Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 streamdragon wrote:
That article is pretty terrible honestly. Comparing the internet to water pipes? Really? There's a reason there's a lack of innovation in water pipes (which there actually isn't, considering the rise of smart meters in piping and all that).

What will be on those fibers in 80 years? Nothing. Because just like his craptastical water pipe analogy, in 80 years those pipes will have been replaced with newer, better pipes. Because innovation still happens, even when the government tells you have can't have 97% profit margins and virtual monopolies.

So... you want to punish a wildly successful company?

I also think the answer may lie in removing monopolies from cable companies and allowing others to lay cable. The problem is the public easement access is difficult as hell just due to space limitations. Still a complex problem

Re-classifying ISPs into utilities won't fix that.

In fact, regulators and politicians would have more oversight... and guess who donates to their politicians?

That's right... companies like Verizon & Comcast's piggy bank would contribute even MORE for favorable regulations... rather than letting the Market as any sort of impact.

 whembly wrote:
So... you want to punish a wildly successful company?

I also think the answer may lie in removing monopolies from cable companies and allowing others to lay cable. The problem is the public easement access is difficult as hell just due to space limitations. Still a complex problem

Re-classifying ISPs into utilities won't fix that.

In fact, regulators and politicians would have more oversight... and guess who donates to their politicians?

That's right... companies like Verizon & Comcast's piggy bank would contribute even MORE for favorable regulations... rather than letting the Market as any sort of impact.

Given that TWCs "success" comes through border line illegal practices? Yes. Their exec is on record as saying that they stay out of areas where their competitors are, and that their competitors return the favor. What do you think I've meant when I said "de facto monopoly"? TWC and Verizon already have destroyed municipal broadband in many areas because it would actually be able to compete, and they can't have that now can they?

Getting the fiber laid isn't the issue. Like I said, most fiber installation is covered in part or in whole by state and local governments. This makes bans on municipal internet even more insulting, as the government pays for installation of the lines, and then gets told they can't use them. Easement rights are just obfuscating that the tax payer is essentially bolstering these companies by paying their costs for actually building the infrastructure.

As for giving these companies more ability to regulate, that's simply not possible. They basically already have almost total control over what regs do and do not make it through. The only difference is that lately they took it too far, people noticed and now there's an actual fight. Frankly, that you think the market can or will correct anything is surprising. It can't, and it doesn't, because it's already controlled by the people it's supposed to impact.

Forgive my ignorance here but dont you guys have anti monoploy legislation, fair play rules and standards?
European legislation and "interference" gets a lot of bad press but in terms of anti monopoly policy they are right on the money.

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... you want to punish a wildly successful company?

I also think the answer may lie in removing monopolies from cable companies and allowing others to lay cable. The problem is the public easement access is difficult as hell just due to space limitations. Still a complex problem

Re-classifying ISPs into utilities won't fix that.

In fact, regulators and politicians would have more oversight... and guess who donates to their politicians?

That's right... companies like Verizon & Comcast's piggy bank would contribute even MORE for favorable regulations... rather than letting the Market as any sort of impact.

Given that TWCs "success" comes through border line illegal practices? Yes. Their exec is on record as saying that they stay out of areas where their competitors are, and that their competitors return the favor. What do you think I've meant when I said "de facto monopoly"? TWC and Verizon already have destroyed municipal broadband in many areas because it would actually be able to compete, and they can't have that now can they?

Getting the fiber laid isn't the issue. Like I said, most fiber installation is covered in part or in whole by state and local governments. This makes bans on municipal internet even more insulting, as the government pays for installation of the lines, and then gets told they can't use them. Easement rights are just obfuscating that the tax payer is essentially bolstering these companies by paying their costs for actually building the infrastructure.

As for giving these companies more ability to regulate, that's simply not possible. They basically already have almost total control over what regs do and do not make it through. The only difference is that lately they took it too far, people noticed and now there's an actual fight. Frankly, that you think the market can or will correct anything is surprising. It can't, and it doesn't, because it's already controlled by the people it's supposed to impact.

I'm not saying it's rainbows and unicorn here.... I believe this is definitely a case where there's a solution to a non-existent problem.

I mean... Verizon are huge dicks, because they got caught throttling their pipes. It was because they wanted to sell their contents/app.

So, everyone here? Raise the middle finger to Verizon.

Cool?

Don't like the water utility analogy? Let's trying something different (I've bastardized this elsewhere and kept it short here):

Let’s use the highway analog. We have Netflyx Delivery Company off UT&T Expressway, which connects to Concast Highway, which serves your little housing community as well as other businesses (including other delivery companies), and Concast Highway is connected to Vorizon Tollroads, which serves other little residential communities and businesses.

Now, normally, as Netflyx trucks move from UT&T onto Concast and then onto Vorizon, you would expect that they pay separate tolls to each operating company. What’s happened is that the toll operators have a gentleman’s agreement; whatever traffic flows *from* one *to* the other is netted out by traffic flowing the other way, and at the end of the month or whatever period, they tote up the flows and pay the balance.

That is what they mean by Peering Agreements.

Now what happens is that Netflyx Delivery Company is really, really popular, so much so that Concast’s network is saturated handling the traffic. Worse, it’s so saturated that its *own* communities and businesses (that is, those linked directly to it) can’t get out and experience general slowdown.

Here’s the problem...

Netflyx isn’t Concast’s direct customer; it’s UT&T’s. Netflyx isn’t paying Concast *anything* extra, even though it’s causing the traffic jams. And Netflyx traffic is made up of trucks, and lots of them, so there’s a lot more wear-and-tear on the roads, whereas the gentleman’s agreement is based on an average type of traffic (maybe a mix of cars, trucks and buses, but mostly cars).

The current gentleman’s agreement is also based on roughly equal flows of traffic, so that the impact on everyone’s road networks is approximately the same… and therefore, the pricing is based on that model. Suddenly, that model is no longer valid. When a business model changes, pricing has to change as well.

Some advocates is pushing the idea of NN, which in turn forbids pricing differentiation based on the type of traffic as well as the bandwidth required to carry it. Remember that Web surfing doesn’t typically require high priority (and file downloads don’t either; P2P can be the lowest priority traffic and still work), but video streaming requires real-time priority and a significant amount of bandwidth. Because we all know that waiting to "buffer" suck balls.

In the real world, motorcycles might not be charged any toll, cars a standard amount, vans more, trucks and buses the most... different types of traffic cause different levels of wear-and-tear and use up more space and so forth. Amongst other things, NN could force tolls to be absolutely identical across all classes of traffic.

This… is kinda dumb.

My biggest issue is that reclassifying ISPs into Title 2, is that it's too broad... If you allow ISPs to be regulated by *forbidding* them to do certain things *now*, you’ve opened the doorway to the government *forbidding* them to do *other* things later.

Narrow the scope down a bit... maybe don't change anything except force ISPs to sell bandwidth at Bulk rates, and allow ALL ISPs to compete on the last mile to the customer. That's kinda like what happened with Microsoft when they were forced to delink IE from the OS and allow other browsers.

You guys might find some answers to your questions here: It's Net Neutrality Fun time! We are Public Knowledge, open internet advocates here to discuss Title II, Net Neutrality, Rural Broadband and more! Ask us anything!

 Ratius wrote:
Forgive my ignorance here but dont you guys have anti monoploy legislation, fair play rules and standards?
European legislation and "interference" gets a lot of bad press but in terms of anti monopoly policy they are right on the money.

Here's a map of the top 10 MSO (cable/broadband):


That's only for cable.

Not sure how old this one is... but, it's for DSL:


And there are numerous other wireless/babybells companies as well...

So, broadband in itself, there's no real monopoly.

 whembly wrote:


So, broadband in itself, there's no real monopoly.

Unless you live in Nevada. or Utah. Or Arizona. Or Colorado. Or anywhere else where there's a monopoly according to that map. You're being dishonest on purpose by claiming that there's no monopoly on broadband nationally (which is true) when you know damn well that we're discussing local situations (where there very much appears to be a monopoly).

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:


So, broadband in itself, there's no real monopoly.

Unless you live in Nevada. or Utah. Or Arizona. Or Colorado. Or anywhere else where there's a monopoly according to that map. You're being dishonest on purpose by claiming that there's no monopoly on broadband nationally (which is true) when you know damn well that we're discussing local situations (where there very much appears to be a monopoly).

I know for a fact that there's at least 3 providers I can get in Colorado or Arizona..

You're missing this line in my previous post:

And there are numerous other wireless/babybells companies as well...

Ratius wrote:Forgive my ignorance here but dont you guys have anti monoploy legislation, fair play rules and standards?
European legislation and "interference" gets a lot of bad press but in terms of anti monopoly policy they are right on the money.

Yes and no. We have anti-monopoly rules, but as Whembly shows below, the big companies are extremely adept at circumventing them. I actually worked for the Department of Justice's Anti-Trust Bureau for a decade. It's why when people tell me "The market will fix it", I have to be careful not to hurt myself rolling me eyes. Now I work for the Federal Trade Commission, where I get to spend my day pouring over documents showcasing how much these companies actually despise their customers.

I freely admit my bias against some of these companies. But after spending 15 years wading through their much, I'm not really able to give them the benefit of the doubt. They've fixed everything from job salaries, to book prices, to feed prices, to medical prices, insurance and billing. There is basically not a single enterprise that companies haven't completely frelled the consumer in, up to and including knowingly letting people die.

whembly wrote:
I'm not saying it's rainbows and unicorn here.... I believe this is definitely a case where there's a solution to a non-existent problem.

I mean... Verizon are huge dicks, because they got caught throttling their pipes. It was because they wanted to sell their contents/app.

So, everyone here? Raise the middle finger to Verizon.

Cool?

Don't like the water utility analogy? Let's trying something different: >even worse analogy snipped<
This… is kinda dumb.

My biggest issue is that reclassifying ISPs into Title 2, is that it's too broad... If you allow ISPs to be regulated by *forbidding* them to do certain things *now*, you’ve opened the doorway to the government *forbidding* them to do *other* things later.

Narrow the scope down a bit... maybe don't change anything except force ISPs to sell bandwidth at Bulk rates, and allow ALL ISPs to compete on the last mile to the customer. That's kinda like what happened with Microsoft when they were forced to delink IE from the OS and allow other browsers.

Except that there is a problem; these companies are taking citizen tax money, using it to bolster their business with promises of increased service, only to shaft them, rake them over the coals, and walk away scott free. All while making sure that there is as close to 0 competition and other options as possible.

As to your new highway analogy, that's actually worse than the water pipe analogy. The reason that various types of vehicles pay more or less in highway tolls is directly linked to the amount of damage that vehicle causes to the road by simple operation. We also reduce tolls for carpools to incentivize reducing the number of cars (and thus the damage to roads, use of fossil fuels, emissions, etc. etc. etc.)

Absolutely 0 of that applies to the internet. Every single 1 and 0 is exactly the same as any other 1 and 0. Whether I'm streaming a 4GB movie from Netflix or I'm downloading a 4GB torrent of porn, the data that traverses the wiring is exactly identical pulses of electricity. Netflix's signals don't cause any more damage than pirate bay's, NBC's, FOX's or any other websites. What Comcast did to Netflix was almost textbook extortion. Seriously. "That's a nice business you have there. Shame if something were to happen to it." It's literal movie mobster mentality; that they were allowed to get away with it showcased exactly WHY we need new laws to govern that type of nonsense.

whembly wrote:
So, broadband in itself, there's no real monopoly.


I know for a fact that there's at least 3 providers I can get in Colorado or Arizona..

You're missing this line in my previous post:

And there are numerous other wireless/babybells companies as well...

You should be a lobbyist for big cable; you're certainly adept at distorting the truth like they do.

Technically, yes, there is no nation-wide monopoly. That would be too obviously against US anti-trust law. It comes down to regions, where most regions have 1 single major provider. If you try to point out the monopoly, just like Whembly they will point to all the babybell companies, who can barely provide a fraction of the service for higher price. It's a de facto regional monopoly, since those smaller babybell companies almost invariably piggy back on the bigger companies lines (because they can't afford to buy a legislator to give them money for laying lines). So either way, those big companies end up getting your money, even if you go with "the little guy".

The only real competition comes from:

1) the government; see where I have at least twice noted that big cable then buys out the legislature to ban municipal internet (something that would be impossible to do if broadband goes title II).

2) Google; sadly, this is only in a few places so far. I'm not completely blind to Google's evil side. I've worked on cases against them, I know they're not pristine clean. However, when they launch their fiber services, suddenly service improves. I live in Maryland and have Verizon FioS. I pay more than that, and get literally 1/10th the speed.

The other thing ISPs will point to, to show "competition" is mobile phone companies. That's right Criket Wireless is supposedly "competition" for Verizon. Riiiiiiiiiiight

Again, demonstrating my ignorance here of the US setup but the states that are white i.e. no coverage.
They have no DSL/cable connectivity at all?
Are there alternatives as in satelitte or ISDN?
Im going to be agog if you guys say its dial up or 56k?

If as someone said the infrastructure is funded by local or state why hasnt it penetrated to these States? Is it funding, terrain, low population, lack of care, ignorance or something more bizzare?

Even in the auld woilds of Oirland we have DSL. Granted the geographical footprint is much much smaller but still. In the US its 0 in some States?

And no, thats not some condescening judgement on the US before someone says. Its more a wtf-type question

 Ratius wrote:
Again, demonstrating my ignorance here of the US setup but the states that are white i.e. no coverage.
They have no DSL/cable connectivity at all?
Are there alternatives as in satelitte or ISDN?
Im going to be agog if you guys say its dial up or 56k?

If as someone said the infrastructure is funded by local or state why hasnt it penetrated to these States? Is it funding, terrain, low population, lack of care, ignorance or something more bizzare?

Even in the auld woilds of Oirland we have DSL. Granted the geographical footprint is much much smaller but still. In the US its 0 in some States?

And no, thats not some condescening judgement on the US before someone says. Its more a wtf-type question

That is correct, white states in that photo have 0 DSL coverage. Those places most likely are forced to utilize satellite internet. One of the problems with large rural states is that even for the state, the cost of expanding wired internet services can be prohibitive. The plan is for all states to be 100% wired eventually. States like Wyoming (WY) have a population density of less than 6 people per square mile (< 2.26/sq km). Even if the local governments were willing to fund the wiring, finding an ISP willing to provide connection is extremely difficult; the costs are considered too high.

The ISPs do cover the costs of going from the street to the house. In most suburban areas, you're talking 20-30 feet at most. In some rural areas, you're talking about miles of cable that the states don't cover.

It's why outside of Google, no ISP offers Fiber-to-house connection. Verizon would have to pay more for it, and even though they could pass said cost on to me, they don't think they would make enough overall to justify the costs.

Personally I have come to the conclusion that net neutrality is not a fundamentally good or important principle. My reasons are:

The technical basis for packet prioritisation was built into IP at the beginning, it just hasn't been used so far.

Some packets are more urgent than others. If you subscribe to Netflix, it's a serious problem for your VOD film to stop and buffer. Whereas non-real-time applications such as email have no problem waiting a few milliseconds to get a packet through at lower priority.

We tolerate pay for priority in other communication and transport systems (postal, train, etc.) because it works, so why not in internet communication?

It seems to me that a lot of the net neutrality argument centres around ISPs like Verizon being dicks. But if they are dicks there could be a law to stop them being dicks rather than a law to stop customers from paying for a better service if they want to.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Personally I have come to the conclusion that net neutrality is not a fundamentally good or important principle. My reasons are:

The technical basis for packet prioritisation was built into IP at the beginning, it just hasn't been used so far.

Some packets are more urgent than others. If you subscribe to Netflix, it's a serious problem for your VOD film to stop and buffer. Whereas non-real-time applications such as email have no problem waiting a few milliseconds to get a packet through at lower priority.

We tolerate pay for priority in other communication and transport systems (postal, train, etc.) because it works, so why not in internet communication?

It seems to me that a lot of the net neutrality argument centres around ISPs like Verizon being dicks. But if they are dicks there could be a law to stop them being dicks rather than a law to stop customers from paying for a better service if they want to.

Customers can already pay for a better service if they want to, by taking a better package. I use the internet a lot and for fairly bandwidth-intensive activities, so I pay a modest premium for 100Mb cable with no download cap - someone who uses the internet less, or for less intensive activities, could pay less for a middling-speed connection, or much less for a slower(relatively, we're still talking 20Mb+) connection with usage limits. That is the equivalent of "pay for priority" in terms of transport. What Net Neutrality is designed to avoid is ISPs demanding content providing companies pay them a fee, or they will artificially degrade the service that their users get through that ISPs network. That isn't paying for priority, it's extortion, and while a Netflix or a Youtube might be able to afford to pay the extortion money, smaller companies likely wouldn't. So not only would a non-neutral internet result in a situation where the level of service an ISP's customers actually receive in real-world usage is entirely dependent on the whims/wallet of a third party(eg Youtube refuses to pay up, the fact you're paying through the nose for tippy-top speed internet won't matter, you'll still get arse speeds when you try to access Youtube), but it creates a situation where ISPs can stifle competition among content providers, intentionally or otherwise(remember a lot of ISPs own online content providers, in a non-neutral internet they could prioritise traffic for the one they own and degrade the bandwidth of its competitors).

The only people that benefit from a non-neutral internet are ISPs and any major established corporations willing to collude with them.

 streamdragon wrote:

Absolutely 0 of that applies to the internet. Every single 1 and 0 is exactly the same as any other 1 and 0. Whether I'm streaming a 4GB movie from Netflix or I'm downloading a 4GB torrent of porn, the data that traverses the wiring is exactly identical pulses of electricity. Netflix's signals don't cause any more damage than pirate bay's, NBC's, FOX's or any other websites. What Comcast did to Netflix was almost textbook extortion. Seriously. "That's a nice business you have there. Shame if something were to happen to it." It's literal movie mobster mentality; that they were allowed to get away with it showcased exactly WHY we need new laws to govern that type of nonsense.

I think you're missing the point completely.

While the actual discrete data (ones and zeros) aren't any different from Netflix streams to browsing DakkaDakka's forums... the stability/tolerance of those data streams between those two events are VASTLY different.

Ie, you'd notice more if you had to "buffer" while watching Netflix than yelling at whembly in this forum.

That's because it's mostly a technical challenge.

Before bantering back and forth... when you watch Netflix, how many different companies does that data has to traverse before it hits your TV screens? Do some research as I don't think you'd believe me... once you have that, think about the implications.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Personally I have come to the conclusion that net neutrality is not a fundamentally good or important principle. My reasons are:

The technical basis for packet prioritisation was built into IP at the beginning, it just hasn't been used so far.

Some packets are more urgent than others. If you subscribe to Netflix, it's a serious problem for your VOD film to stop and buffer. Whereas non-real-time applications such as email have no problem waiting a few milliseconds to get a packet through at lower priority.

We tolerate pay for priority in other communication and transport systems (postal, train, etc.) because it works, so why not in internet communication?

It seems to me that a lot of the net neutrality argument centres around ISPs like Verizon being dicks. But if they are dicks there could be a law to stop them being dicks rather than a law to stop customers from paying for a better service if they want to.

^^^THIS! Totally this!

Net Neutrality proponents think this is the "easy button" to ensure great internet access... and frankly I believe there are better ideas/solutions.

 whembly wrote:

Before bantering back and forth... when you watch Netflix, how many different companies does that data has to traverse before it hits your TV screens?

I believe the purpose of designating internet service as a utility is the elimination of said companies.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Before bantering back and forth... when you watch Netflix, how many different companies does that data has to traverse before it hits your TV screens?

I believe the purpose of designating internet service as a utility is the elimination of said companies.

It would not. Title II just gives the FCC more regulatory powers over ISPs. It wouldn't force ISPs to merge with 2nd/3rd teir providers.

Also, what about CDN? Like Akami, RackSpace, EdgeCast, fething Google?

The point I was trying to make is that your ISP relies on other ISPs, CDN and other backbone entities to provide the service consumers what.

Whereas your local power utility? That entity owns/supports the wires going from the power station to your house (in most cases, but not always).

Internet is delivered over the phone lines (DSL), via coxial cable (Cable), and from microwave transmission (Satellite). How do you regulate the internet "fairly" between three disparate platforms as these?

 Breotan wrote:
Internet is delivered over the phone lines (DSL), via coxial cable (Cable), and from microwave transmission (Satellite). How do you regulate the internet "fairly" between three disparate platforms as these?

Literally everybody else seems to be managing it OK.

And again whembly, from my reading I don't think people are advocating Title II classification because it's "easy mode", but because it's the only solution that would grant the necessary powers while actually standing up to challenges through your legal system or by lobbyists. It's all very well to advocate an alternative solution on principle, but at some point you have to look at the practicalities; months and years of wrangling to get individuals laws passed through a Republican-controlled Congress that is anti-regulation by default and who would be backed by many lobbyist-influenced pro-corporate Democrats, then months and years more while the ISPs force even those doubtless watered-down regulations through every legal challenge they can think of, possibly culminating in them being struck down entirely depending on whether your Supreme Court has been on the absinthe that week or not, it's just not rational when there's a solution which will work now, which won't be watered down by lobbyists, and which is much more likely to stand against legal challenges.

It may not be the ideal solution, but politics isn't about ideals, it's about getting as close as you can to your goal in the most workable way.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Internet is delivered over the phone lines (DSL), via coxial cable (Cable), and from microwave transmission (Satellite). How do you regulate the internet "fairly" between three disparate platforms as these?

Literally everybody else seems to be managing it OK.

And we're not?

Tell you what... do people like me who are actually happy with their service count? I mean, yeah I'd love it it were cheaper, but I'm a happy customer with regards to the service I've been getting.

And again whembly, from my reading I don't think people are advocating Title II classification because it's "easy mode", but because it's the only solution that would grant the necessary powers while actually standing up to challenges through your legal system or by lobbyists.

It's all very well to advocate an alternative solution on principle, but at some point you have to look at the practicalities; months and years of wrangling to get individuals laws passed through a Republican-controlled Congress that is anti-regulation by default and who would be backed by many lobbyist-influenced pro-corporate Democrats, then months and years more while the ISPs force even those doubtless watered-down regulations through every legal challenge they can think of, possibly culminating in them being struck down entirely depending on whether your Supreme Court has been on the absinthe that week or not, it's just not rational when there's a solution which will work now, which won't be watered down by lobbyists, and which is much more likely to stand against legal challenges.

It may not be the ideal solution, but politics isn't about ideals, it's about getting as close as you can to your goal in the most workable way.

As a proponent of reclassifying ISP as Title II... here is where your logic falls apart.

Do you think the big ISPs of the world are NOT going to contribute to their representative to carve out special goodies for them?

All I'm saying is that for legit issues over the actions of Verizon and the fubar between Netflix/Akami/Comcast... having the FCC using powers from Title II is inappropriate.

 whembly wrote:

It would not. Title II just gives the FCC more regulatory powers over ISPs. It wouldn't force ISPs to merge with 2nd/3rd teir providers.

No, it wouldn't. I never said otherwise.

 whembly wrote:

The point I was trying to make is that your ISP relies on other ISPs, CDN and other backbone entities to provide the service consumers what.

I don't believe anyone is disputing that. In fact the argument you just made seems like a pretty solid basis for reclassification.

 whembly wrote:

Whereas your local power utility? That entity owns/supports the wires going from the power station to your house (in most cases, but not always).

Usually as part of a government granted monopoly.

 whembly wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Internet is delivered over the phone lines (DSL), via coxial cable (Cable), and from microwave transmission (Satellite). How do you regulate the internet "fairly" between three disparate platforms as these?

Literally everybody else seems to be managing it OK.

And we're not?

Tell you what... do people like me who are actually happy with their service count? I mean, yeah I'd love it it were cheaper, but I'm a happy customer with regards to the service I've been getting.

For you, that's great. But statistically? No, you don't count, and no, your country's not doing it right. The UK is actually pretty poor by European standards, but we have better coverage & higher speeds than the US, and in all but a handful of heavily populated cities you pay substantially more than we do. Not a little bit, a lot more. The USA has an objectively bad internet infrastructure by the standards of the rest of the developed world, and that is a problem. That's not a dig at your national pride, it's not snooty Euros laughing at the unsophisticated "colonists", it's just an issue you need to find a way to solve, because a good quality 'net infrastructure is vital for the social and economic health of modern developed nations.

And again whembly, from my reading I don't think people are advocating Title II classification because it's "easy mode", but because it's the only solution that would grant the necessary powers while actually standing up to challenges through your legal system or by lobbyists.

It's all very well to advocate an alternative solution on principle, but at some point you have to look at the practicalities; months and years of wrangling to get individuals laws passed through a Republican-controlled Congress that is anti-regulation by default and who would be backed by many lobbyist-influenced pro-corporate Democrats, then months and years more while the ISPs force even those doubtless watered-down regulations through every legal challenge they can think of, possibly culminating in them being struck down entirely depending on whether your Supreme Court has been on the absinthe that week or not, it's just not rational when there's a solution which will work now, which won't be watered down by lobbyists, and which is much more likely to stand against legal challenges.

It may not be the ideal solution, but politics isn't about ideals, it's about getting as close as you can to your goal in the most workable way.

As a proponent of reclassifying ISP as Title II... here is where your logic falls apart.

Do you think the big ISPs of the world are NOT going to contribute to their representative to carve out special goodies for them?

All I'm saying is that for legit issues over the actions of Verizon and the fubar between Netflix/Akami/Comcast... having the FCC using powers from Title II is inappropriate.

Point of fact; I'm not really a proponent of anything, I've said I'm only trying to understand this from the outside, it's just that from what I have been able to discern this seems like the most logical way to achieve the desired result.

Your second point I'm not really sure what you're getting at. That lobbyists will try and subvert the actions of the FCC just as they would any other process? Well, of course they will, subverting democracy is what lobbyists are for. The question is which method of bringing necessary regulation to bear on the ISPs offers the fewest opportunities for that subversion to occur, and which of those is most likely to stand up in court. Title II fits that bill as far as I can see, but if there's an alternative I'm missing, a reason why using it is "inappropriate", I'm interested to hear what it might be. Genuinely; how else would you propose the US government successfully regulate the ISPs without spending the next half-decade or more tied up in court defending legislation that may or may not survive that challenge, assuming such legislation could even be successfully drafted by your anti-regulations legislature in the first place?

One of the FCC's commissioner comes out swinging against this plan...
http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pais-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet

First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.

Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.

Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.

Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated
monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.

Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.

And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.

Looks like the playbook here is that "we have to pass it to find out what it will do" mindset... ala, Obamacare.

I can hear a new lie already: "If you like your Internet, you can keep it!".

Or, and I'm begining to repeat my self here, we go back to the old system which worked fine, and the only people who disagreed with it were the ISPs and people who are against all regulation.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Or, and I'm begining to repeat my self here, we go back to the old system which worked fine, and the only people who disagreed with it were the ISPs and people who are against all regulation.

What are you referring to?

"old system which worked fine" = current system?

As in, before the lawsuit.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As in, before the lawsuit.

Okay... that's the status quo, honestly. (I'm assuming you mean when the FCC was taken to court twice and lost recently...)

Pretty much. Just make the rules that the FCC had in place "official". It worked, and that's what I care about right now. Do tweaking later, but get the basis there first. You have to learn to walk bore you can run.

 whembly wrote:

Looks like the playbook here is that "we have to pass it to find out what it will do" mindset... ala, Obamacare.

If that's going to be your argument, you probably should have quoted the first paragraph of young Pai's screed.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Looks like the playbook here is that "we have to pass it to find out what it will do" mindset... ala, Obamacare.

If that's going to be your argument, you probably should have quoted the first paragraph of young Pai's screed.

Huh?

Last night, Chairman Wheeler provided his fellow Commissioners with President Obama’s 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I am disappointed that the plan will not be released publicly. The FCC should be as open and transparent as the Internet itself and post the entire document on its website. Instead, it looks like the FCC will have to pass the President’s plan before the American people will be able to find out what’s really in it.In the coming days, I look forward to continuing to study the plan in detail. Based on my initial examination, however, several points are apparent.

Could he make it public if he wanted to?

 whembly wrote:

Could he make it public if he wanted to?

No, because the proposal hasn't been finalized.

Young Pai is covering his ass, and you're helping him do so.