Internet slowdown

I thought more at MG would be into this, but I guess it's a US problem. It will affect the internet as a whole.
https://www.battleforthenet.com/sept10th/

 

I was online all day yesterday, and I noticed exactly not one site displaying it (or doing anything else to indicate they were taking part in this supposed "movement"). I never even heard anything about it until well after midnight yesterday.

 

MG is not really affected, but a lot of their users are.
Admin comments?

 

I saw a banner for that on Netflix and also a blog I follow. It was also on Dropbox's twitter. On the blog I follow one commenter called everyone insane and that net neutrality laws would hand everything over to Obama to control all media and wipe out any sense of freedom from the internet. I asked for some comment on why he would think that and he has yet to reply back.

 

Considering a lot of the Internet infrastructure is here, no its not.

 

I'd not heard anything about this. I've not noticed anything.

As far as "net neutrality" goes, I want the government involved in the internet as little as possible.

There is generally no good outcome for consumers when the Federal Government sticks it's nose too deeply in any free market enterprise. No political axe to grind . . . goverment bungling crosses all party lines. I've been saying this for years, and under administrations of both parties.

 

Actually, Spad, regulation would be best. ISP's fear they will be treated as utilities. Our utilities are very good. PG&E is studied world wide for its efficiency as well as cost per KW. The FCC can make ISP's utilities, not responsible for what they carry, but also unable to choose what they carry - total net neutrality. This would soon lead to forcing ISP's to deliver advertised speeds or suffer penalties.
If the ISP also has a download or streaming business, that would be a different set of laws. If they give preference to their own content, again they would face fines.

 

Oh, I have nothing against regulation . . . far from it. A certain amount of regulation is needed and proper for consumer protection. The worry is it most likely will not stop with simple, helpful regulation. Historically, when any government bureaucracy gets too involved in the operation of a private enterprise, it just can't stop tinkering with things, and more and more regulations soon follow, and can turn into less of a regulatory presence and more of a controlling/management one. It’s insidiously incremental, like weight gain :-D Free market competition can sort out most service issues between providers.

I just believe heavy government involvement in a private sector enterprise rarely works out to the average consumer's advantage. More government involvement = more government regulation = more government control = more expense for John Q. on the street for less functionality. All in the name of being "fair." But fair, in the end, to whom? Sadly, not always the consumer.

 

I appreciate your concerns Spad.
Please compare TV with ISP providers. TV has a long history of regulation that pretty much works.
Do you have an example of a long term US government intervention into the private sector that has lead to abuse like our ISP's are handing out now?

 

Off the top of my head the most glaring example of government involvement in the private sector having negative economic impact would be Amtrak. It's government owned and controlled, and its annual budget is allocated by Congress. Heck, even its CEO is appointed by the President of the United States. In the 40 years of its existence it has lost about 50 billion taxpayer dollars. Trains are routinely late, break downs are common, and customer satisfaction with service on the trains is negative. Anthony Haswell, founder of the National Association of Railroad Passengers, is considered one of the founding fathers of the concern. He considers it a failure, and is quoted as saying, "Amtrak is a massive failure because it’s wedded to a failed paradigm. It runs trains that serve political purposes as opposed to being responsive to the marketplace. . . " Not the same scenario as the internet question, but shows how the government is unable to run a business that can compete in the real world.

In my opinion, the only government concern here is consumer protection. Regulating interstate commerce is, after all, one of the jobs the Feds are supposed to do. If the government wants to help this industry, they should enact regulations that promote competition and allows smaller entities to enter the arena by divestiture of the few behemoths that now control the majority of TV programming/internet access. It's good when businesses have to battle for your bucks. Healthy market competition = more choices, better prices, and a better product for the consumer. Instead we see the FCC approving mergers that make existing behemoths even bigger.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with the legislation at hand. It is my opinion that robust free market competition would correct the service issues that now plague this industry. Government regulation/control will not do that . . . the government can't even run a railroad :-D

 

Amtrak is an interesting example. The government wants train service for people even though it has almost no market. There is no way passenger trains would make money so if left to the private sector they would be gone. I am not saying they run it well, only that without government support that mode of transportation would not exist.
I agree with competition as the correct answer and that the FCC is listening to lobbyists instead of what is good for the people. Unfortunately the only way to get competition is through more regulations. On the bright side there are regulations already in place if the FCC would just classify ISP's as common carriers. That change would not cure all, but would use a well established set of laws to proceed forward.
As far as competition, only government regulation will allow that. If we stop regulating we will go back to the days of ATT having a total monopoly.

 

I agree there is a proper and needed role for government in industry . . . especially one that has as much an impact on society as the internet does. I just worry about government overreach in these matters, because their history is not stellar in this regard. I hope I'm wrong.

Actually, in the case of the AT&T divestiture quite a bit of deregulation took place along with that. The massive rate hikes and decline in service that naysayers warned about never occured. Rates stayed congruent with inflation and the cost of other services, and in fact service quality increased across the board.

I'd agree that any business that has wasted over a billion dollars a year of taxpayer money for 40 years is certainly not run well :-D. Actually, there are places in the country where rail transportation of persons is a viable and needed service . . . just not where a lot of the Amtrak lines run. The issue with Amtrak is they are able to run at a huge loss because they are not beholden to what the market will bear. Any private concern would have washed out in the first few years, if not the first year, with that kind of financial loss. If Amtrack were not there, some other concern would step in and take care of the transportation needs it fills. But, none can, as Amtrak can blissfully lose huge money year after year, thanks to the "bottomless well" of taxpayer cash. Improvements cannot take place, a better service cannot come into being, because Amtrak is financially "bullet-proof." Amtrak is a worse-case example of government intrusion into the private sector.

 

In the end it all comes down to money, unfortunately.
http://***********.com/tech-policy/2014/09/senators-opposing-net-neutrality-raking-in-campaign-cash/
a r s t e c h n i c a (wish they would allow links to that site, although it is sensational at times)
And the big ISP's are unabashedly "donating" to keep their profits.

Amtrack is being split into profitable (Northeast corridor) and unprofitable (the rest of the nation) in hopes to prove train travel can work. In areas with really bad weather trains are an attractive alternative. In areas with year round good weather getting people out of their cars will require other incentives like speed and/or cost per mile.

 

Yes. Sad, but 100% true. The old saw "Definition of the Golden Rule: Those that have the gold, make the rules." comes to mind. :-D

Agree about trains in general. Making a profit transporting individuals is becoming increasingly diffucult. With rail the money is in freight transport, it seems.