Obama weighs in on Net Neutrality . . . is automatically wrong

[Jarhyn]

So since none of your condescending claptrap actually goes beyond the indignation of seeing me provide a rational definition of 'utility' that, from its characteristics, shows immediately why it needs regulation, can you explain why such a thing as meets this definition does not warrant forced neutrality? Would you be more comfortable if I made up a be word 'farflenougen' to reference such a thing as I described? And would that make it any less wanting for regulation? It is not the name of a thing that means it must be so regulated, it is its characteristics. Trying to twist it into a semantic argument is purely misdirection. And what regulation is right for such a thing is right everywhere, because the rightness of a regulation stems from the nature of the thing being regulated, and the place of it has no bearing on that.

Woild you argue that a landline telephone company deserves the right to degrade calls from other providers, unless the called customer pays extra too? Because the Internet is really no different, and this is essentially what broadband providers are trying to do. The nature of the ethics behind it are not affected by the volume of the traffic.

The utilities I am familiar with (gas pipelines, oil pipelines, electric power) do offer certain customers preferred service.

And while I would argue that those utilities you mentioned are being improperly regulated, to the detriment of all but those very select few. I gave to a very specific example of a utility which is almost entirely analogous to broadband, and asked a specific question regarding a specific regulation that has been placed on it, which is the same regulation we on the progressive side of things wish to see applied to broadband.

If you do not feel qualified to offer an opinion on the rightfulness of regulating broadband as a utility, then please exit the discussion. Otherwise tell me if you'd like to be forced to pay a massive cross-carrier fee to AT&T to talk to one of their customers despite the fact you contract through sprint.

 

[dismal]

The utilities I am familiar with (gas pipelines, oil pipelines, electric power) do offer certain customers preferred service.

And while I would argue that those utilities you mentioned are being improperly regulated, to the detriment of all but those very select few. I gave to a very specific example of a utility which is almost entirely analogous to broadband, and asked a specific question regarding a specific regulation that has been placed on it, which is the same regulation we on the progressive side of things wish to see applied to broadband.

If you do not feel qualified to offer an opinion on the rightfulness of regulating broadband as a utility, then please exit the discussion. Otherwise tell me if you'd like to be forced to pay a massive cross-carrier fee to AT&T to talk to one of their customers despite the fact you contract through sprint.

Ok, so my experience with utilities is irrelevant because it does not fit your view of the world. Got it.

I entered this discussion to comment on Obama's power to decree things in this area. You persisted in dragging me into a discussion about my beliefs on utilities in general.

 

[Jarhyn]

And while I would argue that those utilities you mentioned are being improperly regulated, to the detriment of all but those very select few. I gave to a very specific example of a utility which is almost entirely analogous to broadband, and asked a specific question regarding a specific regulation that has been placed on it, which is the same regulation we on the progressive side of things wish to see applied to broadband.

If you do not feel qualified to offer an opinion on the rightfulness of regulating broadband as a utility, then please exit the discussion. Otherwise tell me if you'd like to be forced to pay a massive cross-carrier fee to AT&T to talk to one of their customers despite the fact you contract through sprint.

Ok, so my experience with utilities is irrelevant because it does not fit your view of the world. Got it.

I entered this discussion to comment on Obama's power to decree things in this area. You persisted in dragging me into a discussion about my beliefs on utilities in general.

No, your response is irrelevant because you had merely said 'this is what is done here' rather than evaluatin whether that is what SHOULD be done. maybe you can start another thread asking if pipeline neutrality is appropriate. It is far from a resolved question, though I suspect they should be, even if that doesn't please the Koch brothers.

But all derails aside, why do you think the location of a broadband network segment has any bearing on how it is regulated, and why do you think broadband is any different from telephone service, a title II utility whose regulations are well settled and rightfully so?

 

[dismal]

Ok, so my experience with utilities is irrelevant because it does not fit your view of the world. Got it.

I entered this discussion to comment on Obama's power to decree things in this area. You persisted in dragging me into a discussion about my beliefs on utilities in general.

No, your response is irrelevant because you had merely said 'this is what is done here' rather than evaluatin whether that is what SHOULD be done. maybe you can start another thread asking if pipeline neutrality is appropriate. It is far from a resolved question, though I suspect they should be, even if that doesn't please the Koch brothers.

But all derails aside, why do you think the location of a broadband network segment has any bearing on how it is regulated, and why do you think broadband is any different from telephone service, a title II utility whose regulations are well settled and rightfully so?

I don't have direct experience in this area. But I can't imagine what power the feds would have to regulate something that occurs exclusively within a state. Long distance telephone service would not occur exclusively within a state, so I can see how they would have some authority to be involved with that.

 

[Underseer]

The President weighs in:

Obama says FCC should reclassify the internet's regulatory status



Doing this is well past due.

Is there something out there that Obama doesn't believe that government should have a say in? At least letting people decide whether to use 2ply or 4ply TP. Laughing that the Federal government needs to get involved to make sure that people have access to porn and movies at their fastest speed possible. It's a short term issue on the net and getting the government involved in the long wrong is worse than the problem faced.

Wow.

I remember back when you rightists were all for net neutrality. Then FOX News stepped in and told you guys what to think, and suddenly you all flipped 180 degrees without so much as a "How do you do?"

Doesn't your head spin from all that flip-flopping?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

No, your response is irrelevant because you had merely said 'this is what is done here' rather than evaluatin whether that is what SHOULD be done. maybe you can start another thread asking if pipeline neutrality is appropriate. It is far from a resolved question, though I suspect they should be, even if that doesn't please the Koch brothers.

But all derails aside, why do you think the location of a broadband network segment has any bearing on how it is regulated, and why do you think broadband is any different from telephone service, a title II utility whose regulations are well settled and rightfully so?

I don't have direct experience in this area. But I can't imagine what power the feds would have to regulate something that occurs exclusively within a state. Long distance telephone service would not occur exclusively within a state, so I can see how they would have some authority to be involved with that.

That's right. Internets never cross state lines.

 

[Togo]

Are mobile phone services regulated in the US? What about cable?

 

[arkirk]

Is there something out there that Obama doesn't believe that government should have a say in? At least letting people decide whether to use 2ply or 4ply TP. Laughing that the Federal government needs to get involved to make sure that people have access to porn and movies at their fastest speed possible. It's a short term issue on the net and getting the government involved in the long wrong is worse than the problem faced.

Wow.

I remember back when you rightists were all for net neutrality. Then FOX News stepped in and told you guys what to think, and suddenly you all flipped 180 degrees without so much as a "How do you do?"

Doesn't your head spin from all that flip-flopping?

It's funny how the right wing folks always want to retain the right to deny people fairness in favor of a reality that denies social responsibility. The do it over and over again.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Wow.

I remember back when you rightists were all for net neutrality. Then FOX News stepped in and told you guys what to think, and suddenly you all flipped 180 degrees without so much as a "How do you do?"

Doesn't your head spin from all that flip-flopping?

It's funny how the right wing folks always want to retain the right to deny people fairness in favor of a reality that denies social responsibility. The do it over and over again.

Only fair as a government law, not if a business is doing it. Is it fair that senior citizens get cheaper coffees at McDonalds or movie theaters. Where is the outrage that Obama should now be dictating that senior citizens pay more for coffee.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, your response is irrelevant because you had merely said 'this is what is done here' rather than evaluatin whether that is what SHOULD be done. maybe you can start another thread asking if pipeline neutrality is appropriate. It is far from a resolved question, though I suspect they should be, even if that doesn't please the Koch brothers.

But all derails aside, why do you think the location of a broadband network segment has any bearing on how it is regulated, and why do you think broadband is any different from telephone service, a title II utility whose regulations are well settled and rightfully so?

I don't have direct experience in this area. But I can't imagine what power the feds would have to regulate something that occurs exclusively within a state. Long distance telephone service would not occur exclusively within a state, so I can see how they would have some authority to be involved with that.

First, Internet communications happen almost exclusively across state lines. Second, and most importantly, you still have yet to answer what difference location makes to the rightfulness of regulating a utility to be neutral to its customers.

 

[arkirk]

It's funny how the right wing folks always want to retain the right to deny people fairness in favor of a reality that denies social responsibility. The do it over and over again.

Only fair as a government law, not if a business is doing it. Is it fair that senior citizens get cheaper coffees at McDonalds or movie theaters. Where is the outrage that Obama should now be dictating that senior citizens pay more for coffee.

This thread is about access to communication, not the price of a cup of coffee. I don't trade at McDonalds They are unfair to their employees. A cheap cup of coffee won't make up for that.

 

[ksen]

It's funny how the right wing folks always want to retain the right to deny people fairness in favor of a reality that denies social responsibility. The do it over and over again.

Only fair as a government law, not if a business is doing it. Is it fair that senior citizens get cheaper coffees at McDonalds or movie theaters. Where is the outrage that Obama should now be dictating that senior citizens pay more for coffee.

didn't realize anyone is arguing that fast food and movie theaters are utilities

 

[maxparrish]

Is there something out there that Obama doesn't believe that government should have a say in? At least letting people decide whether to use 2ply or 4ply TP. Laughing that the Federal government needs to get involved to make sure that people have access to porn and movies at their fastest speed possible. It's a short term issue on the net and getting the government involved in the long wrong is worse than the problem faced.

Wow.

I remember back when you rightists were all for net neutrality. Then FOX News stepped in and told you guys what to think, and suddenly you all flipped 180 degrees without so much as a "How do you do?"

Doesn't your head spin from all that flip-flopping?

Please provide evidence that "you rightists were all for net neutrality".

 

[Jarhyn]

It's funny how the right wing folks always want to retain the right to deny people fairness in favor of a reality that denies social responsibility. The do it over and over again.

Only fair as a government law, not if a business is doing it. Is it fair that senior citizens get cheaper coffees at McDonalds or movie theaters. Where is the outrage that Obama should now be dictating that senior citizens pay more for coffee.

When it takes a coordinated effort of beaurocracy approval, purchase of state land, application of eminent domain, and cable buried across highways, rivers, and property lines, when there is only space for one coffee outlet in a region, and when coffee places and theaters actively lobby against the installation of other coffee places while leveraging monopoly prices on the non-seniors, when it is impossible to just go home and brew up coffee on your own, then you are allowed to make that analogy.

 

[maxparrish]

Only fair as a government law, not if a business is doing it. Is it fair that senior citizens get cheaper coffees at McDonalds or movie theaters. Where is the outrage that Obama should now be dictating that senior citizens pay more for coffee.

When it takes a coordinated effort of beaurocracy approval, purchase of state land, application of eminent domain, and cable buried across highways, rivers, and property lines, when there is only space for one coffee outlet in a region, and when coffee places and theaters actively lobby against the installation of other coffee places while leveraging monopoly prices on the non-seniors, when it is impossible to just go home and brew up coffee on your own, then you are allowed to make that analogy.

So far you have avoided answering my question on the usual justification for utility regulation. Are you claiming that this sector is controlled by a natural monopoly? If so, who? If not, then the justification for heavy handed regulation just crashed.

 

[Jarhyn]

When it takes a coordinated effort of beaurocracy approval, purchase of state land, application of eminent domain, and cable buried across highways, rivers, and property lines, when there is only space for one coffee outlet in a region, and when coffee places and theaters actively lobby against the installation of other coffee places while leveraging monopoly prices on the non-seniors, when it is impossible to just go home and brew up coffee on your own, then you are allowed to make that analogy.

So far you have avoided answering my question on the usual justification for utility regulation. Are you claiming that this sector is controlled by a natural monopoly? If so, who? If not, then the justification for heavy handed regulation just crashed.

oh. So you didn't even read the post you commented to. This seems quite typical.

 

[dismal]

Only fair as a government law, not if a business is doing it. Is it fair that senior citizens get cheaper coffees at McDonalds or movie theaters. Where is the outrage that Obama should now be dictating that senior citizens pay more for coffee.

When it takes a coordinated effort of beaurocracy approval, purchase of state land, application of eminent domain, and cable buried across highways, rivers, and property lines, when there is only space for one coffee outlet in a region, and when coffee places and theaters actively lobby against the installation of other coffee places while leveraging monopoly prices on the non-seniors, when it is impossible to just go home and brew up coffee on your own, then you are allowed to make that analogy.

Just a note: Intra-state natural gas pipelines have all those features and are not treated as "utilities" under the law (state laws may vary as these are regulated by states). Prices are set by the market, access can be restricted by the owner, shipping priorities are established by private agreements. Interstate pipelines are regulated by the feds and have more of what you would probably think of as utility-style regulation but some that you would probably not. They can have market based rate-making (i.e., no rate of return regulation), offer preferential treatment to shippers (e.g. firm transport for a fee versus interruptible transport at a lower fee, reduced tariffs for higher volume commitments, etc.) they are, however, required to offer the same discounts to all shippers that meet the requirements for the discount. When you get to the citygate (local distribution companies) you often see the full on utility style regulation. There is a franchise granted, there is a requirement to provide service, and in return there is a regulated guaranteed profit under a cost of service model.

 

[Jarhyn]

When it takes a coordinated effort of beaurocracy approval, purchase of state land, application of eminent domain, and cable buried across highways, rivers, and property lines, when there is only space for one coffee outlet in a region, and when coffee places and theaters actively lobby against the installation of other coffee places while leveraging monopoly prices on the non-seniors, when it is impossible to just go home and brew up coffee on your own, then you are allowed to make that analogy.

Just a note: Intra-state natural gas pipelines have all those features and are not treated as "utilities" under the law (state laws may vary as these are regulated by states). Prices are set by the market, access can be restricted by the owner, shipping priorities are established by private agreements. Interstate pipelines are regulated by the feds and have more of what you would probably think of as utility-style regulation but some that you would probably not. They can have market based rate-making (i.e., no rate of return regulation), offer preferential treatment to shippers (e.g. firm transport for a fee versus interruptible transport at a lower fee, reduced tariffs for higher volume commitments, etc.) they are, however, required to offer the same discounts to all shippers that meet the requirements for the discount. When you get to the citygate (local distribution companies) you often see the full on utility style regulation. There is a franchise granted, there is a requirement to provide service, and in return there is a regulated guaranteed profit under a cost of service model.

And I'd probably argue that pipelines ought be regulated at the federal level, too. I already said that. Now let's get back to the subject of internet.

 

[maxparrish]

So far you have avoided answering my question on the usual justification for utility regulation. Are you claiming that this sector is controlled by a natural monopoly? If so, who? If not, then the justification for heavy handed regulation just crashed.

oh. So you didn't even read the post you commented to. This seems quite typical.

Ranting about cable, infrastructure, land, rivers, and other elements in a potential natural monopoly is not evidence that, in fact, the industry is a natural monopoly, or that the pricing is set by a single firm. You are using lurid speculation as a hook for your raging antipathy to rationing by price, a fundamental principal in market economics.

So let's get serious:

Anyone can use the coding and communications protocols for the internet. But the physical means of accessing the internet is not free. The servers, cabling, and other equipment of content and service providers, and of users, must be purchased. ISP's, in particular, are those who driven the creation of new and vastly improved infrastructure. The old days of an ATT monopoly with 300 bits/second data lines is dead - today we enjoy high speed DSL and Cable because the ISPS invested in their infrastructure (and we will see continued advances as companies like Verison roll out a 140 billion dollar new fiber cable networks that are many times faster).

Their infrastructure is rightfully theirs to use, improve, and profit from as they see fit. The state has no right to dictate how ISP's use their own property and data lines. And the idea that the ISP's should maintain a "stupid" Internet of "dumb pipes" that does not distinguish between the costs of high volume providers and users is absurd. And when when interest groups realize that they may have to pay for their high volume usage, or face slower service, they run to the government to demand that the government tell the ISPs to cease managing their own property as they wish.

If you want to kill infrastructure improvement and subsidize corporations like Netflix, net neutrality is a good way to start.

 

[KeepTalking]

Their infrastructure is rightfully theirs to use, improve, and profit from as they see fit.

Their infrastructure that is using public land for COs, public telephone poles maintained by public utilities for their above ground wiring, and easements carved out from private land for public use for their buried wires. Where would they be without all of this public infrastructure contributing to their infrastructure?

The state has no right to dictate how ISP's use their own property and data lines.

The state has every right to regulate how the ISPs use their own property that relies heavily upon property and infrastructure that is not the property of the ISPs.

And the idea that the ISP's should maintain a "stupid" Internet of "dumb pipes" that does not distinguish between the costs of high volume providers and users is absurd.

Their customers are the ones paying them for the stupid internet of dumb pipes. You and I are their customers, and we pay them a lot of money to provide us with internet access to whatever legal site or service we wish to use. This was never a problem for them until they decided to get into the business of providing some of those sites and services themselves. Suddenly, when they have a service that competes with Netflix, their customers who want to use Netflix without it being artificially slowed down are just asking for too much. They are making record profits from their customers alone, but they could be making even more if they just slow down Netflix so that their customers are attracted to their much speedier competing service. It's unbridled greed, and we are on to them.

And when when interest groups realize that they may have to pay for their high volume usage, or face slower service, they run to the government to demand that the government tell the ISPs to cease managing their own property as they wish.

Meanwhile the big ISPs run to the government and demand that no municipality in their region of control be allowed to build out their own high speed internet infrastructure, because it just might be a more attractive alternative to their shitty service, and near monopoly pricing, coupled with lagging speed wherever they can get away with it.

If you want to kill infrastructure improvement and subsidize corporations like Netflix, net neutrality is a good way to start.

We have already seen what is killing infrastructure improvement, its name is Comcast, Verizon, and AT$T. Netflix does not need a subsidy, and they don't have one, they are doing just fine on their own. What Netflix, and the next big internet service that has not been developed yet, needs is a level playing field that does not seek to stifle competition for the sake of profit.