Republican "Deregulation" of the Internet

Should you squeeze the toothpaste tube in the middle or from the end?
Post Reply
User avatar
Chad
Posts: 3849
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Republican "Deregulation" of the Internet

Post by Chad » Wed Feb 08, 2017 4:57 pm

It always amazes me that the party that lauds competition and free markets always tries to create uncompetitive markets.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/net- ... 13767.html

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 1782
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Republican "Deregulation" of the Internet

Post by Riggerjack » Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:14 am

Wow. You have to read between the lines AND listen to the voices in your head to get "It always amazes me that the party that lauds competition and free markets always tries to create uncompetitive markets." out of that click bait.

Yes, Pai is a Trump appointee, the only Republican mentioned in the article. And then the only content was an extension of a a waiver of fee breakdown for small providers, an existing policy that has NOTHING to do with net neutrality, and speculation (by 2 Democrats, one on each side of this, hardly making this a partisan issue) likely quoted out of context.

Look, there are good reasons to support net neutrality for the public and the industry. There are also good reasons to oppose it, for the public, and industry. Either way, you will get your bits, and the Lords of Telecom will make their money. When the FCC changes the rules, it affects which Lord of Telecom will make money, in which way, off of whom, not who will get service, and who won't (with the exception of PR moves like the CAFII fund)

Every member of the FCC board bounces into and out of industry, and all they do is make rules adjusting how the pie is divided. Who is appointed by D or R is very hard to track by rulings.

BTW, there is no part of Telecom that is remotely free market. Never has been, whether Democratic or Republican is in office.

User avatar
Chad
Posts: 3849
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Republican "Deregulation" of the Internet

Post by Chad » Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:53 am

Yes, I'm reading between the lines, but it is backed by prior statements from prominent Republicans. The above article just shows a first step.
Yet five likely Republican presidential contenders have come out against net neutrality in no uncertain terms. Last fall, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz referred to the Federal Communications Commision's proposed net neutrality rules as "Obamacare for the Internet," while Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has called them a "direct attack on the freedom of information." Last weekend, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential race in 2016, said the FCC's plan to ensure net neutrality was "one of the craziest ideas I've ever heard."
http://time.com/3741085/net-neutrality- ... president/

There are other statements and actions by Republican congressmen going back a few years suggesting they don't support the open internet.

BTW, my concern isn't with creating a free market on the telecom side, though that would be nice. The concern is with the internet.
...internet service providers (ISPs) could freely control the amount of bandwidth allotted to content providers. Rather than allow consumers free and equal access to all websites...
So, no, not so much wow.

Campitor
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Republican "Deregulation" of the Internet

Post by Campitor » Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:45 am

According to this article, Ajit Pai is in favor of net neutrality and his position is being distorted: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes ... fb04e84c7f

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 1782
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Republican "Deregulation" of the Internet

Post by Riggerjack » Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:45 pm

And again, there are good arguments on both sides of that issue. Neither party is aligned one way or the other. Each time it gets discussed it is as a regulatory issue, not a legislative one. Senator X saying Y about net neutrality is speaking for the benefit of senator X.

All ISP issues are Telecom issues. Whenever the FCC is playing with the rules, they are just fine tuning who gets paid,and how.

For instance, the last proposed change involved the qualifications for 3rd tier rates. At third tier, big telecoms basically provide traffic for each other and settleup at the end of the year. Telecom X ran A terabits over an average of B miles of Telecom Y. Telecom Y ran S terabits over an average of Q miles of Telecom X. Compare and Bill for the difference. But if you aren't big enough to get treated as tier 3, you need to buy a circuit to use our services, or you can lease the line, and use your own equipment and support it yourself.

When you track the rulings made by the FCC, you will have a hard time establishing any pattern of rulings to who appointed the board member.

Hell, you would have a hard time establishing that pattern on the labor relations board, and that is strictly partisan, with strongly aligned lobbies and parties. (Unions and Dems on one side, industry and reps on the other).

The actual work of government is not as simple as your Facebook feed would make it seem.

Campitor
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Republican "Deregulation" of the Internet

Post by Campitor » Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:50 pm

@Riggerjack

I agree that both sides have good arguments and I agree its about how the pie is going to get divided. I'm just pointing out that Ajit Pai doesn't have a an irrational hatred for net neutrality and believes it's important. Ajit's words as quoted in the linked article:

"But we should not let that debate obscure some important common ground: namely, a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open Internet. Indeed, this consensus reaches back at least a decade. In 2004, then-FCC Chairman Michael Powell outlined four principles of Internet freedom: The freedom to access lawful content, the freedom to use applications, the freedom to attach personal devices to the network, and the freedom to obtain service plan information.

One year later, the FCC unanimously endorsed these principles when it adopted the Internet Policy

Respect for these four Internet freedoms has aided the Internet’s tremendous growth over the last decade. It has shielded online competitors from anticompetitive practices. It has fostered long-term investments in broadband infrastructure. It has made the Internet an unprecedented platform for civic engagement, commerce, entertainment, and more. And it has made the United States the epicenter of online innovation. I support the four Internet freedoms, and I am committed to protecting them going forward."
Last edited by Campitor on Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 1782
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Republican "Deregulation" of the Internet

Post by Riggerjack » Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:32 pm

@ campitor, sorry, my reply was to Chad.

The simple good guys/bad guys view of government sometimes gets my goat. I'm all for calling out Rs for their actions, if you apply the same standard to Ds. Otherwise, I may as well just be reading my wife's Facebook feed.

I understand the desire to have a team to cheer on, but governance is no place for cheerleaders and mascots. Save those for football, and those cheating Patriots. :twisted:

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 1782
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Republican "Deregulation" of the Internet

Post by Riggerjack » Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:39 pm

A
@ campitor, you are unlikely to find anyone at the FCC come out against net neutrality, regardless of how they lean. Finding a politician endorsing killing puppies is about as likely.

Net neutrality has a instant appeal among millions of people who have literally no idea of what it means or what the arguments are, for, or against. I lean toward it myself. It has become the third rail of the FCC.

But good catch on the link you posted. Better than my anecdotal evidence. Thank you.

User avatar
luxagraf
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:32 pm
Contact:

Re: Republican "Deregulation" of the Internet

Post by luxagraf » Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:08 pm

Riggerjack wrote:Look, there are good reasons to support net neutrality for the public and the industry. There are also good reasons to oppose it, for the public, and industry.
I'd be very curious to hear what you think the latter are...

User avatar
Chad
Posts: 3849
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Republican "Deregulation" of the Internet

Post by Chad » Fri Feb 10, 2017 7:35 am

@Riggerjack

Yeah, I guess I'm kind of doing the team thing, if you want to use that analogy. Though, I don't really consider myself part of any team. No one gives me what I want, which is fiscal responsibility (no one) with socially liberal policies (Democrats to a certain extent). So, I guess if someone wants to look at it that way, I am trying to tear down (cheer against using the analogy) the Republican side. My big reason is they don't hit their "Big Issue", which is fiscal responsibility and proper economic policies, and this is just one brick in that wall.

Also, politician X doesn't tell lies 100% of the time. They do actually say what they are going to do from time to time and they do try to do it.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/t ... neutrality

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 1782
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Republican "Deregulation" of the Internet

Post by Riggerjack » Fri Feb 10, 2017 3:42 pm

Net neutrality: it proposes that all traffic will be treated without priority. This is absolutely just hogwash. We don't have it now, we never have had it, anyone pushing the angle that we do, doesn't understand what is going on beyond their modem...

I work in a telecom engineering office. We design 10-100 gig customer circuits every day. Those are not cheap, and the guarantees that go with them are negotiated with each. It could be 10 gig, with a minimum 1gig, meaning we provide 10 gig download speeds, with a MINIMUM of 1 gig regardless of how congested lines get. Or it could be 10 gig, with a 10 gig min, or just 10 gig, no minimum. Other guarantees include uptime, response time until a tech roll if there is an outage, etc. All of this is necessary. You have to be able to prioritize data, so VOIP will actually work, otherwise calling a corporation's customer service line would sound like skype on a remote mountain. Generally, data gets prioritized for VOIP, then video, then general network traffic.

The level of aggregation going on is crazy. we sell 10-100 gig circuits day in, and day out. but they all get aggregated onto just a few circuits out of our territory. Those circuits are 10-40 gigs. So all the local traffic, plus all these high price circuits are sharing a few tens of gigs leaving the state.

Industry will make money, either way. In fact, there isn't likely to be MORE money, either way. If there are high end customers, they aren't going to pay much more than they currently do for the priority they already get. The only part that telecom is really interested in, on the net neutrality issue, is who gets that money. That would be the big baby bells, owners of the backbone lines. A move against net neutrality, is good for VZ and especially, T. The costs would be bourne by small telecoms and individual ISPs. Back bone gets more expensive, which is good for T, but bad for the small ISPs who have to pay them. Now T has plenty of retail customers, too. So, while it would be good for their core business, it would hurt the rest. Honestly, most in the industry are pretty neutral on net neutrality.

On the side of the average retail users, less net neutrality means an average decrease in throughput. Sounds bad. But also there are more costs being bourne by high end customers, for faster backbone development (the main source of internet slow downs), and lower prices.

Honestly, I lean toward net neutrality, and if the FCC really cared about internet service, they would set aggregation limits, forcing ISP and telecoms to put money into backbone. Sort of like leverage limits for insurance companies and banks.

However, EVERY member of the board has a history on the boards of telecoms and cable companies. They are stockholders. They will go back to industry boards of directors when their stints for the FCC are done. If you think any of these people are motivated by average user experience, rather than the profit margins of the regulated companies, I have a bridge to sell you. This has nothing to do with whether they were appointed by Ds, Rs, or pink panda bears. This is just the way government regulation works.

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 1782
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Republican "Deregulation" of the Internet

Post by Riggerjack » Fri Feb 10, 2017 3:44 pm

I think the whole net neutrality issue is just there to keep people who might be interested, tilting at windmills. I don't think it was originally, but when Ivan Seidenburg (former CEO of VZ) started pushing hard to remove the net neutrality rules, about 15-20 years ago, there was a huge public outcry. That is the sort of thing bureaucrats take note of. It is now a giant red flag they can wave, which has it's own value.

But this borders on conspiracy theory level thinking...

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 1782
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Republican "Deregulation" of the Internet

Post by Riggerjack » Fri Feb 10, 2017 3:55 pm

]@ Chad,
from your link above:
Several key members of Trump’s transition team belong to a block of Republicans in Congress that have long sought to undermine net neutrality. Vice-President-elect Pence, the chair of Trump’s transition team, co-sponsored a 2011 bill that would have stripped the FCC of authority to govern Internet access services, as it did in the Open Internet Order. That bill, the Internet Freedom Act, was sponsored by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, and co-sponsored by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Rep. Tom Reed, and Rep. Cynthia Lummis, all vice-chairs on Trump’s transition team. Pence (along with vice-chair Rep. Marsha Blackburn, and other members of the transition team) also voted against net neutrality as early as 2006.

Vice-chair Rep. Marsha Blackburn has routinely introduced bills that attempt to block effective net neutrality from every angle. In 2011, she sponsored the Internet Freedom Act, discussed above. She re-introduced it in 2014—this time, the bill would have prohibited the FCC’s proposed net neutrality rules from coming into effect and kept the agency from re-issuing such rules in the future, unless explicitly authorized by Congress. That bill was re-introduced again in 2015, this time seeking to nullify the FCC’s Open Internet Order and prevent the agency from re-issuing them, unless authorized by Congress. In 2016, Rep. Blackburn sponsored an amendment to the annual budget authorization that would prohibit the use of federal funds to implement any of the FCC's proposed broadband privacy rules. Rep. Blackburn also co-sponsored bills aimed at altering the process through which the FCC can pass rules like the Open Internet order, and further limiting the FCC’s ability to do so.
This isn't pro or con net neutrality. This is some in congress realizing that an issue that their constituency both cares about and doesn't understand is a continual source of cash, if handled properly. Some in congress want this to be a congressional issue. Some others, know the money and influence this issue garners will mainly flow to Democrats, and thus oppose it.

Personally, I don't think it would be any more settled or better regulated for being under congressional control than by being regulated by the (former and future) corporate board members that run the FCC. But managed properly, it could be renewed each year like the sales tax deduction, thus being one more feather in the cap of the incumbent, every election.

George the original one
Posts: 4239
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
Location: Wettest corner of Orygun

Re: Republican "Deregulation" of the Internet

Post by George the original one » Fri Feb 10, 2017 5:17 pm

With T & VZ owning major internet destinations, the concept of net neutrality is more important than it used to be. We're currently setting the stage where T will discount your network traffic if you go to T's destinations, but charge you an overpriced full rate for going to VZ's destinations (and vice versa).

edit:
As consumers, we really don't want the channel package deals the cable & satellite companies offer. Ala carte is preferable.

User avatar
luxagraf
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:32 pm
Contact:

Re: Republican "Deregulation" of the Internet

Post by luxagraf » Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:11 pm

Riggerjack wrote:A move against net neutrality, is good for VZ and especially, T. The costs would be bourne by small telecoms and individual ISPs. Back bone gets more expensive, which is good for T, but bad for the small ISPs who have to pay them. Now T has plenty of retail customers, too. So, while it would be good for their core business, it would hurt the rest.
This is the big argument I've always heard in favor -- that essentially without net neutrality you close the door on any smaller player looking to get into the market down the road.

That, combined with the argument that, as telecoms shift to become content providers as well, they'd prioritize their own traffic over competitors.

But the latter has never been compelling to me because telecoms can do that either way. Even if the government decreed absolute network neutrality, it'd be extremely hard to tell for certain whether it was being carried out from the outside. Net neutrality advocates get suspiciously vague on implementation details. All the telecoms have been traffic shaping for years and no one complained. An interesting sidenote for me, is that a piece I wrote for wired that attempted to show Comcast has been traffic shaping as far back as 2002 ended up being read into congressional testimony at some point, which was slightly surreal.

User avatar
Chad
Posts: 3849
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Republican "Deregulation" of the Internet

Post by Chad » Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:21 am

@Riggerjack
Good explanation.

Post Reply