7 comments

• 

  deadzone

  2 years ago

  The mere fact that deliberate service degradation is being discussed shows how bad of a threat this is to the Internet as we know it.
  
  Give me a good, solid, reasons why we can trust the Teleco's to not tamper with our service.
  
  Actually, show me some evidence of the Teleco's doing something, anything, that doesn't serve their best interests at the cost of the consumer.
• 

  deadzone

  2 years ago

  The mere fact that deliberate service degradation is being discussed shows how bad of a threat this is to the Internet as we know it.
  
  Give me a good, solid, reasons why we can trust the Teleco's to not tamper with our service.
  
  Actually, show me some evidence of the Teleco's doing something, anything, that doesn't serve their best interests at the cost of the consumer.
• 

  Tim Lee

  2 years ago

  deadzone, that's ridiculous. The fact that it's being discussed just proves that some people think it might happen. In 1999, a lot of people thought that the Y2K bug was a serious problem. Yet the Great Famine of 2000 never materialized.
• 

  deadzone

  2 years ago

  Sure, it may be ridiculous. It may be alarmist. But better safe than sorry right? Y2K was stupid and I sure wasn't worried about it, because it was far too far-fetched to be a reality.
  
  Is it your contention that this issue is akin to Y2K?
  
  Reasons we have to trust the Teleco's?
  Evidence of Teleco's deserving of our trust?
  
  None that I can think of offhand. If they have the opportunity and the ability to do something that will benefit them, what makes you think they won't do it?
• 

  Tim Lee

  2 years ago

  I don't "trust" the telcos, but I trust the FCC even less. Network neutrality legislation won't magically prevent the telcos from doing bad things. They'll need to be interpreted and enforced by fallible, perhaps even corruptible, human beings. It's certainly possible that the telcos will misbehave, and if that happens I might even support regulation. But there's also a danger that the FCC will misbehave.
  
  The difference is that there's at least some competition among broadband providers. So if AT&T; screws up, I can switch to Charter. In contrast, if the FCC screws up, I'm stuck with it. And so are you.
  
  So yes, when faced with a difficult regulatory issue, I prefer to play it safe and oppose new regulations.
• 

  deadzone

  2 years ago

  I agree with you about the FCC. Looking at it from that perspective certainly shows how the consumer is in a no-win situation here. It doesn't make me feel any better about any of this either.
  
  You know it's ironic. I was totally FOR network neutraility then realized after finding your site and reading your perspectives and opinion, that maybe it wasn't the best thing. So then my opinion changed to don't fool with it at all. The problem is that the Teleco's seem to have told us in no uncertain terms that they are going to do some weird things that don't really fall in line with what the spirit of the Internet represents.
  
  If there ever was a placement for the phrase "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." I think this is it. Teleco or FCC? Uhhhh is there a third option? No? Oh damn. :)
• 

  Bill Herman

  2 years ago

  Tim/deadzone,
  
  
  
  
  Y2K is actually a great example of why we DO need pre-emptive net neutrality, but there are more. An ounce of prevention...
  
  
  
  
  
  Everyone was freaked out about Y2K, so we dumped billions into the problem and stopped it in its tracks. Had we not done so much, many substantial problems would have occurred. Was the threat as big as the worst-case scenario? Maybe, and maybe not, but on-the-scene experts generally agree that a serious problem of some magnitude was certainly in the cards if we had not spent the effort to pre-empt them.
  
  
  
  
  
  Read this Y2K story.
  
  
  
  
  
  The last quote is telling:
  
  
  
  
  
  "There is a certain sense of wry anticlimax out there," said Michael Granatt, a director of the British government's millennium center... But Mr. Granatt said it was important to acknowledge that the lack of truly disastrous computer failures was not a fluke. "Things don't go right by accident," he said. "They go right through proper planning."
  
  
  
  
  
  Further, to allege that there's no threat because it's not happening yet is less than forthcoming. Broadband companies have only recently been explicitly exempted (DSL) or let off an implicit, potential hook (cable) from common carrier regs by the FCC. The fact that they're on their best behavior until they get what they want is, well, unsurprising. But many have explicitly stated that it's their business plan.
  
  
  
  
  
  We arrested some guys in Florida merely for allegedly talking about being terrorists. They didn't have the means, and the problem definitely had not happened yet. Shouldn't they still be prosecuted? Shouldn't we be glad about foiling a diabolical plot, however unlikely? What's so bad about stopping evil pre-emptively? Does our distrust of government prevent us from celebrating this apparent success in law enforcement?
  
  
  
  
  
  The claim, "there's at least some competition among broadband providers," is also less than forthcoming. About one quarter of the country has one broadband choice, and another quarter has none. Even much of NYC has just two. Look up the the Herfindahl-Hirschman index, which the DOJ uses as a measure of economic concentration in evaluating proposed mergers. See this HHI calculator.
  
  
  
  
  
  Over 1000 is marginally competitive, over 1800 is very non-competitive. In over 95% of the country, the broadband HHI is around 5000 or higher. That's very, very non-competitive.
  
  
  
  
  
  See more about net neutrality here: Opening Bottlenecks.