But the vast majority of ISPs, and especially the ones we want to promote, are local, small businesses. And the legislation now in Congress would put them out of business by allowing their networks to be taken over by P2P bandwidth hogs... to the point where no legitimate user could do anything. This regulation is a bad idea because it might bother the big guys -- the way a flea bothers an elephant -- but it'd kill the little ones.

B

As for public goods, I know this isn't one of them. And no, I don't consider nearly anything a quasi-public good. Thanks for assuming otherwise.

geowrian

DarthZigger

You all have a point re: the near monopolistic conditions of high speed ISPs in most places, but I maintain that knee-jerk government regulation, especially Federal regulation, is still not the answer. Market forces, consumer activism, and technology will be far more effective at ensuring that the proper products get to market.

That said, in cases where there is a true monopoly, due to remote location, etc., I wouldn't mind some sort of standard service that must be provided.

To whichever young socialist said that free markets lead to monopoly which leads to fascism: over-regulation leads to some pretty dire circumstances as well. Open up your history books to the last century.

mauser

Con Seannery

Mmmm...children...

GadgetPlay

fredramsey

sisedi

with borderline monopoly arrangements for persistent and constantly increasing revenues

Hmm... lets go over my broadband options: Comcast, or leech neighbor's broadband which happens to be Comcast. Quite the competition there isn't it?

Papa Midnight

GadgetPlay

martini1179

Hat Trick

Now that we are acquainted I will set aside the needless snide remarks. I make lots typos, so I'm not one to judge.

There are natural monopolies that exist in low-dense areas. I gather your old home was one. They can exist because the lack of customers will not support two companies given the large capital costs associated with the industry (That is changing with satellite providers improving). In this case there are three alternatives: gov. subsidized or owned industry, monopoly, or regulated monopoly. Pick your poison, but I gather the natural monopoly will be the best provider of the three. Multiple companies are not a real option. Break them up and, most likely, one will die. People in rural places don't really complain when they have only one dept. store or grocery store, but the big bad telecom is a big problem? In one sense, you should feel lucky you have the service. It's the trade off you make with all modern amenities for the serenity of the country or low-dense suburbs. For other arguments look at the post above. The internet is not a right or a necessity, it's a modern convenience.

dyermaker826

"Oh, sorry sir, that social network you've been using for 10 years does not follow some policies we have in our company, so it's been blocked".

The reason why ISPs can't have control over content is that. They would basically market the web content as if it was theirs, as if they were products.

I'm not an american, and I personally hate politicians (specially those of my own country)... but I think they are on to something with this bill.

Bokusatsu_Tenshi

GadgetPlay

Hat Trick

Citizen Kang

If they're practices prove to be abusive and harmful to the consumer then the answer is "yes, they do deserve to be broken up". If not, I imagine they'll be cut a certain degree of slack in which everybody looks the other way despite it being a monopoly. This has happened before and it'll happen again.

Citizen Kang

On the public good issues, this is NOT ONE. Pick up an econ 101 book. I assume that quasi-public good is a term you use for just about anything that you want.

Companies are not angles, but their not evil either.

dyermaker826

Do you think that restricting how a firm can leverage an asset in which it has invested (bandwith capacity in this case) will

a) encourage investment, resulting in more available service options;
b) discourage investment, resulting in fewer service options

Hat Trick

So let me get this right AT&T deserved to be broken up when it became too good at what made it successful? Companies buying other companies should be made illegal? Or let me rephrase, the government has the right to tell someone who owns a business who they are or are not allowed to sell their business to? And look what happened when AT&T was broken up, it almost completely disappeared. Who are these "private-sector" lobbyists? This one above is pitched by the government. The FCC certainly isn't "private sector."

As far as government created monopolies go...United States Postal service ring a bell? Last I checked UPS and FedEx can't accept stamps. As long as there is no law barring competition (as with the postal service) there is no way a company can become what is defined as a "monopoly." You have have oligopolies as is the case with gas stations in a town but you can't have a true monopoly.

It's ridiculous and absurd to even suggest a company be penalized for doing well. What happens if Apple takes over the music, cell phone, movie rental, and I shudder to think the computer industry? Do they deserve to be broken up?

pine1045

apeguero

I don't believe that regulation is inherently a bad thing. There are plenty of historical instances where the lack of regulation allowed big business carte blanche to do as they pleased. What I don't think we need is bad regulation. Case in point is when California did a half-asses regulation/non-regulation of the power industry. This allowed Enron to game the system resulting in huge profits, rolling blackouts, and tremendous costs in litigation. Regulation is fine as long as it's smart. Regulating for the sake of regulation is just plain stupid. What'd be perfect is if big business was more into innovation and providing excellent service and not so much in having legislation passed that provides them some inherent protectionism. If corporations had the attitude that they could make profits by doing it better as opposed to doing whatever they can to block out those who might be able to do so, maybe we can have the best of everything.

Citizen Kang

What about the areas that only offer one provider? Would you call that a monopoly? Don't say such areas are non-existent because up until 6 months ago I lived in one. I've since moved and have been fortunate enough to have a choice (which I've exercised), but even that was a very recent development. When competition is non-existent, it's a monopoly and there are lots of places where that situation exists. I appreciate your contrarian viewpoint, but your high school economics class is trumped by the experience of millions of consumers.

Citizen Kang

Wait what? Every single one of your examples from the East India Trading Company to AT&T to the railroads were either directly sponsored government monopolies or monopolies protected by government through various regulations designed to restrict competitors.

Do you seriously think politicians that get enormous amounts of money from big business are going to pass bills that help consumers at the expense of big business?

TheDormouse

Anyway, there are 2 major problems right now:
1) ISPs are not at all transparent about their policies. What is throttled? When is it throttled? How much is throttled? ISPs alike AT&T and Comcast keep contradicting their statements or say nothing at all or plain lie. For example, Comcast said it was only throttling me when there is high traffic. How come every night at like 1 AM - 7 AM I'm getting < 50% the speed (and very high RST packets) compared to noon-10 PM? I would *think* that would be a far busier time.

Here's my $.02 on what should be done:
1) Establish a uniform standard for ISPs to talk to each other.
2) Treat all non-malicious traffic the same (so somebody with ISP isn't causing a slowdown when connecting to somebody from another ISP).
3) Break up the monopolies so the industry can grow and innovate and compete against each other using the same set of basic standards and starting on a level playing field.

geowrian

alpacalypse

Of course companies will try to get advantages where they can. So would you! The point is that the government has the ultimate say and thus responsibility, and democrats are no better when it comes to special interests.

I don't think that the government is the only source of monopolies, just the most heinous ones. Because they are the one that are protected by the law.

dyermaker826

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

axiomatic

I hope you're kidding? All the zombie machines plagued with worms and malware would saturate the network in a NY minute.

@Rbastid:

I agree, it's not well thought out.

arikmoon

mitchx3

Kanti_V2

And this BS about how only the government can create monopolies is so ridiculous. How short is your memory that this even needs to be proven wrong? Remember AT&T, the Bell System? The government didn't make them a monopoly, monopolies are the natural extension of capitalism, it took the government (a real one, not the market acting under the guise of a political party) to step in and break it up, CREATING competition. Or the Railroad companies before that, or Rockefeller, or the East India Trading Company. How many examples do you need to see the obvious truth that monopolies are the only possible end result of a competitive capitalist market when left to its own devices? One company or another will always rise to the top, then they will buy up smaller companies, and through other acquisitions and mergers get bigger, and more expansive, until it's impossible to compete with them with out getting swallowed up. And through their 'efficiency' they pay less taxes, create fewer jobs, and degrading quality and consumer protections. What kind of idiot would want to hand that much power to a small group of private individuals who have no accountability?

Kanti_V2

UlfFaloola

And lest you believe that these companies "earned it" by setting up networks in the first place, remember that basically all the infrastructure in US is subsidized by the government. It wasn't built like this because the companies believe in the common good, it was built this way because they were payed to by the government.

The best thing for society is neither a completely free market nor complete government control since both expose us to abuses of power. Our founding fathers got it right when they realized that all systems of power/influence need checks and balances.

Accelerata

The Dems just want to offer this bill so they can try and seem cool with the younger generation, just trying to promote this bill is another political stunt to get idiots to back them.

Rbastid

"Agreed. That's what I have my anti-virus and firewalls for. Our ISP's are not doing a good job at that in the first place."

Yep. The best analogy is that a bullet proof vest is better than having metal detectors everywhere.

nutbastard

There is also the key word here, "regulation." We techies and Internet users feel free when we cruise the Internet to find whatever we want. No safe harbor laws like in broadcast TV or radio. EVERYTHING, right at our finger tips. Once any regulation is placed on the net whether it be deemed good or bad, only opens the doors for more regulation especially for ones dealing with content. If the Dems were to get this bill passed, conservatives and the religious right would use it as a stepping stone to regulate when you can see on the Internet. Think about that.

pine1045

They should be called herds.

Republican Herd. Democrat Herd. Reform Herd.

Same shit, different stank.

sansovino

shan6

No it's not. For the most part the use of electricity is perfectly legal. Sending informaiton over the Internet may or may not be legal depending on the material.

Net Neutrality is more like saying the highway patrol cannot stop you from carrying a bale of cocaine in your car on the highway.

cowboyshootist

Are you kidding?! I know you aren't which is scary... scary how much you trust the government with power. Any oppresive society has given more and more power to the government not the businesses, in the guise of "protecting" the people from eachother. The more power we give to the government to regulate our lives, the greater risk of abuse of that power. This law would give them more power to control our lives. I have supported net neutrality because I think people have paid for bandwidth to use how they choose. But seeing many flawed arguments here makes me question that decision.

Prana

"Profits are bad and governments will fix everything." Come on, what a simplistic view of the world. We're not saying that markets are perfect. We're saying that government isn't always the answer. And on your ridiculous economic performance argument, WHAT!? You can't compare developing nations like China and India to us, apples and oranges. Why don't you move there and see how great it is for about 5% of the people who live there. As far as the EU, they are woefully behind us in economic performance. We hit a bump is the road and you blame our lack of regulatory intervention!!!??? Please stop typing. I'm begging you.

dyermaker826

Not so Kang. While cable and DSL/FIOS services are usually easier and less costly to acuire almost anyone has at least 2 or more choices in broadband internet access. Besides DSL and Cable there are Satellite options which can reach nearly anyone with a clear view of the sky.

You may not like the alternative options and they may not cost the same but free markets will and should dictate that, not the Government.

Consider also that the bill as depicted in this article forces ISP to become accomplices in distributing illegal material whether they like it or not. If you cannot restrict certain types of traffic how do you control illegal distribution of copyrighted material?

My opinion is that I want the government to stay out of my life as much as possible.

cowboyshootist

Also, technically, the infrastructure tlephone lines belong to the government with an "expand/upkeep" deal for the usage.

Read up on Ed Whittaker from SBC Communications. This started a full year and a half before any blogger mentioned it!

Folks, demand more from your politicians and hold them liable.

Thats all.

jamesgbennett

shan6

@arikmoon:

"No thanks. Net Neutrality is for people who use food stamps."

Discriminate much?

ViperBorg

"If a Net Neutrality bill were successful, your ISP would legally have to remove all virus/vulnerability traffic they're currently filtering."

Fine with me. Last time i checked, they weren't very effective on that front.

nutbastard

sqeakytoy of the apocalypse

If a Net Neutrality bill were successful, your ISP would legally have to remove all virus/vulnerability traffic they're currently filtering.

No thanks. Net Neutrality is for people who use food stamps.

arikmoon

mrarmageddon

poorGeek

Think of politicians this way: Remember those assholes who were always on student council in high school, who weren't particularly intelligent but were proficient at bookwork? Who were good at parroting all sorts of nonsense and who basked in the praise of their keepers for doing so?

Those are proto-politicians. Extrapolate from there and everything makes sense.

nutbastard

arikmoon

I really do applaud your electric company analogy, it almost makes the point.

The fallacy with that argument is that the electric company has no "way/means" to detect what devices you have plugged in.

If Eureka vacuums were shown to be causing problems for the electric grid because they're consistently utilizing 60% of the power capacity for a service area, AND the electric company had the ability to throttle/block Eureka vacuums, I'm sure they would.

Apples to Oranges, they're both fruity and delicious, but their comparison ends there.

arikmoon

Take for instance that they are very loosely required to re-invest profits into maintaining their infrastructure (the same one our national economy depends on) with no strict regulation, they even swore before congress to do so, but of course they haven't, because that would eat into profit. Why would we the people want to leave so much power in the hands of these people without getting a say in how they handle such a vital part of our national infrastructure?

Look at any thriving economy in the world, and you will see a well REGULATED economy, of the exact model that we once had, whether it's China's protectionist trade policies, the EU's anti-trust laws, or India's strict laws that keep the wal-marts of the world out of India. And look at any economy in decline (ours for example) to get a prime example of what happens when the markets are not required to have the good of the consumers and the country in mind.

No, government regulation isn't the answer to everything in the market, no one has EVER suggested that, but leaving it up to the free market, or by it's real name, faith based economics, is idiocy that is a proven failure.

Kanti_V2

/get your youtube off my internet while I have torrents running.

shan6

Oh and to those of you complaining about being able to surf while I'm on Xbox Live or playing Battlefield on the PC, seriously, you can piss right off. If the ISP's have over promised bandwidth based on faulty formula's or wishful thinking our collective issues are with them, not each other.

Blue Oyster Cultist

And certainly not in the Internet-Access space. Even if you go to a third party for your DSL, all you last miles belongs to ATT. They are ALWAYS the closest link to you in the DSL food chain. And the only other alternative is cable, where we live - unless you count satellite and the aforementioned T1's - one of which bites, the other of which costs too much.

ps61318

using the electric company analogy, yes, if my usage were causing brownouts, the electric company would rightly cap my usage, but not determine that only a certain brand of vacuum cleaner would work when plugged in.

rlreif

@mauser: You are correct assuming free markets, but as was subsequently mentioned, this is not a free market but a monopolistic one.

Truth is, the providers promise a certain level of service - they call it high-speed, and they call it unlimited. Now, these are inherently at odds, I reckon, because there is a physical limitation to the bandwidth that can be supplied. The providers have determined that the appearance of high-speed is more important than "unlimited - " so that's the tradeoff they make. And all that anyone can do is complain, because in a monopoly (or nearly so), there simply is no incentive for the provider to change the policy.

In our area, for example, we have TWC and ATT. If they both choose to throttle, it's game over, man, unless you spring for a T1 (which was down to about $400/month last I checked).

To my simple mind, the alternatives are a bit different. 1) Figure out a different model for throttling, and stop calling the service "unlimited." 2) Trade off in the other direction - still call it "unlimited" but stop making speed claims. 3) Build out fiber. Ha ha. And you lucky FIOS people shut up. Legislating net neutrality sounds good, but without some other changes, won't produce the desired results.

ps61318

sumocat

The issue isn't an occasional spike, its the P2P apps that are damaging the other money making ventures like VOIP, surfing, streaming video from providers like apple and netflix, online gaming services...

@rlreif:

If your electric consumption was causing brownouts for that electric company's service area, I'm sure they'd want to do the same thing.

Just because you recieve power service from a power company doesn't mean you can use what you want...there's a finite amount of the stuff...just like bandwidth.

arikmoon

You talk like AT&T is still the only company out there. Please don't use economic terms like Monopoly unless you know what you're talking about. Monopoly power is not correctly measured in the numbers of firms but the level of competition. And competition is healthy in telecom. Telecom is a capital intensive industry, it will naturally be limited in it's number of entrants.

dyermaker826

And, even if there are multiple ISPs available, good luck seeing your ISPs competitors' websites if they are allowed to control what you have access to.

kwicherbichin

non net neutrality is analogous to the electric COMPANY deciding which devices you have plugged into your house's electrical outlets work, and which dont.

rlreif

What you say? You paid for a fast connection on the theory that you could do what you wanted with it? Sorry.

Ryan H

rlreif

shan6

atuck

+ Watch video

johnnyabnormal

Free markets are all well and good as long as there isn't a monopoly. Internet and cable providers have either monopolies or near monopolies (with the consumer having to choose the lesser of two evils) in many areas limiting choice and, therefore, allowing them to run rough-shod over the consumer.

Citizen Kang

dyermaker826

This bill would say that ISP's can't throttle certain traffic.

You cannot treat all internet traffic the same; not everybody wants to share their music and movies. Some of us just want to be able to play on xbox live without lag.

arikmoon

Darrone

Munch the BanNail

Call me crazy, but free markets always (eventually) are the most efficient way to bring products to consumers... how is this any different? If the ISPs provide service that consumers view as flawed, won't this open up an opportunity for new entrants to the marketplace, and even possible improvements to service?

Believe it or not, government regulation is not the solution to every little controversy in the world.

Also, check "law of unintended consequenses" before you start the knee-jerk regulation.

mauser

stryder100

Xenocide

ps61318

Why are they called 'parties' anyway? They should be called 'buzzkills'

Munch the BanNail