Only YOU Can Protect Net Neutrality

[OKCHunter]

Not defending anyone. Merely pointing out that a Cuban mene isn't really a trustworthy source and not without interest in outcome. As others have said, this isn't a thread of facts,s but of hyperbole.

Got it and agree. These guys are in it for their own personal gain and not for the benefit of the country.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I think that would preclude us from speaking authoritatively about the contents until the order is released.

It's funny how the proponents talk in specifics about the benefits of Title II but the opponents talk about through conjecture and hyperbole.

Straight from FCC Commissioners:

* FCC micromanagement of the Internet
* Rate regulation
* FCC approval of consumer plans
* Estimated $11B increase in broadband bills due to increased taxes.
* Likelihood of slower connections (Europe is 23% slower on average and has similar regulation in place)
* Reduction of competition due to higher barrier to entry
* Despite 93% of broadband users subscribing to 17 carriers, compliance costs will likely drive many of the 3,000 rural broadband providers out of business
* Definition of "broadband" for rural carriers changed from 4/1 to 25/3.
* USF changed from 10/1 to 25/3.
* No bright-line rules - all interpretations on a case-by-case basis.
* Advisory opinions are non-binding (meaning a provider can ask for and receive approval from the FCC on an action, and the FCC can then rule against that action at a future date).

 

[Hobbes]

Straight from FCC Commissioners:

* FCC micromanagement of the Internet
* Rate regulation
* FCC approval of consumer plans
* Estimated $11B increase in broadband bills due to increased taxes.
* Likelihood of slower connections (Europe is 23% slower on average and has similar regulation in place)
* Reduction of competition due to higher barrier to entry
* Despite 93% of broadband users subscribing to 17 carriers, compliance costs will likely drive many of the 3,000 rural broadband providers out of business
* Definition of "broadband" for rural carriers changed from 4/1 to 25/3.
* USF changed from 10/1 to 25/3.
* No bright-line rules - all interpretations on a case-by-case basis.
* Advisory opinions are non-binding (meaning a provider can ask for and receive approval from the FCC on an action, and the FCC can then rule against that action at a future date).

You left out the death panels that are in there....
Oh, cmon veggie, you got those talking points off of some politically interested website.
The FCC link you provided has hundreds of documents and it appears that most of them relate to television broadcasters, not the internet.

The actual title 2 governance documents wont be made public until they are published in the federal register in a few weeks.
Until then chairman Wheeler's comments here are the best guideline we have to what the new rate regulations will consist of.
Your list includes rate regulation and we already know that is not what's in this order.



I'm disappointed in you veggie. You're not usually the type to copy/paste some biased political propaganda as evidence.

 

[LightningCrash]

Straight from FCC Commissioners:

* FCC micromanagement of the Internet
* Rate regulation
* FCC approval of consumer plans
* Estimated $11B increase in broadband bills due to increased taxes.
* Likelihood of slower connections (Europe is 23% slower on average and has similar regulation in place)
* Reduction of competition due to higher barrier to entry
* Despite 93% of broadband users subscribing to 17 carriers, compliance costs will likely drive many of the 3,000 rural broadband providers out of business
* Definition of "broadband" for rural carriers changed from 4/1 to 25/3.
* USF changed from 10/1 to 25/3.
* No bright-line rules - all interpretations on a case-by-case basis.
* Advisory opinions are non-binding (meaning a provider can ask for and receive approval from the FCC on an action, and the FCC can then rule against that action at a future date).

That's not really specifics, when considering you can't back it up with text from the order.
I'd love to look at the order, if the Republicans weren't so intent on holding up the release forever.

Pai and O'Reilly are completely wrong (or lying) if they said it introduces $11B in new taxes.
Funny how rural carriers are going to go out of business, but The Rural Broadband Association didn't notice.

Overall that's a bunch of bogeyman FUD. I'm going to wait for the text of order instead of taking it spoonfed from someone with a political interest.

 

[LightningCrash]

I believe I have mentioned in my previous posts some of the problems. But so as not to be labeled as one who uses conjecture and hyperbole I'll go over a few again. In the name of 'fairness' the large telecom companies (but not the smaller ones or cable companies) are forced to open up their regulated services to competitors. What this means in reality is, that companies many of which are nothing more than marketing firms, are allowed to come in and cherry pick the most profitable business opportunities out of the telecom customer base and offer services to those potential customers under there name, using the telecom company facilities, network, and personnel. It is done by forcing the telecoms to lease off those services, which are in most cases below the cost of the telecoms to maintain, to their smaller competitors. That killed deployment of new services. After all, why build out when as soon as you do you'll loose control of it, but still be forced to maintain it for others to use, all the while losing money on it. That policy right there is responsible for killing thousands of good middle class jobs as the telecoms had to slash and burn to cut costs. Network investment in those regulated services plummeted as litigation and regulation churned on for years. That eventually changed things somewhat by bringing the playing field back a little more level. Because it isn't competition when your competitors are allowed to sell your products below your costs - from your store.

During that time nearly all investment went into the non-regulated areas. So yes, I would expect something similar to happen this time if the telecoms feel as though this can't be stopped for awhile. If you'll notice, there has been a fair amount of foreign investment here lately by the big companies. I hope they'll be patient and not panic this time around because it could be disastrous to a lot of people and the health of the network as a whole if they do. And in case you've not already figured it out yes I work for a telecom and have experienced the BS that Title II causes firsthand. I had friends who once worked there too that no longer do because of what those regulations caused. And if you think me talking about companies going bankrupt in this situation is hyperbole then you don't know squat about the history of the telecom business. Most mergers that took place happened because one of the companies was on the verge of imploding and was literally rescued by the other. In some cases, regulators were nearly begging for the merger to happen.

sorry for the late response on this. Trying to find evidence to support these claims:

* Allowing CLECs killed deployment of new services.
* Thousands of jobs lost
* Network investment from ILECs plummeted (what time period?)
* All investment moved out of regulated areas
* ILECs went bankrupt because of allowing CLECs (which ones?)

 

[Hobbes]

There seems to be a controversy as to whether European countries have internet speeds that are faster or slower than the US.
Lots of propaganda out there.

Here is akamai's list of average internet speeds for end users by country.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds


You will find that 7 european countries have higher speeds than the US for end users.

 

[uncle money bags]

Can this argument be boiled down to who the average citizen trusts to control the flow of information over the internet?

 

[Mike_60]

Crash - You obviously wasn't there.

 

[Hobbes]

Can this argument be boiled down to who the average citizen trusts to control the flow of information over the internet?

I don't think so.
The FCC is implementing rules that prohibit the telecom companies from pursuing practices that inhibit competition.

Paid prioritization for example is an impediment to competition.
It favors big established companies over small startup companies.

Another part of the NN order that hasn't been emphasized enough is their order prohibiting state legislatures from limiting competition.
The ISP lobby has convinced/bribed legislatures to pass laws that prohibit municipalities from expanding their own internet systems.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

Competition is key and the big broadband providers spend a lot of time and money trying to limit competition.

 

[Mike_60]

There seems to be a controversy as to whether European countries have internet speeds that are faster or slower than the US.
Lots of propaganda out there.

Here is akamai's list of average internet speeds for end users by country.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds


You will find that 7 european countries have higher speeds than the US for end users.

LOL....are you seriously going to try and compare the US to the Netherlands or Finland? Why not just throw Hong Kong in there for good measure cause they'd probably all fit in Texas's foot print with room to spare.