F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules [A real thread]

[shubla]

some things are just inefficient in the private sector..

I think its the opposite.
On the public sector things can get inefficient, because there is not that big of a motivation to do things efficiently.

In private capitalist companies, efficiency is important. If you are not efficient, your company will face bankruptcy.
Sadly "efficient company" does not always mean good for the consumer.

Sounds quite dull that roads are not publicly owned in the US...

[Zampfeo]

some things are just inefficient in the private sector..

I think its the opposite.
On the public sector things can get inefficient, because there is not that big of a motivation to do things efficiently.

In private capitalist companies, efficiency is important. If you are not efficient, your company will face bankruptcy.
Sadly "efficient company" does not always mean good for the consumer.

Sounds quite dull that roads are not publicly owned in the US...

Roads are publicly owned in the US aside from some on private property such as malls and large factories.

Things that rely on an interconnected national infrastructure are more efficient when publicly owned or at least heavily regulated. Imagine if you had access to two competing water companies. That means separate systems in the ground. What a waste of resources and space that would be. Same goes for the internet. We have miles of redundant lines in the ground from different ISPs that's just going to get worse.

[Kirche]

Imagine if all roads were privately owned. How would you feel if Roadcast extorted money out of Walmart by threatening to shut down all their roads leading to their stores? It's the same thing. It's unethical and needs to be illegal, enforced by some government body whether it be the FCC or someone else.

Let's say walmart passes through company A's roads quite a bit, but they're not paying to use them, because they paid company B to use their roads instead but all roads are connected, walmart adds a tremendous amount of traffic from both it's own shipping trucks and customers coming to buy, but all of their customers don't use company B, a lot of them pass through company A's roads, so company A is forced to add more lanes, which cost a large amount of money, and then they want to charge this company that uses their roads quite a bit, for all of the traffic they produce, but then the government steps in, and says they're not allowed to do this, at gunpoint, this is what net neutrality is.

How would i feel about a situation where a company is allowed to charge another company for the use of their infrastructure, pretty good, maybe my fucking roads would be better if they were privately owned.

[Granger]

Imagine if all roads were privately owned.

We had that in the past, travelling from Hamburg to Munich (~800km) brought you through >hundred toll booths. Wasn't fun, from what I have read.

[quote=Kirche]How would i feel about a situation where a company is allowed to charge another company for the use of their infrastructure, pretty good, maybe my fucking roads would be better if they were privately owned.[/quote]
And you would be bled dry for being allowed to use them, especially at choke points that are hard to get around.

The road analogy misses the point.

The customers of the ISP paid for access to internet, the content provider too. The ISP now * trying to charge extra the content providers the customers want (and have payed) to connect to is a try at double-dipping, throttling the access to the content provider is holding the customers hostage in an extortion scheme.

Should you think that this is a good idea you deserve to have a broadband monopoly in your area and as only option a shitty provider that charges you extra for each bit you want to access on the internet (while the 'fast' own content of that ISP consists of 99% Wildecker Herzbuben in about the same quality as behind the link).

[MagicManICT]

Should you think that this is a good idea you deserve to have a broadband monopoly in your area and as only option a shitty provider that charges you extra for each bit you want to access on the internet (while the 'fast' own content of that ISP consists of 99% Wildecker Herzbuben in about the same quality as behind the link).

There are locations in the US where this is fact, too. Some people are just spoiled and are ignorant of the facts of the world.

[Glorthan]

Let's say walmart passes through company A's roads quite a bit, but they're not paying to use them, because they paid company B to use their roads instead but all roads are connected, walmart adds a tremendous amount of traffic from both it's own shipping trucks and customers coming to buy, but all of their customers don't use company B, a lot of them pass through company A's roads, so company A is forced to add more lanes, which cost a large amount of money, and then they want to charge this company that uses their roads quite a bit, for all of the traffic they produce, but then the government steps in, and says they're not allowed to do this, at gunpoint, this is what net neutrality is.

How would i feel about a situation where a company is allowed to charge another company for the use of their infrastructure, pretty good, maybe my fucking roads would be better if they were privately owned.

Following your road analogy, they'd be able to discriminate their charge based on how often people used the road (if there was a periodic toll pass instead of toll per instance), how heavy their truck was, etc. They'd not be able to discriminate their charge based on: the company the truck belonged to, whether it was carrying sausages or oranges, the racial origin of the person driving the truck, etc.

[Potjeh]

Name one great civilization that was built exclusively by the private sector. Government is inefficient, but it gets shit done that private sector never would, because they don't plan longer than the next quarterly report.

[Zampfeo]

Imagine if all roads were privately owned. How would you feel if Roadcast extorted money out of Walmart by threatening to shut down all their roads leading to their stores? It's the same thing. It's unethical and needs to be illegal, enforced by some government body whether it be the FCC or someone else.

Let's say walmart passes through company A's roads quite a bit, but they're not paying to use them, because they paid company B to use their roads instead but all roads are connected, walmart adds a tremendous amount of traffic from both it's own shipping trucks and customers coming to buy, but all of their customers don't use company B, a lot of them pass through company A's roads, so company A is forced to add more lanes, which cost a large amount of money, and then they want to charge this company that uses their roads quite a bit, for all of the traffic they produce, but then the government steps in, and says they're not allowed to do this, at gunpoint, this is what net neutrality is.

How would i feel about a situation where a company is allowed to charge another company for the use of their infrastructure, pretty good, maybe my fucking roads would be better if they were privately owned.

Company B and company A already have a mutual beneficial connectivity contract in place to take care of Walmart's usage. If Company A has a problem, it's company B they need to talk to, not Walmart.

See the Level 3/Comcast dispute over Netflix.

[Kirche]

Imagine if all roads were privately owned.

We had that in the past, travelling from Hamburg to Munich (~800km) brought you through >hundred toll booths. Wasn't fun, from what I have read.

[quote=Kirche]How would i feel about a situation where a company is allowed to charge another company for the use of their infrastructure, pretty good, maybe my fucking roads would be better if they were privately owned.
And you would be bled dry for being allowed to use them, especially at choke points that are hard to get around.

If it were truly analogous I would pay a monthly fee and be given access to all roads.

The road analogy misses the point.

The customers of the ISP paid for access to internet, the content provider too. The ISP now * trying to charge extra the content providers the customers want (and have payed) to connect to is a try at double-dipping, throttling the access to the content provider is holding the customers hostage in an extortion scheme.

This is already illegal under antitrust laws under the FTC, net neutrality was, and is not needed for this.

Should you think that this is a good idea you deserve to have a broadband monopoly in your area and as only option a shitty provider that charges you extra for each bit you want to access on the internet (while the 'fast' own content of that ISP consists of 99% Wildecker Herzbuben in about the same quality as behind the link).

I currently already have a broadband monopoly in my area thanks to ISP zoning regulations that provides sub-par service that hardly ever functions properly as it is, so net neutrality really hasn't helped me here in the slightest.

[MagicManICT]

This is already illegal under antitrust laws under the FTC, net neutrality was, and is not needed for this.

I definitely agree. The problem is enforcing said laws in a meaningful manner. Laws work in funny ways sometimes. Sometimes a standing law makes it so that you shouldn't do something, but doesn't stop anyone from doing it... just paying a penalty later if caught. Other times, laws are made to make it more than visibly clear that certain actions are heinous enough they need to be immediately pointed out to, more or less, ridicule those trying to undertake certain actions.

I'll again reiterate that I don't think repealing net neutrality is a bad thing. As both of us and others have said, there are other laws in place to prevent a lot of what people are worried about to cover potential injury, financial or otherwise. Net neutrality was a very nice way to tidy all those things together and say "Hey! Don't do this!" Kind of like we already have had the FBI in place for decades, but somehow we ended up with specialty agencies in the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms... and they've appended another category to it that I forget off top of my head... Explosives?) and DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency), and the newest--Homeland Security.

This "broadening" of the government is even more inefficient financially, but at the same time and given the scale and scope of the top brass in each of these agencies, it allows personal to be managed better and target areas to be better observed (I'd say controlled, but we all know how well the DEA does its job despite best efforts). It's why we have 5 military departments in the US-- Army, Navy, Air Force (previously Army Air Corp), Marines (previously part of the Navy, still share joint training facilities), and Coast Guard (the civilian maritime arm of the Navy for protection and enforcement).

There's a slippery slope in who gets to dictate government policy. What is good for a company should ideally be good for all the people--their customers, the employees, and the owners of the company. The problem is that this often isn't the case, especially in areas where companies are willing to forego ethics and long term considerations such as health and environment. Who do you want managing your government, then? A party of the people for the people, or whoever makes the most money? Be cautious you don't let your opinions slide toward allowing an oligarchy to form and finding yourself powerless to defend against it. So far under this administration, it's been largely about large corporations and creating a stronger financial superiority of a few.