, but very doable.

I liked this part:

O'Reilly made clear he was not rebutting Obama’s arguments but said the FCC couldn’t simple “wave a magic wand” to make some regulations disappear.

Obama will never understand that concept. to him you can change regs and laws at your whim.

[KeithKSR]

The problem is Obama says things people want to hear to get support for his agenda, then changes his line once his agenda is in place.

"If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."

"If you like your plan you can keep your plan."

I don't trust Obama to allow him to control the internet. IMO, his administration in control of the net would result in the same type of witch hunts of websites that have been administered by other federal regulatory agencies against those who do not agree with his agendas. Obama has long been frustrated with grassroots bloggers, who are generally the people that first pick apart his lies, and regulation is a way to shut down their voices.

Antitrust laws should be used, instead of regulation he can just write one of his executive orders requiring net neutrality.

[PedroDaGr8]

The problem is Obama says things people want to hear to get support for his agenda, then changes his line once his agenda is in place.

"If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."

"If you like your plan you can keep your plan."

I don't trust Obama to allow him to control the internet. IMO, his administration in control of the net would result in the same type of witch hunts of websites that have been administered by other federal regulatory agencies against those who do not agree with his agendas. Obama has long been frustrated with grassroots bloggers, who are generally the people that first pick apart his lies, and regulation is a way to shut down their voices.

Antitrust laws should be used, instead of regulation he can just write one of his executive orders requiring net neutrality.

It's not that they are going to be in control of the internet. It's limiting control of the internet by corporations. Honestly, anti-trust doesn't work here because they have government sanctioned monopolies already and a higher barrier to entry. Every single one of us knows what net neutrality is like, it was basically the internet until a few years ago. Based on the idea that all traffic across a network is treated equally. A packet of data is a packet of data no matter where it originated. This is how the internet functioned on the most basic level for decades. Only recently, did Comcast*, TWC, etc. realize that they could exploit their large user bases as captive audiences for sale. Basically, charging twice for delivery of this data packet. Charging you once to download it and charging netflix to send it. This is when the proverbial dung hit the fan.

Now whether Obama is sincere is his desire or plans to use it as a trojan horse for other means we will see in the future. But lets not confuse these two issues, net neutrality is very noble and has been shown to work just fine in the past. The other is a hypothetical that is based on intuition and past experience, but very little evidence right now.

*Comcast wants to, VERY badly, but they cant because they agreed to net neutrality rules as part of the conditions for acquiring I think it was NBC.

[KeithKSR]

Pedro, I agree net neutrality must be restored. I am also practical enough to realize that in the hands of the FCC we are going to pay fees out the wazoo, just like we do on our cell phones now.

IMO, legislation establishing net neutrality is the best way to go, and is a much better option than FCC regulation. All regulatory agencies tend to over regulate and become a users of power.

[dan_bgblue]

FCC Chairman (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/04/fcc-chairman-proposes-regulating-internet-and-mobile-broadband-like-phone/?intcmp=latestnews)

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/24/commissioners-urge-delay-in-fcc-plan-to-regulate-every-nut-and-bolt-internet/?intcmp=latestnews

The two Republican members of the Federal Communications Commission are urging the Democratic chairman to delay a high-drama vote on a secret Internet regulation plan, with one warning the proposal would "impose rules upon almost every nut and bolt" of how Americans use the Internet.

The so-called net neutrality plan, which has not been made public, is scheduled for an FCC vote on Thursday.

[CitizenBBN]

FWIW, I've changed my mind. While I'm a big fan of net neutrality, it's clear, as it always was though I didn't want it to be, that this is just another excuse for governmental activism by the Obama administration. No doubt "neutrality" will require some kind of tax on people who surf the net while eating meat to level out their carbon footprint, etc.

If it's a secret star-chamber type document, I think we all know what we're getting, and it involves showing in a state prison.

[KeithKSR]

FWIW, I've changed my mind. While I'm a big fan of net neutrality, it's clear, as it always was though I didn't want it to be, that this is just another excuse for governmental activism by the Obama administration. No doubt "neutrality" will require some kind of tax on people who surf the net while eating meat to level out their carbon footprint, etc.

If it's a secret star-chamber type document, I think we all know what we're getting, and it involves showing in a state prison.

Doesn't surprise me at all. I've opposed the FCC controlling the internet all along.

[Doc]

FWIW, I've changed my mind. While I'm a big fan of net neutrality, it's clear, as it always was though I didn't want it to be, that this is just another excuse for governmental activism by the Obama administration. No doubt "neutrality" will require some kind of tax on people who surf the net while eating meat to level out their carbon footprint, etc.

If it's a secret star-chamber type document, I think we all know what we're getting, and it involves showing in a state prison.

Which is why they won't release anything until AFTER its voted on. So much for "the most transparent administration in history". Of course to me they are transparent. I know exactly what they are doing and have since day one.

[PedroDaGr8]

FWIW, I've changed my mind. While I'm a big fan of net neutrality, it's clear, as it always was though I didn't want it to be, that this is just another excuse for governmental activism by the Obama administration. No doubt "neutrality" will require some kind of tax on people who surf the net while eating meat to level out their carbon footprint, etc.

If it's a secret star-chamber type document, I think we all know what we're getting, and it involves showing in a state prison.

When has the FCC ever been open about anything. It doesn't matter who is the president. Basically, if they are misleading us they sometimes leak it to make it easier to swallow when they screw us and other times they hide it when they don't want us to know how bad we are getting screwed. So far, I haven't heard ANYTHING that is counter to the stated goal. Just some handwringing and FUD from the usual politicians in the pockets of the telecom lobbyists. Otherwise, not a single concrete thing. If you have examples I'd be glad to read them because I just haven't seen a single one yet. Supposedly, the FCC Commissioner worked with Bush's old FCC commissioner (who was a huge net neutrality proponent) for a lot of the rules and clarifications.


Doesn't surprise me at all. I've opposed the FCC controlling the internet all along.

The FCC isn't controlling the internet, that implies they are setting limits on what goes on the internet etc. That's not true, the FCC is trying to prevent near monoplistic internet providers from exploiting their monopolistic position. Which is EXACTLY what was going on. To give an analogy, it's like your electricity provider saying you can use your fridge but it's $0.04/kWh, your furnace is $0.08/kWh (oh wait you have the wrong brand, so its $0.12/kWh), your stove is $0.03/kWh if its a GE or Kenmmore but $0.08/kWh for everything else. Or even worse, saying you can only use Kennmore appliances, sylvania lightbulbs, Trane furnaces, etc. If you try any other companies stuff, they cut off your electricity. So on and so forth. This was what the internet companies were trying to do. So the FCC is stepping in and saying, uhhh no you can't. Now if they go father than their mandate, then I'll be furious. Since it was just voted approved in a vote, we will see.

To quote someone (I don't have time to read through the article to find who said this):


This proposal has been described by one opponent as "a secret plan to regulate the Internet." Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think.

Edit: So far from what I have read, there are no new taxes or fees authorized or any sort of limits on what can be provided other than restrictions on things like blocking and paid priority. They also did not levy tarriffs, fees or force unbundling of the last mile (something which I actually would have supported heavily, it's been HUGELY successful in other countries). At least it addresses the problem at hand so far. I'm still waiting to see what the gotcha's, if any, are.

[CitizenBBN]

My concern and reason for pessimism, while completely agreeing we need legislation to prevent the abuse of an oligopoly of providers, is the secrecy and way it was done. I see no reason to not pass a simple, one page rule that would address the issue at hand without having to do much else. Even adjusting for the legalese and red tape I still see no reason to take the approach they have taken.

No doubt we need to prevent the BS trend we were seeing with providers giving preferential service to other big corporations, but I have less and less hope we'll do that so much as just get more lobbyist pigs at the trough with those groups now having to buy off enough people in Washington to see their original actions approved and blessed.

Time will tell, but I feel like we're between a rock and a hard place.

[KeithKSR]

This was never a net neutrality issue for Obama, it has always been a control issue.

[PedroDaGr8]

This was never a net neutrality issue for Obama, it has always been a control issue.
I don't get this argument. How is defending a freedom a control issue? It's like saying defending freedom of speech is controlling someone by saying they can't infringe your freedom of speech. You can hate Obama all you want (Lord knows I do) but he is very much right on this one. Now you can attribute it to a even a stopped clock being right twice a day or using it to score populous points but at the end of the day, Obama is ENTIRELY right on this and the Republicans are behaving like paid industry whores. Several of the Telco providers (Verizon I remember specifically) have already claimed Title II status in the past when it benefited them. They basically want all the benefits of Title II, without all of the regulations. Just another example of privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

The report came out and it's long. I finally got a chance to read and try to understand most of it. It's 312-pgs in the order and 80+ pages of comments from the FCC. You might wonder why is it this long? The rules themselves are a few pages. The rest is basically background info. Court cases, legal theory, context, why it's needed, etc. It becomes very clear they knew this would be challenged heavily in court and wanted to lay down a legal framework to help defend it in court. I am not a lawyer but I didn't see anything the Republicans said to fear is in the document. No taxes or fees, no content limits, no price controls, no limits on freedom of speech, etc. About the only major power it actually gives the FCC is the ability to intervene in interchange disputes. These disputes, which have happened in the past, cam significantly disrupt internet traffic flow.

[CitizenBBN]

Thus far I'm pleased with what has been determined. VERY unpleased with the methods, government should be open or it shouldn't be at all, but the basic notion of net neutrality is one the big companies really want to do away with so they can price discriminate and funnel people to particular places, getting to charge the sites to be on the A list.

It's no different than when Microsoft used their power with the OS to force vendors to not sell competing products, etc. They want power in the distribution channel, and in this case the channel is happy to oblige for a price, so they can drive out competition on the internet and stop these annoying start ups from taking their market share.

The internet has worked so well b/c MySpace has no way to make it hard to move to Facebook, but what if myspace had a deal with the providers to make their site go faster than facebook when facebook was starting? It creates a barrier to entry that established companies want badly, and is an inherent attack on free markets.

Being pro free market is often not at all being pro business, b/c in the end every business wants to be a monopoly. The proper role of government is to keep businesses separated enough that competition is allowed to operate, and this is a classic case.

The only problem is that the person putting in these plans is a dyed in the wool socialist who is for free markets like I'm for a gun ban. which means what should be little change in the role of government in the internet promises to be another spiraling bureaucracy. Unfortunately to prevent collusion in the market that would eliminate competition we appear to have little choice.

Now if the big companies would play nice and face their competitors without trying to lock up (and lock out) the distribution channel and create unfair biases in the playing field, it wouldn't be necessary, but businesses act in their own self interest, not in the interest of free markets or liberty. That's why we need free markets so badly, b/c EVERYONE acts in their own self interests, so best to keep them all fighting it out in a level field of play than to have one or a few get too much power and use it to their own gain and to the loss of consumers.

[dan_bgblue]

I give it 2 years before we all are paying an internet tax to support the regulators

[CitizenBBN]

I give it 2 years before we all are paying an internet tax to support the regulators

That's the problem, no bureaucracy just stops with their initial task.