Obama endorses "Net Neutrality" ... but is there a "catch-22" if Title II is required ?
-
[^] "At the crux of the debate over Net neutrality is Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The section, which is more than 100 pages long, regulates how common carriers must conduct business across all forms of communication in order to act "in the public interest." Net neutrality supporters say that the language is vague and could be used to sidestep a free and open Internet and give ISPs the opportunity to sign deals with Internet companies that would provide for prioritization of traffic."
« I am putting myself to the fullest possible use which is all, I think, that any conscious entity can ever hope to do » HAL (Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer) in "2001, A Space Odyssey"
-
[^] "At the crux of the debate over Net neutrality is Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The section, which is more than 100 pages long, regulates how common carriers must conduct business across all forms of communication in order to act "in the public interest." Net neutrality supporters say that the language is vague and could be used to sidestep a free and open Internet and give ISPs the opportunity to sign deals with Internet companies that would provide for prioritization of traffic."
« I am putting myself to the fullest possible use which is all, I think, that any conscious entity can ever hope to do » HAL (Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer) in "2001, A Space Odyssey"
The Net Neutrality thing always sounds good in whiteboard terms. But I'm very wary of anything the federal government has ever done "in the public interest" as it's remarkably rare that it's actually the case. I can smell the rat, but I don't see it yet.
-
[^] "At the crux of the debate over Net neutrality is Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The section, which is more than 100 pages long, regulates how common carriers must conduct business across all forms of communication in order to act "in the public interest." Net neutrality supporters say that the language is vague and could be used to sidestep a free and open Internet and give ISPs the opportunity to sign deals with Internet companies that would provide for prioritization of traffic."
« I am putting myself to the fullest possible use which is all, I think, that any conscious entity can ever hope to do » HAL (Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer) in "2001, A Space Odyssey"
And no one saw this coming? Also expect it to be taxed soon "The Internet Tax Freedom Act"! It will happen.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0 There's a fine line between crazy and free spirited and it's usually a prescription. I'm currently unsupervised, I know it freaks me out too but the possibilities are endless.
-
[^] "At the crux of the debate over Net neutrality is Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The section, which is more than 100 pages long, regulates how common carriers must conduct business across all forms of communication in order to act "in the public interest." Net neutrality supporters say that the language is vague and could be used to sidestep a free and open Internet and give ISPs the opportunity to sign deals with Internet companies that would provide for prioritization of traffic."
« I am putting myself to the fullest possible use which is all, I think, that any conscious entity can ever hope to do » HAL (Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer) in "2001, A Space Odyssey"
Whenever the government gets involved, expect things to get over complicated and turned to sh*t.
Jeremy Falcon
-
[^] "At the crux of the debate over Net neutrality is Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The section, which is more than 100 pages long, regulates how common carriers must conduct business across all forms of communication in order to act "in the public interest." Net neutrality supporters say that the language is vague and could be used to sidestep a free and open Internet and give ISPs the opportunity to sign deals with Internet companies that would provide for prioritization of traffic."
« I am putting myself to the fullest possible use which is all, I think, that any conscious entity can ever hope to do » HAL (Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer) in "2001, A Space Odyssey"
-
[^] "At the crux of the debate over Net neutrality is Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The section, which is more than 100 pages long, regulates how common carriers must conduct business across all forms of communication in order to act "in the public interest." Net neutrality supporters say that the language is vague and could be used to sidestep a free and open Internet and give ISPs the opportunity to sign deals with Internet companies that would provide for prioritization of traffic."
« I am putting myself to the fullest possible use which is all, I think, that any conscious entity can ever hope to do » HAL (Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer) in "2001, A Space Odyssey"
I like the premise of all traffic being treated equally. But I fear having the feds regulate ISP's will stifle innovation... and probably worse things I have not thought of yet. For example I am highly looking forward to more widespread roll out of fiber to the house networks. What happens to those efforts? Imagine a situation where a Level 3 type provider is down and we have to wait on congress to appropriate funding to fix the issue! /cringe Comcast/Time Warner/AT&T/Verizon/etc are worse actors than the feds (imo). These companies have a track record resembling the trail of tears. However we at least have the option of taking our business elsewhere... well depends on where you live I suppose. So they're bad, but largely accountable. The feds are rarely if ever held accountable for anything. Will we continue to have options (aka power to hold providers accountable) if internet becomes a utility? I cannot remember ever having multiple choices for who I get water/gas/electric from at any residence I have had. Guess I am torn, I am interested in compelling arguments for/against this.
-
[^] "At the crux of the debate over Net neutrality is Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The section, which is more than 100 pages long, regulates how common carriers must conduct business across all forms of communication in order to act "in the public interest." Net neutrality supporters say that the language is vague and could be used to sidestep a free and open Internet and give ISPs the opportunity to sign deals with Internet companies that would provide for prioritization of traffic."
« I am putting myself to the fullest possible use which is all, I think, that any conscious entity can ever hope to do » HAL (Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer) in "2001, A Space Odyssey"
On the one hand, net neutrailty is good. On the other, Obama suggested it, so it can't possiby be good. Of course we would have to pass the bill to see what's in it.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
On the one hand, net neutrailty is good. On the other, Obama suggested it, so it can't possiby be good. Of course we would have to pass the bill to see what's in it.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Of course we would have to pass the bill to see what's in it.
and wait until after the next election to see how much it's going to cost.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0 There's a fine line between crazy and free spirited and it's usually a prescription. I'm currently unsupervised, I know it freaks me out too but the possibilities are endless.
-
The Net Neutrality thing always sounds good in whiteboard terms. But I'm very wary of anything the federal government has ever done "in the public interest" as it's remarkably rare that it's actually the case. I can smell the rat, but I don't see it yet.
mikepwilson wrote:
I'm very wary of anything the federal government has ever done "in the public interest" as it's remarkably rare that it's actually the case.
Perhaps reading a few history books is in order.
-
I like the premise of all traffic being treated equally. But I fear having the feds regulate ISP's will stifle innovation... and probably worse things I have not thought of yet. For example I am highly looking forward to more widespread roll out of fiber to the house networks. What happens to those efforts? Imagine a situation where a Level 3 type provider is down and we have to wait on congress to appropriate funding to fix the issue! /cringe Comcast/Time Warner/AT&T/Verizon/etc are worse actors than the feds (imo). These companies have a track record resembling the trail of tears. However we at least have the option of taking our business elsewhere... well depends on where you live I suppose. So they're bad, but largely accountable. The feds are rarely if ever held accountable for anything. Will we continue to have options (aka power to hold providers accountable) if internet becomes a utility? I cannot remember ever having multiple choices for who I get water/gas/electric from at any residence I have had. Guess I am torn, I am interested in compelling arguments for/against this.
Rowdy Raider wrote:
Imagine a situation where a Level 3 type provider is down and we have to wait on congress to appropriate funding to fix the issue! /cringe
That's quite a misunderstanding of government you're harboring there. Regulated utilities do not require Congressional approval to perform maintenance. That's just dumb.
-
On the one hand, net neutrailty is good. On the other, Obama suggested it, so it can't possiby be good. Of course we would have to pass the bill to see what's in it.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Don't remember exact quote, but when it comes to regulation just ask yourself if you're comfortable with the other side having the same power.
-
On the one hand, net neutrailty is good. On the other, Obama suggested it, so it can't possiby be good. Of course we would have to pass the bill to see what's in it.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
[^] "At the crux of the debate over Net neutrality is Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The section, which is more than 100 pages long, regulates how common carriers must conduct business across all forms of communication in order to act "in the public interest." Net neutrality supporters say that the language is vague and could be used to sidestep a free and open Internet and give ISPs the opportunity to sign deals with Internet companies that would provide for prioritization of traffic."
« I am putting myself to the fullest possible use which is all, I think, that any conscious entity can ever hope to do » HAL (Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer) in "2001, A Space Odyssey"
This makes me wonder just who to believe now. All of the information I've been fed (by supposed Net Neutrality supporters) has been that Title II classification is exactly what 'we' want. It was my understanding that 'broadband' was previously classified under Title II, and the FCC allowed that classification to expire. After it expired (and probably as they saw the impending expiration,) ISPs started planning for a tiered internet, where they could extort higher fees out of internet companies, offering them the same bandwidth/speed/low latency that they previously enjoyed; anyone who didn't pay would be relegated to a 'slow lane'. If such was the case, I would see this as a impediment to innovation, as smaller start-up companies would have a much harder time competing in the marketplace. Classifying 'broadband' with Title II again, supposedly, fixes the problem by blocking ISPs from implementing such a tiered service. Of course, we could both be correct, and the same people I've been hearing from may have only recently realized that the wording of Title II is vague enough to be open to abuse (it's legislature, wouldn't surprise me in the least.) But since what you say conflicts with what I've heard, I now have to wonder if the open-internet 'advocates' I've been listening to aren't just trying to scam people into supporting the wrong side (that being, the ISPs.) All I know for certain is, the internet/'broadband' was doing just fine when it was (supposed to have been) under Title II classification, so it should likely regain said classification, if only to maintain the status-quo.
-
Rowdy Raider wrote:
Imagine a situation where a Level 3 type provider is down and we have to wait on congress to appropriate funding to fix the issue! /cringe
That's quite a misunderstanding of government you're harboring there. Regulated utilities do not require Congressional approval to perform maintenance. That's just dumb.
A) If there is a misunderstanding on my part it is not with regard to government. I can fully accept that I lack knowledge around how utilities work. B) Unless you know some technicians who work for free then explain how we can guarantee the utilities have funding for said maintenance. Remember that whole government shutdown thing? It is my understanding that in many cases governments subsidize utilities. My cynical side would not put it past the carries to start pointing their fingers at congress saying "we cant fix it because we don't have the money". Which requires what? Funding - from congress. It takes a couple steps to get there I know. I want to be educated here, but calling names is only going to dilute your own argument.
-
I like the premise of all traffic being treated equally. But I fear having the feds regulate ISP's will stifle innovation... and probably worse things I have not thought of yet. For example I am highly looking forward to more widespread roll out of fiber to the house networks. What happens to those efforts? Imagine a situation where a Level 3 type provider is down and we have to wait on congress to appropriate funding to fix the issue! /cringe Comcast/Time Warner/AT&T/Verizon/etc are worse actors than the feds (imo). These companies have a track record resembling the trail of tears. However we at least have the option of taking our business elsewhere... well depends on where you live I suppose. So they're bad, but largely accountable. The feds are rarely if ever held accountable for anything. Will we continue to have options (aka power to hold providers accountable) if internet becomes a utility? I cannot remember ever having multiple choices for who I get water/gas/electric from at any residence I have had. Guess I am torn, I am interested in compelling arguments for/against this.
Yeah, but to clear something up - what's on the table isn't whether to regulate or not. It's whether to regulate one way or another. Either way, the government (the FCC in this case) is now going to be involved. The FCC is being asked to create regulations for a multi-tier system, or to create regulations that guarantee one tier for all. As things stand right now (in the U.S.), net neutrality is the default state of things. There's no law requiring it or formal regulation keeping it going. Conversely, the FCC has not given ISPs the authority to create a multi-tiered system either. Without that authority, the ISPs fear they will be swimming in legal hell for years. So up until now, the FCC is doing what most small-gov't proponents want: keeping the lightest possible touch and generally staying out of the way. However, now that ISPs are asking for the authority to create and maintain a multi-tiered system, the FCC is being forced to regulate one way or the other. The other interesting question is that of stifling innovation. I know most times people talk of government stifling innovation, but to keep things in perspective, private companies often actively do the same thing. When a company is on top, they will "create barriers to entry" for their competition (a term I hear way too often), and attempt to otherwise maintain a competitive edge. As long as that competitive edge is fair competition, nobody really cares and that is actually beneficial for the consumer and market at large. But as soon as the company with the keys to the gate locks it out for any other potential competitor, they are doing far more to stifle innovation than any bumbling government agency could. So in this case, there's a risk that government may stifle innovation, but there's an equal (and some argue greater) chance that a handful of ISPs will abuse this multi-tier system to keep startups from being able to compete with their services, and that would severely stifle innovation. As for the last point about choices, we are already fairly restricted in our choices. You can have dial-up or DSL, in which case, you are stuck with your one and only phone provider for the area. You can have cable, in which case you are stuck with your one and only cable provider for the area. If you are lucky enough to have fiber in the area, you are stuck with the provider who laid the fiber for your area. So bottom line: while there are potentially several providers (unless you live in rural areas), based on your needs, you will have one or extremely few choic
-
Yeah, but to clear something up - what's on the table isn't whether to regulate or not. It's whether to regulate one way or another. Either way, the government (the FCC in this case) is now going to be involved. The FCC is being asked to create regulations for a multi-tier system, or to create regulations that guarantee one tier for all. As things stand right now (in the U.S.), net neutrality is the default state of things. There's no law requiring it or formal regulation keeping it going. Conversely, the FCC has not given ISPs the authority to create a multi-tiered system either. Without that authority, the ISPs fear they will be swimming in legal hell for years. So up until now, the FCC is doing what most small-gov't proponents want: keeping the lightest possible touch and generally staying out of the way. However, now that ISPs are asking for the authority to create and maintain a multi-tiered system, the FCC is being forced to regulate one way or the other. The other interesting question is that of stifling innovation. I know most times people talk of government stifling innovation, but to keep things in perspective, private companies often actively do the same thing. When a company is on top, they will "create barriers to entry" for their competition (a term I hear way too often), and attempt to otherwise maintain a competitive edge. As long as that competitive edge is fair competition, nobody really cares and that is actually beneficial for the consumer and market at large. But as soon as the company with the keys to the gate locks it out for any other potential competitor, they are doing far more to stifle innovation than any bumbling government agency could. So in this case, there's a risk that government may stifle innovation, but there's an equal (and some argue greater) chance that a handful of ISPs will abuse this multi-tier system to keep startups from being able to compete with their services, and that would severely stifle innovation. As for the last point about choices, we are already fairly restricted in our choices. You can have dial-up or DSL, in which case, you are stuck with your one and only phone provider for the area. You can have cable, in which case you are stuck with your one and only cable provider for the area. If you are lucky enough to have fiber in the area, you are stuck with the provider who laid the fiber for your area. So bottom line: while there are potentially several providers (unless you live in rural areas), based on your needs, you will have one or extremely few choic
Thanks for the info dense reply. I have a million things come to mind, so try to forgive. So why isn't not regulating on the table? Feels like a false dilema to me. What is wrong with looking the carriers pushing to get regulations in place and telling them no? I strongly suspect this is a ploy for them to get rules laid out so they can then proceed to work around them. If you give them no rules... does the status quo not hold? Of course one possible answer might be that a lack of a way forward on these issues may itself stifle innovation. Has that been discussed already?
-
The Net Neutrality thing always sounds good in whiteboard terms. But I'm very wary of anything the federal government has ever done "in the public interest" as it's remarkably rare that it's actually the case. I can smell the rat, but I don't see it yet.
mikepwilson wrote:
But I'm very wary of anything the federal government has ever done "in the public interest" as it's remarkably rare that it's actually the case.
I can smell the rat, but I don't see it yet.Myself as for the first part of the above I am partial to food inspection laws. In part because without them smelling a rat, an actual rat, might be the lesser part of the problem.
-
A) If there is a misunderstanding on my part it is not with regard to government. I can fully accept that I lack knowledge around how utilities work. B) Unless you know some technicians who work for free then explain how we can guarantee the utilities have funding for said maintenance. Remember that whole government shutdown thing? It is my understanding that in many cases governments subsidize utilities. My cynical side would not put it past the carries to start pointing their fingers at congress saying "we cant fix it because we don't have the money". Which requires what? Funding - from congress. It takes a couple steps to get there I know. I want to be educated here, but calling names is only going to dilute your own argument.
Rowdy Raider wrote:
Unless you know some technicians who work for free then explain how we can guarantee the utilities have funding for said maintenance. Remember that whole government shutdown thing?
First of course even though the government "shutdown" that didn't mean that every single government worker was furloughed. Second natural gas, electricity and water are regulated industry in every city in the US where those industries are significant (natural gas isn't everywhere.) But that only means that the government has controls on the industry. It doesn't mean they run it. A shutdown of the government would have zero impact on the industry. And regulation of those is by the municipalities (or perhaps state) not the federal government.
Rowdy Raider wrote:
It is my understanding that in many cases governments subsidize utilities
There is very little in business in the US that is not subsidized in some way at some time. As just one example look to the "Small Business Administration". So what would you point be there in terms of utilities?
Rowdy Raider wrote:
My cynical side would not put it past the carries to start pointing their fingers at congress saying "we cant fix it because we don't have the money".
Many businesses blame the government for their actual or marketing failures. Regardless of whether they are regulated or not.
-
[^] "At the crux of the debate over Net neutrality is Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The section, which is more than 100 pages long, regulates how common carriers must conduct business across all forms of communication in order to act "in the public interest." Net neutrality supporters say that the language is vague and could be used to sidestep a free and open Internet and give ISPs the opportunity to sign deals with Internet companies that would provide for prioritization of traffic."
« I am putting myself to the fullest possible use which is all, I think, that any conscious entity can ever hope to do » HAL (Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer) in "2001, A Space Odyssey"
I was reading this at VentureBeat[^] and it seems to summarise to
- No blocking.
- No throttling.
- Increased transparency.
- No paid prioritization
This seems good. In fact it kinda seems to be what the rest of the World takes for granted. Yet Obama did it so it's bad. I find politics in the States truly bizarre. It always seems to be about the personality, or "your team winning" and never about the actual issue, let alone the common good. (and the "common good" always seems to bend and shift to exclude whatever the other team says). So can someone please explain a) Why Net Neutrality is so bad b) What they feel The Others (ie not Obama) would have done to make it better. As far as I can tell the Republicans feel that the laws are unnecessary, even in the face of blatant steps by companies to have a tiered model. Is a tiered model actually better for those in the States? I do not want a debate on American Politics I want to learn in what manner the law is flawed, and what alternatives have been proposed.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
This makes me wonder just who to believe now. All of the information I've been fed (by supposed Net Neutrality supporters) has been that Title II classification is exactly what 'we' want. It was my understanding that 'broadband' was previously classified under Title II, and the FCC allowed that classification to expire. After it expired (and probably as they saw the impending expiration,) ISPs started planning for a tiered internet, where they could extort higher fees out of internet companies, offering them the same bandwidth/speed/low latency that they previously enjoyed; anyone who didn't pay would be relegated to a 'slow lane'. If such was the case, I would see this as a impediment to innovation, as smaller start-up companies would have a much harder time competing in the marketplace. Classifying 'broadband' with Title II again, supposedly, fixes the problem by blocking ISPs from implementing such a tiered service. Of course, we could both be correct, and the same people I've been hearing from may have only recently realized that the wording of Title II is vague enough to be open to abuse (it's legislature, wouldn't surprise me in the least.) But since what you say conflicts with what I've heard, I now have to wonder if the open-internet 'advocates' I've been listening to aren't just trying to scam people into supporting the wrong side (that being, the ISPs.) All I know for certain is, the internet/'broadband' was doing just fine when it was (supposed to have been) under Title II classification, so it should likely regain said classification, if only to maintain the status-quo.
Kyle Moyer wrote:
This makes me wonder just who to believe now.
There are politicians and people with political agendas involved. I hope that resolves your quandary.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
