FCC, FEC look to ruin the Internet • Tammy Bruce • Ajit Pai

originally posted by: greencmp

Simple answer: When I read an article, I want to read the facts and not opinionated ideology.

a reply to: DMFL1133

By all means, pick it apart. the more attention this gets the better.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Right now, it is all speculation for what is going to happen and driven by ideology.

For my personal opinion, if Version and Cable Company "pipe" providers are squealing like pigs, it gives me pause to see how this all shakes out.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Yup, and since the major ISPs are owned by the big telecom companies, you can expect TV and radio to be railing against the move by the FCC.

Fear mongering about "fees" and "taxes" and rate increases. If the ISPs are scared, that's a GOOD thing for the consumer IMO.

a reply to: DMFL1133

Pause would require not going forward but, that is what we are doing, the vote is on the 26th.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Wouldn't you rather there be more less powerful media distribution channels than less more powerful ones?

a reply to: DMFL1133

One thing is for sure, once the government gets in, it will never get out -- this side of a revolution.

Every intelligent adult has an ideology. Which ideology do you think predominates?

I think variations on socialism, the ideology that lets "experts" give you other people's stuff and do all of your thinking, is the default ideology.

If the government is involved, someone or something is having their property confiscated, and that is always a bad precedent against self-cultivation and the evolution of the possibilities of the individual.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The only thing the big companies can do is charge more than they do now. If the big companies charge too much, then entrepreneurs will start up new internet services.

Like fiber optic cables along power lines, or maybe snaked through the plumbing.


The FEC's only legitimate function is to count actual votes. Anything else is finagling by collectivist progressives.

And how do the entrepreneurs connect to the internet and offer last mile services? They have to go right back to Verizon and lease bandwidth that Verizon would rather sell directly.

a reply to: Aazadan

Or a metallic hydrogen superconducting infrastructure.

The point being that we don't know what the better way is yet so, we can't anticipate it. That will be revealed as we develop better methods and materials.

If many different providers compete to supply access, we will discover what the most equitable service is by their happy customers.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Aazadan

Or a metallic hydrogen superconducting infrastructure.

The point being that we don't know what the better way is yet so, we can't anticipate it. That will be revealed as we develop better methods and materials.

If many different providers compete to supply access, we will discover what the most equitable service is by their happy customers.

So your answer is that rather than keep the barriers to entry on internet businesses low, we let legislators pass laws that will lock all small businesses out of the internet in the US, and hope that someone innovates a new way of doing things that everyone can then adopt?

Look into how the internet functions. The ISPs currently exist on a near monopoly status and it's not a business you can simply start up. It requires access to the backbone which belongs to the major companies. Either you lease space from them, at their terms or a customer buys from them directly. Allowing legislation that puts a significant barrier to entry on any web based business is a very bad idea.

a reply to: Aazadan

Precisely, no new laws, only remove the laws which prevent new competition and create or support existing monopolies.

The obvious error in all of this is wireless access, there is a provision which expressly forbids the classification of personal wireless as title II.

If it goes through it will create indecision and doubt in the future of the market of service provision. Investment in infrastructure to low income people in rural areas will be less likely under such a regime.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Aazadan

Precisely, no new laws, only remove the laws which prevent new competition and create or support existing monopolies.

The obvious error in all of this is wireless access, there is a provision which expressly forbids the classification of personal wireless as title II.

If it goes through it will create indecision and doubt in the future of the market of service provision. Investment in infrastructure to low income people in rural areas will be less likely under such a regime.

Reclassification as title 2 is the no new laws approach. If you leave it in the hands of Verizon to create a complicated series of laws saying who can do what, you'll end up with a regulatory nightmare that only the largest companies can handle. In addition to the extra powers it gives them.

Yeah...the article may be one sided. But the current administration wants to control the internet. They want to tax it because the current government doesn't know how to NOT spend money it doesn't have. They also want to control free speech, start-up businesses, etc. The government will take over the internet, tax it, raises the price, destroy the free market and growth and for the same reason as always. You can't have anything that isn't spoon fed to you by the democrats/liberals. That is how they want it. You must play Oliver and ask for more if you want it. And then...you will only get what you ask for if you are a "good" little child.

Republicans are fighting an internet takeover. And if their reason is that it is the opposite of what Obama wants...I'll take that. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Aazadan

Precisely, no new laws, only remove the laws which prevent new competition and create or support existing monopolies.

The obvious error in all of this is wireless access, there is a provision which expressly forbids the classification of personal wireless as title II.

If it goes through it will create indecision and doubt in the future of the market of service provision. Investment in infrastructure to low income people in rural areas will be less likely under such a regime.

Reclassification as title 2 is the no new laws approach. If you leave it in the hands of Verizon to create a complicated series of laws saying who can do what, you'll end up with a regulatory nightmare that only the largest companies can handle. In addition to the extra powers it gives them.

No, reclassification is not the no new laws approach.

In the case of Verizon which you bring up, they are currently under heavier regulation than their competitors. They want to bring everyone into that same classification so as to increase the regulatory burden on their competition.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: DMFL1133

One thing is for sure, once the government gets in, it will never get out -- this side of a revolution.

Every intelligent adult has an ideology. Which ideology do you think predominates?

I think variations on socialism, the ideology that lets "experts" give you other people's stuff and do all of your thinking, is the default ideology.

If the government is involved, someone or something is having their property confiscated, and that is always a bad precedent against self-cultivation and the evolution of the possibilities of the individual.

We have an entire generation (perhaps more) that has been brought up to believe that the state is more trustworthy than a person's most trusted friend. Some don't even think they are socialists.

Most people have never been exposed to any counter indicated philosophy and there has been a concerted effort to remove civics classes from public school completely. Once that happened, all bets were off and it became an unapologetic openly admitted indoctrination machine.

The solution is simple, restrain to the greatest amount possible all elements of extraneous government and deny all social engineering in our society.

originally posted by: greencmp
No, reclassification is not the no new laws approach.

In the case of Verizon which you bring up, they are currently under heavier regulation than their competitors. They want to bring everyone into that same classification so as to increase the regulatory burden on their competition.

Reclassification is the closest there is to no new laws (you have to write the law that reclassifies it). Currently Verizon and the rest of them are under common carrier regulation. This is due to regulation Verizon bought a few years ago, they wanted the classification for tax breaks. Now that they no longer have a need for those tax breaks, they want to get away from the associated restrictions. If we remove Net Neutrality what you're going to see is small websites pushed off of the internet, while the remaining sites are divided up like TV channels.

With Net Neutrality there is a lot of competition, primarily for TV which is what this is all about. The telecoms don't like that their copper wiring is becoming obsolete and are trying to discourage alternative technologies. If Verizon gets their way companies like Netflix which have innovated and essentially proven that they have a better model will simply be forced offline. Innovation happens when the barrier to entry remains low and competition is allowed to happen, which only happens if we maintain Net Neutrality. What Verizon is attempting to do is to buy legislation that outlaws their competitors precisely because they can't compete.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: greencmp
No, reclassification is not the no new laws approach.

In the case of Verizon which you bring up, they are currently under heavier regulation than their competitors. They want to bring everyone into that same classification so as to increase the regulatory burden on their competition.

Reclassification is the closest there is to no new laws (you have to write the law that reclassifies it). Currently Verizon and the rest of them are under common carrier regulation. This is due to regulation Verizon bought a few years ago, they wanted the classification for tax breaks. Now that they no longer have a need for those tax breaks, they want to get away from the associated restrictions.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

If we remove Net Neutrality what you're going to see is small websites pushed off of the internet, while the remaining sites are divided up like TV channels.

I don't know the basis of this claim. Probably that everything will remain the same except for the one effect that "Net Neutrality" ameliorates.

With Net Neutrality there is a lot of competition, primarily for TV which is what this is all about. The telecoms don't like that their copper wiring is becoming obsolete and are trying to discourage alternative technologies.

A new player could buy up the wires and use them for internet. If cable is obsolete, then it should be allowed to liquidate its capital into the general economy. Slowing liquidation is what made the Great Depression so long.

If Verizon gets their way companies like Netflix which have innovated and essentially proven that they have a better model will simply be forced offline.

Netflix, which I use in binges, has motivation to work its way into the hardware aspect of the internet. Netflix may have the opportunity to buy current infrastructure at a low cost or maybe make its own infrastructure from scratch with new technology through out. Netflix could build the first metallic hydrogen superconducting hub spread by fiber optics.

Innovation happens when the barrier to entry remains low and competition is allowed to happen, which only happens if we maintain Net Neutrality. What Verizon is attempting to do is to buy legislation that outlaws their competitors precisely because they can't compete.

Just a matter of time until money gets the government.

Why are any regulations needed in the first place? Regulations either restrict entry, or restrict growth of the best providers.

The only real solution is the rollback of regulatory intrusion into market forces.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: DMFL1133

One thing is for sure, once the government gets in, it will never get out -- this side of a revolution.

Every intelligent adult has an ideology. Which ideology do you think predominates?

I think variations on socialism, the ideology that lets "experts" give you other people's stuff and do all of your thinking, is the default ideology.

If the government is involved, someone or something is having their property confiscated, and that is always a bad precedent against self-cultivation and the evolution of the possibilities of the individual.

We have an entire generation (perhaps more) that has been brought up to believe that the state is more trustworthy than a person's most trusted friend. Some don't even think they are socialists.

Most people have never been exposed to any counter indicated philosophy and there has been a concerted effort to remove civics classes from public school completely. Once that happened, all bets were off and it became an unapologetic openly admitted indoctrination machine.

The solution is simple, restrain to the greatest amount possible all elements of extraneous government and deny all social engineering in our society.

In addition to the moral and philosophical arguments against axiomatic centralization, the Austrian Economists point out (as I know you know greencmp) that all central planning is based on the pretense of knowledge. Central planning assumes that the controllers know everything there is to know about every variation on every situation. Central planning can't work as well as freedom because it wastes 99% of the human decision making brain power. The brain power directly engaged with specific activities.

The smartest person in the world has an IQ of 200 +. Or it could be said the smartest person is more than twice as smart as the average person. Rounding up, the experts in the top 1%, can only process as much real world data as about 3% of the population.

The free market works because everyone's mind is involved in making all market decisions.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: greencmp
No, reclassification is not the no new laws approach.

In the case of Verizon which you bring up, they are currently under heavier regulation than their competitors. They want to bring everyone into that same classification so as to increase the regulatory burden on their competition.

Reclassification is the closest there is to no new laws (you have to write the law that reclassifies it). Currently Verizon and the rest of them are under common carrier regulation. This is due to regulation Verizon bought a few years ago, they wanted the classification for tax breaks. Now that they no longer have a need for those tax breaks, they want to get away from the associated restrictions. If we remove Net Neutrality what you're going to see is small websites pushed off of the internet, while the remaining sites are divided up like TV channels.

With Net Neutrality there is a lot of competition, primarily for TV which is what this is all about. The telecoms don't like that their copper wiring is becoming obsolete and are trying to discourage alternative technologies. If Verizon gets their way companies like Netflix which have innovated and essentially proven that they have a better model will simply be forced offline. Innovation happens when the barrier to entry remains low and competition is allowed to happen, which only happens if we maintain Net Neutrality. What Verizon is attempting to do is to buy legislation that outlaws their competitors precisely because they can't compete.

One of the blockades to new investment in fiber infrastructure is the existing regulations which require the maintanence of copper network components.

That whole story sounds a little fishy to me, frankly. They got a law for tax breaks but, changed their mind or didn't anticipate some unforeseen implication or didn't need the tax breaks anymore (that really never happens) so now they want a new law. Who is writing these laws? Lobbyists? Whose side are you on? Verizon, Comcast, RCN, Netflix, Drudge Report, Huffington Post, ATS, your own?

Netflix itself has been under some scrutiny for its part in open video standard interference/disruptions if I understand correctly.

This seems like a breakdown on my part or yours to understand how legislation is less legislation than no legislation. If you mean that we need to strike whole parts of the code from the record, I agree but, I would consider that removing laws rather than changing or rewriting them.

What actual problem are you currently experiencing which has provoked you to demand coercive bureaucratic interference in the market of bit transfer aka the 'internet'?

If Verizon wants to pass (or has been instrumental in passing) legislation, you can be sure it is for no wholesome purpose so, again no new legislation or remove that legislation.

There is no imaginable scenario (which I have yet considered anyway) in which not creating new laws or revoking existing laws is not the most sensible course of action.

"Manufacturing and commercial monopolies owe their origin not to a tendency imminent in a capitalist economy but to governmental interventionist policy directed against free trade and laissez faire." -Ludwig von Mises

"Economics is not politics. One is a science, concerned with the immutable and constant laws of nature that determine the production and distribution of wealth; the other is the art of ruling. One is amoral, the other is moral. Economic laws are self-operating and carry their own sanctions, as do all natural laws, while politics deals with man-made and man-manipulated conventions. As a science, economics seeks understanding of invariable principles; politics is ephemeral, its subject matter being the day-to-day relations of associated men. Economics, like chemistry, has nothing to do with politics.

The intrusion of politics into the field of economics is simply an evidence of human ignorance or arrogance, and is as fatuous as an attempt to control the rise and fall of tides. Since the beginning of political institutions, there have been attempts to fix wages, control prices, and create capital, all resulting in failure. Such undertakings must fail because the only competence of politics is in compelling men to do what they do not want to do or to refrain from doing what they are inclined to do, and the laws of economics do not come within that scope. They are impervious to coercion. Wages and prices and capital accumulations have laws of their own, laws which are beyond the purview of the policeman." -Frank Chodorov

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
I don't know the basis of this claim. Probably that everything will remain the same except for the one effect that "Net Neutrality" ameliorates.

Basically what happens if we give Verizon their way is that they can create fast and slow lanes. This has been marketed as being about the consumer, "if you want faster service you can pay more and have it" but that's not how the technology works. These fast and slow lanes are all about the content providers. I can speak a bit about this as I own two forums and am an administrator on another, my whole post college plan is to build an internet business as well so this is something that greatly affects me.

Currently a content provider pays to register their domain name and pays a hosting fee for x storage space and x bandwidth. If you want a faster website, or a large database, or any other feature you pay more. When a user connects to your website they get a speed based on the users download speed and your upload speed, with more users there is a need for higher upload speeds in order to have faster page load times and serve more concurrent users. Repealing net Neutrality says that in addition to these factors the ISP's can introduce another which limits connection speed. I'm going to use some greatly exaggerated numbers here because the math is simple. Lets say I have a upload of 20MB and I need 1 MB of upload speed for every user I have. That means I can service 20 users who pay for 1MB or better download speeds from their ISP. With the change to the laws that Verizon is pushing for, they can still give me my 20MB upload but limit every user to .5 MB which makes my website unusable to all customers, that would be the slow lane. I would then have to pay more in order to increase my per user upload to say 1.5MB which would restore the service I was already providing.

Now how this plays into dividing up the internet is the telecoms of which Verizon is the most visible in this lawsuit can start charging extra fees to every website in order to give their users a decent experience. They already did this to Netflix and it was the catalyst for this whole lawsuit. Remember that every ISP is providing access to every website, this means that if there's a fee for service, a content provider must pay to every ISP. This is unaffordable for all but the largest companies. What this will result in is smaller businesses signing contracts with a single ISP... Verizon may host ATS while Comcast hosts a competitor. This will play into the news agencies too as ISP's demand exclusivity contracts. One will get Fox while another gets NBC. In the end, in the US internet services will drastically shrink all while the rest of the world who embraces Net Neutrality pass us by.

A new player could buy up the wires and use them for internet. If cable is obsolete, then it should be allowed to liquidate its capital into the general economy. Slowing liquidation is what made the Great Depression so long.

It's irrelevant who owns the last mile. It's all about the backbone network that spans the country/world. This fiber optic backbone was built by the feds and given to the ISP's, after the ISP's took the money to build it and then refused. Even if you own all the copper wire in a town you must still go through the major ISP in order to connect it to the rest of the country and by doing so, you become subject to their terms and conditions.

Just a matter of time until money gets the government.

Why are any regulations needed in the first place? Regulations either restrict entry, or restrict growth of the best providers.

The only real solution is the rollback of regulatory intrusion into market forces.

Some regulation is needed because the telecoms operate as monopolies. Single companies own all or nearly all of the phone, tv, and internet services in a community, in many they have signed 100 year exclusivity agreements. In the town I used to live for example as a condition for the cable ISP to move in the town had to agree to give the cable company a 100 year monopoly on those technologies.

There is a very high barrier to entry in forming these companies which means monopolies are probably unavoidable. That means we need certain consumer protection regulations as these companies can operate without competition and are providing a service that is 100% essential for the economy. Going back to what I mentioned about a business, there is a very good chance that if we repeal Net Neutrality I will be forced to operate my business outside of the US and completely ignore that market because it will simply cost too much.