Internet slow lane

[10percenttruth]

This doesn't bode well. How badly will this throttle back our porn habits?

In all seriousness though, this could get ugly.

http://m.policymic.com/articles/89475/the-government-just-turned-the-internet-into-the-equivalent-of-first-class-and-coach?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social

[sky_king]

I don't know how these broadband internet providers are allowed to get such a monopoly.

Below: Map of Americans with access to only on broadband ISP. I would like to see if North Dakota's service is better than the national average.

Edited May 16, 2014 by sky_king

[Vertigo]

I don't know how these broadband internet providers are allowed to get such a monopoly.

Really?

Really?

... really?

Do you not know how D.C. works? Those with the money and power use that money and power to change the rules to keep them in the money and power and to limit others ability to gain that money and power.

Do you not know that the head of the FCC was a lobbyist for the cable industry prior to current his current gig? Where do you think he'll go back to work once these cable (read internet providers) companies get their legislation passed and his tenure is over?

edit: I accidentally a word

Edited May 16, 2014 by Vertigo

[17D_guy]

I'm sure that upcoming merger will help us all get better service and access.

Edit - to add to Vertigo's post -

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/bankrolled-by-broadband-donors-lawmakers-lobby-fcc-on-net-neutrality/

The 28 House members who lobbied the Federal Communications Commission to drop net neutrality this week have received more than twice the amount in campaign contributions from the broadband sector than the average for all House members....Of the 28 House members signing on to the three letters, Republicans received, on average, $59,812 from the industry over the two-year period compared to $13,640 for Democrats, according to the Maplight data.

Edited May 17, 2014 by 17D_guy

[17D_guy]

Also, this

The FCC also found that cable prices have been growing much more quickly than inflation for a very long time now, as the compound average annual rate for expanded basic cable services between 1995 and 2013 was 6.1% while the compound average annual growth rate for the CPI over that same period was 2.4%

http://bgr.com/2014/05/16/why-is-my-cable-bill-so-high/

[Fud]

It's all a conspiracy to kill Netflix. Kidding aside, it is not surprising that something so awesome as the net would have been fucked up by a beurocratic government.

[jrobe]

Really?

Really?

... really?

Do you not know how D.C. works?

Conversations always go soooooooooooooooooo well when people start off like this.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[Seriously]

It's all a conspiracy to kill Netflix. Kidding aside, it is not surprising that something so awesome as the net would have been fucked up by a beurocratic government.

No. This is what happens when wealth is concentrated in large corporations and extremely large sums of money are controlled by a handful of people. They change the rules of the game to favor themselves through prolific lobbying and campaign donations.

[Dupe]

How badly will this throttle back our porn habits?

That all depends on how much you're willing to pay for porn...

Seriously, I think I'm good with this. Like cable, the government didn't build the infrastructure or service, but they the regulated the service. It's like saying "everyone must use taxi cabs -limos, ride share vans, and Uber/Lyft are off the table" or "Airlines: you must only have coach seats." ISPs should be allowed to generate revenue by providing better services to customers who are willing to pay more.

[10percenttruth]

That all depends on how much you're willing to pay for porn...

Only schmucks pay for porn

Q: how much porn can you get with ZERO dollars?

A: All the porn

[17D_guy]

That all depends on how much you're willing to pay for porn...

Seriously, I think I'm good with this. Like cable, the government didn't build the infrastructure or service, but they the regulated the service. It's like saying "everyone must use taxi cabs -limos, ride share vans, and Uber/Lyft are off the table" or "Airlines: you must only have coach seats." ISPs should be allowed to generate revenue by providing better services to customers who are willing to pay more.

It's not the customer who's willing to pay more, they already do that with offering higher connection services (which are dubious at best).

The ISP's are trying to charge the content providers another fee (YouTube, NetFlix, PronHub, etc) for "faster lanes" to their already paying customers. Charge 'em coming, charge 'em going. Then those services that don't pay for faster lanes go on "normal" lanes that I'm sure the ISP's will keep at the same pace.

Of course the complaint is that they can't keep upgrading their equipment and services unless they get this additional money.. even though they're a monopoly in almost all areas.

Then there's this - $200 Billion to build out the infrastructure through additional charges that went nowhere but to their pockets.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html

This is bad bad bad, and you should express your displeasure to the majority of Republican Senators that support it.

[Dupe]

The ISP's are trying to charge the content providers another fee (YouTube, NetFlix, PronHub, etc) for "faster lanes" to their already paying customers. Charge 'em coming, charge 'em going. Then those services that don't pay for faster lanes go on "normal" lanes that I'm sure the ISP's will keep at the same pace.

Of course the complaint is that they can't keep upgrading their equipment and services unless they get this additional money.. even though they're a monopoly in almost all areas.

This is issue about how one industry -the ISPs (who are decidedly not monopolies) charge another industry -the content providers (also not monopolies). Other than preventing collusion and ensuring monopolies don't become established, the government should stay the hell out of deals between businesses. Edited May 19, 2014 by Dupe

[Seriously]

This is issue about how one industry -the ISPs (who are decidedly not monopolies) charge another industry -the content providers (also not monopolies). Other than preventing collusion and ensuring monopolies don't become established, the government should stay the hell out of deals between businesses.

I don't buy your assumption that ISPs are not monopolies. See Sky_King's post. That shows how many areas of the United States are serviced by ONE (and only one) broadband provider.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Seriously

[JarheadBoom]

This is issue about how one industry -the ISPs (who are decidedly not monopolies) charge another industry -the content providers (also not monopolies).

Ummm... have you heard of Comcast?

[Dupe]

I don't buy your assumption that ISPs are not monopolies. See Sky_King's post. That shows how many areas of the United States are serviced by ONE (and only one) broadband provider.

I've got some issues with the data... here's a different version from the same source

To me, most metropolitan markets seem like there are at least two choices (as well as North Dakota...what's up with that? Is that just a function of needing competitive ISPs to support the energy industry there, or did the state do something unique?). In most markets, there's a cable provider and a telco: both likely offer broadband.

This isn't to say the service that Americans receive is great...it's clearly not. My view is that allowing advanced pricing strategies to content providers will put companies like Google, Amazon, and Netflix in a position to negotiate for defined bandwidth/speed to consumers. I believe US broadband service will improve because the content providers will have some incredible negotiating power. As an example, which ISP would dare not carry Amazon as a result of an unsuccessful negotiation? It's one thing to not carry Lifetime on cable... quite another to not carry Google. Individual customers aren't in a position to compel the ISPs for upgrades, and I don't think many people are in favor of government-regulated service levels from ISPs. The ISPs likely don't see it, but I think the end of Net Neutrality will be the end of the market power of ISPs... the content providers have a vested interest in cheap/fast connections, and now they will be in the position to negotiate for it.

Ummm... have you heard of Comcast?

Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner may be powerful companies. Amazon, Google, Apple, and Netflix are far more powerful as well as more nimble....and the ISPs just invited them into the ring!

Edited May 19, 2014 by Dupe

[17D_guy]

That's cool. So when the next twitter, facebook or whatever small start up happens, starts getting traffic and then gets a knock on the door from the "not-monopoly" ISPs for more cash what do they do? Just happens the ISP'll happily take a stake in the company to make sure their traffic doesn't get moved to the slow lane. How nice of them.

Most ISP's require at least year to multi-year contracts with hefty breakage fees. Sure.. people will just dump their ISP for the other one servicing their area that I'm sure will also be in negotiations for higher fees for content delivery as well. You're right.. I've got 2 providers in my area 1 for cable (which is crap from 3pm-10pm) and 1 for DSL (which is much more expensive). That's real competition. Now why Cox doesn't come down to my area that Time Warner servers.. oh.. that's because they're not allowed to.

Every organization on the Internet is against it. The EFF in particular and all they care about is true electronic freedom.

Somehow, these giant companies can't seem to build out their infrastructure and not get rated "worst customer service," but they'll have the customers by the balls and the content providers by the ass, and you're cool with that.

Are you also cool with the rising costs, lower speeds and overall poor service the major players in ISP are providing? Declining service for more money, the American Dream! Are you excited about the mergers going on? Should the gov't be able to say anything about those either? You know in the Comcast-Time Warner merger they're claiming wireless providers are adequate competition?

Besides it's not like the "not-monopolies" would ever collude to keep out competition -

...in 2011, six Time Warner lobbyists persuaded the North Carolina legislature to pass a “level playing field” bill making it impossible for cities in that state to create their own high-speed Internet access networks. Time Warner, which reported $26 billion in revenue in 2010, donated more than $6.3 million to North Carolina politicians over four years. Eighteen other states have laws that make it extremely difficult or impossible for cities to provide this service to their residents.

Doh, those pesky gov't trying to get into the market and ruining everything! They should just leave it to business.

In 2004, the Lafayette utilities system decided to provide a fiber-to-the-home service. The new network, called LUS Fiber, would give everyone in Lafayette a very fast Internet connection...Push-back from the local telephone company, BellSouth Corp., and the local cable company, Cox Communications Inc., was immediate...Finally, in February 2007, after five civil lawsuits, the Louisiana Supreme Court voted, 7-0, to allow the network. From 2007 to mid-2011, people living in Lafayette saved $5.7 million on telecommunications services.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-12-27/u-s-internet-users-pay-more-for-slower-service

Or not.

Nope.. they'll do it from home to their network, and now they're trying to do it from content to their network.

Again, what if some other players don't pony up? Skype, Ebay, craigslist, USAA, Foxnews, CNN, assorted video/porn site.

Data is data, and the 1-0's should be treated the same period. I pay for access, they pay for access, all based on a set speed. It should not matter where it goes or who it comes from. I don't pay for different water or power from special wells or generators. The internet is, for all purposes, a utility.

Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner may be powerful companies. Amazon, Google, Apple, and Netflix are far more powerful as well as more nimble....and the ISPs just invited them into the ring!

Yes, they're more nimble, but I wouldn't give you odds on more powerful. Look above at the laws and the difficulty Google's had in rolling out Google Fiber in some places.

You really want these guys providing more service -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAo5GgaJmsA

Edited May 19, 2014 by 17D_guy

[JarheadBoom]

Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner may be powerful companies.

Comcast (largest cable company and home ISP in the US) is waiting for the FTC to approve their purchase of Time Warner Cable (2nd largest cable company in the US).

Amazon, Google, Apple, and Netflix are far more powerful as well as more nimble....and the ISPs just invited them into the ring!

Last time I checked, Amazon, Apple, Google, Netflix, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon did not own either a "big 3" television network, or a major motion picture studio. Comcast owns both of those items (NBCUniversal).

Also, if Amazon, Apple, Google, or Netflix have a hissy fit and slow their services, their portion of the 'net slows down, but the rest keeps on keepin' on. If Comcast (or, to be fair, TWC or Verizon) has a hissy fit and slows their services, the entire Internet slows down for every customer.

Within the context of this discussion, I'd say that is pretty much the definition of a monopoly.

Full disclosure: I am a disgruntled and unwilling Comcast customer (they're the only broadband option in my neighborhood - no fiber; phone network doesn't support DSL [or even 56k dialup...]).

[ThreeHoler]

Full disclosure: I am a disgruntled and unwilling Comcast customer (they're the only broadband option in my neighborhood - no fiber; phone network doesn't support DSL [or even 56k dialup...]).

And since NJ just signed away their rights to force Verizon to complete the promised fiber to all NJ residents because "4G is pretty much broadband," don't expect to ever get anything but Comcast built out to you.

[17D_guy]

Wireless is pretty much broadband. Yea.. totally. Ugh..

oh look at this -

Massive survey finds Comcast and TWC are the two most hated companies in America – period

http://bgr.com/2014/05/20/comcast-twc-customer-satisfaction-survey-study/

. Yep, lets give these folks more power

Edited May 20, 2014 by 17D_guy

[TreeA10]

I live beyond the range of cable and sometimes wish we had it available. After reading some of that stuff, I'm glad I don't have to deal with it.

[Seriously]

 

Wireless is pretty much broadband. Yea.. totally. Ugh..

oh look at this -


http://bgr.com/2014/05/20/comcast-twc-customer-satisfaction-survey-study/

. Yep, lets give these folks more power

 


It's funny how a company could actually be hated. If you don't like their services or their prices, don't use them right? That's how a free market works, right?

Edit: (This was sarcasm)

Edited May 23, 2014 by Seriously

[Vertigo]

   

It's funny how a company could actually be hated. If you don't like their services or their prices, don't use them right? That's how a free market works, right?

Monopoly = free market

Noted

[LookieRookie]

   

It's funny how a company could actually be hated. If you don't like their services or their prices, don't use them right? That's how a free market works, right?

A free market doesn't work when the only option is a government funded monopoly.

[JarheadBoom]

And since NJ just signed away their rights to force Verizon to complete the promised fiber to all NJ residents because "4G is pretty much broadband," don't expect to ever get anything but Comcast built out to you.

Hadn't heard that; interesting, but not surprising at all.

Thankfully, I reside on the other side of the river.

[Dupe]

There's two separate issues here: competition in the ISP market and net neutrality

That's cool. So when the next twitter, facebook or whatever small start up happens, starts getting traffic and then gets a knock on the door from the "not-monopoly" ISPs for more cash what do they do? Just happens the ISP'll happily take a stake in the company to make sure their traffic doesn't get moved to the slow lane. How nice of them.

Most ISP's require at least year to multi-year contracts with hefty breakage fees. Sure.. people will just dump their ISP for the other one servicing their area that I'm sure will also be in negotiations for higher fees for content delivery as well. You're right.. I've got 2 providers in my area 1 for cable (which is crap from 3pm-10pm) and 1 for DSL (which is much more expensive). That's real competition. Now why Cox doesn't come down to my area that Time Warner servers.. oh.. that's because they're not allowed to.

Every organization on the Internet is against it. The EFF in particular and all they care about is true electronic freedom.

Somehow, these giant companies can't seem to build out their infrastructure and not get rated "worst customer service," but they'll have the customers by the balls and the content providers by the ass, and you're cool with that.

Are you also cool with the rising costs, lower speeds and overall poor service the major players in ISP are providing? Declining service for more money, the American Dream! Are you excited about the mergers going on? Should the gov't be able to say anything about those either? You know in the Comcast-Time Warner merger they're claiming wireless providers are adequate competition?

Besides it's not like the "not-monopolies" would ever collude to keep out competition -

I agree, there isn't enough competition, even if most markets are served by two broadband providers. The public should rally for more competition (or increased regulation to balance the lack of competition... which I don't see happening).

Data is data, and the 1-0's should be treated the same period. I pay for access, they pay for access, all based on a set speed. It should not matter where it goes or who it comes from. I don't pay for different water or power from special wells or generators. The internet is, for all purposes, a utility.

Here's where I have the issue: The internet is not like a utility. With power, you don't care which plant your power came from, and the plant generating your power doesn't care that a particular unit went to you. As a result, every kilowatt of power or every glass of water has the same value as every other kilowatt or glass. That's not true with data. With data, both the provider and the consumer care very much that particular packets are delivered to the right person. Additionally, the value of data can increase with rate. The power company doesn't charge me a higher rate if I try to see what the ambient temperature would be if I put my electric space heater into my meat freezer.

The entire infrastructure is built and maintained by commercial entities, but then the FCC wanted to say that they couldn't develop a pricing scheme that treated data (which all has different values) differently. It's as if the FAA were to say "United... you can't have classes on your aircraft. It's all coach. Even if some of your customers want first class and you invested in your own infrastructure...still, coach only." Everyone seems ok with the concept with the cost difference between Next Day Air, Priority, and Third Class mail, but then some get up in arms over the same concept applied to the internet. This is why Net Neutrality 1.0 was shot down... it didn't even make sense when compared to other common carriage markets.

Yes, not all firms will be able to or desire to pay for faster service... and that's ok. Rising barriers to entry is a hallmark of every maturing industry. Not too many people are complaining that market forces would be against any proposed automobile manufacturing or airline start-up. The internet just isn't that different from the old economy in this respect.

Yes, they're more nimble, but I wouldn't give you odds on more powerful. Look above at the laws and the difficulty Google's had in rolling out Google Fiber in some places.

Part of this is that companies like Google and Amazon need to grow up. They've been able to print money by creating entire markets. Now, they're facing off against some firms who are better in the legal/regulatory world.