Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Globalcitizen12 on November 27, 2017, 03:33:20 AM
-
What going on I hear an Indian is getting pounded by big media
https://i.redd.it/yekymz9wec001.jpg
[imghttps://i.redd.it/yekymz9wec001.jpg[/img]
-
Trump FCC is intent on reversing Obama internet policy. There are pros and cons for the west despite all the noises. But for me what matters is the impact on the developing world. The internet is still quite underdeveloped and has yet to achieve its potential. Even in the west where all the telco and satellite firms coalesce. All the talk of satellite- and drone- and ballon internet... Web 2.0 is not yet here otherwise the cost should have crumbled and access would be ubiquitous and universal. Instead we still have 4G cable being laid in Nairobi... wifi is accessible in limited central locations.
Net neutrality - a PR word for the regulatory plethora - has shackled MNCs who would have invested way bigger by now. It basically says if you're content driver Google you cannot also own the infrastructure. If you're content owner Netflix you cannot also own the pipe or cable. Verizon cannot also own content without major approvals, etc. That's the gist I get which is good for a mature playing field but not one under construction. It's like saying Amazon cannot own a physical retail store or that Walmart cannot do e-commerce without fulfilling a long cheklist. Good but only once the sector is mature.
I say to hell with Net neutrality. Aggressive growth is good for Africa and everyone - except a few players - because the big investor would see quick returns without the contraints. The FCC impacts us much more than the local CA. Go Pai!
-
Facebook's Internet.org - a cheap access for Sub Sahara & Southern Asia - was torpedoed by Net neutrality. Google has also faced heavy fines because the rules don't allow them to lower rates for the poor so as not to undercut non-existent competitors. So for this FB & Google shelved their internet balloons and confined R&D to labs in the Silicon Valley.
-
Robina,
I think you misunderstand what's really going on. What Trump and his gang want to do is allow ISP's to divide the internet into fast and slow networks so that they can make more money. For example, charging more so one can access YouTube (more bandwidth needed) than someone who just wants to browse, for example, Nation online (less bandwidth).
That's what it boils down to. In other words, the ISP's win and the small time users, like us, will be forced to shell out more cash to be able to use Netflix / YouTube etc.
Here's a good example of what it means (Indian example):
(https://www.muvi.com/wpstudio/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Bc9oxyH.png)
In Kenya, Safcom and the others (Why telcos want Facebook and WhatsApp regulated (http://www.nation.co.ke/lifestyle/smartcompany/Why-telcos-want-Facebook-and-WhatsApp-regulated/1226-2761052-79iswy/index.html)). They'll be able to block WhatsApp, Skype, etc. and force us back to the days of SMS unless we pay for the extra service.
Clearly Robina's eyes are not open as wide. FB,Google, and regular guys are the loseres. Verizons, ATTS are the winners. Robina, simply its building a highway one for the well off and another for everyone else. ISPs can still slow down the "highway for everyone else" whenever they feel like so that they well off can have more free way.
-
Facebook's Internet.org - a cheap access for Sub Sahara & Southern Asia - was torpedoed by Net neutrality. Google has also faced heavy fines because the rules don't allow them to lower rates for the poor so as not to undercut non-existent competitors. So for this FB & Google shelved their internet balloons and confined R&D to labs in the Silicon Valley.
I'm not sure I understand your example. Google (Alphabet) and Facebook are actually very strong supporters of net neutrality. In fact, Google's has numerous problems with companies that favour the dismantling of net neutrality .... Comcast, A T & T.
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/?tag=google+fiber
It basically says if you're content driver Google you cannot also own the infrastructure
And Google Fiber?
-
Empo I get exactly that. It's all so noble until you see the impact. What happened to Internet.org?
Between Verizon and Facebook who's the ISP? According to your narrative it's the ISP that gets power in the new arrangement. So how come it's the same ISPs whining?
The issue is, Google, Facebook, etc - the tech giants - have the capital, talent & tech muscle to out-innovate the lazy telcos out of the internet business. Facebook wants balloons to stream bandwidth simlessly - and cheaply - which kicks Safaricom et al out of business.
-
Facebook's Internet.org - a cheap access for Sub Sahara & Southern Asia - was torpedoed by Net neutrality. Google has also faced heavy fines because the rules don't allow them to lower rates for the poor so as not to undercut non-existent competitors. So for this FB & Google shelved their internet balloons and confined R&D to labs in the Silicon Valley.
I'm not sure I understand your example. Google (Alphabet) and Facebook are actually very strong supporters of net neutrality. In fact, Google's has numerous problems with companies that favour the dismantling of net neutrality .... Comcast, A T & T.
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/?tag=google+fiber
PR - businesses don't mean what they say much like the politicians. If you look at Empedocles's diagram and listen carefully to the story you will see Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon - the tech giants - are the real concern to the telcos.
It basically says if you're content driver Google you cannot also own the infrastructure
And Google Fiber?
Google has to agree to FCC rules - such as not exceeding certain rates set by telco clubs. It stifles Google's ambitions.
-
PR - businesses don't mean what they say much like the politicians. If you look at Empedocles's diagram and listen carefully to the story you will see Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon - the tech giants - are the real concern to the telcos.
Sorry, you lost me again. You wrote of MNCs that have supposedly been shackled by the net neutrality rule and then gave examples of MNCs that are in fact supporting net neutrality. PR? I doubt that Google is investing in Google Fiber and spending money on lawsuits over it just for PR.
Google has to agree to FCC rules - such as not exceeding certain rates set by telco clubs. It stifles Google's ambitions.
Google certainly has to play by whatever FCC rules that are relevant. I was, however, responding to your claim, in the matter of "internet neutrality", that
It basically says if you're content driver Google you cannot also own the infrastructure
If that is the case, then Google is willfully breaking the rules and the regulator is fast asleep. Possible, but to my mind unlikely.
That bit was an extract on your general commentary on "net neutrality", which commentary was this:
Net neutrality - a PR word for the regulatory plethora - has shackled MNCs who would have invested way bigger by now. It basically says if you're content driver Google you cannot also own the infrastructure. If you're content owner Netflix you cannot also own the pipe or cable. Verizon cannot also own content without major approvals, etc. That's the gist I get which is good for a mature playing field but not one under construction. It's like saying Amazon cannot own a physical retail store or that Walmart cannot do e-commerce without fulfilling a long cheklist. Good but only once the sector is mature.
I have read the "net neutrality rule", and I am hard pressed to see how you come up with that. According to the FCC, the current rule is
Specifically, the Open Internet Order adopts bright-line rules that prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization; a rule preventing broadband providers from unreasonably interfering or disadvantaging consumers or edge providers from reaching one another on the Internet; and provides for enhanced transparency into network management practices, network performance, and commercial terms of broadband Internet access service.
Just on that basis, one can see why providers don't care for it. As Empedocles has pointed out, they cannot, for example, rip off people on the basis of "paid prioritization".
It is also not easy to see how a company like Google is constrained in the manner you have suggested. Perhaps you can point to the parts of the "rule" that you think are applicable. ?example, which part would you say supports the red claim above
Here it is:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/04/13/2015-07841/protecting-and-promoting-the-open-internet
-
Specifically, the Open Internet Order adopts bright-line rules that prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization; a rule preventing broadband providers from unreasonably interfering or disadvantaging consumers or edge providers from reaching one another on the Internet; and provides for enhanced transparency into network management practices, network performance, and commercial terms of broadband Internet access service.
Net neutrality is the wider internet regulatory framework not this single clause.
https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom (https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom)
-
MOON Ki
My argument is that Net neutrality is bad for the internet as a whole. When telcos/ISPs like Verizon undercut YouTube and Netflix - the latter will innovate and grow the internet. The present rules are a straghtjacket that demotivate Google. Constraining players to layers of the internet ecosystem. Let them compete and innovate.
So for Google, Net neutrality scrap hurts them immediately but forces them to innovate - not just invest - in internet infrastructure. Google Fibre - cable - is not an innovation. No wonder it is expensive and mostly enterprise/non-consumer - standard evils of heavy rules.
-
Net neutrality is the wider internet regulatory framework not this single clause.
https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom (https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom)
You lost me again. Yes, one can talk of a "wider regulatory framework" and whatever, but the argument right now is over the "rule(s)" that people consider as embodying "net neutrality". That, of course, means different things in different countries, but I assume that this one is largely about the USA/FCC. (And I wouldn't quite refer to the 2015 regulations as a "single clause".)
To the extent that you disagree with that view, you may point out other regulations that are directly relevant to the matter of "internet neutrality", and we can then discuss them. I am, for example, keen to see one to support the claim that
It basically says if you're content driver Google you cannot also own the infrastructure.
If it will help, instead of just referring to a "wider regulatory framework", you may refer to specific parts of Pai's draft, which is quite specific and well beyond a vague "wider regulatory framework".
One may talk about what "net neutrality" means in general and what "wider internet regulatory framework" is relevant, but as far as I can see, the main issue here---and what people seem to be mostly debating---is the difference between the 2015 regulations and what Pai now proposes.
We take several actions in this Order to restore Internet freedom.
First, we end utility-style regulation of the Internet in favor of the market-based policies necessary to preserve the future of Internet freedom. In the 2015 Title II Order, the Commission abandoned almost twenty years of precedent and reclassified broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service subject to myriad regulatory obligations under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act).
....
Next, we require ISPs to be transparent. Disclosure of network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of service is important for Internet freedom because it helps consumers choose what works best for them and enables entrepreneurs and other small businesses to get technical information needed to innovate.
...
Finally, we eliminate the Commission’s conduct rules. The record evidence, including our cost-benefit analysis, demonstrates that the costs of these rules to innovation and investment outweigh any benefits they may have.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/proposal-restore-internet-freedom
Oh, I also didn't get this one:
Facebook's Internet.org - a cheap access for Sub Sahara & Southern Asia - was torpedoed by Net neutrality.
Perhaps you can explain in a bit more detail.
-
MOON Ki
My argument is that Net neutrality is bad for the internet as a whole. When telcos/ISPs like Verizon undercut YouTube and Netflix - the latter will innovate and grow the internet. The present rules are a straghtjacket that demotivate Google. Constraining players to layers of the internet ecosystem. Let them compete and innovate.
So for Google, Net neutrality scrap hurts them immediately but forces them to innovate - not just invest - in internet infrastructure. Google Fibre - cable - is not an innovation. No wonder it is expensive and mostly enterprise/non-consumer - standard evils of heavy rules.
"Straightjacket", "hurts them", "demotivates", ... in addition to aforementioned "shackles". Interesting. Google has been fighting very hard on the side of current "net neutrality" regulations. Other than spending money on lawsuits, they are also calling on users of their services to join the fight. You may sign up here: https://www.google.com/takeaction/action/freeandopen/index.html
It is, of course, possible that those who run Google don't know what's good for the company and are not properly motivated, but I am not prepared to bet on it.
On Google Fiber: I can't comment on how innovative it is. My comment was limited to the idea that regulations forbid them from doing certain things.
-
Net neutrality is the wider internet regulatory framework not this single clause.
https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom (https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom)
You lost me again. Yes, one can talk of a "wider regulatory framework" and whatever, but the argument right now is over the "rule(s)" that people consider as embodying "net neutrality". That, of course, means different things in different countries, but I assume that this one is largely about the USA/FCC. (And I wouldn't quite refer to the 2015 regulations as a "single clause".)
I am saying exactly that - Net neutrality is a not a single clause under debate but a framework.
To the extent that you disagree with that view, you may point out other regulations that are directly relevant to the matter of "internet neutrality", and we can then discuss them. I am, for example, keen to see one to support the claim that
It basically says if you're content driver Google you cannot also own the infrastructure.
If it will help, instead of just referring to a "wider regulatory framework", you may refer to specific parts of Pai's draft. One may talk about what "net neutrality" means in general and what "wider internet regulatory framework" is relevant, but as far as I can see, the main issue here---and what people seem to be mostly debating---is the difference between the 2015 regulations and what Pai now proposes.
The 2015 regulations are what is termed as "Net neutrality". Before that the internet regulations mostly crafted under Clinton were just that, no catchphrase. The import (of the catchphrase) is that the 2015 clause(s) were to ensure a "level playing field" between content providers and the telcos/ISPs. The latter were seen to have a lot of power over the Net.
Now, the clause you point out impacts the wider framework, and so "Net neutrality" is understood to mean the entire internet framework. This Pai/FCC quote says alot about the wider implications.
We take several actions in this Order to restore Internet freedom.
First, we end utility-style regulation of the Internet in favor of the market-based policies necessary to preserve the future of Internet freedom. In the 2015 Title II Order, the Commission abandoned almost twenty years of precedent and reclassified broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service subject to myriad regulatory obligations under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act).
....
Next, we require ISPs to be transparent. Disclosure of network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of service is important for Internet freedom because it helps consumers choose what works best for them and enables entrepreneurs and other small businesses to get technical information needed to innovate.
...
Finally, we eliminate the Commission’s conduct rules. The record evidence, including our cost-benefit analysis, demonstrates that the costs of these rules to innovation and investment outweigh any benefits they may have.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/proposal-restore-internet-freedom
-
I am saying exactly that - Net neutrality is a not a single clause under debate but a framework.
I see. I was going by the OP's posting and what much of the current debate is about. I also took the reference to a "this single clause" to mean the material at the links I provided.
Again, you lost me with the other stuff. Perhaps we can narrow things and just focus on the red points above. Once I understand those, I will probably be in a better position to see the "wider" things.
Oh, from a legal viewpoint, I found this one really interesting:
Now, the clause you point out impacts the wider framework, and so "Net neutrality" is understood to mean the entire internet framework. This Pai/FCC quote says alot about the wider implications.
Wider implications outside the USA and beyond FCC regulations? I'd be interested to know.
-
MOON Ki
My argument is that Net neutrality is bad for the internet as a whole. When telcos/ISPs like Verizon undercut YouTube and Netflix - the latter will innovate and grow the internet. The present rules are a straghtjacket that demotivate Google. Constraining players to layers of the internet ecosystem. Let them compete and innovate.
So for Google, Net neutrality scrap hurts them immediately but forces them to innovate - not just invest - in internet infrastructure. Google Fibre - cable - is not an innovation. No wonder it is expensive and mostly enterprise/non-consumer - standard evils of heavy rules.
"Straightjacket", "hurts them", "demotivates", ... in addition to aforementioned "shackles". Interesting. Google has been fighting very hard on the side of current "net neutrality" regulations. Other than spending money on lawsuits, they are also calling on users of their services to join the fight. You may sign up here: https://www.google.com/takeaction/action/freeandopen/index.html
It is, of course, possible that those who run Google don't know what's good for the company and are not properly motivated, but I am not prepared to bet on it.
On Google Fiber: I can't comment on how innovative it is. My comment was limited to the idea that regulations forbid them from doing certain things.
I outdo myself speaking for Google. I was wrong on my argument about the benefits to Google (and disadvantage to telcos/ISPs). It seems they hold a contrary belief to mine. To me, if Verizon chokes YouTube, say, such that a significant user base is unable to access it due to extra cost, Google would be forced to think its way out of the problem. The rule causes conformity and laziness - why should Google worry about the internet when it is protected by the FCC?
The internet infrastructure is proprietary products just like YouTube. Google can restrict access to its content - by pricing, etc - and so should Verizon.
-
In short I agree with Pai: the internet is a product not a utility like a govt school. This clarity will allow innovation.
-
I am saying exactly that - Net neutrality is a not a single clause under debate but a framework.
I see. I was going by the OP's posting and what much of the current debate is about. I also took the reference to a "this single clause" to mean the material at the links I provided.
Again, you lost me with the other stuff. Perhaps we can narrow things and just focus on the red points above. Once I understand those, I will probably be in a better position to see the "wider" things.
Oh, from a legal viewpoint, I found this one really interesting:
Now, the clause you point out impacts the wider framework, and so "Net neutrality" is understood to mean the entire internet framework. This Pai/FCC quote says alot about the wider implications.
Wider implications outside the USA and beyond FCC regulations? I'd be interested to know.
Wider than the USA and the FCC yes. We use the ubiquitous "internet" in Kenya and the US rules spill over. The internet is, well, international, and not strictly restricted by geography. We see this once in a while. Here's a related but slightly different example.
In 2005, Google hired Microsoft VP Dr Kai-Fu Lee to run Google China. Microsoft went to a US court and the US rules on "non compete" applied on an employee running a Google branch outside the US. Google of course argued jurisdiction and lost.
-
I outdo myself speaking for Google. I was wrong on my argument about the benefits to Google (and disadvantage to telcos/ISPs). It seems they hold a contrary belief to mine. To me, if Verizon chokes YouTube, say, such that a significant user base is unable to access it due to extra cost, Google would be forced to think its way out of the problem. The rule causes conformity and laziness - why should Google worry about the internet when it is protected by the FCC?
The internet infrastructure is proprietary products just like YouTube. Google can restrict access to its content - by pricing, etc - and so should Verizon.
I'd be interested in your views as a user. That is on the basis on which I support net neutrality. Google and the likes do it for money, but our interests coincide. That works for me.
Your last comment is very interesting in many ways, e.g. if one considers "anti-trust issues". I'll skip those for now. As a user, my view of the "public utility" approach to the internet is that increased use of the internet actually supports that, and the last thing that is helpful is any sort of free-for-all ought to be limited.
-
I outdo myself speaking for Google. I was wrong on my argument about the benefits to Google (and disadvantage to telcos/ISPs). It seems they hold a contrary belief to mine. To me, if Verizon chokes YouTube, say, such that a significant user base is unable to access it due to extra cost, Google would be forced to think its way out of the problem. The rule causes conformity and laziness - why should Google worry about the internet when it is protected by the FCC?
The internet infrastructure is proprietary products just like YouTube. Google can restrict access to its content - by pricing, etc - and so should Verizon.
I'd be interested in your views as a user. That is on the basis on which I support net neutrality. Google and the likes do it for money, but our interests coincide. That works for me.
Your last comment is very interesting in many ways, e.g. if one considers "anti-trust issues". I'll skip those for now. As a user, my view of the "public utility" approach to the internet is that increased use of the internet actually supports that, and the last thing that is helpful is any sort of free-for-all ought to be limited.
If you consider innovation - and the FCC's/Pai's researched view of neutrality's effect on it - you will come to my contra view as a user. If you agree with the research cited by Pai on neutrality and innovation, and if you also agree that innovation is good for the users - lowers cost, improves quality, advances the technology, etc - how can you then be for neutrality?
-
Wider than the USA and the FCC yes. We use the "internet" in Kenya and the US rules spill over. The internet is, well, international, and not strictly restricted by geography. We see once in a while.
I don't quite see that. Perhaps you can point to specific things in Pai's draft that you think is relevant to other countries.
Here's a related but slightly different example. In 2005, Google hired Microsoft VP Dr Kai-Fu Lee to run Google China. Microsoft went to a US court and the US rules on "non compete" applied on an employee running a Google branch outside the US. Google of course argued jurisdiction and lost.
You lost me there. I don't see any connection there to "net neutrality", the internet, the FCC, etc. As far as I can tell, that seems to be a matter of labour contracts and so forth.
-
Wider than the USA and the FCC yes. We use the "internet" in Kenya and the US rules spill over. The internet is, well, international, and not strictly restricted by geography. We see once in a while.
I don't quite see that. Perhaps you can point to specific things in Pai's draft that you think is relevant to other countries.
Here's a related but slightly different example. In 2005, Google hired Microsoft VP Dr Kai-Fu Lee to run Google China. Microsoft went to a US court and the US rules on "non compete" applied on an employee running a Google branch outside the US. Google of course argued jurisdiction and lost.
You lost me there. I don't see any connection there to "net neutrality", the internet, the FCC, etc. As far as I can tell, that seems to be a matter of labour contracts and so forth.
It is about US law/rules applying to US company operations/branches outside the US. It means Verizon and Google may have to adhere to the FCC rules in Kenya. Assuming both companies have local presence.
-
Here's a related but slightly different example. In 2005, Google hired Microsoft VP Dr Kai-Fu Lee to run Google China. Microsoft went to a US court and the US rules on "non compete" applied on an employee running a Google branch outside the US. Google of course argued jurisdiction and lost.
You lost me there. I don't see any connection there to "net neutrality", the internet, the FCC, etc. As far as I can tell, that seems to be a matter of labour contracts and so forth.
It is about US law/rules applying to US company operations/branches outside the US. It means Verizon and Google may have to adhere to the FCC rules in Kenya. Assuming both companies have local presence.
I am aware of the specific matter that you refer to. I am not aware of any connection to the FCC or anything of the sort. As far as I can tell, the matter was a largely a straightforward "labour-contract dispute", in the context the man's "non-compete" agreements. A "labour dispute" between two US companies, filed in a USA court. Whether the man was going to work in Timbukti or the Moon would, to my mind, not have been relevant.
As far as a place like Kenya goes, we need not argue in the abstract. Kenya has its own regulatory Communications Authority, and my guess those of its rules are the ones that Google and Verizon have to adhere to are in mostly in technical matters. I have looked at what they do, and I am cannot see how they a US company operating in Kenya would be bound by any FCC regulations. Perhaps you have some specifics in mind?
-
Really MOON Ki. The CA rules and Kenyan law are silent on Net neutrality. If Verizon Kenya chokes access to YouTube, do you see the FCC rules as irrelevant?
-
Really MOON Ki. The CA rules and Kenyan law are silent on Net neutrality.
That was not my point. I was asking about the obligations of an American company operating in Kenya having to adhere to the FCC rules, rather that those of the CA. A rather general response to your rather statement that
It means Verizon and Google may have to adhere to the FCC rules in Kenya. Assuming both companies have local presence.
Nothing specific about "net neutrality" there, as far as I can see.
If Verizon Kenya chokes access to YouTube, do you see the FCC rules as irrelevant?
Assuming that Verizon Kenya is a company whose operations are largely limited to Kenya (as the company's name implies) and those blocked from accessing Youtube are Verizon Kenya's customers in Kenya, my answer would be YES. To the extent that you disagree and think the FCC might have any role to play, I'd be keen to read your legal explanation.
-
The way I see it, the internet has experienced its phenomenal growth, because of neutrality. Any other way, and the innovation that Robina claims it kills would actually have been suffocated. A good analogy is IBM DOS vs MS-DOS. And also Windows vs Linux - with the Linux platform leading the way in innovation as Microsoft seeks to stem it with vendor lock-in.
-
The US agrees with Robina
F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html)
-
The US agrees with Robina
F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html)
Now we just need to brace ourselves for new innovations from Verizon, AT&T, Comcast na kadhalika now that we are virtually captives of the internet. *SMH*
-
Robina,
I’m struggling like MoonKi to make any sense out of what you’re saying.Are you saying that Google Ballons and satellite stuff were stifled by net neutrality?
I think sensible innovation is not just doing something differently but cheaper. So if these satellites and ballons are to ever beam internet to your house,they should be ready to match your cable prices. If they can’t because they are too pricey, the solution shouldn’t be discriminating contents they are pushing to you.
I wonder if there’s anything you can argue against this 7yr young article on the subject.
https://www.wired.com/2010/06/you-dont-want-isps-to-innovate/
-
The US agrees with Robina
F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html)
Now we just need to brace ourselves for new innovations from Verizon, AT&T, Comcast na kadhalika now that we are virtually captives of the internet. *SMH*
Not any more than we are captive of the phone, the auto, the aviation industry or even the health sector. Respect the free market.
-
Not any more than we are captive of the phone, the auto, the aviation industry or even the health sector. Respect the free market.
I think there are good reasons for reining monopoly profits. Markets can’t be completely free. That’s too trusting
-
Robina,
I’m struggling like MoonKi to make any sense out of what you’re saying.Are you saying that Google Ballons and satellite stuff were stifled by net neutrality?
I think sensible innovation is not just doing something differently but cheaper. So if these satellites and ballons are to ever beam internet to your house,they should be ready to match your cable prices. If they can’t because they are too pricey, the solution shouldn’t be discriminating contents they are pushing to you.
I wonder if there’s anything you can argue against this 7yr young article on the subject.
https://www.wired.com/2010/06/you-dont-want-isps-to-innovate/
Yup. Providing cheap internet to the poor - like Facebook's internet.org - is "preferential treatment" that violates Net neutrality. It's a price control regime that denies companies the right to determine packaging and pricing for their own products. It's socialist reasoning [unsurprisingly] endorsed by liberals. Let telcos and ISPs sell broadband at their discretion. There is no monopoly and competition will thrive. Free market 101.
Google, Facebook, etc can gang up and set up their own internet. Create options not rules.
-
Not any more than we are captive of the phone, the auto, the aviation industry or even the health sector. Respect the free market.
I think there are good reasons for reining monopoly profits. Markets can’t be completely free. That’s too trusting
Phones are crucial - any rules on pricing? Flying is crucial - any rules on ticketing? Heck, any rules on doctor fees?? The trouble with utilities is that you have to be very careful and selective what you designate a "utility". Roads and rails are utility and you can see the eons it has taken for the infrastructure to improve. The cost and traffic problems in most metropolis. It's only now that you have tubes and the private sector building novel solutions.
Consider the space industry. Imagine if NASA insisted it is the sole arbiter and imposed pricing rules. The innovators and investors would flee.
Scrapping Net neutrality will grow the internet. There will be low-cost carriers on top of the premium internet, corporate, middle class, etc. Niches and choices.
-
Robina,
I’m struggling like MoonKi to make any sense out of what you’re saying.Are you saying that Google Ballons and satellite stuff were stifled by net neutrality?
I think sensible innovation is not just doing something differently but cheaper. So if these satellites and ballons are to ever beam internet to your house,they should be ready to match your cable prices. If they can’t because they are too pricey, the solution shouldn’t be discriminating contents they are pushing to you.
I wonder if there’s anything you can argue against this 7yr young article on the subject.
https://www.wired.com/2010/06/you-dont-want-isps-to-innovate/
Yup. Providing cheap internet to the poor - like Facebook's internet.org - is "preferential treatment" that violates Net neutrality. It's a price control regime that denies companies the right to determine packaging and pricing for their own products. It's socialist reasoning [unsurprisingly] endorsed by liberals. Let telcos and ISPs sell broadband at their discretion. There is no monopoly and competition will thrive. Free market 101.
Google, Facebook, etc can gang up and set up their own internet. Create options not rules.
Like what proof do you have for this?
They were stopped from slashing internet costs or something?
-
Not any more than we are captive of the phone, the auto, the aviation industry or even the health sector. Respect the free market.
I think there are good reasons for reining monopoly profits. Markets can’t be completely free. That’s too trusting
Phones are crucial - any rules on pricing? Flying is crucial - any rules on ticketing? Heck, any rules on doctor fees??
Yes, Robina. In Kenya at least. Can't say nothin about the States though.
-
Robina,
I’m struggling like MoonKi to make any sense out of what you’re saying.Are you saying that Google Ballons and satellite stuff were stifled by net neutrality?
I think sensible innovation is not just doing something differently but cheaper. So if these satellites and ballons are to ever beam internet to your house,they should be ready to match your cable prices. If they can’t because they are too pricey, the solution shouldn’t be discriminating contents they are pushing to you.
I wonder if there’s anything you can argue against this 7yr young article on the subject.
https://www.wired.com/2010/06/you-dont-want-isps-to-innovate/
Yup. Providing cheap internet to the poor - like Facebook's internet.org - is "preferential treatment" that violates Net neutrality. It's a price control regime that denies companies the right to determine packaging and pricing for their own products. It's socialist reasoning [unsurprisingly] endorsed by liberals. Let telcos and ISPs sell broadband at their discretion. There is no monopoly and competition will thrive. Free market 101.
Google, Facebook, etc can gang up and set up their own internet. Create options not rules.
Like what proof do you have for this?
They were stopped from slashing internet costs or something?
Imagine that. It need not be explicit denial; the rules alone discourage investment.
Facebook’s Free Basics violates net neutrality and isn’t even that good, says report
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/27/16050446/facebook-net-neutrality-digital-colonialism-internet-org (https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/27/16050446/facebook-net-neutrality-digital-colonialism-internet-org)
The inside story of Facebook’s biggest setback
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-free-basics-india-zuckerberg (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-free-basics-india-zuckerberg)
-
Not any more than we are captive of the phone, the auto, the aviation industry or even the health sector. Respect the free market.
I think there are good reasons for reining monopoly profits. Markets can’t be completely free. That’s too trusting
Phones are crucial - any rules on pricing? Flying is crucial - any rules on ticketing? Heck, any rules on doctor fees??
Yes, Robina. In Kenya at least. Can't say nothin about the States though.
Personally I want "Auto neutrality". Why should I drive a cheap Saab while the rich get all those better options?
-
Phones are crucial - any rules on pricing? Flying is crucial - any rules on ticketing? Heck, any rules on doctor fees?? The trouble with utilities is that you have to be very careful and selective what you designate a "utility". Roads and rails are utility and you can see the eons it has taken for the infrastructure to improve. The cost and traffic problems in most metropolis. It's only now that you have tubes and the private sector building novel solutions.
Consider the space industry. Imagine if NASA insisted it is the sole arbiter and imposed pricing rules. The innovators and investors would flee.
Scrapping Net neutrality will grow the internet. There will be low-cost carriers on top of the premium internet, corporate, middle class, etc. Niches and choices.
Why are you using phony and irrelevant analogies?
Phones, flying,space...
There is sufficient competition in handsets manufacturing,airlines etc but the same can’t be said for ISPs industry which is dominated by few and huge players yet they provide such a crucial service. It really is the value of internet presently that warrants this classification.
How will scrapping it grow internet?
To my mind, net neutrality simply ensures ISPs are no obstacles to development of internet (content) by neutering their oligopolistic/monopolistic tendencies.
It’s also possible that free speech may be choked by scrapping the rules.
-
Personally I want "Auto neutrality". Why should I drive a cheap Saab while the rich get all those better options?
I know you’re being sarcastic but this is a weird analogy.
Vehicles cost differently for one unlike ISP costs of transmission of data which is constant regardless of the content
-
Why are you using phony and irrelevant analogies?
Phones, flying,space...
Do you suggest telephony or transport is inferior to surfing?
There is sufficient competition in handsets manufacturing,airlines etc but the same can’t be said for ISPs industry which is dominated by few and huge players yet they provide such a crucial service. It really is the value of internet presently that warrants this classification.
It is the robust competition and freedom from controls that has grown the handset industry. There was never an FCC to strangle telephony.
How will scrapping it grow internet?
To my mind, net neutrality simply ensures ISPs are no obstacles to development of internet (content) by neutering their oligopolistic/monopolistic tendencies.
Content developers have the power to compete with telcos. Shielding them with Net neutrality hurts growth because they do not need to worry about the internet.
It’s also possible that free speech may be choked by scrapping the rules.
Free speech is already choked by various bottlenecks. Twitter can block your account anytime using amorphous internal policy. Facebook, Twitter, Google - content providers 8) - are the big chokers of free speech. Amazingly these guys are the anti-FCC choir.
-
Imagine that. It need not be explicit denial; the rules alone discourage investment.
Facebook’s Free Basics violates net neutrality and isn’t even that good, says report
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/27/16050446/facebook-net-neutrality-digital-colonialism-internet-org (https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/27/16050446/facebook-net-neutrality-digital-colonialism-internet-org)
The inside story of Facebook’s biggest setback
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-free-basics-india-zuckerberg (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-free-basics-india-zuckerberg)
When I think about it,
There was nothing noble about Facebook experiment; they just wanted to push their own content. The telcos opposed it because someone was moving their cheese,and succeeded because Facebook was evidently far from being altruistic.
-
Why are you using phony and irrelevant analogies?
Phones, flying,space...
Do you suggest telephony or transport is inferior to surfing?
There is sufficient competition in handsets manufacturing,airlines etc but the same can’t be said for ISPs industry which is dominated by few and huge players yet they provide such a crucial service. It really is the value of internet presently that warrants this classification.
It is the robust competition and freedom from controls that has grown the handset industry. There was never an FCC to strangle telephony.
How will scrapping it grow internet?
To my mind, net neutrality simply ensures ISPs are no obstacles to development of internet (content) by neutering their oligopolistic/monopolistic tendencies.
Content developers have the power to compete with telcos. Shielding them with Net neutrality hurts growth because they do not need to worry about the internet.
It’s also possible that free speech may be choked by scrapping the rules.
Free speech is already choked by various bottlenecks. Twitter can block your account anytime using amorphous internal policy. Facebook, Twitter, Google - content providers 8) - are the big chokers of free speech. Amazingly these guys are the anti-FCC choir.
1. The examples are not phony because internet is better than either but rather because they come nowhere near being public utilities. If you wish, you may want to revisit arguments and debate that led to application of common carrier regulations to ISPs.
2. There are huge barriers to ISP industry and the only rational way to deal with existing ones is clipping their oligopolistic tendencies.
3. Asking content developers to build ISPs and compete with the existing ones with all the barriers to entry is unwise. What do we have in the meantime? Prohibitively expensive internet which is what we are trying to avoid.
4. Add to all that ISPs 8) These companies are not opposed to Net neutrality because of free speech, I just hypothesized an extremity
-
Imagine that. It need not be explicit denial; the rules alone discourage investment.
Facebook’s Free Basics violates net neutrality and isn’t even that good, says report
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/27/16050446/facebook-net-neutrality-digital-colonialism-internet-org (https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/27/16050446/facebook-net-neutrality-digital-colonialism-internet-org)
The inside story of Facebook’s biggest setback
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-free-basics-india-zuckerberg (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-free-basics-india-zuckerberg)
When I think about it,
There was nothing noble about Facebook experiment; they just wanted to push their own content. The telcos opposed it because someone was moving their cheese,and succeeded because Facebook was evidently far from being altruistic.
Facebook should be allowed to offer free internet - and people can choose for themselves. The telcos would be forced to drop rates - to offer the same or better for less - to innovate. Ergo, Net neutrality stifles innovation.
-
Imagine that. It need not be explicit denial; the rules alone discourage investment.
Facebook’s Free Basics violates net neutrality and isn’t even that good, says report
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/27/16050446/facebook-net-neutrality-digital-colonialism-internet-org (https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/27/16050446/facebook-net-neutrality-digital-colonialism-internet-org)
The inside story of Facebook’s biggest setback
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-free-basics-india-zuckerberg (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-free-basics-india-zuckerberg)
When I think about it,
There was nothing noble about Facebook experiment; they just wanted to push their own content. The telcos opposed it because someone was moving their cheese,and succeeded because Facebook was evidently far from being altruistic.
Facebook should be allowed to offer free internet - and people can choose for themselves. The telcos would be forced to drop rates - to offer the same or better for less - to innovate. Ergo, Net neutrality stifles innovation.
Yeah,except Facebook was not offering free internet but mostly access to Facebook
-
1. The examples are not phony because internet is better than either but rather because they come nowhere near being public utilities. If you wish, you may want to revisit arguments and debate that led to application of common carrier regulations to ISPs.
2. There are huge barriers to ISP industry and the only rational way to deal with existing ones is clipping their oligopolistic tendencies.
Utility is not the length of cables or the bulk of equipment. It's ubiquity. The handset is as close to a utility as can be. Yet a few players dominate the handset industry. It is easier for Samsung or Apple to join ISP than AT&T to join handset market. How do you justify regulating one and not the other? The handset "oligarchs" compete freely - let the ISPs to do the same.
3. Asking content developers to build ISPs and compete with the existing ones with all the barriers to entry is unwise. What do we have in the meantime? Prohibitively expensive internet which is what we are trying to avoid.
What barriers stop tech-, talent- & cash-rich Google from beaming internet? It's Net neutrality and regulation that stops them. In the meantime the ISPs will sell broadband products like everyone else. There is anti-trust law against collusion.
4. Add to all that ISPs 8) These companies are not opposed to Net neutrality because of free speech, I just hypothesized an extremity
The content providers support Net neutrality so they can line their pockets instead of investing in net infrastructure. I wish free speech was their reason.
-
Facebook should be allowed to offer free internet - and people can choose for themselves. The telcos would be forced to drop rates - to offer the same or better for less - to innovate. Ergo, Net neutrality stifles innovation.
Actually, the Indian people did have a say---in the public responses to Telecommunication Authority of India's "consultation paper" of 2015.
-
There was never an FCC to strangle telephony.
Not sure I understand that one. As far as I know, the FCC has been involved in the regulation of telephony in the USA for quite some time. The story of A T & T is one excellent example of the FCC's involvement in telephony.
It is the robust competition and freedom from controls that has grown the handset industry.
and
It is easier for Samsung or Apple to join ISP than AT&T to join handset market. How do you justify regulating one and not the other? The handset "oligarchs" compete freely - let the ISPs to do the same.
Not quite sure I understand the references to handsets and handset manufacturers. Handsets (like laptops etc.) are just devices that can be used in different ways and their sale, use and whatever will also be regulated in different ways in different places.
-
What barriers stop tech-, talent- & cash-rich Google from beaming internet? It's Net neutrality and regulation that stops them.
How so? Which regulations? Where?
-
Will neutrality gone, you wont see a significant difference until after 5yrs.
-
1. The examples are not phony because internet is better than either but rather because they come nowhere near being public utilities. If you wish, you may want to revisit arguments and debate that led to application of common carrier regulations to ISPs.
2. There are huge barriers to ISP industry and the only rational way to deal with existing ones is clipping their oligopolistic tendencies.
Utility is not the length of cables or the bulk of equipment. It's ubiquity. The handset is as close to a utility as can be. Yet a few players dominate the handset industry. It is easier for Samsung or Apple to join ISP than AT&T to join handset market. How do you justify regulating one and not the other? The handset "oligarchs" compete freely - let the ISPs to do the same.
3. Asking content developers to build ISPs and compete with the existing ones with all the barriers to entry is unwise. What do we have in the meantime? Prohibitively expensive internet which is what we are trying to avoid.
What barriers stop tech-, talent- & cash-rich Google from beaming internet? It's Net neutrality and regulation that stops them. In the meantime the ISPs will sell broadband products like everyone else. There is anti-trust law against collusion.
4. Add to all that ISPs 8) These companies are not opposed to Net neutrality because of free speech, I just hypothesized an extremity
The content providers support Net neutrality so they can line their pockets instead of investing in net infrastructure. I wish free speech was their reason.
Expecting a content provider to invest in net infrastructure is unreasonable. The costs are too prohibitive,not to mention duplication
Google can’t beam because the cost of doing so is way above cable. There simply is nothing (to date) cheaper than cable. Cable owners ,who have benefitted immensely from government protection at various times of their lives shouldn’t hold the country hostage. Recall the technology is no propietary
Instead of this back and forth about common carrier, do you think there’s anything worth in these regulations? If yes, name one valid application,and explain how it differs from Internet ISPs
-
Expecting a content provider to invest in net infrastructure is unreasonable. The costs are too prohibitive,not to mention duplication
No one is expecting them to invest in anything. That's a big misconception. Just don't impose control on bandwidth or the "common carrier". There are multiple carriers and there is nothing "common" about them except the political. Do you use YouTube? You find they have a "Standard User License" - which is a feature-free default option for the hoi polloi. Some extra bucks reveal a bunch of fancy APIs - including analytics on the viewers complete with their spend histories & projections. The premium, gold and platinum licenses avail you of all kinds of magical options. Additionally, Google censures, warns, suspends, bans and otherwise arbitrarily restricts the accounts of users for various reasons. Now, this is just business and no one has to use the globally dominant YouTube to advertise products or reach the market. Amazingly, Google does a complete somersault and insists ISPs should not have the freedom to manage their own products. Apparently carriers are "common" - although none of them dominate the bandwidth market as much as Google does content. It seems the "Net" is only made of carriers - handsets and devices don't matter - and the content is an insignificant top layer. Hah!
You can substitute Google with Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Netflix, Apple and other prominent members of the neutrality choir.
Google can’t beam because the cost of doing so is way above cable. There simply is nothing (to date) cheaper than cable. Cable owners ,who have benefitted immensely from government protection at various times of their lives shouldn’t hold the country hostage. Recall the technology is no propietary
Google X is in the process of rolling out balloons, satellites and other beaming tech globally. Check https://x.company/loon/ (https://x.company/loon/).
Instead of this back and forth about common carrier, do you think there’s anything worth in these regulations? If yes, name one valid application,and explain how it differs from Internet ISPs
None. Price control of proprietary products is a no-no.
-
Robina
See barriers to entry; laws forbidding competition
https://theintercept.com/2017/12/15/fcc-net-neutrality-public-broadband-seattle/