Board 8 > So that Net Neutrality vote is happening now right?

(+) Yeah! (+)

foolm0r0n posted...

He's prob not reading the topic anymore but
VintageGin posted...

I actually couldn't find any good examples of this, which is why I asked. Maybe I wasn't searching for the right things.

This article is badly written but it pulls together a good amount of examples, and sources for how fees and regulations multiply the cost of building a local network way more than it should be
https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

What the article is missing is that the FCC does have ultimate control over the city's internet regulations, under Title II. This is seen in places where the FCC forced cities to change their limits and last mile policies (ex: https://gizmodo.com/fcc-just-overruled-the-state-laws-that-blocked-municipa-1688200941) in certain cases (lobbying). That is what everyone wanted with Title II and for some reason they never thought about how just 5 dudes at the FCC having power over all this stuff could ever be a bad idea. Even after the net neutrality vote no one thinks the problem is that there's just 5 dudes in control, just that those dudes don't agree with them.

I still don't see how last mile affects this. The last mile regulations are just about what ISPs are required to offer other competitors. Without them, they wouldn't be required to share any existing infrastructure. So how exactly would the removal of last mile benefit small ISPs?

And yeah, those local/municipal fees mentioned in the article you posted do suck-- I wouldn't be opposed to getting rid of things like that. I don't know if I believe that's the only issue with the cost, though.

I don't think anyone is arguing that having 5 guys on the FCC decide these regulations is the best system, only that it's better than the alternative of giving cable companies unregulated reign.
---

VintageGin posted...

I still don't see how last mile affects this. The last mile regulations are just about what ISPs are required to offer other competitors. Without them, they wouldn't be required to share any existing infrastructure. So how exactly would the removal of last mile benefit small ISPs?

Last mile just refers to the part of the infrastructure that is the "last mile". That's where MOST of the infrastructure costs are, because you're digging around a city and underground and all that stuff. That's where new ISPs get blocked from coming into a city.

So that one regulation about sharing last mile infrastructure might be okay, but it's just one of many regulations that the FCC has control over via Title II which it can choose to enforce completely up to its own whim (which is not at all informed by democratic or market forces).

My whole point is that FCC controlling every single city and house in the country's wires from their 5-seat ivory tower undeniably dangerous and ridiculous. If you want those regulations which you think are beneficial, then do them at the state and local level and take the power away from the evil FCC. States are the ones who do the most cronyist monopoly deals with ISPs anyways if you look at the stats.

VintageGin posted...

I don't think anyone is arguing that having 5 guys on the FCC decide these regulations is the best system, only that it's better than the alternative of giving cable companies unregulated reign.

Which is dumb as hell since the status quo regulations end up with the major ISPs having wide-spread monopolies, which is the supposed worst-case scenario of the latter option.

We're already in the worst place possible. Why are you fighting so hard to keep things like they are?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

banananor posted...

You can vote out a us president/senator/etc

Why haven't you voted Trump out then you monster

also you can vote out CEOs, that's literally the whole point of a public company

lmfao, imagine saying this with a straight face. Yeah, you can vote out a CEO, you just need to own a significant amount of shares in his company. Totally the same as presidential elections!
---

Yeah it's far easier and much more plausible to become rich enough to own majority shares in a company than it is to somehow be able to control US politics. Only Putin is powerful enough to do that!
---

My CEO actually just got voted out a few months ago

Democracy in action
---

Vlado posted...

lmfao, imagine saying this with a straight face. Yeah, you can vote out a CEO, you just need to own a significant amount of shares in his company. Totally the same as presidential elections!

Are you talking to me again? Tail came out from between your shaking legs?
---

Vlado also was part of the movement that got the reddit CEO voted out and was extremely proud and self-congratulatory of that, but apparently it's impossible for that to happen

His memory is so short that he even forgot one of his proudest moments
---

http://babylonbee.com/news/internet-service-providers-not-able-decide-people-can-see-online-says-man-decides-people-can-see-online/

Seriously, if you favor net neutrality because you're against big corporations, you're doing it wrong. This isn't "the people vs big corporations", this is "some big corporations vs other big corporations"
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Last mile just refers to the part of the infrastructure that is the "last mile". That's where MOST of the infrastructure costs are, because you're digging around a city and underground and all that stuff. That's where new ISPs get blocked from coming into a city.

So that one regulation about sharing last mile infrastructure might be okay, but it's just one of many regulations that the FCC has control over via Title II which it can choose to enforce completely up to its own whim (which is not at all informed by democratic or market forces).

My whole point is that FCC controlling every single city and house in the country's wires from their 5-seat ivory tower undeniably dangerous and ridiculous. If you want those regulations which you think are beneficial, then do them at the state and local level and take the power away from the evil FCC. States are the ones who do the most cronyist monopoly deals with ISPs anyways if you look at the stats.

Yeah I know what last mile is. But you haven't given any examples of the FCC's last mile regulations stifling new ISP growth. You've just pointed to local and state regulations hampering growth and alluded to a vague hypothetical of what the FCC could do with Title 2 and last mile regulations. That's like, the exact opposite of your point.

Which is dumb as hell since the status quo regulations end up with the major ISPs having wide-spread monopolies, which is the supposed worst-case scenario of the latter option.

We're already in the worst place possible. Why are you fighting so hard to keep things like they are?

Because I would say that the issue is more to do with (certain, not all) regulations not going far enough rather than them obstructing competition. I think that a broad "free market" deregulation approach will just manage to dig us deeper into this hole (probably by first causing companies that depend on sharing infrastructure to go out of business or get acquired).
---

SmartMuffin posted...

http://babylonbee.com/news/internet-service-providers-not-able-decide-people-can-see-online-says-man-decides-people-can-see-online/

Seriously, if you favor net neutrality because you're against big corporations, you're doing it wrong. This isn't "the people vs big corporations", this is "some big corporations vs other big corporations"

Content-driven vs pipe-driven. Net neutrality at least enables competition among content creators.
---

Content-driven vs pipe-driven. Net neutrality at least enables competition among content creators.

Right, you like the good companies who control and manipulate what we see, not the bad ones.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Content-driven vs pipe-driven. Net neutrality at least enables competition among content creators.

Right, you like the good companies who control and manipulate what we see, not the bad ones.

If you're going to boil it down to picking a side because you don't understand nuance, then yes. But that's a pretty lame argument.
---

VintageGin posted...

Yeah I know what last mile is. But you haven't given any examples of the FCC's last mile regulations stifling new ISP growth. You've just pointed to local and state regulations hampering growth and alluded to a vague hypothetical of what the FCC could do with Title 2 and last mile regulations. That's like, the exact opposite of your point.

What is up with you guys and this "vague hypothetical" meme. I just showed you real examples of how ISP regulations stifle growth and that the FCC has control over these things under Title II and deals out exceptions to the highest bidder. It's concrete and real and has been going on for decades to get us to where we're at now.

You guys are out here crying about how the internet is destroyed and you're gonna have to pay $100000000 to make a facebook post, but I'm the one being vague and hypothetical?

VintageGin posted...

Because I would say that the issue is more to do with (certain, not all) regulations not going far enough rather than them obstructing competition

Duh because you have no issue with Comcast being the internet monopoly. In fact you WANT Comcast to be the internet monopoly of the US, as long as the FCC controls them through strong enough regulations.

You're arguing for Comcast to be in every home in America and Ajit Pai to be at the reigns. Can't I at least SUGGEST that that's a bit ridiculous?

VintageGin posted...

(probably by first causing companies that depend on sharing infrastructure to go out of business or get acquired)

Which companies? Can you list 1 example?

This is what I mean, we're already at the bottom of the hole and digging. How does your status quo fix that?
---

I did just find out from a couple friends that they do actually have local ISPs. Both started before 2015 though.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

http://babylonbee.com/news/internet-service-providers-not-able-decide-people-can-see-online-says-man-decides-people-can-see-online/

Seriously, if you favor net neutrality because you're against big corporations, you're doing it wrong. This isn't "the people vs big corporations", this is "some big corporations vs other big corporations"

Yeah, but I work on videogames with onlilne play, which are the second set of big corporations.

Comcast having a slightly larger profit margin doesn't help me at all, but companies I work for, and companies whose games I play having an easier time is good for me.
---

Is the purpose of government just to get you stuff that you want?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

http://babylonbee.com/news/internet-service-providers-not-able-decide-people-can-see-online-says-man-decides-people-can-see-online/

Seriously, if you favor net neutrality because you're against big corporations, you're doing it wrong. This isn't "the people vs big corporations", this is "some big corporations vs other big corporations"

This is incredibly obvious and common sense, yet the likes of mc, foolmo, etc. buy into google's lies and propaganda.

That just goes to show the true extent of their intellectual capabilities.
---

Whose lies and propaganda should I buy into to convince you I'm smart
---

Content-driven vs pipe-driven. Net neutrality at least enables competition among content creators.

Actually the more I think about this the dumber it is.

First of all, Facebook is NOT a content creator. They are a pipe too, just a slightly different pipe from Comcast.

But something you might want to consider thinking about is that Facebook, Twitter, and all the other people screaming about the death of the "free and open internet" are the ones actively censoring stuff while Comcast, AT&T, and other ISPs have literally never done that.. It's Zuck who considers it a moral imperative to filter everything such that you never see anything "offensive" (with offensive being defined not by you, but by him). Comcast and everyone else have taken a "whatever, we just provide the pipe, if you don't like certain content don't view it" attitude.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Comcast and everyone else have taken a "whatever, we just provide the pipe, if you don't like certain content don't view it" attitude.

Weird, I wonder if there was something that forced them to hold to that.

Facebook/Twitter occupy a middle-ground in terms of content/pipe, in part because the platform/framework they offer is unique-- it's not just upload and download speeds.

Also, you may be interested to note that Facebook/Twitter are not the whole of the internet. There's a lot of "real" content out there that accounts for a lot of the internet.
---

the point is that if you want to just randomly make a facebook or twitter competitor tomorrow, you absolutely can. instantaneously. the only advantage they have is social inertia

you can't just become comcast/verizon tomorrow
---

foolm0r0n posted...

What is up with you guys and this "vague hypothetical" meme. I just showed you real examples of how ISP regulations stifle growth and that the FCC has control over these things under Title II and deals out exceptions to the highest bidder. It's concrete and real and has been going on for decades to get us to where we're at now.

You guys are out here crying about how the internet is destroyed and you're gonna have to pay $100000000 to make a facebook post, but I'm the one being vague and hypothetical?

"you guys"

damn dude, have a little more respect-- I don't lump you and smartmuffin together

I asked you for examples where the FCC policies you named had negatively impacted smaller ISPs. You provided an article with examples of local regulations doing this instead. You then went on to later say that regulations should be handled at the local/state level, even though the article you linked was about how that was the problem.

Duh because you have no issue with Comcast being the internet monopoly. In fact you WANT Comcast to be the internet monopoly of the US, as long as the FCC controls them through strong enough regulations.

You're arguing for Comcast to be in every home in America and Ajit Pai to be at the reigns. Can't I at least SUGGEST that that's a bit ridiculous?

My stance here is pretty simple: With the FCC regulations in place, the worst case scenario is that Comcast gets everything it wants. Your solution to this is apparently that we should get rid of the FCC's influence entirely, meaning that Comcast gets everything it wants by default.

Which companies? Can you list 1 example?

This is what I mean, we're already at the bottom of the hole and digging. How does your status quo fix that?

We have a local ISP called LMI. They share Sonic's infrastructure.

You keep assuming that I don't want any change when all I'm saying is I don't want this change.
---

banananor posted...

the point is that if you want to just randomly make a facebook or twitter competitor tomorrow, you absolutely can. instantaneously. the only advantage they have is social inertia

you can't just become comcast/verizon tomorrow

Oh man fool has been arguing for like 100 posts that if government/fcc regulations were removed you *could* make a comcast / verizon tomorrow
---

ClyTheCool posted...

Oh man fool has been arguing for like 100 posts that if government/fcc regulations were removed you *could* make a comcast / verizon tomorrow

yeah everyone could make a comcast/verizon it's so easy.
---

I mean it takes time and money and effort and equipment. But it takes that to create a great social networking site, too.
---

What's stopping anybody from doing it? What's stopping them that doesn't also apply to trying to make a Facebook or Twitter?
---

The government, or the fact that it simply isn't economical for them to try and compete.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

But something you might want to consider thinking about is that Facebook, Twitter, and all the other people screaming about the death of the "free and open internet" are the ones actively censoring stuff while Comcast, AT&T, and other ISPs have literally never done that..

do you actually mean "literally never" or do you mean "not nearly as much"?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

I mean it takes time and money and effort and equipment. But it takes that to create a great social networking site, too.

a great social networking site, sure.

i could make a sloppy, bad social networking site with very little effort and no money in 5 mintues, though.
---

And you could make a shitty ISP with no customers quickly for cheap, too.
---

could you actually? how much is "cheap" in this case?
---

ClyTheCool posted...

Oh man fool has been arguing for like 100 posts that if government/fcc regulations were removed you *could* make a comcast / verizon tomorrow

No I didn't, I'm saying you could make (using a beer analogy) a Sierra Nevada or Devil's Backbone or a Lickinghole Creek. You can't make a new Budweiser.

I'll get to the rest later.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

And you could make a shitty ISP with no customers quickly for cheap, too.

The costs of a shitty social networking site and a shitty ISP aren't even comparable.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

And you could make a shitty ISP with no customers quickly for cheap, too.

"for cheap" as in "for no additional costs"?
---

Hell, making a simple, functional version of Twitter is a basic learning lesson for Ruby on Rails.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i could make a sloppy, bad social networking site with very little effort and no money in 5 mintues, though.

And then nobody would use it. Your point?

SmartMuffin posted...

Content-driven vs pipe-driven. Net neutrality at least enables competition among content creators.

Right, you like the good companies who control and manipulate what we see, not the bad ones.

Excellently put. That's the liberal logic, in short. Remember, they are the guys who wanted to abolish democracy after Brexit and then again after Trump won.
---

my point was that it's way easier to do than make a new version of comcast.
---

So? By making a site nobody uses, it's not like you've made anything of real value.
---

Vlado posted...

So? By making a site nobody uses, it's not like you've made anything of real value.

yeah the comparison is entirely pointless

neither a shitty ISP that nobody uses nor a shitty social network that nobody uses are relevant to anything

The question is - is it easier to replace Facebook or easier to replace Comcast. And my answer is that it's about equal. Maybe the amount of physical resources it would take to replace Comcast is higher, I don't know and I don't care, but both are presumably difficult as fuck to do (otherwise, someone would have already done so).
---

Vlado posted...

So? By making a site nobody uses, it's not like you've made anything of real value.

that's irrelevant to the context i made that post in.

cly said "if you hate comcast so much JUST MAKE YOUR OWN VERSION LOL" and i said "that's extremely difficult to do." then muffin said "but it's extremely difficult to make a social networking site too!" and i said "no, that's actually super easy."
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

So? By making a site nobody uses, it's not like you've made anything of real value.

that's irrelevant to the context i made that post in.

cly said "if you hate comcast so much JUST MAKE YOUR OWN VERSION LOL" and i said "that's extremely difficult to do." then muffin said "but it's extremely difficult to make a social networking site too!" and i said "no, that's actually super easy."

Which is a false comparison. You are comparing the effort required to make a national company #1 in its industry to the effort required to make one shitty app used by nobody.
---

if facebook or google wants to hide dudewheresmyfreedom, it's bad but your site is still ultimately reachable

if comcast wants to block it, it's an entirely different story

this is why i think it's important for ISPs to be regulated more stringently than websites
---

if facebook or google wants to hide dudewheresmyfreedom, it's bad but your site is still ultimately reachable

if comcast wants to block it, it's an entirely different story

Yeah, it's entirely different because Facebook and Google are literally doing that stuff right now, bragging about it, and promising to do more of it in the future while Comcast literally never does it and has loudly and publicly vowed that it never will.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Which is a false comparison. You are comparing the effort required to make a national company #1 in its industry to the effort required to make one shitty app used by nobody.

who said anything about "#1 in its industry"? making a shitty ISP would also be hard. at the very least it would take way more time and money than making a shitty social networking site (which can be done in 5 minutes for nothing).

"making an ISP is comparable to making a social networking site," THAT'S a false comparison.
---

Making a functional ISP no one uses is harder than making a functional social networking site that no one uses.

This isn't a hard concept to grasp. Vlado is one thing, but I'd really expect Smartmuffin to understand the basics of a minimally viable product.
---

And your analogy is also wrong in its most literal sense.

If Comcast blocks me, my site is still reachable through AT&T, Verizon, satellite, dial-up, and (far more significantly than all of those) wireless internet provided by various wireless providers.

Comcast is a very important way someone can access my website, yes. And social media is very fucking important for anyone trying to attract readers to a website, too.
---

kevwaffles posted...

Making a functional ISP no one uses is harder than making a functional social networking site that no one uses.

This isn't a hard concept to grasp. Vlado is one thing, but I'd really expect Smartmuffin to understand the basics of a minimally viable product.

I'm saying the minimally viable product here is irrelevant. The comparison is between Facebook and Comcast, not between an MVP of either.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

kevwaffles posted...

Making a functional ISP no one uses is harder than making a functional social networking site that no one uses.

This isn't a hard concept to grasp. Vlado is one thing, but I'd really expect Smartmuffin to understand the basics of a minimally viable product.

I'm saying the minimally viable product here is irrelevant. The comparison is between Facebook and Comcast, not between an MVP of either.

A niche product is more likely to take off than a non-existent one. Infinitely more so, in fact.

If social networking or other sites functioned like ISPs, there wouldn't even be a Facebook or Google. Neither were the first on the scene, especially in Facebook's case.
---

There's a cost of entry for sure, but so does any business. You have to invest in whatever it is you need to run in whatever industry you want to move in, whether thats inventory, a storefront, a website design, or online servers, or whatever.

But investors, entrepreneurs, and businesses move in to new industries with stiff competition all the time. Even industries that cost a lot to operate.

So while not any Joe Blow can realistically start his own ISP, it should be possible for other businesses to do it.

But that doesn't happen in telecom much. Why is that?

Fool says it's because the added costs of startup by governments and the regulations they place make it impossible. Businesses look at getting into the industry and say "nope, there's no way we could make money".

Does comcast have such an iron grip that noone could ever compete with them? That doesn't sound likely. I'm not an American but the absolute shittiness of Comcast's customer support is legendary. I've also heard that the big telecom companies agree not to compete with each other in a lot of areas. That sounds ripe for a new competitor to spring up

But why doesn't it happen?

You keep being incredibly dismissive of the notion that anybody could even try to make a new ISP, but what gives you that attitude? I don't see why it can't happen. It seems that something is in the way. What is it, if not government regulations ?
---

If social networking or other sites functioned like ISPs, there wouldn't even be a Facebook or Google. Neither were the first on the scene, especially in Facebook's case.

Comcast wasn't "on the scene first" either. AOL was. How they doin?
---