FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[Galloism]

Well, I have more competing options in government than I do for ISPs. That's because, like other utilities, the infrastructure costs are so extreme to setup an ISP, they often form natural monopolies or oligopolies, which are not responsive to the needs of the people at all, being both unelected AND having no need to listen to me.

Costs that are heavily inflated by government meddling in the process.

Not as much you'd think. Most of the "government" costs are getting easements and rights of way, and permission for your lines to cross government property. When you tunnel through the city's land, typically the city gets paid.

What you get is government hurdles put in the way of startups, the government considering ISPs "natural" monopolies, and then suddenly the demand for federal regulation to solve the problem that was created by regulation in the first place.

It's really not that simple. Most of the cost is infrastructure cost - buying the cable, laying the cable, getting permission from the owners of property to cross that property with your equipment, etc. Then there's costs to tie in to the network, and if your local ISP has significant presence, you either have to contract WITH your competitor to carry your signal hundreds of miles (which subjects your clientele to the same restrictions they get at their current company) or you have to get permission to cross hundreds of miles of land with your wires form the thousands of owners that he needs to cross their land.

Yeah, when they're the only game in town (or the only other game in town does the same thing), being shitty won't drive down their business or drive them out of business.

Look at Comcast.

Which brings us, again, as most of these things do, to getting the hurdles and regulations out of the way of startups.

Won't help when it comes to infrastructure heavy businesses. After all, why don't you see any startups in someone's garage going to space today? It's not because of government regulation, that much I can tell you. It's the same problem.

[Hurdergaryp]

The natural evolutionary path of capitalism is the permanent establishment of monopolies. The free market is only a phase on the path towards true, unstoppable capitalism. Hail the domination of the monopolies! Hail! Hail!

...

Feel free to disagree. But let's face it: when a corporate entity becomes powerful enough, it is going to eliminate any competition in order to gain absolute control over its economic specialism. This is where libertarianism fails miserably as the expendable gateway ideology it actually is.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Meat companies had freedom to put whatever in their products until they regulated that, not seeing how that's a good thing.

I'd call the creation and expansion of the internet through 2014 a pretty "good thing"

Nothing's stopping them from continuing.

ISP executives are unelected bureaucrats, and their one goal is to squeeze as much money as they can it of you.

Yes, indeed. And to squeeze money out of you, they have to give you something that you want.

Suffice makes it worse.

The government doesn't need your satisfaction-they can tax you either way.

Boo fucking hoo.

But if a private entity doesn't give you a product that you like, they don't make any money, and out of business they go.

>Looks at ISPs
>Looks at their history of terrible service
>Looks at how people still paid them because they needed internet

This does not happen in an oligopoly.

Sounds like we should be cutting down on the government regs that set that system up then, doesn't it?

Which would in turn lead to... Oligopolies.

There public couldn't simply "stop buying"from the oil barons, they couldn't simply "stop buying" from the railway barons, and they can't simply "stop buying" from the ISPs.

And now you're trying to make argument number two for governments to stop trying to make "natural" monopolies out of ISPs.

The solution to companies trying to work around regulations meant to prevent disgusting business practices is not repealing regulations.

[Xelsis]

Nothing's stopping them from continuing.

Except all the new government regulations that are the point of this.

If nothing's stopping them from continuing, there is no Title II net neutrality.

Suffice makes it worse.

Not entirely certain what you're trying to say here.

Boo fucking hoo.

When it means a crappier internet-yeah, that's something to get upset about.

>Looks at ISPs
>Looks at their history of terrible service
>Looks at how people still paid them because they needed internet

You mean the 62/100 customer satisfaction for Comcast, 63/100 for Time Warner Cable, and 71/100 for Verizon?

Now how does that compare to people's approval ratings of our current legislative and executive branches?

Which would in turn lead to... Oligopolies.

Something that happens to be the opposite of true.

Barriers to entry favor those already in the game. Chopping down those barriers is how you get more startups, and more startups are how you break oligopolies.

The solution to companies trying to work around regulations meant to prevent disgusting business practices is not repealing regulations.

Then be happy with your oligopoly, because that's what your regulations have made.

Not as much you'd think. Most of the "government" costs are getting easements and rights of way, and permission for your lines to cross government property. When you tunnel through the city's land, typically the city gets paid.

Those rights of way payments, as well as dealing with things like pole attachments, are charged at a level well above their cost, and can double the price to get into the market-and that's before we have to deal with the twists and turns to be navigated to get approval in the first place.

It's really not that simple. Most of the cost is infrastructure cost - buying the cable, laying the cable, getting permission from the owners of property to cross that property with your equipment, etc. Then there's costs to tie in to the network, and if your local ISP has significant presence, you either have to contract WITH your competitor to carry your signal hundreds of miles (which subjects your clientele to the same restrictions they get at their current company) or you have to get permission to cross hundreds of miles of land with your wires form the thousands of owners that he needs to cross their land.

Which is exactly how these things work out. The first-in ISP gets themselves set up-and then the barriers are put up to lock out new entries. That there is an infrastructure cost is undeniable, that that cost is driven up by regulatory roadblocks (You're not typically going to see setting up entirely new wire infrastructure, that's the pole-sharing referenced above) to leave them their hegemony.

Won't help when it comes to infrastructure heavy businesses. After all, why don't you see any startups in someone's garage going to space today? It's not because of government regulation, that much I can tell you. It's the same problem.

That's a rather funny example, given just how many private spaceflight companies there are. That's likely going to be an industry with significantly greater choice than ISPs.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Nothing's stopping them from continuing.

Except all the new government regulations that are the point of this.

If nothing's stopping them from continuing, there is no Title II net neutrality.

Net neutrality is not stopping them from making profits or expanding their networks. It is stopping them from fucking over customers. Should I argue that the Thirteenth Amendment be repealed because it was responsible for the Jim Crow Era?

Suffice makes it worse.

Not entirely certain what you're trying to say here.

Boo fucking hoo.

When it means a crappier internet-yeah, that's something to get upset about.

I dunno about you, but I noticed my house's internet got better shortly after net neutrality.

>Looks at ISPs
>Looks at their history of terrible service
>Looks at how people still paid them because they needed internet

You mean the 62/100 customer satisfaction for Comcast, 63/100 for Time Warner Cable, and 71/100 for Verizon?

Those aren't particularly impressive.

Now how does that compare to people's approval ratings of our current legislative and executive branches?

Which would in turn lead to... Oligopolies.

Something that happens to be the opposite of true.

Barriers to entry favor those already in the game. Chopping down those barriers is how you get more startups, and more startups are how you break oligopolies.

"Invisible hand of the market"!!!

"It's not companies preventing other companies from spouting up, it's the government!"

It's not in a company's best interest to allow competition. They would prevent upstarts, NN or no. This has happened historically in the rail business, I see no reason it wouldn't happen here.

The solution to companies trying to work around regulations meant to prevent disgusting business practices is not repealing regulations.

Then be happy with your oligopoly, because that's what your regulations have made.

That's what companies made in response to regulations to get around said regulations. The solution is not to repeal regulations to revert to a worse state, but to break up oligopolies into smaller companies.

[Galloism]

Not as much you'd think. Most of the "government" costs are getting easements and rights of way, and permission for your lines to cross government property. When you tunnel through the city's land, typically the city gets paid.

Those rights of way payments, as well as dealing with things like pole attachments, are charged at a level well above their cost, and can double the price to get into the market-and that's before we have to deal with the twists and turns to be navigated to get approval in the first place.

Eh, I'm not sure that's the case. After all, if they were charged that much above their cost, they could move the wiring 3 feet and pay a bunch of individuals to cross their private property instead.

It's really not that simple. Most of the cost is infrastructure cost - buying the cable, laying the cable, getting permission from the owners of property to cross that property with your equipment, etc. Then there's costs to tie in to the network, and if your local ISP has significant presence, you either have to contract WITH your competitor to carry your signal hundreds of miles (which subjects your clientele to the same restrictions they get at their current company) or you have to get permission to cross hundreds of miles of land with your wires form the thousands of owners that he needs to cross their land.

Which is exactly how these things work out. The first-in ISP gets themselves set up-and then the barriers are put up to lock out new entries. That there is an infrastructure cost is undeniable, that that cost is driven up by regulatory roadblocks (You're not typically going to see setting up entirely new wire infrastructure, that's the pole-sharing referenced above) to leave them their hegemony.

Well, those poles (for the pole sharing) are owned by the competitor. That's not a government roadblock - it's just reality. Infrastructure costs are very real, government intervention or no.

Won't help when it comes to infrastructure heavy businesses. After all, why don't you see any startups in someone's garage going to space today? It's not because of government regulation, that much I can tell you. It's the same problem.

That's a rather funny example, given just how many private spaceflight companies there are. That's likely going to be an industry with significantly greater choice than ISPs.

It was picked on purpose. You can't start a space-faring company in your garage. You need millions and millions of dollars and a willingness not to see profit for many years.

Just like setting up an ISP.

[Ethel mermania]

Those rights of way payments, as well as dealing with things like pole attachments, are charged at a level well above their cost, and can double the price to get into the market-and that's before we have to deal with the twists and turns to be navigated to get approval in the first place.

Eh, I'm not sure that's the case. After all, if they were charged that much above their cost, they could move the wiring 3 feet and pay a bunch of individuals to cross their private property instead.

Which is exactly how these things work out. The first-in ISP gets themselves set up-and then the barriers are put up to lock out new entries. That there is an infrastructure cost is undeniable, that that cost is driven up by regulatory roadblocks (You're not typically going to see setting up entirely new wire infrastructure, that's the pole-sharing referenced above) to leave them their hegemony.

Well, those poles (for the pole sharing) are owned by the competitor. That's not a government roadblock - it's just reality. Infrastructure costs are very real, government intervention or no.

That's a rather funny example, given just how many private spaceflight companies there are. That's likely going to be an industry with significantly greater choice than ISPs.

It was picked on purpose. You can't start a space-faring company in your garage. You need millions and millions of dollars and a willingness not to see profit for many years.

Just like setting up an ISP.

Well you wouldnt do a national isp groud up for less thsn mid 9 digets. Local and you lease the infrastructure, and farm out mange mentioned to a contractor ..... still a few million... but that can be raised via private financing.

But net neutrality or not, that doesn't change.

[Galloism]

Well you wouldnt do a national isp groud up for less thsn mid 9 digets. Local and you lease the infrastructure, and farm out mange mentioned to a contractor ..... still a few million... but that can be raised via private financing.

But net neutrality or not, that doesn't change.

Yes. The immense costs remain - government regulation or no.

That's why net neutrality is important. Because of the natural monopoly status of ISPs, you can (and do) have instances where everyone's unhappy with both their ISP choices, neither has any impetus to change, and the margins are too low for a third one to come in.

Some regulation is necessary to prevent market abuse. You know, like what happened before.

[Taihei Tengoku]

NN just congests a club good. Roads are natural monopolies and it is perfectly reasonable to charge trucks higer tolls than automobiles.

[Ethel mermania]

Well you wouldnt do a national isp groud up for less thsn mid 9 digets. Local and you lease the infrastructure, and farm out mange mentioned to a contractor ..... still a few million... but that can be raised via private financing.

But net neutrality or not, that doesn't change.

Yes. The immense costs remain - government regulation or no.

That's why net neutrality is important. Because of the natural monopoly status of ISPs, you can (and do) have instances where everyone's unhappy with both their ISP choices, neither has any impetus to change, and the margins are too low for a third one to come in.

Some regulation is necessary to prevent market abuse. You know, like what happened before.

As I mentioned before, I am all for regulation of local public access like a common carrier utility, and leave the net itself primarily unregulated. In that scenario a fixed cost for loc access and there will be much more competion for the consumers while lessening the ongoing regulatory burden for future innovation.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

It does give the ISPs more freedom, as they've had for almost the entire history of the internet.

If the option is between a number of ISPs competing for customers, and unelected bureaucrats who are trying to regulate the internet like a phone line-only one of them is responsive to your business, and only one of them has competing options, and that one is not the government.

Companies that tick off their customer base enough that they stop buying get driven out of business, and replaced by companies that give the customers what they want. The government's going to be there whether you like it or not-and customer dissatisfaction won't drive it out of business.

Here's the problem with your "let the free market decide" stance - there are so few ISPs in the first place that many people are stuck with the choice between putting up with abuse and not having internet at all. And what ISPs exist KEEP MERGING, leaving even fewer options even for people who HAVE multiple choices. The free market doesn't work in market sectors where there's no competition and the service or product provided is a necessity. And yes, internet is an essential utility these days. Network-enabled devices are becoming incredibly common, and many people use the internet for business, school and/or communication.

Your argument would work a LOT better if this was a conversation about, say, car companies, where there are TONS of options.

[Galloism]

Yes. The immense costs remain - government regulation or no.

That's why net neutrality is important. Because of the natural monopoly status of ISPs, you can (and do) have instances where everyone's unhappy with both their ISP choices, neither has any impetus to change, and the margins are too low for a third one to come in.

Some regulation is necessary to prevent market abuse. You know, like what happened before.

As I mentioned before, I am all for regulation of local public access like a common carrier utility, and leave the net itself primarily unregulated. In that scenario a fixed cost for loc access and there will be much more competion for the consumers while lessening the ongoing regulatory burden for future innovation.

I can get behind that for the time being. However, I would be on guard to watch Tier 1 and 2 transit carriers for such abuses (especially blocking and throttling). Especially the Tier 1 ones - if they start blocking shit, it may not matter who your local ISP is, you probably transit through their network to get almost anywhere, and they could very much control the flow of information that reaches millions.

[Ethel mermania]

As I mentioned before, I am all for regulation of local public access like a common carrier utility, and leave the net itself primarily unregulated. In that scenario a fixed cost for loc access and there will be much more competion for the consumers while lessening the ongoing regulatory burden for future innovation.

I can get behind that for the time being. However, I would be on guard to watch Tier 1 and 2 transit carriers for such abuses (especially blocking and throttling). Especially the Tier 1 ones - if they start blocking shit, it may not matter who your local ISP is, you probably transit through their network to get almost anywhere, and they could very much control the flow of information that reaches millions.

I would be good with no throttling or blocking as matters of public policy, and allow paid prioritization. Which I will concede is not what the current rules change has.

Edit: and I want to see this via legislation, not regulation.

[Katganistan]

Call or write your Congress Critters and tell them to support net neutrality or lose your vote.

Then if they don't support it, vote for the other guy.

"Dear Congressperson, you can take my house, you can take my healthcare, but you cannot take my porn!"

Seriously? Way to flamebait me -- and set up a strawman all at once.

[Salandriagado]

"Dear Congressperson, you can take my house, you can take my healthcare, but you cannot take my porn!"

Seriously? Way to flamebait me -- and set up a strawman all at once.

(Tut tut tut, report flamebait, don't mention it here )

[Katganistan]

Seriously? Way to flamebait me -- and set up a strawman all at once.

(Tut tut tut, report flamebait, don't mention it here )

You may take your tutting and place it somewhere out of view.

[USS Monitor]

"Dear Congressperson, you can take my house, you can take my healthcare, but you cannot take my porn!"

Seriously? Way to flamebait me -- and set up a strawman all at once.

It's not actionable as flamebait.

[Outer Sparta]

It does give the ISPs more freedom, as they've had for almost the entire history of the internet.

If the option is between a number of ISPs competing for customers, and unelected bureaucrats who are trying to regulate the internet like a phone line-only one of them is responsive to your business, and only one of them has competing options, and that one is not the government.

Companies that tick off their customer base enough that they stop buying get driven out of business, and replaced by companies that give the customers what they want. The government's going to be there whether you like it or not-and customer dissatisfaction won't drive it out of business.

Here's the problem with your "let the free market decide" stance - there are so few ISPs in the first place that many people are stuck with the choice between putting up with abuse and not having internet at all. And what ISPs exist KEEP MERGING, leaving even fewer options even for people who HAVE multiple choices. The free market doesn't work in market sectors where there's no competition and the service or product provided is a necessity. And yes, internet is an essential utility these days. Network-enabled devices are becoming incredibly common, and many people use the internet for business, school and/or communication.

Your argument would work a LOT better if this was a conversation about, say, car companies, where there are TONS of options.

ISPs are crappy anyway and this is the reason why. Without any competitors, they don't improve. Force them to compete, and maybe they'll get off their butts once.

[Galloism]

Here's the problem with your "let the free market decide" stance - there are so few ISPs in the first place that many people are stuck with the choice between putting up with abuse and not having internet at all. And what ISPs exist KEEP MERGING, leaving even fewer options even for people who HAVE multiple choices. The free market doesn't work in market sectors where there's no competition and the service or product provided is a necessity. And yes, internet is an essential utility these days. Network-enabled devices are becoming incredibly common, and many people use the internet for business, school and/or communication.

Your argument would work a LOT better if this was a conversation about, say, car companies, where there are TONS of options.

ISPs are crappy anyway and this is the reason why. Without any competitors, they don't improve. Force them to compete, and maybe they'll get off their butts once.

How are you going to force them to compete?

[Vassenor]

So it turns out that title II isn't actually stifling innovation or investment after all.

[Naval Monte]

So it turns out that title II isn't actually stifling innovation or investment after all.

What a big shocker. The companies were lying about Title II so they can have a good excuse to get what they want.

Also Markiplier made a video about this so this is going to spread even more.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OHyMORrsaYk

[Herador]

So it turns out that title II isn't actually stifling innovation or investment after all.

[The Grande Republic 0f Arcadia]

Lol, fears about net neutrality are overblown, and this post is a prime example of this.

"NationStates may be subjectable to internet tax!"

I mean REALLY?? Was that even meant to be a serious concern?? NO ONE is coming after NS. The only at risk sites are basically video streaming services. NS doesn't consume enough bandwidth NOR does it have a high enough profile for anyone to care. You don't NEED to overstate the issue!!

Also, THERE IS A SIMPLE SOLUTION.

USE A VPN.

They can't throttle your services if you use a VPN. If we all just used those simple privacy tools Net Neutrality wouldn't even be an issue.

Also, with the amount of other problems a VPN solves, you should already be using one anyways.

Concerned with your ISP tracking and selling your internet history?? Use a VPN.

Concerned with government surveillance or censorship?? VPN.

Concerned with Net Neutrality?? V. P. N.

A very simple solution and you NEVER need to worry about Net Neutrality ever again.

1. NationStates is very popular. The amount of current WA nations is larger than all of the Carribean Netherlands. In all of NS history, the number is probably much larger. It is so popular it received its own section on NationStates' wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NationStates#Popularity. NS receives a lot of activity traffic, and the ISPs will go after it.
2. What about those that can't use a VPN? What about those who can't afford it? Net neutrality is about equality.

you could always get a free VPN

[Kramania]

(Tut tut tut, report flamebait, don't mention it here )

You may take your tutting and place it somewhere out of view.

You're a senior mod. If you think it's flamebaiting then do something about it. Otherwise, don't threaten players.

[Some Random Lands]

Honestly, I have a very mixed but leaning negative view on net neutrality.

The reason that there are few ISPs is not because of monopolies, but because the regulations can put a burden on small companies and ISPs trying to get stronger. Without such strong net neutrality limits, we would have more competition and more ISPs.

The internet is not a right. Would I care if ISPS charged me to go on the internet? Probably, I would have problems. But a website lasting like 13 seconds longer isn't much of a burden.

We should keep some net neutrality laws in place and eliminate others.