Net Neutrality takes another hit - this time from the FCC

[pwalker8]

If it's the only choice you have, then it is by definition the most convenient choice. In many places, it's simply not very economically viable to have a lot of choice. The numbers just aren't enough to support the cost of running wire. My sister lives out in a rural area where her choice is satellite or no one. Fortunately, satellite based internet has improved quite a bit over the years. It is, the downside of living out where there aren't a lot of people and land is cheap.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

If you don't think that your provider should provide both delivery and content, then get a pure internet provider. That way you won't have to worry about it. People get cable and internet service from the same company because it's convenient.

Originally Posted by shalym

I get my internet access from my cable provider not because it's convenient, but because I don't have any other viable choice.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

If it's the only choice you have, then it is by definition the most convenient choice. In many places, it's simply not very economically viable to have a lot of choice. (snip) It is, the downside of living out where there aren't a lot of people and land is cheap.

First of all, that's not how "choice" works. Having none doesn't make it a convenient choice, it means having no choice at all.

This issue isn't limited to rural markets. Pure ISPs can be rare even in heavily populated areas, especially for residential service - many only offer business services, and in fact, most of those aren't really "pure" ISPs either, because they are leasing infrastructure from the telecom / cable companies and offering value-added packages, not internet-only service. We used to have one that offered residential internet service, but their highest speed was 3 mb/s and they are now out of business.

We might be getting Google fiber here, though. We completed the checklist by the deadline but it's not a certainty yet. I'm hopeful.

[pwalker8]

The way choice works is that you choose to live where your preferences are maximized. My sister chooses to live in a rural area for a number of reasons. Her trade off is that she doesn't have easy access to many things common in a urban area. I'm a city boy. I like having access to a wide choice of things - restaurants, supermarkets, bookstores, etc. Fast internet is important to me, so I live in a place where I can get 100 mbps internet and can choose between four or five providers.

In the USA, most people do have choices. There is always satellite. Business service is indeed a choice. You may not like how much you have to pay for it, but it's a choice. Heck, if you have a telephone line, then you probably can use dial up. I'm pretty sure there are still dial up providers out there.

[murg]

Like most attempts by an industry to get the government to regulate things their way, introducing net non-neutrality will lead to one outcome: the content providers will displace the current distributers.

Basically, Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. will build (or buy) distribution networks. Google already has plans for blimp based net access.

[tubemonkey]

The FCC votes today.

Amid protests, U.S. FCC to vote on new 'net neutrality' proposal

U.S. telecommunications regulators will vote on Thursday on whether to formally propose new "net neutrality" rules that may let Internet service providers charge content companies for faster and more reliable delivery of their traffic to users.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler has come under fire from consumer advocates and technology companies for proposing to allow some "commercially reasonable" deals where content companies could pay broadband providers to prioritize traffic on their networks.

Critics worry the rules would create "fast lanes" for companies that pay up and mean slower traffic for others, although Wheeler has pledged to prevent "acts to divide the Internet between 'haves' and 'have nots.'"

Wheeler's proposal reaches the tentative conclusion that some pay-for-priority deals may be allowed, but asks whether the FCC should presume "some or all" such deals are illegal, according to an FCC official briefed on the proposal. It also asks whether the FCC should instead consider reclassification or other net neutrality proposals.

The two Republican FCC commissioners are expected to vote against Wheeler's proposal. Wheeler's two fellow Democrats have both expressed misgivings about the plan, but are likely to vote to launch the process and open it up to public comment.

[tubemonkey]

This is why companies shouldn't be allowed to provide both cable content and internet delivery. As more people cut their cable TV services in favor of streaming content, companies like Comcast will look to charging more for internet delivery to make up for the loss of cable content revenue.

Comcast To Cord-Cutters: You Should Pay More

Comcast VP David Cohen predicts that the cable and media giant will move all of its broadband customers to usage-based billing plans within the next few years. “People who use more should pay more,” Cohen told analysts at the MoffettNathanson Media & Communications Summit. Comcast is already experimenting with usage-billing models in some markets, with customers who pay for faster broadband speeds generally receiving a larger amount of data usage. For Comcast users in Atlanta, Maine and other select cities, the most common data cap currently stands at 300GB per month. Users who exceed this are charged (after an initial grace period) $10 extra for each additional 50GB of data usage.

[delph]

Cord-cutters already pay more, since bundled services are discounted.

And the vote is in. The FCC voted for internet 'fast lanes', which in my opinion means they voted down net neutrality.

[silverraven]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxMy...&feature=share
Was this posted already? I thought it was interesting.
S

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by silverraven

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxMy...&feature=share
Was this posted already? I thought it was interesting.
S

Nice video

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by delph

Cord-cutters already pay more, since bundled services are discounted.

But they don't pay enough more. Comcast wants them to pay even more more.

And the vote is in. The FCC voted for internet 'fast lanes', which in my opinion means they voted down net neutrality.

There's still a final vote in Sep after the four month public comment period.

[jersysman]

Unless someone with big money sides with net neutrality and has some stones in Washington, this seems like a done deal later in the year. I definitely agree with TM. There should be a separation of content and delivery.

[pwalker8]

While it may be a done deal in the FCC, that doesn't mean it's going to stand up in court. The FCC was already slapped down by the courts the first time they tried to assert control over the internet. I don't expect this time to be different given that the law hasn't changed since then.

[delph]

And if anyone is interesting in filing an official comment, here is the FCC page to do so:

FCC Electronic Comment Filing System

It's proceeding 14-28, conveniently first in the list.

[Fbone]

Who would buy the delivery infrastructure if companies are forced to split?

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by silverraven

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxMy...&feature=share
Was this posted already? I thought it was interesting.
S

I especially liked this quote (which applies to deregulation generally): "Capitalism does not work when monopolies block the way between producers and consumers. That's not rhetoric, it's math. Capitalism doesn't work when it's impossible for a new business to emerge in a market. Look how much trouble Google is having with Google Fiber, and they're Google."