Verizon v. FCC (Net Neutrality/ Internet Openness)

The Mark said:

As I understand it, one of the main reasons for higher speeds in other countries is government spending on internet infrastructure. National government spending, in many cases.

Whereas, at best, here in the US the only governmental support of internet infrastructure might be on a state level, and probably only local (as in, a city).

Not just internet infrastructure, but also power infrastructure, I think...

Click to expand...

American ISPs get significant federal subsidies. There is the Connect America Fund, Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan Program, and the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program.

rathi said:

American ISPs get significant federal subsidies. There is the Connect America Fund, Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan Program, and the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program.

Click to expand...

For what?

Peter Grimm said:

I'm not at all impressed with American broadband options.

I live in downtown Dallas, which is the 4th largest metro area in the country. The only broadband offered in my area is Time Warner Cable and ATT's DSL.

I have Time Warner's premium package, and I just speed tested at 15.89 mbps.

According to the chart, folks in my native Sweden are downloading over twice as fast at 42.35 mbps, and that is quite a rural country as well.

Not impressed in the least. In addition, ours is the most expensive. What exactly are we paying for?

It's like the 80's all over again with the cars, remember how terrible American cars were? American broadband is a 1984 Dodge Monaco.

Click to expand...

Do they live up near the border with Finland? How are speeds in those tiny towns up that way?

The Mark said:

Small population probably makes it easier to provide excellent service.

I'm not saying we have good service, just that it's likely not as easy to fix as you might think.

Click to expand...

America is the inventor of internet technology. We have the money, experience, technology, knowledge base and everything else you could possibly need to build a world class internet delivery system. The only failure in the system is the idiots in charge of the corporations who run ISPs. They spend all their time and effort trying to screw people by double dipping on their pricing, rather than upgrading their infrastructure and improving their product. Their corporate mentality is so screwed up they actually get unhappy about the significant increase in internet traffic from streaming video services, as though having more demand is actually a bad thing.

The reality is that internet access at this point is a utility, and should be regulated and handled as such.

rathi said:

America is the inventor of internet technology. We have the money, experience, technology, knowledge base and everything else you could possibly need to build a world class internet delivery system. The only failure in the system is the idiots in charge of the corporations who run ISPs. They spend all their time and effort trying to screw people by double dipping on their pricing, rather than upgrading their infrastructure and improving their product. Their corporate mentality is so screwed up they actually get unhappy about the significant increase in internet traffic from streaming video services, as though having more demand is actually a bad thing.

Click to expand...

To the short-sighted CEOs it IS a bad thing. They won't be around when their investment starts making money so they don't profit by (get credit for) it, their successors do. Can't have long-term investment cutting into that bottom line - it doesn't look good on the annual report!

The CEO's and business men who actually take the long view (and seem to get more scarce every day even though they're the ones really raking in the money) know that more business is good for business.

rathi said:

America is the inventor of internet technology. We have the money, experience, technology, knowledge base and everything else you could possibly need to build a world class internet delivery system. The only failure in the system is the idiots in charge of the corporations who run ISPs. They spend all their time and effort trying to screw people by double dipping on their pricing, rather than upgrading their infrastructure and improving their product. Their corporate mentality is so screwed up they actually get unhappy about the significant increase in internet traffic from streaming video services, as though having more demand is actually a bad thing.

Click to expand...

Look at it from the point of view of my ISP, Time Warner Cable. They have the entire city of Dallas TX on lockdown, they're the only ones with the rights to lay down cabling and so you have a choice to either use their service or use the phone lines. They have these contracts in place for another decade or so.

What incentive do they have to make my internet any faster? I'm stuck with them regardless.

Therein lies the problem.

MoSurveyor said:

Do they live up near the border with Finland? How are speeds in those tiny towns up that way?

Click to expand...

Depends on what town you're talking about. There is a college town way up north called Lulea, which is also a military base, and they have faster broadband speeds than Dallas TX. On the other hand, if you're talking about reindeer herders in the north then they don't likely have any internet at all, not to mention phones or television.

My family has a cottage up not quite that far north but certainly in a remote area. Even out there you can get broadband that is faster than Dallas. You have to understand that in Sweden, internet is thought of as a utility and the government runs Telia, the Swedish telecom, with the best interests of the people in mind and not the best interests of the greedy shareholders.

The other thing you can do in Sweden is buy remote wireless time. Basically you buy a certain number of hours on a MiFi account, would be the best way to describe it. That works anywhere... even the reindeer herders could use it if they wanted.

There is nothing like that offered in the United States. They also sell "burners," which are throwaway cell phones you can use while you're on vacation, etc.

In all, Swedish telecom is light years ahead of the USA. Light years.

Peter Grimm said:

Look at it from the point of view of my ISP, Time Warner Cable. They have the entire city of Dallas TX on lockdown, they're the only ones with the rights to lay down cabling and so you have a choice to either use their service or use the phone lines. They have these contracts in place for another decade or so.

What incentive do they have to make my internet any faster? I'm stuck with them regardless.

Therein lies the problem.

Click to expand...

My understanding of the situation in the US is that various ISPs were given exclusive rights to an area if they installed infrastructure? Because the gov didn't want to pay for it?

Maybe that's way off base...

Gaius46 said:

Yes. And my point is - and has always been - that that is a sledgehammer approach. Everyone pays regardless of whether they use the bandwidth or not. Billing Netflix directly would be a step towards shifting the cost to those who actually incur them.

Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't. The ISP customer already pays for that bandwidth. The only thing this accomplishes is allowing the ISP to charge both the sender and the receiver, and to do so selectively in order to promote one business over another. Delivering 5GB of data from Netflix doesn't cost the ISP more than delivering 5GB of data from it's own video service. Same way it doesn't cost FedEx more to deliver you five pounds of rice than it does to deliver five pounds of books.

Peter Grimm said:

Look at it from the point of view of my ISP, Time Warner Cable. They have the entire city of Dallas TX on lockdown, they're the only ones with the rights to lay down cabling and so you have a choice to either use their service or use the phone lines. They have these contracts in place for another decade or so.

What incentive do they have to make my internet any faster? I'm stuck with them regardless.

Therein lies the problem.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. They are a natural monopoly much like an electric company. Such a system simply can't function as a healthy free market, as a healthy free market depends upon competition and choice.

If only the libertarian crowd could realize that the market principles they worship don't actually apply universally.

Internet service seems like just one more thing that is bogged down by the constrains of capitalist profiteering. If servers and providers were publicly owned, there would be no need for this nonsense, and no need for all this jostling. When our services are owned by the public, only the public's interests are pursued, so there is no call for choking off speed for content that won't pay a premium. There's no call for censorship unless we allow private interests to control our government (we actually really suck at that one). Most of these problems disappear if we stop refusing to allow benefit to society without someone getting rich in the process.

Deuce said:

Yes, exactly. They are a natural monopoly much like an electric company. Such a system simply can't function as a healthy free market, as a healthy free market depends upon competition and choice.

If only the libertarian crowd could realize that the market principles they worship don't actually apply universally.

Click to expand...

The only way I could see internet provision and the various utilities being competitive was if the infrastructure were owned by the state and ISP's, power companies, ect. competed for contracts to provide service and maintenance.

lizzie said:

Mostly political. I don't think it would have much effect overall, but gives the government more of a foot in the door on regulating information and content.

Click to expand...

ISP aren't simply private companies, despite their rhetoric. They're publicly subsidized geographic oligopolies--not only are the services delivered by running cables through public lands, streets, etc., but much of their infrastructure was developed w/the help of federal/state handouts paid for by taxes or via deficits. Hence, because they operate through public assistance, they must, in accordance w/the principals of the free market, be subject to its oversight.

Deuce said:

Yes, exactly. They are a natural monopoly much like an electric company. Such a system simply can't function as a healthy free market, as a healthy free market depends upon competition and choice.

If only the libertarian crowd could realize that the market principles they worship don't actually apply universally.

Click to expand...

Then the libertarian crowd is being retarded because the facts are right in front of us: the USA's broadband is slower than at least 30 countries, hence those countries are doing something right and we are not.