No More Net Neutrality?

[johnsimion]

Net Partiality

Again, basically, Net Neutrality would tell UPS that you have to send everyone's package by the same service for the same price regardless of what it actually costs you to provide the service. This means that those in high service cost areas would pay the same as those living in low service cost areas. In other words. Those who would otherwise be paying less will have to pay more to cover the costs of those who live in a higher cost service area but are not paying enough to cover costs.

Good logic except for one thing and that is the cost to provide the service. The cost to send each package is different for UPS because larger packages going faster may require larger trucks carrying fewer packages per truck and more handling costs. The internet moves electrons, all of which are the same size and all of which move at the same speed. It costs the same to move each electron. Information is sent in "packets" but each packet simply consists of a number of electrons. A user sending larger packets is therefore sending more electrons than a smaller user, but since all electrons are alike the cost per electron in the packet remains the same. A power sender or downloader may affect other users by sending too many electrons but that does not increase the provider's cost because the system always moves the same number of electrons no matter who sends them. The only way the provider's cost would go up would be if the provider had to install more lines to handle the excess load. Even that is unnecessary, however, because right now the provider can throttle downloads at the user end to prevent this -- precluding the need to install more lines. This kind of "throttling" is still net neutral in that it doesn't favor one sender over another, the recipient eventually gets what he wants, and the rights of other users are also protected. Without net neutrality, the provider may charge favored senders for sending stuff, charge users extra for downloads, and determine what services it wants you to be able to see. If a provider decides that only "liberal" news will be provided through its system, without net neutrality it can do that. "Sorry, Mr. User, FOX will not be available for you to access on our system ... at least not until you pay an extra $29.95 per month." That's pretty close to blackmail. I cannot see this as a good thing or a fair thing.

 

[Joe T.]

Joe, it must seem like that if you live in a rural area (I do) where there is only one internet service provider. But, this is because there isn't enough business for more than one company. In many cases, there wouldn't even be that one provider if not for government incentives and subsidies. I'm not aware of any municipality that eliminates competition (but that's not to say there isn't one or more - I just don't know which they are).

Actually, we lived in Arlington, TX from 1978 - 1985. 'Cable' was installed about 1981. A cable company won the contract (I don't remember which one) and that was it!) No competition.

Next we moved to Santa Clarita, CA (1985 - 2008). Again, only one cable company - Time Warner. No COX. No COMCAST. No competition.

Now we live in Wichita, KS. Only one cable provider. COX. But, since AT&T has Land Lines in Wichita, we also have access to Uverse. No Time Warner, no COMCAST. Some competition??

I wouldn't consider any of these places 'Rural.'

Joe T.

 

[UtahPete]

Actually, we lived in Arlington, TX from 1978 - 1985. 'Cable' was installed about 1981. A cable company won the contract (I don't remember which one) and that was it!) No competition. Next we moved to Santa Clarita, CA (1985 - 2008). Again, only one cable company - Time Warner. No COX. No COMCAST. No competition. Now we live in Wichita, KS. Only one cable provider. COX. But, since AT&T has Land Lines in Wichita, we also have access to Uverse. No Time Warner, no COMCAST. Some competition?? I wouldn't consider any of these places 'Rural.' Joe T.

You're right. I don't know how to explain that.

 

[asp125]

We live in a "rural" area where the only high speed internet is Comcast. If one company decides to raise its costs it holds everyone in the area hostage. Despite deregulation there is no competition in a monopoly. It reminds me of the Bell telephone days where you had just one phone company. Back in the city we had the local city owned utility providing 1Gb fiber internet at prices that Comcast can't touch. Put it in the hands of mega-corporations and their only motive is profit for shareholders.

 

[UtahPete]

We live in a "rural" area where the only high speed internet is Comcast. If one company decides to raise its costs it holds everyone in the area hostage. Despite deregulation there is no competition in a monopoly. It reminds me of the Bell telephone days where you had just one phone company. Back in the city we had the local city owned utility providing 1Gb fiber internet at prices that Comcast can't touch. Put it in the hands of mega-corporations and their only motive is profit for shareholders.

Here in the Salt Lake valley, we had a well-meaning multi-municipal entity created to provide internet access for an area that at that time didn't have very good service from corporate providers. After about 5 years, I believe, the government-owned entity was in severe financial difficulty and was about to go bankrupt if Google Fiber hadn't stepped in and taken it over. I'm not sure just what the lesson is from this experience, but it was an interesting experiment.

 

[Easy Rider]

The old informal agreements will continue to exist, and very few changes will occur (in the short-term...)

Sometimes your (lack of) sound logic just amazes me.

But I guess I'm not supposed to criticize anything you say because you are "one of the good guys". :banghead:

 

[Easy Rider]

I would agree, except we're not talking about government running the internet (like the USPS). We're talking about them regulating it for the protection of consumers. Big difference in my mind.

But the issue at the moment is: REMOVING what little government regulation that there WAS.
That has NOTHING to do with "the protection of consumers".
It has EVERYTHING to do with big companies making more money at the expense of consumers.......who generally don't have a lot or real choice in who their Internet provider IS.

Oh.....and at the same time, they won't have to pay as much tax on their additional profits either.

Anybody who thinks that this is good for the average consumer is.......just deaf, dumb and blind. :lecturef_smilie:

 

[BajaRon]

I think what throws a lot of people is the title of the regulations. 'Net Neutrality'. Who can argue with the concept? But the name of the legislation is many not necessarily reflective of the actual consequences. Like the 'Affordable Care Act' which has become anything but for the majority of users.

Free competition is definitely the end solution here. Just like we don't want a giant monopoly deciding winners and losers. Neither do we need the government determining winners or losers either.

Hopefully, things will evolve in this direction. Believe me. There is never a problem getting the government involved if necessary. But once the government takes over a segment of society. It's nearly impossible to get them out.

 

[Easy Rider]

I can't think of one instance where the public has benefited in the long run from deregulation of an industry.

In order to come to that conclusion, a person actually has to THINK just a little bit.
That's asking a lot from some.

Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are DOOMED to repeat them.......over and over.

 

[Joe T.]

You're right. I don't know how to explain that.

UP,

I believe ALL cable companies are given a 'monopoly' by having contracts with cities that do not allow competition. I assume, at the beginning of cable company competition in a new locality, there is some sort of RFQ (Request For Quote) from all interested parties. The gov entity will have some basic guidelines, and then expect each offerer to exceed the basics.

Also, these contract NEVER come up for re-competition.

It would really be nice to 'see behind the wall' on these cable deals.

Joe T.

 

[Trbayth]

Joe, it must seem like that if you live in a rural area (I do) where there is only one internet service provider. But, this is because there isn't enough business for more than one company. In many cases, there wouldn't even be that one provider if not for government incentives and subsidies. I'm not aware of any municipality that eliminates competition (but that's not to say there isn't one or more - I just don't know which they are).

My girlfriend lives in a very rural area and has zero internet service providers; the net neutrality regulation that was enacted by bureaucratic fiat in 2015 (well after the rise of services like Netflix, Hulu, and Google btw) did nothing to provide her high speed internet. Her only internet access is via a Verizon Wireless hotspot and that's only barely high speed.

 

[UtahPete]

My girlfriend lives in a very rural area and has zero internet service providers; the net neutrality regulation that was enacted by bureaucratic fiat in 2015 (well after the rise of services like Netflix, Hulu, and Google btw) did nothing to provide her high speed internet. Her only internet access is via a Verizon Wireless hotspot and that's only barely high speed.

I wasn't suggesting the net neutrality rules would have solved this issue. I was responding to another question on this thread.

 

[BajaRon]

UP,

I believe ALL cable companies are given a 'monopoly' by having contracts with cities that do not allow competition. I assume, at the beginning of cable company competition in a new locality, there is some sort of RFQ (Request For Quote) from all interested parties. The gov entity will have some basic guidelines, and then expect each offerer to exceed the basics.

Also, these contract NEVER come up for re-competition.

It would really be nice to 'see behind the wall' on these cable deals.

Joe T.

Not all cable companies were given outright monopolies. But many were. The idea being that infrastructure, being very expensive and in some areas not even cost effective, would be very slow, or not coming at all if normal free market competition were allowed. Monopolies were supposed to be temporary. Allowing one entity to come in and reap all of the profits if they promised (and continued to live up to the promise) to spend the large amounts of money needed to upgrade, and in many cases create the infrastructure. Rates would be higher. But the product would be better and many more people would be served. At least this was the rationale. And I think, for the most part, this is what has happened.

Of course the internet providers do not want their 'Temporary' monopoly to expire. Typically, there was no expiration date set. Most agreements simply state that when the time comes when the original company has recovered their capital outlay with a reasonable profit, the monopoly protections will be dropped and competition would be allowed. There were supposed to be periodic reviews by local agencies to this end.

But with large internet providers spanning many municipalities. And the specter of these local government agencies losing lucrative monopolistic contracts. It appears that this transition to a free market has been difficult. Basically, non-existent. Hence, the incentive for the FCC to step in. But many feel that rather than just opening the doors to competition. Net Neutrality was anything but. That the FCC overstepped their bounds in effect creating a regulatory pathway to a completely government controlled internet. Thus replacing the current private industry monopolies with a federal government monopoly contracted out to the private sector.

This step to end NN by the current administration does not preclude any federal government over site or regulation. It simply ends the current regulations.

Only time will tell which way this settles out. But there is definitely at least 2 sides to this story and a lot of money flowing to influence you and I.

 

[UtahPete]

Not all cable companies were given outright monopolies. But many were. The idea being that infrastructure, being very expensive and in some areas not even cost effective, would be very slow, or not coming at all if normal free market competition were allowed. Monopolies were supposed to be temporary. Allowing one entity to come in and reap all of the profits if they promised (and continued to live up to the promise) to spend the large amounts of money needed to upgrade, and in many cases create the infrastructure. Rates would be higher. But the product would be better and many more people would be served. At least this was the rationale. And I think, for the most part, this is what has happened.

Of course the internet providers do not want their 'Temporary' monopoly to expire. Typically, there was no expiration date set. Most agreements simply state that when the time comes when the original company has recovered their capital outlay with a reasonable profit, the monopoly protections will be dropped and competition would be allowed. There were supposed to be periodic reviews by local agencies to this end.

But with large internet providers spanning many municipalities. And the specter of these local government agencies losing lucrative monopolistic contracts. It appears that this transition to a free market has been difficult. Basically, non-existent. Hence, the incentive for the FCC to step in. But many feel that rather than just opening the doors to competition. Net Neutrality was anything but. That the FCC overstepped their bounds in effect creating a regulatory pathway to a completely government controlled internet. Thus replacing the current private industry monopolies with a federal government monopoly contracted out to the private sector.

This step to end NN by the current administration does not preclude any federal government over site or regulation. It simply ends the current regulations. Only time will tell which way this settles out. But there is definitely at least 2 sides to this story and a lot of money flowing to influence you and I.

Great explanation Ron. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[Bob Denman]

:agree: :clap: :bowdown:

 

[Easy Rider]

Her only internet access is via a Verizon Wireless hotspot and that's only barely high speed.

There ARE satellite connections still available, are there not ??

 

[UtahPete]

There ARE satellite connections still available, are there not ??

Yes. Very expensive relatively speaking.

 

[ARtraveler]

Glad to see the site is back to "normal." :roflblack::roflblack:

 

[Bob Denman]

:agree: :clap: "Norbalcy" has returned...

 

[jcthorne]

Yes. Very expensive relatively speaking.

Hughesnet Satellite internet service is $100 a month for 50GB of useage. Simply not a viable internet service for most folks these days. That is not sufficient for any streaming services, just basic web browsing. Its also only 25Mbps which is just barely the definition for broadband.

Many areas do not even have a cable internet provider, getting only slow DSL below the broadband spec as an option. Most DSL service is severely limited on usage as well.

Areas that have a cable provider usually only have one.

The areas that actually have multiple broadband service providers are actually very few and far between. The VAST majority of the US only has a single option at any location. There simply is no competition, you pay what they ask or there is no internet.

The only technology on the horizon that may upset this monopoly position is fixed 5G wireless. Its still years away for much coverage.