It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

There is no existing 'net neutrality' legislation so, how could it be repealed?




posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

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


You know that whole "You didn't build that" line? It's actually true with the ISP's. You built the fiber optic network they charge you for. You built it with your tax dollars and then the ISP's reneged on the deal they struck in exchange for ownership of it. Don't believe me? research it for yourself.

Now that the network is aging and bandwidth requirements are increasing the ISP's don't want to spend the money to rebuild/expand it so they're instead trying to discourage use and get more life out of what they already stole. Again this comes back to TV, streaming video uses a lot of bandwidth where as their current TV delivery system doesn't.


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?


They labeled themselves as common carriers in order to get tax breaks while building networks in certain rural areas. Now that those are built they don't want to adhere to the regulations anymore because that's more profitable than the tax breaks. Thus, they're seeking to change the laws. Verizon themselves wrote the law they are now arguing is unjust and they did it just 6? years ago.

As far as whose side I'm on? I'm on the side of the content providers. That would be Netflix, Google, Drudge, Huffington Post, ATS, and myself.


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.


Because of the monopoly status of the ISP's no regulation isn't an option. I would love it if it were but markets require either competition or regulation, sometimes both. As this is a situation in which competition isn't viable the only alternative is regulation. In this case it is an extremely minor regulation, and it's one that has been in place since the beginning of the internet. Thus it's a fight to continue a practice we already observe or to get rid of it.


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'?


Well, for one I pay $60/month for a 15mb down/1 mb up connection. By the definitions of virtually every country in the world aside from the US that doesn't even qualify as broadband and I am paying between 5 and 10x more than what an internet connection would cost in another country, while getting significantly slower speeds.

We could fix this but it requires we force the ISP's to actually address the issue and upgrade their network rather than try to discourage bandwidth consumption to avoid upgrades which is what the ISP's are currently trying to do.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Aazadan

There is no existing 'net neutrality' legislation so, how could it be repealed?


There is. It was passed during the Bush administration. That is the legislation that is trying to be preserved.

Edit: Here's the proof
www.nytimes.com...



Under the Bush administration, the F.C.C. largely deregulated Internet service. But in 2008, the final year of the administration, the agency decided to impose the net neutrality order on Comcast.

edit on 18-2-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Do you mean the Open Internet?



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Aazadan

Do you mean the Open Internet?


You caught me before the edit.

I believe that was it. It was the Comcast case in 2008, during which the Bush administration went about defining what actually is Net Neutrality and more or less forced the ISP's to abide by it which they mostly were anyways (aside from some random things like blocking torrents on users). The whole thing was eventually settled in 2010 when the FCC effectively threw mobile networks under the bus in order to preserve wired networks.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Did something change? Last I saw Wheeler was proposing to reclassify the internet as a utility and regulate it as such. This is a good thing.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnmitigatedDisaster
Did something change? Last I saw Wheeler was proposing to reclassify the internet as a utility and regulate it as such. This is a good thing.


That's still the plan, but it's not up to him. It's a committee of 5 people, he's on board with his plan but all that means is that the decision comes down to the other 4 members and the ISP's are spending a lot of money to get their way. Atleast 3 of the 5, so 2 of the remaining 4 need to side with Wheeler. On top of that, even if the law does pass the Republicans can make this a major part of their 2016 agenda and repeal it should they win by stacking the FCC with their people.

I'm going to be honest here, what the FCC is doing is nothing short of a federal power grab. They want greater influence so they're trying to put the internet under their domain, before the internet they were a fringe agency. The thing is though, the rules they're proposing are actually quite reasonable and make a lot of sense. More than that they're good for businesses and good for consumers. The ideal solution would be that we get these rules, but that Wheeler and the others involved in voting don't end up with control over it, that would let them be more objective. We don't live in an ideal world though, and we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. What Wheeler is proposing is good, much better than what the ISP's are proposing.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Aazadan

There is no existing 'net neutrality' legislation so, how could it be repealed?


There is. It was passed during the Bush administration. That is the legislation that is trying to be preserved.

Edit: Here's the proof
www.nytimes.com...



Under the Bush administration, the F.C.C. largely deregulated Internet service. But in 2008, the final year of the administration, the agency decided to impose the net neutrality order on Comcast.


That isn't a law, that was a case wherein it was determined that the FCC had limited regulatory authority over the internet. That in no way constitutes any preexisting 'net neutrality' legislation. The NYT article uses the phrase "impose the net neutrality order" but, I see no evidence of any bill.



Under the Bush administration, the F.C.C. largely deregulated Internet service. But in 2008, the final year of the administration, the agency decided to impose the net neutrality order on Comcast. Under President Obama, the F.C.C. has broadened that initiative, seeking to craft rules governing the entire industry.

U.S. Court Curbs F.C.C. Authority on Web Traffic

The fact is that, at every stage, repeatedly and unceasingly, we are bombarded by demands for the creation of a broad sweeping new regulatory construct which has been euphemistically referred to as "net neutrality" and it is not good for you or me.

Why should you tolerate bad service rather than insist on better service by better service providers? If they cannot compete due to preclusive regulations, drop the overhead.
edit on 18-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

People are lazy, and no matter how much screaming and yelling we do on the internet -- the ISPs won't give us better service. For many, there is only one ISP that they have access to. It isn't as if tens of millions of Americans can up and switch ISPs in protest.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
Why should you tolerate bad service rather than insist on better service by better service providers? If they cannot compete due to preclusive regulations, drop the overhead.


How can I insist on better service? I could drop my internet service until they provide better but most people will buy inferior goods regardless due to consumer apathy. It's the whole model behind Walmarts success. I can't go to another service provider, in my town my only option is Time Warner Cable. I harm myself by not buying their service, without it I cannot do research, I cannot publish software, I cannot do my school work, and more.

The only option is to address the problem through legislation. It's not regulations that are keeping competitors from popping up right now, it's the physical cost of hardware. it costs billions of dollars to provide internet service to an area even a small town, and that's assuming you have backbone access in the first place. A startup can't afford that.

When it comes to providing internet businesses, a small startup like Netflix can grow into a major power thanks to the lack of regulations. What Verizon wants is the ability to shut out companies like Netflix. Did you know that every major ISP offers their own video streaming service and that they are non competitive with Netflix? Those companies are trying to legislate away the companies that are doing it better so that they will be the only choice. Why should we do that?

Remember when Ted Cruz said Net Neutality is Obamacare for the internet? He was wrong, but he wasn't far off. What the telecom's are pushing actually is Obamacare for the internet. They'll be using the power of the government to make their own product the only option. That is not a good outcome for consumers.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


What the telecom's are pushing actually is Obamacare for the internet. They'll be using the power of the government to make their own product the only option. That is not a good outcome for consumers.



I could't agree more, I just think not passing new laws and/or eliminating existing ones is the way to prevent cronyism and collusion between regulatory agencies and corporations, not granting them both even more power.

Eliminate the legislation which deters investment in infrastructure in your community/state/country.
edit on 18-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
I could't agree more, I just think not passing new laws and/or eliminating existing ones is the way to prevent cronyism and collusion between regulatory agencies and corporations, not granting them both even more power.

Eliminate the legislation which deters investment in infrastructure in your community/state/country.


And that comes back to the whole issue. What the FCC is proposing isn't ideal but at this point we have two options, we either support that plan or we support Verizon's plan. I don't think repealing any Net Neutrality framework is a good thing because the companies in question are monopolies. We cannot let monopolies run unregulated but at the same time the ISP's even if we were to break them up to say their 2001 status would still be local monopolies. We can't do what we did to the Bells.

If we let the telecoms have their way the consumers and the content providers lose, and lose big because it's going to create a huge barrier to entry on content providers. On the other hand if we go with the FCC's plan things will stay about the same as now for content providers which isn't ideal but isn't horrible either. We get some slight government expansion but that's better than the alternative. Without the ability to add competition to the market there isn't a third solution.

I should probably mention that the FCC's plan would be a temporary measure. While not being drafted as such there is new technology coming in the future, most notably whitefi. When this technology hits consumer shelves we will be able to use the dark fiber across the country that's currently under government control to create internet connections that use whitefi for the last mile connections. This reduces the barrier to entry in local markets from several billion to a couple hundred thousand. Thus, once this technology is available provided we don't give the dark fiber to the major telecoms and instead lease it directly from the government we can create local competition (note that this technology circumvents the 100 year monopolies the ISP's use as it's a different tech) which lets us control the market without regulatory legislation.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Usually, if it's bad for a company it gets passed on to it's customers. In this rare instance, what's bad for the corporate ISPs is actually good for the consumers. If people did the research and could wrap their heads around all of this (I'll admit, some of it is complicated) -- they'd see that.

There is a reason the ISPs are fighting this tooth and nail, and it's not because they care about you. Normally more regulation and rules never turns out well...but as I said -- in this case, the people benefit.

Be prepared to see fear mongering television ads and Obama somehow being behind all of this from the GOP in Washington. It's going to get very ugly, and the only people that seem to support this are the people that understand it.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I simply challenge the assumption that monopolies are born of free markets, they are not. They are formed with the direct intervention of government and never live up to their most sincere aspirations to be stalwart and incorruptible stewards of a public good.

I am specifically calling for a dramatic increase in service providers as the obvious market solution. You can't and don't make them but, you can dissuade them which is what we have been doing.

No new laws are necessary.

I do not trust legislators to make good laws nor do I trust their enforcement to be just.
edit on 18-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Well maybe my view is simplistic, but if a free market runs wild you have a bunch of companies competing, and buying each other out to increase profit. Eventually, you have only a handful of large companies, and one of them unhinges its jaw and devours another large company. If regulation to prevent that from happening wasn't in place we'd have "THE CORPORATION" that provides us with everything from diapers to bullets.

One company to rule them, and in the darkness bind them... or something like that. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't see how letting companies and corporations run wild doesn't lead to monopolies.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

"In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.” -Robert Higgs

Ultimately, it is the use of force that creates and maintains monopolies so it is the holder of the greatest ability to employ violence that we should presume to be associated with whatever ill circumstance we should find ourselves in.
edit on 18-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Aazadan

I simply challenge the assumption that monopolies are born of free markets, they are not. They are formed with the direct intervention of government and never live up to their most sincere aspirations to be stalwart and incorruptible stewards of a public good.

I am specifically calling for a dramatic increase in service providers as the obvious market solution. You can't and don't make them but, you can dissuade them which is what we have been doing.

No new laws are necessary.

I do not trust legislators to make good laws nor do I trust their enforcement to be just.


Here's the problem though. We don't have the technology to increase service providers right now. It is completely infeasible, it's too expensive and requires too much redundant infrastructure. The infrastructure we have now wasn't even built by these companies, you paid thousands of dollars in taxes for it to the government. A government which then gave the network to these companies to manage. We cannot create new competition with current technology unless we either take the network back from the ISP's (outright theft) or we tax and spend more network infrastructure into existence (guessing you don't want to do that either).

There will be low speed wireless competition soon (within the next few years) and that can alleviate some of the issue but even when that happens we still need legislation in the meantime, and the FCC's plan meets that need.

As far as the monopoly statement goes, ISP's do not operate in a free market, each exists as a local monopoly and this situation was brought about by government interference (we gave the ISP's 200 billion to buy each other out and consolidate... they were supposed to build a network with that money). That was bad, but it's the situation we have and we have to live with it rather than pretend it's a utopia and act as if it is.
edit on 18-2-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Much like the rush for artificial credit expansion, the best argument to be made is that too much damage has already been done for the free market to reassert itself. I am specifically denying that assertion.

It sounds like you agree with me in principal but, have scant confidence in the restoration of a free market for communications. I am also specifically countering that capitulative mindset.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Aazadan

Much like the rush for artificial credit expansion, the best argument to be made is that too much damage has already been done for the free market to reassert itself. I am specifically denying that assertion.

It sounds like you agree with me in principal but, have scant confidence in the restoration of a free market for communications. I am also specifically countering that capitulative mindset.


How can you restore a free market through competition if you've given the companies monopoly status and it's prohibitively expensive to create an alternative startup? Very few companies have the capital necessary, one that did is Google and they tried it. Guess what happened? The ISP's got in a huge legal battle with Google saying their expansion of Google fiber into their markets broke their monopoly agreements. The courts sided with the telecom providers and Google was forced to abandon plans to expand their fiber service.

civsourceonline.com...

Again, this is an example of the telecom's using their ability to lobby government to legislate competition out of existence, exactly as they're attempting to do over this Net Neutrality battle.

The free market has failed us here, the only solution left is regulation until a time that technology can provide alternatives so that we once again have competition.

The third option (I always believe there's atleast a third option) is that we try and restart the free market by seizing the backbone as it was taxpayer built in the first place, and then breaking up the telecom's into small regional companies, and separating their tv/phone/internet services from each other while providing incentives for competition to rise up, with everyone getting equal access to the backbone. From there we can opt out of most regulation (some backbone regulation is still needed... the underlying structure of the network is one that prevents competition, much like water service) and let the companies police themselves through competition. This solution is still pretty radical though and quite honestly has a 0% chance of happening due to the politics involved.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I am certain of that one thing, that the free market (private property in the means of production with minimal or nonexistent economic intervention), unimpeded and unmolested is the best way to manage the production and distribution of goods and services.

What more evidence that regulation is counter productive than the fact that Google was unable to pierce the cronyist legislative armor. Clearly, there is plenty of room for deregulation and no clear example in favor of regulatory expansion.

I have really only relatively recently concluded that antitrust action is not a viable solution and, frankly, it is the only state action which I might contemplate. It is, however, nothing more than a disruption of a functioning system if there is no financial benefit to consumers in its implementation. I have come to believe that such a bloated monopoly would not be able to hold on to its market share when there is no legal preclusion to direct competition from smaller, more agile and necessarily more innovative upstarts. It would persist until its specification is no longer competitive.
edit on 18-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)







 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join