Net nutreuality

[vooke]

Why are you using phony and irrelevant analogies?
Phones, flying,space...

Do you suggest telephony or transport is inferior to surfing?

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.

Free speech is already choked by various bottlenecks. Twitter can block your account anytime using amorphous internal policy. Facebook, Twitter, Google - content providers - 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 These companies are not opposed to Net neutrality because of free speech, I just hypothesized an extremity

[Nefertiti]

Imagine that. It need not be explicit denial; the rules alone discourage investment.


https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/27/16050446/facebook-net-neutrality-digital-colonialism-internet-org


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.

[vooke]

Imagine that. It need not be explicit denial; the rules alone discourage investment.


https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/27/16050446/facebook-net-neutrality-digital-colonialism-internet-org


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

[Nefertiti]

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 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.

[MOON Ki]

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.   

[MOON Ki]

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.     

[MOON Ki]

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?

[Georgesoros]

Will neutrality gone, you wont see a significant difference until after 5yrs.

[vooke]

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 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.

[Nefertiti]

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 X is in the process of rolling out balloons, satellites and other beaming tech globally. Check https://x.company/loon/.

None. Price control of proprietary products is a no-no.

[vooke]

Robina
See barriers to entry; laws forbidding competition
https://theintercept.com/2017/12/15/fcc-net-neutrality-public-broadband-seattle/