Slashdot Mirror
Bill Ready To Ban ISP Caps In the US
xclr8r writes "Eric Massa, a congressman representing a district in western New York, has a bill ready that would start treating Internet providers like a utility and stop the use of caps. Nearby locales have been used as test beds for the new caps, so this may have made the constituents raise the issue with their representative."
excellent idea.
Why not? They already sort of have government granted monopolies of certain areas of the country, there's very little competition, etc. Regulation would be the key to prevent a company from taking advantage of these situations to adversely hinder a user's right to consume what they have paid for.
Would this apply to wireless data? I.E. AT&T/Sprint/Verizon mobile broadband cards?
Unfortunately, it'll never happen. It'd be nice if it did but, so long as ISPs have lobbying power, which they do, it'll never come to pass.
Has it occurred to anyone else that treating "utilities" like utilities is what's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA? Maybe it's not such a great idea to extend the process to ISPs.
What right has anybody to dictate contracts in that regard?
Why should somebody producing little traffic pay as much as somebody who produces a lot?
You dont pay your water bill by your pipe-diameter, or your electricity bill by your wire-gauge.
So why should you pay your internet becaue of the maximum throughput possible?
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
13(a) PROHIBITION.--It shall be unlawful for major
14 broadband Internet service providers to offer volume usage
15 service plans imposing rates, terms and conditions that
16 are unjust, unreasonable, or unreasonably discriminatory.
I'm sure they can somehow find a way to "Justify" the caps.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
Does this mean that internet service is going to be provided by local monopolies like most utilities are? Oh, wait...
Haiku for you!
If this actually gets passed we're all going to need really good thermal undergarments when the earth's core becomes frozen solid.
Of course let's see if/how they handle the recent Disney/ESPN "strongarming" attempts.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
This is light on details on how people can help to push this through and make it law.
Sure. Make it just like a utility. They won't be able to cap usage in their plans, but they will (eventually) be able to have rolling blackouts using the claim that their networks simply don't have the capacity for everyone.
I'm not in favor of caps. I'm just anticipating how some of the carrier weasels will try to get around this one.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
I'm not sure who this new Bill guy is, but I like him already.
A lot better than most of the other Bills around.
"I don't have to think. I only have to do it. The results are always perfect, but that's old news." - Meat Puppets
Trying to get a new water, sewer, or electric hookup can be an exercise in frustration because of the bureaucracy and safeguards in the system.
Phone and cable have gotten better in the past 30 years. Landline phone and cable companies are so desperate for business that they're oftentimes pretty damned quick about getting a line out to you. (Unless you want something fancy like a business line or a T3, then welcome back to the Bad Old Days.)
I invoke the ghost of Lilly Tomlin: "We don't care, we don't have to. We're the phone company."
And if you think that usage on Utilities isn't capped, you're naive. If you didn't have those teeny-tiny water pipes and electric lines to your house you'd find out real quick there are all kinds of regulations and arbitrary rules about water and electric usage. For industry -- which have much larger access to electric and water -- there are often "monthy maximums" for water use, and obscenely high electric rates for peak usage.
Get off my lawn.
There are more of Us than there are of Them.
Here are your options: Cheap, Open, Caps. Pick 2.
Internet Socialism: All-I-can-eat mentality
My water is provided and billed by the local service authority.
I'm billed for usage in tiers like this:
0-3000 gallons $3.30 per 1000 gallons
3001-6000 gallons $6.60 per 1000 gallons
6001-9000 gallons $10.00 per 1000 gallons
9001+ gallons $13.30 per 1000 gallons
Presumably, utility style billing for internet connections would be similar - very cheap for the first few GB, then progressively more expensive where the heaviest users could find themselves a lot worse off.
Not sure I like it. I suspect the internet companies would think it a great idea.
I whish we had an MP in Canada that would dare to push a similar law. Caps are the rule here and it they are realy low (20Gigs down / 7Mbps is what I got). Actualy, I think it's a pretty good idea to ban caps. In fact, caps are just an excuse for not serving you with the full capacity of the service you're paying for. It's like going into eat-as-much-as-you-can restaurant and getting kick after an hour because you eated too much. It's false publicity. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a massive downloader. But I realy hate to get to pay 7$ per gigabyte when I get over my quota. I last the maximum fee is set to 30$. Tell me, why would they want caps if it wasn't that they're selling capacity they don't have? If I remember well, selling something you don't have is called fraud.
Enron did that, pissed everyone off and suddenly they were put under a microscope.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Huh. This has been posted for a whole 15 minutes, and there isn't an influx of stories in the Firehose about how a horde of lobbyists from major ISPs descended upon Washington, DC like a cloud of pure, unadulterated blackness, utterly destroying the minds of all who looked upon them, consuming the very souls of any congressperson whose minds strayed from the wills of their masters to thoughts of considering this bill?
Wow. I suppose the major ISPs are getting hurt by the economic downturn, too. I would've expected far more efficiency in the matter.
Finally, some legislation to stop all those noobs from using Caps Lock!
What? I have never had a problem getting a utility hook up.
You didn't show any example of caps.
Yes, you can't exceed 100% of your water pipe bandwidth. You can get a bigger pipe and meter.
They aren't capped any any realistic way for the consumer. The exception being during shortages. But there sin't exactly 'bandwidth' droughts that appear.
Plus as a uitility the consumer has a lot more power, and protections.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Just compel the ISPs to state that there is actually a limit to what they will allow you to use, the penalties/limits they impose if you exceed that limit, and what it takes to get past the limit. I'm not sure we should be legislating that Internet service be UNlimited. Sooner or later, someone will claim cell phone service is a 'right', and all plans need to be UNlimited. Not so smart, but it sounds good.
In other words, make them say 'limited' when they try to say 'unlimited', and it is NOT.
Truth in advertising. Yes, an oxymoron. Shouldn't be.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Hmmm something I don't get. They want internet access to be treated like a utility. Let's see...
The more electricity I use, the higher my bill.
The more water I use, the higher my bill.
The more natural gas I use, the higher my bill.
By treating internet connectivity like a utility, that would mean that I would get billed according to usage... Which is what bandwidth caps mostly are (pay extra if you surpass a certain amount of utilization in a month). So how does this bill have any type of impact, other than ISPs having to prove to the FCC what the cost:utilization ratio is.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
I pay my utilities by usage. They don't offer an "unlimited" water or electricity plan. Additionally, I pay a lower rate for the first X units of usage, then a higher rate for further units, in addition to the service fees..
Why do all articles that express certain ideas that haven't been implemented yet get the tag "goodluckwiththat" and articles that ideas that have just been implemented get "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense".
Does it speak to the pessimism of the community to influence technology towards the mass market or is the /. crowd just a bunch of crabby whiners?
Responding to the topic at hand... I don't think they should make the internet a regulated utility until such a time when the nation's government is capable of using it as a mechanism to broadcast emergency information/communication. For the time being, television for 1-way communication and telephone for 2-way communication are the standard and they should stay that way.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
But 50ms maximum latency to where? And is it one way or return?
Getting latency down is very hard especially when modems are involved. Often modems need to keep a moving "sample window" of the signal before they can decide what bits were sent. That "window" = latency.
FWIW the distance between the east and west coast of the USA is about 13 light-milliseconds (following the surface of the earth) - assuming speed of light in vacuum.
But light travels slower in optical fibres. A naive calculation just using the index of refraction gives me about 20 milliseconds. Round trip time then becomes 40ms.
The fibre isn't taking a "great circle route" and there's some modulation and demodulation involved, so round trip time is likely to be higher than 50ms.
You don't need rolling blackouts to a utility to act like a dick. Just ask my power company who keeps increasing my rate aver few months without adding any service. Now your ISP can do the same thing, what are you going to do? Go somewhere else?
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
for porn. I've got a slow connection, so I'm going to have to wait.
That is what they will be singing.
WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
You think public utilities are more obnoxious and bureaucratic than the cable or phone company?
Are you ignorant, or just toeing some sort of market fundamentalist party line?
I agree with the sentiment, but Ms. Tomlin is, thankfully, still alive. At least, according to Wikipedia.
Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
When you pay for water and electricity, you are actually buying them. The utility company produces them (well, with water they pump and purify it, and might have to pay for their water source depending where you are and how the service works) and sells them to you.
Comcast doesn't produce the bits they deliver to me, they simply transfer them from someone else who I might be paying for the bits. If they can actually deliver the 16Mb/s they claim they can to me at any time of day regardless of "congestion" (of course they can't), then the cost difference to them of delivering nothing for a month and maxing out that connection for a month is negligible. Their routers might draw slightly more power, but the total cost of delivering an additional bit (or 100GB) is next to nothing compared to the cost of making the network available to me.
The idea behind ISP transfer limits is totally different than paying per unit for water or electricity. With water and electricity you pay per unit (usually - in my hometown of Anchorage, AK water is actually a fixed rate I think) because it costs the company to sell you a unit. With ISPs, they want to limit your use because the speeds they charge you for aren't actually the speeds they can deliver if everyone actually uses their connection. So instead of telling you realistic speeds, they just make sure people can't actually use their connection, making it more likely that you will be able to use yours (until you too hit the cap).
Of course there is the totally separate issue of most ISPs also selling content that they would much rather you get via pay per view, etc than via the Internet...
Bill who?
You pay by your water usage which is really just a means to charge for water treatment of your waste water which is not metered.
If you use no water; you pay almost nothing, yet you can dump tons of horrible waste into the system like many businesses do currently without added expense. A friend of mine invented a meter for waste water but nobody wants it.
I see nothing wrong with charging for throughput like we do with water and power utilities. Initial hook ups cost if you want a 'bigger pipe' but unless you get a different wire/fibre cable that cost wouldn't differ.
At least this would encourage more bandwidth usage... by users-- and discourage bloated web content. I'd much rather have an internet meter next to my power meter; even though it would cost me more because I'm not within the normal user they project their pricing scale for.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Unfortunately, it'll never happen. It'd be nice if it did but, so long as ISPs have lobbying power, which they do, it'll never come to pass.
Well, if you support the bill, then you should contact your senator and push to have this supported. We talk about lobby groups, but often fail to contact our politicos ourselves.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
My grandfather recently had the water company install a smaller pipe to his house because he doesn't use enough water to warrant the pipe he had and he gets a cut in his water bill rates because of it.
But, uh, how about you introduce competition or conditions that encourage competition first and then see what happens? If you find collusion,etc, later, then add more laws/regulation. This is a band-aid. How about we address the real problem?
sounds like an excellent idea.
sounds like a bad idea!
What sounds like a great idea is to make the broadband ISPs pay back the hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars they were given. That money can then be loaned, not given, to entities that will build the broadband infrastructure.
Fslcon
Should there be a Law?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
OK I know this is a more complex issue, but I sure wish this would happen in Canada. We have the exact same problem, but I would say it is worse, as there is even less competition.
I would like to see caps gone. I think really what we are talking about here has little about caps or how the service is delivered. The bottom line is that there is no competition and these companies are raping their customers, as they have NO alternative. The premis of the bill is that, like utilities the internet has reached the stage of importance that they need to be regulated better, much like utilities. This would reign in (maybe) the shenanigans that the Phone and Cable companies have been doing for the last decade. The cost of these services has steadily gone up, while service improvements have been negligible.
A good example of this is where I live in Ontario, Canada. Cogeco Cable my ISP provider recently changed my agreement to say that if I go over my cap, I will be charged for it. Which on principle, makes sense. However what doesn't is that they wish to change me 6 times the going rate to do so. It should cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-50 cents per GB. Teksavvy last I checked charged 25 cents a GB over and beyond their limited cap account (they also have an unlimited account with no caps). You could even think ahead and pre-pay for 100 extra GB for 10$ or about 10 cents a GB. Shit like that makes sense to me. Now what does Cogeco want? 1.50$ per GB!
I got to thinking why they would make it so high, other than they are just greedy bastards of course. Then it came to me, it is because they are greedy bastards, and they also wish to make it unattractive to do so. The thing is both Phone and Cable companies have varies packages which various caps, and speeds etc... all at different prices. I bet they don't want to eat into their sales of other services due to cap related issues, so they just overcharge the heck out of it, making or forcing consumers to pick their packages.
This is exactly the point of this bill. You can't have you cake and eat it to. This is also why all the above analogies about Gas or electric service does not work. Sure just because I get 20A at the line doesn't mean that I can sure 20A all day every day. However I also don't pay for an base electrical package as well. So either you are a pay for service or you charge for the rate, not both, particularly if you like to arbitrary raise the prices of one both whenever you please. This is where regulation would come in.
Anyway I really do hope something like this comes to Canada, it only to bring awareness that there is significant work that needs to be done in our telecommunication industry, it has been a long time coming, and been ignored by most, and there are serious ramifications if we do not do something about it soon. It would also show the shortfalls of the CRTC and their inability to regulate this industry as it has developed.
Why should the rate go up per usage? It should go down. Whatever happened to bulk discounts? The progressive water rates are to encourage conservation. There's not an inherent limited supply of bits, so why treat it the same?
Table-ized A.I.
In principle I like the idea of having no caps on usage. However, while I don't doubt that ISPs love to nickle and dime us, increased usage must put additional load on the system. If everyone is downloading HD movies, for examples, ISP providers are going to have additional expense meeting that demand.
As others have pointed out, switching to a utility-type model isn't necessarily a good one. Sure, I can use electricity, water or natural gas as much as I like. But I'm also paying for every little bit I use. And it certainly doesn't prevent the providers from increasing rates.
But who knows? Perhaps this is a more logical model for internet usage. However, I suspect it wouldn't work quite the same way. With electricity or natural gas I pay for what I use, which means if I didn't use any I'd pay next to nothing. I'm guessing ISPs make more money with the current model than they would under that one.
I suspect providers will charge a flat fee in addition to usage charges, pretty much like mobile phones. I personally think that sucks and I expect internet service would be more expensive than it is now. I think more competition would address this problem far more effectively than any legislation, as well-intentioned as it might be. The government is inevitably going to compromise somehow if they force these rules on providers which likely means we'll get screwed one way or another. Open things up so that it's easier for competitors to enter the market.
The last thing I need is to have another bill (like my power/water is) that is difficult to accurately budget for. I get paid a set amount of money... months where I pay more suck. I know I would be easier able to monitor my consumption network access, but I'd still rather pay a set amount each month.
Not running out of bits, but rather running out of bandwidth.
While there is an unlimited number of bits, there is a limit to the number of bits that can go down the wire at any one time. The more you use, the less that is available for everyone else. If everyone uses lots of service, then the company have to improve the infrastructure to support the desired service level, which will cost money, which they will earn by charging a higher rate to those with a higher usage rate.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Do we get blackouts and brownouts every month now also? How about that friendly custom service that utilities provide?
The Telcos will continue to screw their customers as hard and long as they can. They're all more or less the same, so you can't really improve your situation by changing service providers. As the Internet becomes more and more a necessary utility for the average citizen (consider how many government services are now on the Internet), it becomes the government's responsibility to ensure everyone can have a good, fast, un-capped and un-throttled Internet connection that is within the financial reach of even those below the poverty line. Internet at public libraries just doesn't cut it anymore. Wait, nevermind. I forgot, you Americans can't stand to pay any taxes at all.
I'm torn on this one, I hate regulations. But at the same time many of those providers who are putting caps in place *sold* their service as unlimited and I believe they should be forced to honor the original agreement.
Regulations are not needed what is needed is the enforcement of contracts. When I signed up for my cable access the only limit in the contract I signed was that I was not allowed to run a web server on the connection. There was no limit on bandwidth used though it did say the speed was guarantied but would be up to, I don't recall, so they could conceivably throttle my speed. However if I ever have a problem, I'm lucky in that not only is cable available here but I can also get DSL.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Even though this bill is worded in such a way that it seems like it would accomplish what we want, the reality could not be further from the truth.
The bill would let the god-awful FCC control ISP's. You think there is a single regulator at the FCC that's NOT already paid for by TimeWarner?
This would give the biggest ISP's in the industry the MOST power over regulators, not a good thing.
Right now the ISP's that are trying to cap bandwidth usage are having to acquiesce to angry customers who threaten to switch service providers. The consumers are doing a pretty good job fighting this fight. If this legislation where to pass the biggest ISP's would get FEDERAL AUTHORITY to cap bandwith usage. Essentially taking all choice out of the marketplace and consumers would loose.
I'm sure the legislator had good intentions, but we all know where those lead.
Phone and cable have gotten better in the past 30 years. Landline phone and cable companies are so desperate for business that they're oftentimes pretty damned quick about getting a line out to you.
Yeah, just look at how quick Verizon has been to roll out FIOS. It's not as though there's anyone in this country still stuck on dialup!
And if you think that usage on Utilities isn't capped, you're naive.
Maybe, but it's pretty rare that I have a problem where the water stops running or the electricity stops flowing, caps or no caps. I spend more on Internet than I do on my electrical bill, and my connection seems to die at least a few times a week (besides which the connection is slow and the service stinks).
I don't have a problem with brown
Of course, the bill would not prohibit caps, it would make ISPs get FCC approval for caps, which might reduce the imposition of caps, or it might mean that those that have the most political pull would get their caps approved, while those with less pull would not.
Not FCC, FTC. That's a huge difference. If it were the FCC and the bill passed, it would be worthless. The FTC, on the other hand, has some teeth, and is not totally in bed with industry.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Sweet, let's do wireless carriers next.
Their "heads I win, tails you lose" billing system is downright abusive.
Don't use all your minutes? it's still $39.99! What, did you think you would get to pay less since your phone as off all month?
Use more than your cap allows? $1.50 per minute! Enjoy your $359 bill!
Question everything
As I noted in another comment, it's not the FCC, it's the FTC. That's a huge difference. If it were the FCC and the bill passed, it would be worthless. The FTC, on the other hand, has some teeth, and is not totally in bed with industry.
PS, nice job getting modded up twice for essentially the same comment. Maybe it'll happen to me too :-)
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Is doomed to failure given that this administration seems
to be financed by the telecom industry.
Right. Until we start seeing Japanese-style competition for providing service, things won't change so much. I believe that the biggest change will occur when we start legally classify ISPs as common carriers and treating them as such. With that designation ISPs would have to ditch their shaping and blocking practices and just pass bits back and forth.
A recent study by the Pew Institute demonstrates that Internet access is a "must have" service. That makes it a utility. Treating all ISPs as utilities brings them one step closer to common carrier status.
You may have noticed that I tend to harp on this idea. Here's why: a common carrier cannot refuse service and cannot discriminate. Once those two requirements come into view, just watch the content providers get out of the business, in a hurry.
The current debate in public discourse and with respect to pending legislation seems to exhibit a logical progression of taking a new service that was a luxury and turning it into a utility. I'm happy to help it progress.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
The bill would let the god-awful FCC control ISP's. You think there is a single regulator at the FCC that's NOT already paid for by TimeWarner?
I agree with that evaluation of the FCC, but the article talks about the FTC, which is significantly different (and better in the respect of being in bed with lobbyists).
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
as they should, that'll be possible
No they should not be regulated as a utility. Instead what we need is to foster competition. And a duopoly is not competition. Add fiber and wireless then you may have competition.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
As a wildblue.com user (directv customer) with a 17GB down, 5GB up 30-day rolling cap, I don't think satellite ISPs will like the idea. For me, it's $70/mo for 1.5mbps down, 254kbps up. The unrealistic all up or all down prices would be $4.12/GB down, $14/GB up. Cellular 5GB cap would be $8GB/mo, at $40/mo. Satellite transmit bandwidth is inherently less than receive (ie xmit power in consumer vs pro gear), so it is like ADSL in that respect, but I get penalized twice!
For only $2500 per customer, the cable company will bring cable service 5 poles further up the road to service 3 customers. The phone company mentioned that they would have to install "expensive equipment", roughly half way between the current local COs, and there is no available copper due to capacity and damage. It's not like these companies invest in system-wide upgrades, just those where they can get the best RoI.
I haven't read all the comments yet, but I'd expect someone to mention "volume discounts" for greater usage. There is still no internet equivalent to the "dial tone", or to "long distance".
Plus ca change, plus c'est les memes choses.
He meant her career.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Why should the rate go up per usage? It should go down. Whatever happened to bulk discounts? The progressive water rates are to encourage conservation. There's not an inherent limited supply of bits, so why treat it the same?
But there is an inherently limited supply of bits - it's how many the ISP itself can send in a month.
Similarly water is sort of endless (as long as it keeps cycling through the atmosphere). The progressive rates are there because only so much water can be treated by local water plants, and if you use too much it will run out of capacity. If you wanted to encourage conservation you would price the initial water such that it was not absurdly cheap (for what you get).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If we treat ISP as utilities (no caps), then don't be surprised if they treat us like utilities treat their customers: billed by usage.
For some reason I've never quite understood, the idea of being billed by the megabyte seems to draw a very negative reaction around here. People seem to think unlimited internet at a flat rate is a basic human right. But nobody could reasonably expect unlimited killowatt-hours for $20/month.
An ISP advertised as "unlimited" certainly should be unlimited, I wouldn't argue with that. They should either make it truly unlimited, or stop calling it "unlimited". One way or the other. That's just simple honesty. Unstated secret caps on an "unlimited" internet package are fraudulent. But realistically, you just have to know that truly unlimited internet is not going to happen. It's just not practical, any more than unlimited electricity or unlimited natural gas.
The other problem with "unlimited" internet or even flat-fee-with-a-cap internet is that it really means that the light users end up subsidizing the heavy users. And that doesn't seem fair.
Isn't it just easier and more natural all around to just pay by the megabyte, the same way you pay for your killowatt-hours? I think they could work out some kind of sliding scale, so that heavy use or running a popular web-site doesn't become economically infeasible.
And then, once that's in place, maybe we can convince (or force) the ISPs to stop thinking they're anything other than a pipe. A dumb pipe. A dumb pipe that doesn't and shouldn't know or care what goes through it. A pipe whose entire job is to carry bits from one place to another, and not #$#$ with them. Just like the electric company doesn't know or care what you do with your killowatt-hours. It's none of their damn business.
Why don't all you guys that want unlimited accounts for $14.95 a month, go out and startup an ISP and bring that great idea to yourself and the masses.
In these discussions there is a serious misunderstanding and misuse of the term "bandwidth".
Typically, 'bandwidth' means the amount of data a specific part will be able to send at specific point in time.(the 'width' of your 'bands') It does *not* mean the aggregate amount of data the user of said part has sent/received between two points in time. That is more like 'throughput', but not even that.
I think it's important to remember that, unlike utilities which are metered because there is a finite amount of the resource, there is never a shortage of data. There may be a shortage of bandwidth at a particular moment, but as soon as a few people stop transmitting data, that bandwidth is available again. The worst that can happen is a slow down of network performance.
Comparisons of 'bandwidth' to utilities is folly.
Now if the ISPs somehow pay for access to the larger 'backbone' or other large networks by GB/month, then I can see why they would want to pass that cost on to the runaway downloaders, but technically there really is no sensible argument to it.
FUNK!
I CAN TYPE CAPS IF I WANT TO LULZ
really now...
ZOMG HEID IN UR BUNKERZ
hahaha
Truth, Just Us, And Hatred For All Mankind!
Utilities have maximum rates too, which is why electricity is cheaper at night
Utilities may charge different rates depending on when electricity is used where you are but they don't everywhere. Where I live there's only one rate, $.10 per KWH if I recall right.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
that would start treating Internet providers like a utility and stop the use of caps
The regulated utility isn't required to deliver unlimited gas, electric, and water service to your home - without regard to cost or competing demands on its resources.
There always will be. The difference is that, with regulation, there is a loophole somewhere. With deregulation, there are loopholes everywhere.
With deregulation there are no loopholes, there are only loopholes when there are regulations.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Has it occurred to anyone else that treating "utilities" like utilities is what's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA?
Treating utilities as utilities isn't what caused the roll blackouts in CA. Neither did deregulation. CA electric companies were not deregulated, instead some regulations were dropped and others added. One such regulation was that power generators could not distribute power, ie generation and transmission were separated. Another regulation added was that power distributors could not raise their prices, ie there were price controls. But generators were allowed to and when a transmitter has to pay more but can't charge more to cover their costs then they can't stay in business long.
Nor were they about a shortage of generation capacity, during the blackouts there was a wind farm capable of generating megawatts of power that sat idle. Why did it sit idle? Because no body would erect the cable transmission lines.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
At one time the thought of bandwidth caps irked the shit out of me. I am a Comcast customer, and about 3 months ago, Comcast dropped a notice on me that pretty much nullified my original contract with them. It instituted a 250GB/Month cap, after which point the additional bandwidth would be subject to a fee (reasonably priced, IMHO).
I ranted and raved. I reread all my paperwork. I ranted some more.
Then I actually installed a bandwidth meter on my machine and let 'er rip for a month. Turns out that with heavy e-mail use, daily MMO play, regular torrenting, plenty of streaming video and near constant VoiP connections, I used less then a third of the cap.
In other words, the cap had ZERO effect on me.
I suspect the only people (that don't have business connections) that are still bitching about caps ARE the ones using up the lion's share of bandwidth. Why doesn't that surprise me?
If nothing else, caps are an additional factor that the ISPs have take into account in order to compete against each other. Those with the highest caps get the business. Competition is good, right?
Australia has always had caps on internet use so we are used to it.
The point is it does cost more money for the ISP to deliver more data.
If my capped account is 10G/month but then I as an ISP was mandated for no caps and lets say usage doubled, then I need more routers, more electricity to produce the data, more access to terrestial and undersea data cables.
So it does cost more money to deliver more data, and I don't mind paying for the quantity of data delivered.
(typical plans maybe $50=10GB $60=20GB etc)
46137
What do you mean "the ghost of Lilly Tomin"? Last time I checked, she was still alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_Tomlin
And we're a better world for it.
Gaming of a deregulated energy system by crooked companies like Enron played a major part in those rolling brown-outs.
Except CA did not deregulate energy. Unfortunately many others think like you, that it was deregulated. Sure some regulations were dropped but others were added. First, generation and transmission were separated. The same company that generated energy could not also distribute it. Secondly while distributors had price controls, ie could not raise their prices, generators did not. Here's a paper from Stanford on California Electricity Deregulation[pdf].
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If I recall correctly, there was also a situation where no power plants had been built in ages, so they had to import power from other states and growth in CA and the other states was a factor..
Did you also know that there was a wind farm in CA that sat idle when it could have generated megawatts of electricity?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If you want to say you don't want government involvement, that's fine as an argument, but there's evidence that deregulation in California and abuse of this deregulation by Enron and other such companies had more to do with the situation
CA energy was not deregulated but you like so many other have fallen for the lie that the rolling blackouts in CA were caused by deregulation. Sure some regulations were dropped but others were added. See this post of mine.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
As much as I think caps are bad, having Congress stick its fingers into business practices is worse.
A similar thing is happening with Chrysler and GM re-organizations. Congress is trying tell them which factories and dealerships to close ("not the one in my district"). The companies should figure that out.
Has it occurred to anyone else that treating "utilities" like utilities is what's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA?
No, your problem is you're NOT treating them like utilities. You're treating them like commodity brokers. Your brownouts and shortages are the result of underregulation, not overregulation
The problem with the CA rolling blackouts was not deregulation or under regulation, it was bad regulations. I just read of a myth in India that goes like this:
Villagers notice a body floating in a river and drag it out. Then more and more bodies are seen floating which are also taken out and buried. Eventually the villagers go to a village elder and ask how to fish all the bodies out. He tells them to stop fishing them out and walk upstream to see why people are dying.
Now let's apply this to CA's rolling blackouts. There are rolling blackouts, why? Because power distributors can not raise their prices because regulations say they can not. Regulations also separate power generators from distributors, businesses can not do both. So they are not able to buy power from generators to sell to end users. Why can't they buy power from generators? Because the generator have no regulations on how much they charge distributors for power.
Bad regulations caused CA's rolling blackouts not deregulation.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Actually, we didn't have rolling brownouts until the Republicans got to "de-regulate" the market. I was there and I saw it happen.
See this post. Power was not deregulated.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
service.
I agree, ownership of infrastructure should be separated from ownership of service that it can provide.
We have competition for electric service because one companies maintains the grid, and the other companies with power plants feed power onto it.
That's true in California but it's not true everywhere, actually in the US CA is unusual as the state has regulations that separate ownership of generators and distributors.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
No, your explanatory skills are poor. You did not explain what you meant by It shouldn't. Those were all the words you used. GP however said electric company, phone service, and cable TV. Your "shouldn't" could be used for any one, a combination, or all of them.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
First the internet is not commerce between foreign Nations, and among the several States, or with the Indian Tribes. So that would only apply to multi-state ISPs, not all ISPs offer service in more than one state. There are literally dozens of local ISPs where I live. Since the backbones are national and international the feds could regulate them but it can't regulate local ISPs.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
People who write legal documents usually leave much leeway to account for the unaccountable. If you look up the right articles of constitution or law, there's bound to be a section ascribing federal powers to "other areas not yet covered by current document"
And if you look at other early documents you'll see government was supported to be strictly limited in what powers it had. Repeatedly Thomas Jefferson wrote that the people have the power and that government is but a servant to the people, not their dictator. He "sought to establish a federal government of limited powers."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Rather it's during Internet Prime Time when everyone, even "light" users, hop on the net and download some Youtube videos
For "everyone" to have their heaviest usage at the same time, that would require people in some parts of the world to sleep when the sun's up. Either those in Moscow, if they follow US prime time, or most of the US, if they follow western Russia prime time.
I'm sure you're not actually suggesting this to be the case.
And even if we restrict ourselves to a single country... there are some pretty frigging wide countries out there, timezone-wise (Russia, China, Canada, US). MIT prime time is off of Caltech prime time by a few hours.
Why don't you read this
Yes, I know about natural monopolies. I have suggested elsewhere that ownership of infrastructure should be separated from ownership of services. I have also argued for freeing the airwaves by allowing people to once again homestead the airwaves.
Should there be a Law?
Sure, since we can't just magically wave more water into existence, we conserve it. I water my plants with water from the washing machine.
I did something like this last year. Even though I reported it to my landlord the drain in the bathtub in my apartment was clogged up for months. So what I did was scoop water out of it to water my garden.
OTOH, due to technology improvements, we can just wave more bandwidth into existance (or close to it).
I was only addressing the statement that we can not create more water, which is a problem in CA.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
That whole mess kind of led to Arnold yanking away the governors spot didn't it ? , Which was a little unfair as most of the fixes (patches ?) where done right before Davis lost his job.
CA's recall vote was a terrific show of democracy working, only if Iran can get it working there.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
But if there's more demand and they are getting paid for it, they can build more infrastructure. Somebody using 2x will pay into the system twice as much as somebody using "x".
If there's a short-term limit, a more practical approach would be to throttle a user's throughput after they reach their threshold (which varies depending on service plan). Thus, if your "limit" is 5 gig a month, as soon as you go over 5 gig, your throughput starts to go down. Let's say there's a lower limit of 5 and an upper limit of 7. When you go over, your throughput percent will be roughly:
t = ((7 - a) * 100) / (7 - 5)
where "a" is the actual used amount for a given month. Thus, if you used 6 gigs for a given month, then your throughput would be 50% of normal.
Table-ized A.I.
We have seen what happens when they throttle throughput haven't we?
Your arbitary numbers in your arbitary equation mean nothing. If the equation and numbers are pulled out of one's ass and not based on the real world, then they are worthless.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Consider that ALL other forms of communications (radio, television, telephone) are regulated by federal entities...
Some forms of communication are explicitly NOT regulated - and regulation of them has been explicitly forbidden since the passage of the Bill of Rights. Examples:
Speech.
Newspapers.
Books.
Letters (content thereof).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
THEY ARE BANNING CAPS ! FOR CHRIST SAKE THE CAPS! WHAT WILL THE INTERNET PEOPLE DO WITHOUT CAPS ?!?!
additionally:
now, i know that so may caps are like yelling you clever automated judge of intent that overlooks my posting, but i think you should just. fucking. chill.
if were talking metered access here, what happens to my next months bill when i upgrade xubuntu to the next public release? thats a lot of bits and bytes that will appear on my bill. i dont like the idea. i would rather have a cap.
Having worked with people using satellite internet, I can attest to painful service.
Using satellite, don't really expect to game -- fair amount of lag in those connections. Quite literally, I've had to remotely connect to one user in Alaska, where in their area, it's either ultra slow dialup, or relatively slow satellite.
Imagine downloading a 90 MB driver bundle over this. Mobile broadband is 3-5 times faster in the lower 48, for a point of reference.
Visible delay between a mouse movement and its reaction was in the neighborhood of ~3 seconds.
Further, some of the satellite ISPs impose a 250 MB per 24 hour period cap on transmission. Once you hit that, you'd get faster speed on a 1200 baud modem, generally speaking.
As someone who has legit downloads that would push me over that cap easily once or twice a month, that's a non-option for me.
One of these days, I am going to flip out. When I flip out, I'll be back in five minutes.
'I invoke the ghost of Lilly Tomlin: "We don't care, we don't have to. We're the phone company."'
It's Lily, not Lilly, and she's very much alive. Still funny, too.
I can definitely relate to water shortages here in Atlanta though we seem to be recovering this year. We're still not permitted to water the lawn.
It was pretty bad last year, but it's getting better now? There may not be plenty of water but there's more than last year?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
....for large swaths of the country. And then maybe you'd like to explain why socialisticky Asian and European countries have faster personal connections at home for a fraction of the cost, while having more bandwidth than your typical American university.
The Bill of Rights was a compromise. Some of the USA's Founding Fathers wanted rights included in the Constitution but others didn't. Alexander Hamilton and others didn't want rights included because they were concerned some rights would be left out. So a compromise was worked out wherein the Constitution would be signed without rights but then the Bill of Rights would be proposed for ratification.
If the federal government was truly limited only to its enumerated powers, then a Bill of Rights is unnecessary because nothing in the main body of the Constitution gives Congress the right "to infringe the freedom of speech," e.g.
The Constitution does not prevent states or local governments from infringing on rights, but the Bill of Rights does.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
but from what I read the crux was the California power companies could make more money selling their power to neighboring states than they could selling it to Californians. That should not have been allowed.
Yea, California regulations barred distributors from raising their prices. Other states didn't have those regs, so where's a business going to sell, someplace with caps or someplace without?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Actually, the Bill of Rights was not initially understood to prevent states and local governments from infringing on rights.
It wasn't until the 14th Amendment that what you said was true. The major rights in the BoR have been "selectively incorporated" via the 14th to apply to the states. Before the Civil War, a state that didn't give you freedom of speech in its own constitution didn't have to obey the Constitution's 1st Amendment.
And you and I agree about the Constitution: it's a compromise, not a religious text. Hell, when the states ratified the Constitution, not all of them were operating under agreement about what it said.
See the Federalists vs. Anti-federalists, and how they affected different states to ratify with their wildly different interpretations.
Also see the founding fathers themselves disagreeing over whether the Necessary & Proper Clause affords the federal government the right to establish a national bank. See, e.g., Madison staunchly opposing a national bank until he let the First's charter die. Then he went "whoops, we actually need that" and became an early "living document"er.
And the Second Amendment still hasn't been incorporated to apply to the states yet. This is why DC can't ban guns, but California can. Well, technically no state in the Ninth Circuit can now, since the Ninth Circuit recently selectively incorporated the Second Amendment to apply to the states.
The ruling just doesn't apply outside the Ninth Circuit. However, expect the SCOTUS to grant cert and incorporate within the next year or so.
It wasn't until the 14th Amendment that what you said was true. The major rights in the BoR have been "selectively incorporated" via the 14th to apply to the states. Before the Civil War, a state that didn't give you freedom of speech in its own constitution didn't have to obey the Constitution's 1st Amendment.
You're right the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment barred stated from abridging privileges or immunities. However Article IV - The States Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition says "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." That sounds like what's a right in one state other states have to honour.
Madison staunchly opposing a national bank
That I didn't know but I know his friend Thomas Jefferson had a big problem with banks saying they were more dangerous to liberty than standing armies. What I find ironic about TJ is that he had his own standing army, the US Marine Corp. And about 100 years before Teddie Roosevelt did he sent them to Tripoli in the Med to fight the Barbary pirates in the First Barbary War.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
And the Second Amendment still hasn't been incorporated to apply to the states yet. This is why DC can't ban guns, but California can. Well, technically no state in the Ninth Circuit can now, since the Ninth Circuit recently selectively incorporated the Second Amendment to apply to the states.
I didn't know CA banned guns. Yea, I see where CA governor Davis signed 5 "new anti-gun bills into law" in 1999.
The ruling just doesn't apply outside the Ninth Circuit. However, expect the SCOTUS to grant cert and incorporate within the next year or so.
I'd like to see the bans as well as NY's ban end up in the Supreme Court and the Justices rule they are unconstitutional. Like they did with DC's ban. I no longer have firearms, I used to own a .45 APC and a .22 long rifle, but I've been thinking about buying a couple. Nevermind hunting I haven't been target practicing in years.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The Privileges and Immunities Clause entitles a man in TX who travels to LA to receive the same rights as a man from LA receives in LA. It has everything to do with receiving state rights and nothing to do with receiving federal rights.
I didn't mean to assert that CA did ban guns. I just picked a hypothetical state without loss of generality. I suppose it was misleading since DC actually can't ban guns, but it's the only place where basically only federal law applies that I know of.
Agreed on the guns. I have a Browning Hi-Power and a shotgun I just inherited. Nothing too special. They're locked away right now, though, because I don't trust my crummy apartment to withstand burglars while I'm out. And I don't have a C&C, so...
I'm not even sure I want a C&C, now that I think about it. I will be working in a federal courthouse starting at the end of August, so I won't even be allowed to take it in.
The Constitution does go past the 10th Amendment...something about regulating something or ether between the states...
There are many local ISPes that do not serve interstate. In my greater area there are a number of local ISPs that only serve the area.
And if you look at the Constitution it provides for flexibility. For example, General Welfare, which is mentioned twice.
Yes, it allow mentions liberty. The Preamble says:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Now if you look the definition for "welfare" it says:
"welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being."
Thomas Jefferson said of the 'general welfare clause":
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." In Federalist No 41 James Madison said
"the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere "synonym" for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content."
As you say the feds have gone after people in California for marijuana after the state legalized medical marijuana.
Rather atrocious. It boggles the mind that it's conventional wisdom that Prohibition was a complete failure with alcohol, yet we insist on continuing Prohibition 2.0: WOD.
Agreed bigtime!!! All these politicians and drug warriors have their heads stuck in the sand. There never has been much debate about it, but hopefully it's a good sign that CNN's Anderson Cooper has been having part of his show AC 360 all week about "America's High: The case for and against pot" with drug legalization proponents debating drug warriors on legalization. Now I haven't watched all of them in their entirety but what I did see it looked like the legalization hands were better.
The whole reason we have regulation and oversight is because we already tried free market Libertarianism
No, we have not tried free markets. The closest we came to free markets was in the 1830s. Alexis de Tocqueville was so overwhelmed by what he saw when he toured the USA in 1831 he wrote his books "Democracy in America" extolling how free people were. As there was still slavery, which Thomas Jefferson wanted to end, there wasn't a compleat free market but it's the closed we've had to one. Since then big businesses have become more and more powerful and have bought politicians to write laws favorable to them. In a free market businesses wouldn't have the power to buy them off and the politicians wouldn't have the power to enact bad laws.
Oh, and that Daily Kos link does not say those problems cited were caused by a
Should there be a Law?
I used to own a .45 APC and a .22 long rifle
I have a Browning Hi-Power and a shotgun I just inherited. Nothing too special.
The .22 long rifle my dad gave me when I was little and the .45 I bought while in the Army. Back then he and my best friend's dad would take us out to target practice. Unfortunately the rifle was taken by the police when my mother used it and shot someone who broke into our house. And the person who sold me the .45 kept it in his home, he was married and lived off base. As I lived in the barracks, I would have turned it into the armory and would not have been able to check it out easily, also I was only 20 and I had to be 21 to put the gun in my name. Eventually he pawned the gun and did not get it back.
I'm not even sure I want a C&C, now that I think about it. I will be working in a federal courthouse starting at the end of August, so I won't even be allowed to take it in.
I don't know if I'd want a C&C either, to tell the truth I'd rather just carry a gun in a holster strapped to my waist. As for the courthouse, years ago I knew someone who was a guard in a courthouse, and he too believed in the right to bear arms.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yeap, I've said many tymes the only laws that should be in the books are those in which there harm is inflicted on others. Drugs should not be illegal, only the crimes committed while using a drug, which are already crimes. Or if a person wants to sell their own body as in prostitution they should legally be able to do so.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
But maybe you should re-think your regulation==evil shtick the next time you step on an airplane, take a drink of water, get a prescription drug or even take a bite of food.
So you have no valid argument?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
But the problem is, how direct must the harm be? If we could figure out exactly what caused the market meltdown that we have had lately, would it not make sense to outlaw that? Now, we may argue about whether it is sufficiently proven that the deregulation of the market caused the metldown, or that CO2 causes global warming, but the point remains the same. Many of the nanny state regulations exist to protect society at large.