Slashdot Mirror
First Lawsuits Challenging FCC's New Net Neutrality Rules Arrive
An anonymous reader writes: A small ISP based in Texas and an industry trade group have become the first to file lawsuits challenging the FCC's recent net neutrality rules. The trade group, USTelecom, argues that the regulations are not "legally sustainable." Alamo Broadband claims it is facing "onerous requirements" by operating under Title II of the Communications Act. Such legal challenges were expected, and are doubtless the first of many — but few expected them to arrive so soon. While some of the new rules were considered "final" once the FCC released them on March 12, others don't go into effect until they're officially published in the Federal Register, which hasn't happened yet.
Says Johnny Cash!
Actually, I don't have to wish. I just have to watch. Government will fuck this up - it always does. In its own special way. My bet is on regulatory capture.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Because Operating under title 2 cost them so much more money than they were making before....
I agree with some of the points of the ISPs. But I also know that these points are either overstated or invalid lies.
The Alamo Broadband complaint reads as follows:
Alamo seeks relief on the grounds that the Order: (1) is in excess of the Commission's authority; (2) is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act; (3) is contrary to constitutional right; and (4) is otherwise contrary to law.
That's about as generic as it can get. I don't see it going anywhere.
to not recognize that more government control of the Internet is a good thing.
To all conservatives, more government regulation is uniformly bad.
To all liberals, more government regulation is uniformly good.
And so there we have the two sides, one pressing us to a feudal-style Private Police State run by Corporate Fascists, the other into a Authoritarian Police State Run by Big Government and Corporate Citizens. Either way we are already good and fucked regardless of who you vote for.
Nice try, idjots.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
To all conservatives, more government regulation is uniformly bad.
To all liberals, more government regulation is uniformly good.
What a simplistic caricature of the positions.
He believed a revolution was coming.
There seemed to be no limit to greed. If docking wages would increase profits, it was done. If higher railroad rates put more gold in their coffers, it was done. How much was enough, Roosevelt wondered?
The only reasonable outcome is for government to take control of the infrastructure that is the backbone of the internet and build it out as they did with roads. This is not a communistic viewpoint as free travel spurs commerce while tolls inhibit it.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
A government's role should be: (pick one)
1. Break up monopolies, reduce barriers to market entry, and encourage competition, or
2. Regulate the behavior of monopolies.
Net Neutrality attempts to do #2.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Comcast or at&t?
You know it was one of them.
Well,given that free software is an overly generic term, inclusion within that space is impossible to police.
However, those who provide services for free software distribution may well make decisions regarding those with whom they wish to associate.
Or do you not believe in the freedom to reject others?
> To all liberals, more government regulation is uniformly good.
Bullcrap. Sane liberalism says that the government puts in only the regulation that is *needed* and put on the people that can do the most harm. I know of NO liberal that wants regulation for the sake of regulation.
Your portrayal of conservatives is wrong as well. Most conservatives seem to be fine with regulation as long it is on people they don't like and want to punish. They seem to want the people who can do the most harm have the least regulation (for money purposes) and tend to NOT care about regulation on individuals and small business, the very people who can do the LEAST harm.
The fact you are parroting these political stereotypes means you listen to a very limited group of people.
who in their right mind modded this up. This is clear flamebait
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
> The fact you are parroting these political stereotypes means you listen to a very limited group of people.
Doesn't the fact that you are arguing the exact inverse also mean you listen to a very limited group of people?
Seattle? Ruled by conservatives?
You must live in opposite land.
the irony of you calling out his generalizations by making other generalizations
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
the governments role should be to
ensure that the people who belong to this country are safe
ensure everyone has equal opportunities (not equal outcomes)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I wasn't aware that there were only two choices ever. Even in the overly restrictive American two-party system, there are differences in views on both the left and right about how far to go. I would posit that the Republican Party, and the Conservative/Right Wing in general has more coherence in their views, but I can easily think of examples where some of them want more government regulation (generally with enforcing morality or attempting to do so). As for the left, there's a reason that Will Rogers has a famous quote, "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." There are more politicians of both parties that certainly meet those standards, but let's not tar them all with the same brush, and let's certainly not decry the entire political spectrum of belief on those lines.
Furthermore, it is entirely possible that someone may believe we are too far, or not far enough, along the acceptable spectrum of government regulation or involvement on a given issue, without supporting the maximal end point. "Government regulation" is not a binary thing, and we're not stuck choosing between totalitarianism and anarchy. Just because I might think that we need more FCC action to encourage competition in the ISP market doesn't mean I want to see the ISPs nationalized and run by the Government, just in the same way that if I think that there's too much regulation it doesn't mean I want complete anarchy, either.
To all conservatives...
Ahem, that should read "To all Republicans..." I'm pretty damn conservative, and I think Republicans are some of a stupidest fucks to walk the planet. We're not one and the same, I can still freely admit when and where the Government does a good job without crapping myself.
the Fifth Circuit has 8 female judges.
In general, I would agree with you that #1 is preferable. However, in the case of infrastructure/utilities, the barriers to entry are natural and cannot be easily eliminated, assuming they can be eliminated at all.
You'll note that when it comes to internet providers, increasing competition has typically required measures such as forcing entrenched players to share lines (regulation) or subsidies to lay new cable (regulation). Google fiber has been an interesting deviation from that, but it required an already multi-billion dollar corporation to get started.
Your comment reminded me of this video.
In it Obama is confronted with his tax policy reducing revenue. His response is his tax changes are not to increase revenue but to increase "fairness". By fairness he actually means to increase taxes on those he doesn't like.
So not only is your comment about conservatives wrong, but here I have video evidence of your liberal leader doing the "evil action" you blame conservatives for.
Reality has an anti-liberal bias.
It doesn't matter who wins the Circuit; this is going to the Supreme Court for sure, and given how partisan this issue is it's really only Roberts and Kennedy who have a decision to make there.
2. Regulate the behavior of monopolies. Net Neutrality attempts to do #2.
In which market is Alamo Broadband a monopoly?
I know of no government granted monopoly status to ISPs. Comcast/TW/etc are defacto (not dejure) monopolies in cable television delivered internet service. Verizon/whatever are dejure monopolies on telephone-company provided ISPs. There exist many ISPs in the same markets as all of the previously mentioned companies. There are even ISPs that can provide ISP service via DSL over those dejure telco monopoly systems.
Do the FCC net neutrality rules actually limit themselves to places where there are actually defacto or dejure monopolies, or do they apply to every ISP? If they apply to every ISP, then they are not regulating the actions of monopolies, they are regulating many non-monopolies as well.
I'm fascinated by the FCC response to a filing that had to take place within ten days of their action and only happened close to the end of those ten days: "premature". Sorry FCC, you don't get to tell people they filed too early just because they filed within the very short deadline.
Hey, wait a damned minute! I'm 62, and I build and repair computers for a HOBBY! We're not all Luddites. I was using computers since before you were born (early 1970s with punch cards). Who the hell do you think got all this technology started years ago? Let me clue you in, kid. Those people are not still in their twenties and thirties today. Look at a few examples: Bill Gates 59, Jeff Bezos 51, Leo Laporte 58, Eric Schmidt 59, Steve Wozniak 64, Ronald Wayne 80.
+2 funny AND informative!
Nothing posted to
ensure everyone has equal opportunities (not equal outcomes)
So how do you go about ensuring that everyone in the USA has the same opportunities as Obama's daughters or Chelsea Clinton? More broadly, a child of rich parents will inevitably have more opportunities than a child of poor parents.
You could argue that it's better to focus on equalizing opportunities. And I might even agree. But it's impossible to "ensure that everyone has equal opportunities". And one of the best ways to equalize opportunities is to equalize outcomes.
equal opportunities means that no one is barred for doing X. whether one can afford to do X is another story completely
By trying to equalize outcomes you do a couple things. You teach a portion of the public that they dont have to do anything because the government will take care of them. this is bad because the cycle gets worse not better
You should not be punishing people who do right, which is what happens why you try and equalize outcomes
Lets take sports for example, I would never want to see equal outcomes in sports, it would kill the game. patriots won the superbowl last year? well, we cant let them win again until all the other teams get a win, because, you know fairness. Plain and simple that is wrong on so many levels
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Does this bother you as much as it does me?
It is unfortunate that so many of our laws are so poorly written that one's political stance can have such an effect on the interpretation of the law.
"Well, this is what they wrote, but what did they really mean, and how can I twist it to meet my own personal political views?"
Love sees no species.
Simple, it has become a political thing. Despite my warnings ( as loud as I could make them but OK not that loud ), to keep arguing it as a nonpartisan issue. THe opponents of net neutrality have an advantage that we who support it do not. Once net neutrality is gone, it will be hard to bring back. The ISP cartel knew this and were fighting very hard for politicization to happen.
Instead of, for example, arguing that this action swaps in one set of regulations for another, ( In fact the old set gave all the power to the ISP cartels, and they took us from #1 internet service to middle of the rtoad. ) some proponents let the ISP cartels make it a political issue. The fact is that some people would rather have Title II as a political argument instead of actually having the ISPs be controlled by Title II.
So here is what will happen, the ISP cartel will tie up the implementation for the next two years in court. Then who becomes President? Hillary? Seems to be imploding right in front of us. John Kerry? The guy who helped bring back the cold war. and Al Queda in the form of ISIS and who couldn't win before? Joe Biden. The guy whose interactions with women is so creepy he makes BIll Clinton seem normal.
here is an interesting fact for you , since World War II there has only been one person elected as President that came from the same party as the sitting President-- Bush (41) (following Reagan).
So we have a Republican, who when the next seat on the FCC comes up names a Republican FCC member who replaces a Democrat. The new Chairman becomes Ajit Pai. Bye bye net neutrality.
Don't forget the one that fixed all of the aboves problems, Linus Torvalds.
The irony of it all, cable companies don't want government getting in their way and yet they use(lobby) government to get in the way of others(competition). Aren't monopolies illegal in this country?
This sounds like a pre-made lawsuit, something the Kocks would fund. The conspiracy theorist in me says that this suit was just ready to go, probably when the FCC first started talking about net neutrality. This tiny ISP is being used because it's a "small business"...if Comcast / Cox / AT&T filed this it would be even harder to push. And it's no coincidence it's in Texas either. Someone needs to start digging around and find out who is REALLY funding this...as I doubt this ISP is using their own profits to pursue this.
And the government created that too. And the government decided eventually that confining the internet to just academia (as the NSFNET was) didn't make sense so they closed down the NSFNET and the main links changed to be commercial instead of government paid.
This period you speak of where the ARPANET was the backbone for a network that was generally used never existed. The NSFNET started out around 1987 and you didn't see any real commercial use of the internet until the early 90s. Even CIX (ANS) came in 1991 with the help of the NSF. After Congress (including Al Gore) passed legislation pushing the NSF to repeal its restrictions on commercial use you saw significant commercial uses take off.
Today's internet is in no way an unintended consequence. It may not have been paid for by the government, but they did design and develop it and were well aware of the possibilities beyond academia.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
to not recognize that more government control of the Internet is a good thing.
To all conservatives, more government regulation is uniformly bad.
Unless those regulations involve telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, or are amendments preventing people of the same sex from marrying ...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
When deciding whether to break up a monopoly, does it really matter how it formed?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
That's as asinine as a communist claiming that if you start your own business, it will be a given that you'll dump toxic waste into the river while sexually harassing your secretary. Because other business owners have done that and the communist has an axe to grind.
The government passed regulations on seat belts, lead paint, asbestos, DDT, and of course the FCC which has thus far prevented NBC from trying to edge out ABC with more powerful transmitters. It didn't cause civilization to collapse, capitalism to be banned, or Zombie Stalin to come for your stock options.
Your solution is to let AT&T and Comcast double and triple charge anyone and everyone who connects through their network? GTFO with these Randian clown shoes.
equal opportunities means that no one is barred for doing X.
Sounds like Somalia is a perfect land of opportunity. :)
Lets take sports for example, I would never want to see equal outcomes in sports,...
But would you be OK with an outcome where the Patriots were all either killed or injured so severely that that couldn't compete again the next year? Because that's what happens in real life. Every day 20,000 children die of poverty. Unless you set up an artificial system to limit the worst outcomes then many people find that their opportunities are limited by being dead.
Because Republican voters no more want Comcast double and triple charging for internet access than they want their social security benefits cut. Well, there's also the Randian fools which you can see around this story, but 1) they're idiots with an axe to grind against all things government and 2) are a minority even amongst teabaggers.
> Comcast/TW/etc are defacto (not dejure) monopolies in cable television delivered internet service.
Comcast is in Seattle. In most of the city, it is illegal for other cable companies to compete. That means they have no incentive to spend money on infrastructure to add new customers. Adding customers is expensive since you have to run new cabling and install equipment. A lot of the more expensive newer buildings have cable TV, but I haven't lived anywhere here yet that had cable available. I'd love to be able to buy ESPN to watch football and have cable Internet access. Because of the age of the phone lines and the city's rules against CenturyLink installing newer equipment that is larger, I can't get DSL either. I'm stuck with ISDN. Comcast most certainly has a government-granted monopoly here. And even worse, they don't provide service to the entire monopoly area.
Then you learn about the NFL Draft, and then you learn about the NFL revenue sharing, and then you learn about their salary caps, and then you learn about whatever else the NFL does to ensure that the game isn't too unbalanced. You could even include the Player's Unions and the Referee crews as part of that equalization process. Believe it or not, the NFL is seriously concerned about parity among their teams.
It's also demonstrated in other sports, including racing ones. They go to a lot of trouble to avoid the cars being too unbalanced, and for the teams with more money from having too much of an advantage.
I don't get why people bring up sports, especially professional sports, when talking about equalization. The professional leagues spend considerable amounts of efforts to make the system fair. (And in collegiate and other leagues, it's even more serious, the most recent US Little League Champion had its wins vacated due to rules violations.)
Censorship is what the government does. Private individuals are free to engage in editing and may pick and choose what to allow in their own homes or on their own web sites.
ooohhhh my profit margins bwwaaaaaaaa I'm not going to be able to afford a new learjet sob sob sob oh those mean userrs who want internet ITS NOT FAIR bwwwaaaaaaaaa
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Probably an SF Bay Area transplant -- to them anyone not fervently clamoring for a Authoritarian Government to telling everyone what to eat, drink and how to generally live their lives is conservative. I hate the Bay Area and regret moving here -- leaving by this Summer I hope.
You mean choosing to continue most of the Bush Tax Cuts while arguing for years that the corporate tax rate - already at very low levels after deductions - should be cut some more? Randians should move to an island with the Obots and fight it out over who's revisionist history is more delusional.
bush tax cuts expired, if he continued them, they are now his. Funny how that works
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
salary caps are a new thing in the scheme of things and somehow i knew someone would come in and bring them up but none of that matters because the point I was responding to was one on equal outcomes, not equal opportunity
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
ahh yes, Somalia, the land of the free, strawman of the liberals.
20K kids in america die in poverty ever day??? Citation??? because if that were true id like to think that the media (at LEAST MSNBC) would be all over it
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Income tax rate in CA on top incomes is over 50%..
It absolutely is not. The top marginal rate may be above 50% when you consider both state (13.3%) and federal (39.6%) income taxes, but this only applies to persons earning more than $1 million per year, and it does not mean that the government takes more than half your income. It means that the government takes more than half of income earned past the first million. However, in that case, you are probably guaranteed to have a way to reduce your tax burden.
Personally I think you have quite a bit of hubris if you imagine that this information will ever apply to you. I don't want to get too into the topic, but it sounds like your understanding of taxation is limited to, "It's the durn gummint takin our munny!", without an understanding of either the purpose of taxation or how it affects socioeconomic status/societal structure. Maybe a good summary would be that it's inefficient and freedom-reducing when a minority of actors has undue control of a market. It is very useful to these people to portray taxation in a simplistic manner, and very likely against your own interests.
There''s only one member of the city council that is a socialist. This is most certainly a conservative city.
You meant Liberals, not liberals. You have no idea what the word liberal actually means.
Take my money and use it to pay a woman who does what she wants with her own body. That position is just as ridiculous.
It does neither. The only monopolies we have in Internet providers, are monopolies facilitated by the government. Option #3 should read, "take money from telecom, grant monopoly status, and then regulate the telecom after accusing it of being a monopoly."
Regulations make the game work for bookies. Nobody would gamble on lop sided sports.
20K kids in america die in poverty ever day???
20,000 is for the world. If you've only ever seen the USA, you might imagine that things would be OK even without a government safety net. But there are plenty of places outside the USA that are a harsh lesson in what happens when there is not an adequate social safety net to limit the worst outcomes.
Only Conservatives are smart enough to not see that I should pay the ISP for my connection, Netflix should pay for their connection, I should pay Netflix for their service, and I also should have to pay the ISP again for access to Netflix.
Double billing is a crime.
A government's role should be: (pick one)
1. Break up monopolies, reduce barriers to market entry, and encourage competition, or
2. Regulate the behavior of monopolies.
Net Neutrality attempts to do #2.
3. All of the above.
Natural monopolies should be regulated. This includes utilities (power, water, telephone) that rely on physical infrastructure. The owner of the infrastructure (the cables, the pipes), should be strictly regulated - and where possible being forced to allow competitors on their infrastructure. Ideally, owners of infrastructure and service providers using that infrastructure are separate.
The most obvious and easy to understand example is roads. The government builds roads and bridges, and everyone can use those roads and bridges - either for free, or against a fixed cost which is the same for everyone. Every driver pays the same toll to cross a bridge, based only on things like size/weight/type of the vehicle and maybe the time of the day, regardless of which company he works for. It's the same for everyone, roads are neutral.
In Europe, this has gone so far as to decouple rail roads from rail transport providers, power lines from power suppliers, telephone lines from telephone/ADSL Internet suppliers, etc. I'll be the first to admit that it doesn't always go smooth and there are issues, but the idea is the correct one. It's just really hard to execute well. Net neutrality is also an issue there, though generally the governments are highly in favour of net neutrality, and in the end we'll have full separation between providers of physical infrastructure (the cables in the ground), network service providers (the ISPs providing connectivity), and content providers (the individual web sites).
That'd be the ideal situation.
Low barrier of entry to the content market (everyone can set up a web site and be sure that all their potential customers can actually reach that site on equal footing with all other sites) which of course enhances competition. Low barrier of entry to the service provider market, as everyone can rent the required connectivity for a fixed, known price.
Physical infrastructure is a natural monopoly, very high barrier of entry, and therefore has to be highly regulated. This is something that I consider a prime government task, be it done directly, through a SOE, by appointing a commercial entity to do it, or even by forcing a commercial entity to open up their existing networks to the competition.
The Republicans were always going to oppose net neutrality. You're blaming the victims here.
The FCC's rules, in their own publication, do not attempt to solve #2. There is no action an ISP has taken so far, that the FCC has said it could have regulated: they are purely speculative as to what an ISP might be able to do sometime in the future.
In particular, the FCC declined to regulate peering agreements, though it appears to be claiming the authority to (with another vote.
The FCC is claiming it has power it doesn't actually have, what's new?
Wonder what the public key field is for?
Except when it comes to regulations about abortion and other things imposed by religious factions.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
The debate goes beyond policy, though. The question of whether Congress gave or intended to give the bureaucracy these kinds of sweeping powers isn't an idle one. I haven't delved into the details enough to decide if I think the rules are good rules. But I have looked into it enough to know the FCC doesn't have the powers it's claiming to have. This kind of policy change needs to be enacted by the legislature.
I can't speak for Republicans, but for the last decade the FCC has been enemy of technology numero uno. When and how the hell did they become the solution?
Not only that, but there's NO problem that they're claiming to solve with the new rules. The entire ruling and rationale is purely speculative. In particular, they explicitly declined to apply their 'finding' to peering agreements, e.g. Netflix-Cogent-Comcast.
And if the Internet isn't an "information service", what is? They're deploying a massive, unconstitutional power grab, that was unnecessary to begin with: New Neutrality has never failed in court. The ends don't justify the means.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
You're technologically illiterate if you think the FCC has impeded technology. For starters, without regulatory oversight, the airwaves would be an unusable mess.
You wrong on both accounts. It's simple to figure out. Liberals believe the government can do a better job at running things and conservatives believe in less government running things. The happy medium is some where in the middle because neither side can be completely trusted.
To all conservatives, more government regulation is uniformly bad.
No true Scotsman^H^Hconservative notwithstanding, immigration, abortion and marijuana are obvious exceptions, to name just a few.
Yeah, I get the notion that if comcast wants to shake down netflix ("nice packets you got there, shame if they got slowed down by all of your competitors packets") that's bad.
But I don't fully understand how this works practically. For example, lets ignore that Netflix or Google might have its own CDN or peering capability and just think of it as a simple content source. My imagination is that they pay for bandwidth and total data cap in the same sense that I do. That is, Netflix could buy a X gigbit connection or a 10X gigabit connection and there would be some price differential for those. Am I wrong? Assuming I'm not then presumably as it is for me, you don't really get the bandwidth you pay for in the case of ad hoc connection. You only get that under ideal circumstances (such as connecting to speedtest when none of your neighbors are using their connections). So it's not clear to me what Netflix should expect if they buy that. That might be good enough to reach 80% of their customer reliably but some won't ever get a good stream.
But lets say they buy that and Sony buys 10 times as much for their network. Now sony perhaps can eek out a little better performance. some of its network dependent in ways that can't be beaten with more packets from the source, but some things like packet resends and alternative routings might improve things.
So how is this really different than the QOS that comcast wanted netflix to pay for in the first place? One company can pay for more.
Next question is what is QOS. does net nuetrality really mean that the few instance where we do need QOS routing rules that those are now verbotten? Or does it mean that there will be packey kind labels like "video" that get priority for everyone or no one by mutual agreement? If so then presumably no one can charge extra for QOS labels? if you could it seems like a backdoor to paid priority. But if you can't charge more then what prevents me from labeling any packet I send as a priority packet?
Final question is about the fact that something like 35% of your typical cable bandwidth is not internet. It's an RF communincation channel owned by comcast. They use it for their video content. Its not governed by the internet rules. In principle they could stop using it for their content and sell it to sony or netflix or apple or google to use for theirs. So were back to paid priority on a toll road. Comcast so far has said they are leery of that because of the consent agreements they signed when they bought NBC might not allow that. But that's just comcast. AT&T or verizon don't have that restriction. Since both kinds of content enter yout house on the same physical cable any distinction between them is purely virtual
So is this whole no-paid-priority moot?
The thing I worry about is that in order to get the FCC net Neutrality rules the FCC had to agree to not regulate the pricing of internet as well as creating regularoty burdens that will likely act as a barrier to entry. For example, people providing both content and networks (I'm looking at you google) might worry the FCC would start to regulate its content. And so if net neutrality vanishes in virtualization then I just got less than I bargained for in supporting net neutrality.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
That makes an odd amount of sense.
I think the Republicans will only complain about big government until they are in charge again. These cats are all the same, complain about what the other side does until your party is in charge and do exactly as they did. This whole thing seems rigged. Seems funny that people hated Clinton, Bush and Obama but they all seemed to have no problem being reelected.
I'm with you brother. I was a Republican until the core Republican party went batsh*t crazy. Seems like a good idea in theory smaller government, sane spending until you start digging and find out it's all agenda driven BS.
Healthcare should be one of those things that we can agree that should be universal because it is actually the cheapest option available. Look at Switzerland probably one of the most conservative business oriented countries on the planet, they enacted universal healthcare because it was a much cheaper option than the one they had at the time, basically the Healthcare system we had before Obama care.
Whoever heard of an asinine, progress retarding lawsuit coming out of East Texas before?
Anyone?
QoS throttles based on port number, Net Neutrality is about NOT throttling based on endpoint identification.
If your network is choked, you can QoS it (or use CIR to apportion the available bandwidth to the amount each user has without overcommittment, irrespective of port number) to throttle each user because download/ftp doesn't matter if it takes 5 minutes longer, whereas video does care. You can also QoS to reject all video packets if congestion is high.
What you can't do is reject or throttle video packets coming from Netflicks and not from Amazon because you're affiliated with Amazon Prime.
What you also can't do is throttle when you don't have congestion. People in Comcast (Canada) were throttling top users all the time 24/7 for being high users, even though their network only saturated for 1% of the time. They did this so that they could force users to buy a more costly package or to make them leave, because they could make more profit selling the bandwidth to 100 grannies for the same price each.
Net Neutrality disallows throttling based on "unfair use" or on destination. QoS isn't disallowed because it;s throttling based on congenstion actually happening and throttles based on packet type, not destination.
The problem is that partisanship has entered the judicial branch at all. No law, however well written, is immune to being twisted by sophistry until black means white and yes means no.
Only now that they are Obama's, the Rs employ doublethink (now that's irony) to say they're bad. Kinda like Romneycare was a great idea until Obama implemented it.
Given the number of Republicans who have carped endlessly about how people who can't afford children shouldn't have them, you would think they would be delighted when such a person wants to make that a reality, but NOOOOOOOOO!
It really has no choice. As big of a fight as 2 was, 1 would never get through.
Too many in Congress want option 3) We sit on our hands sincerely enough and the magic economy fairy will rise up from the pumpkin patch and ...
That is nothing like equal opportunity. Especially when the X that some people cannot afford is 'succeed'.
Sports does have equal opportunity. If our current socio-economic situation was translated to football, some would have to kick off from their own end zone while the other team only needs 5 yards to get a 1st down. Others would get to kick off from the opposing 10 yard line and their opponants would need 15 yards to get a 1st down.
Now, imagine that the advantage is granted in proportion to how many superbowls you've won in the past. Eventually you'd get to watch the most powerful and athletic team in the NFL lose to a pack of wheezing arthritic retirees who need oxygen after the coin toss every year.
That would make a pretty crappy game as well.
Put another way, there is no equal opportunity when some people are born on 3rd base.
Looks like you're moving the goal posts. He didn't say granted monopoly, he just said monopoly. But given how many places have THE cable company and THE phone company, one must conclude that there is some structural element that causes monopolies.
It beats the previous situation of give money to telecom, grant monopoly status and then let them do whatever the hell they want.
"I don't like it! Waaahh! Waaaah!! The FCC is being mean to me! It's not fair!"
I would have preferred Obamacare's single payer. but instead we got a perfect copy of Romneycare.
Republicans are too fucking stupid to see it.
Not only that. my daughter does not want kids, she wants to have her tubes tied, but she cant because of laws not allowing voluntary sterilization of women younger than 25.
Hows that for some fucked up laws?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'd say it's accurate within statistical error margins.
True but the ISP are trying to deny equal opputunrity by charging three times for the same data. By creating fast lanes they are saying those with money are better no matter what. Which isn't true. The next google, Facebook or twitter will never be born with fast lanes.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
I don't see the double think but maybe you do because you misunderstand where they like government to have power. When I talk with conservatives they like to have government authority and power invested at the state and local levels rather than the federal government. So it is odd to me to suggest that they should have supported Romneycare at the federal level for two major reasons. The first is that Romneycare was passed by a Democrat state legislature and signed into law by a Republican governor and the second is that something done in another state should be done at the federal level and thus forced upon them which is a bit contradictory to their general support for more power at state and local levels and less at the federal level.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
We lose either way in this situation when you think about it. If the FCC regulates the internet it will give the government a way to control it and be abusive. On the other hand if the big ISPs have their way they will continue to abuse customers since they have monopolies in different areas across the country. The only thing that can truly fix this is competition in my opinion. It might be best to let this work itself out in the long run since for example people like Elon Musk want to build a high speed internet service via satellite. He is not the only one since there are other companies working to do the same. Another one is Google if I am thinking right? We already know about their fiber which the big telecoms already hate. Either way I think we run the risk of killing the internet if we try to regulate it to much. I hope I am wrong, and would be very happy to be wrong about this situation.
I can't fathom upon what basis these lawsuits are being pressed. There is no conceivable reason for these litigants to believe they have a right to provide communication services free of regulation from the owner of all means of communications.
The FCC has altered the deal. They should simply prey it is not altered further.
Yes, they keep working at the process, is this news to you? We can't just stop and say that everything is fine now, that's not really workable in a human fashion.
You may not want consider it, but the point being made in response to your reference of sports is that addressing equality is not simply a matter of saying "anybody can make it across the goal line" and washing your hands of it, but rather a more systematic consideration.
Really, you want to know what will kill sports? Unequal outcomes. Blow-out games are a problem, a few here and there, can be tolerated, but if week after week, one team was rolling the opposition, it would be a problem.
I get it though, you want to think your expression was effective. It wasn't.
The only monopoly that should be broken up is the government. The rest will then follow.
> I was a Republican until the core Republican party went batsh*t crazy.
One down... only all the rest to go...
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
You know whats worse? Constant ties. Take a look at the NHL lately. 81 games ended in a shoot out and it is becoming a big problem for them. It drives away fans who want to see a game, and don't want to see it come down to an individual skills contest. No one wants equal outcomes, we just want balanced teams to entertain us, but mostly we want our team to win.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
How is the FCC claiming power it does not have? It is chartered to regulate the communication infrastructure in this country. That is the reason it was created so in what way is anything it has been doing lately anything more then that. I keep hearing how the FCC overstepped it's bounds when it re classified ISP's as title 2. My question for you is how so? Who originally classified them as ESP's (Enhanced Service Providers)?
While you may not agree that classifying ISP's as Title 2 is the right thing, to claim it is outside of the FCC's power is ridiculous.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
So they had to power to originally classify ISP's, but some how now they don't?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Censorship does not require a government,
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
How so?? He wrote a kernel, he didn't fucking walk on water.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
True that it's a simplification, but if you listen to Ted Cruz talk, it's not that far off:
"Net Neutrality is the Obamacare of the Internet." "The IRS should be disbanded." "The EPA is a mess, run by radical environmentalists."
The same could be said of some of the crap Nancy Pelosi and others on the left say. It actually, physically hurts to listen to people like that...
I know of no government granted monopoly status to ISPs.
Most ISPs are either cable companies or telephone companies, who are granted their monopoly status by the local public service commission (PSC). The PSC will decide which companies can bury wires and/or place wires on the utility poles. (Those poles are often called "telephone" poles which gives you an idea of the monopoly mindset.)
Technically, anyone can be an ISP, but that is really tough to compete when the local monopoly is providing ISP service as well. Your only options are to use VPN, or lease lines from the local telephone monopoly. I could go into why that doesn't really work out most of the time.
Do the FCC net neutrality rules actually limit themselves to places where there are actually defacto or dejure monopolies, or do they apply to every ISP? If they apply to every ISP, then they are not regulating the actions of monopolies, they are regulating many non-monopolies as well.
Hmmm, fair point. Do you know of any place in the US where that situation exists? Is Alamo somehow different?
On other hand, this is a football game where your powerful and athletic team is allowed to murder any rival team that steps into the same field until they're the only team left, and then they use it to just do the hell they want on the field, even if its just 60 minutes of this team relaxing on beach chairs and from time to time flipping the fingers to the audience.
it is not an unconstitutional power grab.
and it is NOT unnecessary.
there's no problem right now because the internet already functions by and large under the concept of net neutrality.
they aren't fixing a problem, they are setting the current status quo in stone.
it's pre-emptive rule making done precisely because Comcast and its ilk want to violate net neutrality, and have tried to do it in the past.
you are a complete moron.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Both conservatives and liberals say crazy/stupid things sometimes, but I think Ted Cruz is a bad example since he's arguably neither conservative nor liberal. If anything, he's a regressive: he and his faction are actively campaigning to send this nation back to the Dark Ages.
Hey, everybody, look! It's Richard Stallman! Why the stealthy username buddy? We all like GNU here! Well all of us except the Mac fanbois but they don't really count as people do they?
Removing things you dislike from YOUR OWN website is moderation. You don't have the right to push your beliefs using my property!
Preventing you from pushing your own beliefs in your own space.. that's censorship. Who has the power to do that? governments for sure. I suppose ISPs could do it too. So.. yeah.. I guess you are right, you don't need government to have censorship.
GP was talking about a website though. It's their own business what they do/don't allow there.
Comcast is in Seattle. In most of the city, it is illegal for other cable companies to compete.
It is illegal insofar as no other company has obtained the necessary franchise to do so.
Comcast most certainly has a government-granted monopoly here.
No. They have a franchise to operate, which is not really much different than being required to have a business license to conduct business in a city. You would not claim that Joe's Plumbing Shop has been granted a government monopoly just because they got a city-issued business license, so why does a franchise mean a government-granted monopoly? Yes, it is a bit harder to get a franchise, but it can be done. Comcast did it.
You might want to read the franchise agreement. It's online for all to see. Page 1, section 1.4(A): "This franchise is not exclusive." It is not a dejure monopoly. The only thing keeping any competitors out is economic, not legal.
Looks like you're moving the goal posts. He didn't say granted monopoly, he just said monopoly.
And I asked in which market was Alamo Broadband a monopoly. I didn't ask if it were a government-granted monopoly. The answer is: it isn't a monopoly anywhere.
But given how many places have THE cable company and THE phone company, one must conclude that there is some structural element that causes monopolies.
Yes, monopolies in cables companies and telephone companies, based on infrastructure costs for the former and both infrastructure costs and legal reasons for the latter. But the cable company and the telephone company are not the only ISPs. Alamo Broadband, for example, is neither.
When deciding whether to break up a monopoly, does it really matter how it formed?
Yes. If it was created through legal means (dejure) then removing those legal means should be sufficient and the proper course of action. If it is a monopoly based on economics or on superior service and consumer desire, then first you need to determine if it truly is a problem before using different means of solving the problem.
But since the correct answer is that "Alamo Broadband is not a monopoly of any kind", then net neutrality that applies to Alamo is not a law that is dealing with monopolies. That was the specific claim I replied to. And net neutrality has nothing at all to do with breaking monopolies up.
Most ISPs are either cable companies or telephone companies,
If you brand Comcast as an ISP at the national level, and treat the other cable and telco operations the same way, then no, most ISPs are not. But that is irrelevant. You're mixing the different parts of the business together. Comcast is not a defacto monopoly because it is an ISP, it is because it started that way as a cable television provider, and the ISP service is carried on the same hardware. Ditto for the telco ISPs.
who are granted their monopoly status by the local public service commission (PSC).
A franchise is not a monopoly unless it is explicitly made that way. Someone else just made the claim that Comcast of Seattle was a government granted monopoly but the franchise is quite clear in saying otherwise. It's also not a public service commission that does this, it is usually a city or county government. Local government have very little regulatory power over cable nowadays, which means they aren't PSC equivalents.
Technically, anyone can be an ISP, but that is really tough to compete when the local monopoly is providing ISP service as well.
It is tough to compete with any larger provider. That's life. Mom and Pop grocery stores have a problem competing with the large chains, even if the chain is only a dozen stores.
Your only options are to use VPN, or lease lines from the local telephone monopoly.
Whose only option? The ISP? Yes, the ISP has to pay for it's connection to the Internet. The customer? No, there are other options. In fact, Alamo Broadband is a perfect example of one.
Do you know of any place in the US where that situation exists?
You mean where the FCC net neutrality rules apply to ISPs and not just cable TV or telco operations? Yes, all over the US. The new rules apply to "broadband internet access", wired or wireless. That means anyone who is an ISP with speeds that meet the arbitrary definition of "broadband". That includes wireless services like T-Mobile and AT&T and Verizon and Sprint and ... none of which are monopolies in that service.
Is Alamo somehow different?
Let me Google that for you. Alamo is neither a cable television nor telephone provider. It is a broadband internet service.
Except that they routinely p[ull the same sort of flip-flop. I have no idea how much psychedelic cool aid it takes befor that becomes invisible, but you must have consumed it.
As for state and local power, they only like that when the D's have a majority at the federal level.
Amazing how people that love to use debate terms never use them correctly.
where's your citation that Somalia is a straw man?
For those of you against the FCC’s recent actions for net neutrality, Do you really know what you are supporting? Without net neutrality: If you are running for office and the ISP’s executive board supports your opponent, the ISP could censor you by blocking all content about you. The ISP’s can block, throttle or create tolls for competing services such as Hulu, Netflix and Amazon Prime by charging them extra to use their network so that the ISP can be compensated for the losses due to customers cutting the cable. (which is already happening). An ISP’s executive board that is dominated by agnostics and atheists could block all religious content. Company A could influence an ISP to block the site of a competing company. Radical lefts blocking Tea Party and conservative sites or vice versa. The potential abuses can go on and on. Yes, these may seem extreme or unrealistic, but how often have you heard lobbyists claim “oh no! We would never do that. That is not the purpose of this controversial bill or act.” The later on after it is passed, they begin conducting those activities they claimed they would never do. How many times have you heard of that happening? DMCA is the perfect example of this.
Comcast is not a defacto monopoly because it is an ISP, it is because it started that way as a cable television provider, and the ISP service is carried on the same hardware. Ditto for the telco ISPs.
Bingo. And that is the real underlying problem.
You're mixing the different parts of the business together.
I'm not mixing them together. The local government and PSC is mixing them together. :-( I want to fix that problem too.
A franchise is not a monopoly unless it is explicitly made that way.
True, but that is what they are doing. :-( I hear you when you say "They aren't a monopoly, they are just a franchise! There could be other franchises!" The problem is the governments only grant one franchise license because they don't want more than one group building out infrastructure. (A similar thing happens with electric utilities.) There is a fix for this, but there is political pressure in the way... we will get to that in the end.
It is tough to compete with any larger provider. That's life. Mom and Pop grocery stores have a problem competing with the large chains, even if the chain is only a dozen stores.
It's not like that. Imagine if the chain grocery store owned the roads that lead to the stores. That is more or less what happens here. For example, I have lived in Baltimore City and the suburbs, and I chose to use Cavalier Telephone (AKA "CavTel") as my DSL provider. CavTel, like almost every other ISP that was not a franchise monopoly, is out of business. Why did they all die out?
The law requires that Verizon (the local telecom franchise monopoly) must lease their lines to CavTel. But wait... is Verizon really going to want a company competing with them? Is legally forcing them to allow competition going to really work? Well, it didn't. One reason was price. The law allowed Verizon to do lease lines to CavTel so at the same rate they offered DSL+ISP services to me. So that makes Cavtel more expensive right away. CavTel couldn't t service the lines themselves. Just like me, they had to call Verizon. And what are the odds that Verizon is going to provide CavTel good response time when CavTel is competing with them? There were lots of other problems, which is why most of those those ISPs were either bought-out or went out of business.
That is ultimately the problem, it is why your point about ISPs is valid. Those two parts should not be mixed, and thus the FCC should not need to pass Network Neutrality rules. Instead, we should bust the monopolies, split them ISPs out from the cable/telecom franchise monopolies, and life will be good.
Is Alamo somehow different?
Let me Google that for you. Alamo is neither a cable television nor telephone provider. It is a broadband internet service.
Exactly, Alamo is no different. That's what I was trying to say. Sorry for being unclear. They are the same as CavTel was. They must be licensing lines from a local telecom. Good luck with that, everybody else who tries that dies off. Let's dig into that:
Your only options are to use VPN, or lease lines from the local telephone monopoly.
Whose only option? The ISP? Yes, the ISP has to pay for it's connection to the Internet. The customer? No, there are other options. In fact, Alamo Broadband is a perfect example of one.
Again, sorry for the confusion. We are missing each other here. By "VPN" I meant an ISP who offers service to anyone over VPN. There are very few of them (Earthlink?) and that's not what Alamo is so nevermind that direction.
So yes, the ISP has to pay for it's connection to the Internet, just like the telecom or cable company. But if they are not a telecom/cable company, then they need some indirect way to get to the customer. When the
Yes, it is a simplistic caricature. That's what makes it pretty accurate.
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
So the winner of the Superbowl should get first pick in the draft I guess (since it would be wrong and all to encourage losing teams)?
The FCC has no authority over the Internet. We own the equipment, the cables, the electricity, the code, everything, and we are ignoring the FCC in every capacity. Letters will be unanswered, fines ignored; we will not take them to court, we will make them take us to court, and their true authority and power will be revealed once and for all.
You do realize that the shootout is a rather modern way to resolve ties. You know what they had before the shootout?
They had ties!!!!
If two teams can play for an hour and reach the same results then let those results stand. It is people like you (ok I'm making an assumption but go with it) that don't want equal outcomes that are the problem. Sometimes there isn't a winner and/or a loser (sorry end of rant).
since World War II there has only been one person elected as President that came from the same party as the sitting President-- Bush (41) (following Reagan)
You are talking about 10 fucking presidents in total. Wow. What a large and statistically significant sample size.
Title II was written specifically to apply to the PSTN, nothing else.
Congress identified one area of activity (Telephony) and granted certain authority to the FCC;
Congress identified another area of activity (Internet) and granted a different, significantly lower level of of authority to the FCC.
The FCC is trying to claim that residential Internet service is the same as the PSTN, for no other reason than to gain more authority. It's an insult to our intelligence.
If they get away with this, they would have gotten away with Broadcast Flag.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
It's the status quo because of existing contract law. If that's violated, that's what the court system is for. Using the executive branch for judicial matters is blatantly unconstitutional.
If the courts fail, then you go to the legislative branch, and pass a law.
This is Civics 101 checks and balances. And you're allowing it to be steamrolled over just because you like the ends.
If the FCC can do this, what can't they do? Broadcast Flag? Censorship of cable TV, phone lines? Those have been struck down for the same reason Title II is going to get struck down. You can't have it both ways.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
I'm not mixing them together. The local government and PSC is mixing them together.
No. The cable television part of Comcast is regulated by the FCC and in very limited amount by the local government through franchise. The ISP part of Comcast is FCC alone. The ISP is not granted a monopoly of any kind, and no such monopoly exists in practice.
If they do that, they are at the mercy of the telephone company who will try to find ways to push them out of business.
Just as any larger company tries to push others out of business. This is not because the telco is a monopoly as an ISP, because it clearly isn't.
Exactly, Alamo is no different. That's what I was trying to say. Sorry for being unclear. They are the same as CavTel was. They must be licensing lines from a local telecom.
No, they are different because they are neither a cable nor a telco dejure or defacto monopoly player. The net neutrality laws that now apply to them have nothing to do with them being a monopoly because they simply are not. I have no idea who they buy their upstream connections from, but if it is the telco they are certainly not being put out of business by the telco -- the telco is making money from selling the service.
Ultimately, the story of the late 90s and early 2000s is that almost every "ISP" who was not a telephone company or a cable company died.
Just as many of the brick and mortar bookstores are dying. As are many things based on economies of scale and not monopolies.
But for those ISPs to succeed, we must also bar the franchise monopolies from being ISPs.
There are many things we could do to distort the marketplace to protect every small player from larger competitors. That does not mean we should do so. Would you favor laws that protect Mom and Pop grocery stores against chains? What happens when Mom and Pop decide to become their own chain?
Go ahead and support Alamo the same way I supported Cavtel. I hope they survive.
This discussion was not about Alamo etc. surviving. It was a response to someone who claimed that the FCC net neutrality laws were trying to regulate how monopolies behaved. I pointed out that the ISPs are not monopolies even if the underlying hardware delivery systems can be. Thus the net neutrality laws cannot be about managing monopolies, they manage everyone who plays. And a prime example of this is found in the fine summary.
The ISP is not granted a monopoly of any kind, and no such monopoly exists in practice.
This is the point where we are disagreeing.
That statement is not true because they aren't two separate companies. Verizon, the ISP, does not pay Verizon, the telephone company, for leased access to the lines. It gets them for free. Alamo, the ISP, does pay Verizon, the telephone company, for access to the lines. Verizon, the ISP, will get impeccable service from Verizon, the telephone company, when a customer cannot get a good signal. Alamo, the ISP, will get stonewalled by Verizon, the telephone company, when a customer cannot get a good signal.
This happens because Alamo, the ISP, is not legally permitted to install wires in the ground or on the telephone poles. Verizon, the ISP, is allowed to do that. Alamo cannot fairly compete with a company that has been granted that monopoly power.
Verizon, the ISP, does not pay Verizon, the telephone company, for leased access to the lines. It gets them for free.
Except Verizon the ISP is not a monopoly just because Verizon the telephone company is. The franchise that Verizon the telephone company operates under to run cables using the public rights of way does not in any way grant them a monopoly status as an ISP.
Alamo, the ISP, will get stonewalled by Verizon, the telephone company, when a customer cannot get a good signal.
The customer signal has nothing to do with Verizon, so I don't see how Verizon can stonewall anything in that instance.
This happens because Alamo, the ISP, is not legally permitted to install wires in the ground or on the telephone poles.
Alamo the ISP has no need to install wires in the ground, so the fact that it cannot do so is irrelevant. Nor does "Joe's ISP" that sells DSL service -- they use the existing lines that are already installed.
Alamo cannot fairly compete with a company that has been granted that monopoly power.
There is no monopoly power with respect to being an ISP. Nobody has been granted such a monopoly. They have a hard time competing with a LARGER company, but that larger company has no special legal status when it comes to being an ISP.
I have no idea who they buy their upstream connections from, but if it is the telco they are certainly not being put out of business by the telco -- the telco is making money from selling the service.
Read the history on this. The ILECs put the ISPs out of business. It already happened. Covad, Rhythms, CavTel, Erols, ... history is littered with thousands of companies like Alamo that were pushed out of business or bought-out by the telco because the telco didn't want to compete. The only reason they allow Alamo to exist is because the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (I think that is the one) requires them to lease them the lines.
Take a meander through history with me:
First the telcos were not ISPs and everyone used dial-up. The telcos are "neutral" to the ISPs at this point. This is before 1996. Then broadband came. The ISPs started leasing DSL and ISDN lines from the telcos. Telcos are still "neutral." Then the telcos start becoming ISPs directly, which presents a conflict of interest between them and the ISP. Why should they allow an ISP to use their lines? So they simply refused to allow the ISPs access to the lines at all. Then the law changed to require them to lease the lines (when this happened varied based on local laws), but at end-user prices, not wholesale prices. Over the next 10 years, the remaining ISPs died off. First it was consolidation, then the telcos bought them. That takes us to today, where almost everyone uses the telco or cable provider as their ISP.
Alamo is one of a few who are left. It might be that Alamo exists only exist because the telco doesn't want to provide ISP service in rural areas, and Alamo does that for them.
net neutrality sould be called instead 'no first class ' or 'no premium products '
Except Verizon the ISP is not a monopoly just because Verizon the telephone company is.
It's one company.
The customer signal has nothing to do with Verizon, so I don't see how Verizon can stonewall anything in that instance.
Verizon is providing the wires that it runs over. (In our example Verizon = the hypothetical telco for Alamo.) I already explained how the telcos can and did stonewall, and provided examples. It's history. It already happened.
There is no monopoly power with respect to being an ISP.
True. The monopoly power comes from being a telco.
The only reason they allow Alamo to exist is because the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (I think that is the one) requires them to lease them the lines.
And you think Alamo has no recourse if the lines they lease to reach their internet source don't work?
Take a meander through history with me: First the telcos were not ISPs and everyone used dial-up. The telcos are "neutral" to the ISPs at this point.
Au contraire. The telcos were very unhappy with ISPs because they were distorting the statistics for line usage. Instead of the previous voice call statistics, now you had people using a voice grade line for hours at a time. That tied up switching equipment and reduced quality of service to everyone else. So, they tried creating a special class of phone service called a "data line". That was the same copper pair but with a higher price tag. So no, claiming that telcos were neutral wrt ISPs is just silly.
Then the telcos start becoming ISPs directly, which presents a conflict of interest between them and the ISP. Why should they allow an ISP to use their lines?
Because the law said they should.
So they simply refused to allow the ISPs access to the lines at all.
The telcos were quite happy selling phone lines to ISPs. I know, because I was involved with the local ISP and they had a couple hundred incoming lines. Every one of those was punched down from the demarc to the modems by yours truly.
That takes us to today, where almost everyone uses the telco or cable provider as their ISP.
Not because the telco has a monopoly, but because it is simply more convenient to do it that way. It's more difficult to get a DSL line from the telco and then ISP service from someone else. The fact that ISPs still exist outside the alleged telco monopoly is pretty good proof that there is no monopoly.
Alamo is one of a few who are left. It might be that Alamo exists only exist because the telco doesn't want to provide ISP service in rural areas, and Alamo does that for them.
Alamo doesn't work for the telco. They are an independent ISP. If they need to lease lines from someone else than the telco, they can. Fiber can be run that isn't telco-owned.
lol, ha!
Verizon is providing the wires that it runs over.
What wires does Verizon provide to the customer for a fixed wireless broadband provider? I don't know who Alamo buys its upstream connection from, I don't see it listed on their website. I expect, however, that if it is Verizon and Verizon doesn't provide the service their contract calls for, Alamo will point their lawyers at the problem and a breach of contract lawsuit will be filed pdq.
True. The monopoly power comes from being a telco.
The franchise that creates the telco monopoly has nothing to do with the ISP service that telco provides. It doesn't have a monopoly as an ISP to start with. No such franchise exists anywhere in the US. If you know of a place, provide a citation.
By "classify" you mean declare them to be "common carriers"? No, I don't think they do.
Cable monopolies ARE dejure monopolies. You cannot simply decide to offer cable service wherever you want, even if you could lay the cables and had easements, rights of way, and all that. Municipalities have EXCLUSIVE contracts.
Sure they are. Obama owns them the same way he owns extensions to the Patriot Act, since they now bear his signature. Why would that be funny? Did you think I was an Obamabot after calling them out by name? I have contempt for blind partisan tribalists of all stripes.
Conservatives are the ones who proposed Romneycare at the federal level to start with, when it was it was the Heritage Foundation alternative to the Clinton plan in '92. It was pushed again by Dole in '96, before finally being signed into law by Romney at a state level in the aughts.
So there's an easy test here for political hackery: ask Republicans why they didn't vote for Clinton in '92 and '96, if Obomneycare is so horrible. And ask Democrats why they didn't all jump ship and support Romney in '08, if Obomneycare is so awesome. Both groups invariably respond with empty partisan butthurt.
Fixed wireless broadband provider?
Wireless? I see nothing on Alamo's site indicates that they are a wireless broadband provider. If they are wireless, much of this entire discussion goes out the window. :-)
The franchise that creates the telco monopoly
I can only guess that you are using the word "franchise" to mean something different. The word doesn't mean the same thing in this context as it does with fast food restaurants.
In this context, "franchise" means "license." A local public service commission grants a "franchise license" to a company like Verizon. It's one company: Verizon in Maryland is the same Verizon that is in Ohio and Virginia. That franchise license means that the company receiving it is a monopoly, and is subject to monopoly regulation. That one monopoly company provides both ISP and telecom service. Each "franchise" isn't a separate company like a McDonald's "franchise" where each one is independently owned. And the ISP and the telco aren't separate companies.
Do you think you're somehow special or wise for not wanting net neutrality to be a partisan issue? Or for that matter, hundreds of other things? Anyone who's not a certifiable idiot wants that, but we are currently in a partisan war. More so that even in the past. Definitely worse from the right, but neither side really cares about what's best for the country or it's people. They just don't want the other side to win. Period.
Everything is a partisan issue now. Every damn thing. Us simply stating reality in a forum is in no way insightful or even useful. Try doing something useful because spouting "warnings" on Slashdot is without question not. Here are some other pointless warnings that everyone already knows to save you time trying to feel superior.
We should say the hell out of the Middle East and let someone else deal with it.
We should reduce our military spending by at least half
The tea party should be squashed at all cost before that crazy get's worse than it already is.
Government spying has gone way too far.
Our police force is out of control and needs to be reigned in.
America is run on fear
GOP will promise whatever they need to win, but have no actual plan to fund anything.
Marijuana is harmless and practically defacto legal anyways. Federal legality is just a matter of time.
The DEA should be disbanded but decades of FUD keep it alive
If you heard it on fox news, it's a lie.
Wireless? I see nothing on Alamo's site indicates that they are a wireless broadband provider.
Their home page contains a lot of announcements about new towers. (Towers for a wired network service? In which universe?) After all these announcements, the statement "Welcome to Alamo Broadband Inc. Dedicated to bringing you the fastest wireless 'Net money can buy." Towers? "fastest wireless"? No mention of being a wireless provider?
I can only guess that you are using the word "franchise" to mean something different.
I am using the word in the sense of the authorization from the local municipality to use the public rights of way, the same way I've been using this term for the entire discussion.
The word doesn't mean the same thing in this context as it does with fast food restaurants.
And "fastest wireless 'net" doesn't mean you're looking at a wireless network provider. Please. Don't lecture me about the meanings of words that I've been using in the correct sense all along.
A local public service commission grants a "franchise license" to a company like Verizon.
No. The public service commission is a state level office. It's the local municipality that deals with local franchise issues.
That franchise license means that the company receiving it is a monopoly, and is subject to monopoly regulation.
Yes, and I've said as much. The telco has a monopoly. The cable company, however, most often does not. I say "most often" only because people keep saying their local franchises are different, but so far nobody has shown me an exclusive one and I've never seen one myself. Anyway, the telco has a monopoly and is subject to monopoly regulation. Isn't it a hint that maybe the ISP isn't considered a monopoly because there are just now new rules that are trying to regulate them as if they were?
It's one company: Verizon in Maryland is the same Verizon that is in Ohio and Virginia.
One company providing multiple services that are regulated under different parts of the law and covered by different contractual agreements. Telephone is one service. ISP is something else.
That one monopoly company provides both ISP and telecom service.
The telco has a monopoly on the telco service. They are the only ones who can provide wired telephone service to the area. But they are NOT the only ones who can be an ISP in that area. The franchise just doesn't say that. The fact that other ISPs are free to operate in every place that Verizon is an ISP proves the lack of dejure monopoly. If there was such a thing then Verizon's lawyers would be in court forcing all the others to close.
No, in fact, the telco laws say that Verizon must allow OTHER ISPs to use their wires to provide ISP service. How can a law that MANDATES access to the telco hardware for other ISPs be considered to be granting a monopoly to the telco for ISP service? It just makes no sense to try to claim it does.
And the ISP and the telco aren't separate companies.
But the services are different, and the franchise does NOT cover the ISP side of the operation. The franchises for cable also do not cover the ISP side of the services. There are NO government-created ISP monopolies. They do not exist.
The telco has a monopoly. The cable company, however, most often does not.
That's not true, go ahead and google "cable monopolies" or something like that. If you live in an area where you have more than one cable company, you are in an unusual situation. If you want just one example: Comcast in Maryland. They are a monopoly. If you want other examples, just google "cable monopolies." Here's a map of them around the US.
No, in fact, the telco laws say that Verizon must allow OTHER ISPs to use their wires to provide ISP service. How can a law that MANDATES access to the telco hardware for other ISPs be considered to be granting a monopoly to the telco for ISP service?
Why do you think that law needed to be written?
The law that mandates access to the telco hardware for other ISPs isn't granting them the monopoly: it is trying to prevent the monopoly. It would be circular to say "since there is a law that tries to prevent the monopoly from taking over, therefore, there is not a monopoly." Especially since the law didn't work.
That's not true, go ahead and google "cable monopolies" or something like that. If you live in an area where you have more than one cable company, you are in an unusual situation.
That is not a dejure monopoly, which is what we are talking about for the telco. It is a monopoly based on market forces, not government intervention. AND it doesn't say anything about the cable company being a monopoly ISP. They simply are not, and there is no law that says otherwise. Nor does the market show them to be a defacto monopoly, either.
If you want just one example: Comcast in Maryland. They are a monopoly.
You're telling me there is a statewide exclusive franchise agreement for "Comcast of Maryland" covering the entire state of Maryland, for both cable service and ISP (or either one)? I don't believe it. Provide a citation where I can see this franchise agreement.
In fact, a simple google of "Baltimore cable franchise" (Baltimore, MD, a large city in Maryland) shows that the franchise is 1) between the City of Baltimore (not the state of Maryland) and "Comcast of Baltimore" (not "Comcast of Maryland"), and is 2) non-exclusive. Non-exclusive means exactly what it says: other people can get the same franchise for the same thing. It isn't exclusive of any other company.
Your map link does not show what you purport it to show.
Why do you think that law needed to be written?
It doesn't matter why it needed to be written, the fact that it exists is sufficient proof that no monopoly for the ISP service was granted to Verizon or any other telco. But actually, why it was written proves the point, too. Verizon tried to use their telephone service monopoly status as a monopoly for ISP service, and the government told them in no uncertain terms they weren't an ISP monopoly. Trying to use a law that is explicit in stopping a company from acting as a monopoly as proof that the monopoly was granted to them is, well, an interesting interpretation of the words "monopoly" and "government".
The law that mandates access to the telco hardware for other ISPs isn't granting them the monopoly: it is trying to prevent the monopoly.
It prevents them from ACTING like they had a monopoly, which it a clear sign that they do NOT have such a monopoly -- either in fact or in law. Explicitly NOT in law, and in fact not in fact.
Especially since the law didn't work.
I'm sorry, what? I can name at least one ISP in this town that will sell me their services using the local telco wires. If the law didn't work they wouldn't be able to do that. The only reason I can name only one off the top of my head is because I deal with them already and their existence proves the point so wasting time to look up more would be a waste of time. Especially since their existence would apparently prove somehow that the telco was an ISP monopoly.
It is a monopoly based on market forces, not government intervention
It is a physical monopoly based on wires. In general, we don't want lots of companies building out cable and telephone wires. The government has acknowledged that, and established a system to decide who gets to control the wires. There is a way to fix that regulatory framework and separate the ISPs from the telcos. That would be awesome, but it isn't how things are today.
You're telling me there is a statewide exclusive franchise agreement for "Comcast of Maryland" covering the entire state of Maryland, for both cable service and ISP
No, I'm telling you that if you look at the municipalities in Maryland, you will find many counties and cities that exclusively contracted with Comcast. Using the Baltimore City example: since there is only one franchise, and the local government has not granted a second license for at least 35 years, that's what we call "exclusive."
It doesn't matter why it needed to be written...
Ahhh, but knowing this is important! These laws were written to try and combat monopolies.
, the fact that it exists is sufficient proof that no monopoly for the ISP service was granted to Verizon or any other telco.
Actually, the fact that it exists is a consequence of the presence of monopolies.
It prevents them from ACTING like they had a monopoly, which it a clear sign that they do NOT have such a monopoly --
It tries to prevent them from acting like a monopoly, because without the existence of this document they are one. But it failed, because they really are a monopoly, and merely saying "you have to play fair" didn't really work out. :-(
I can name at least one ISP in this town that will sell me their services using the local telco wires.
That's good: the law we are discussing is what makes that possible. Before that law existed, the telcos often refused to allow other companies to use those wires. When a company controls a physical resource, via government granted franchise agreement, and refuses to allow other companies in, we have a term for that... :-)
Just don't make the mistake of assuming that, because you have such an ISP, the 15 year history of consolidation, buyouts, and bankruptcies didn't happen.
Trying to use a law that is explicit in stopping a company from acting as a monopoly as proof that the monopoly was granted to them is, well,
Logic!
I'll stop replying because this has just gotten silly. Originally, I thought you had some good points about Alamo and I thought I could fill in some details and expand on it. When it turned to disagreement I thought maybe I could figure out where the miscommunication or misunderstanding is. But an argument over whether or not these companies are monopolies is pointless. That is a matter of fact, law, and a consequence of history. This topic is not something with 2 sides that can be debated. It is well understood by most Americans since they live it. Nobody likes their cable company or telephone company, and very few people have ISPs other than those two.
Well, everyone commenting on every thread on the Internet could try writing their Senators and Representatives to encourage them to support these policies.
But hardly anyone ever does that...