FCC and Net Neutrality

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by GreenGoo »

noxiousdog wrote: It's kind of funny how against corporate subsidies you guys are, until it's something you want.
There's no hypocrisy in that. The US exists for it's people, not for it's corporations. The government should act to benefit it's citizens, not for the benefit of its corporations at the *expense* of its citizens.

Tax money is being collected. Tax money is being spent. You think it's funny that people want it spent in such a way as to benefit them?
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by noxiousdog »

GreenGoo wrote:
noxiousdog wrote: It's kind of funny how against corporate subsidies you guys are, until it's something you want.
There's no hypocrisy in that. The US exists for it's people, not for it's corporations. The government should act to benefit it's citizens, not for the benefit of its corporations at the *expense* of its citizens.

Tax money is being collected. Tax money is being spent. You think it's funny that people want it spent in such a way as to benefit them?
...

Last mile service benefits less than 6% of the population, but it's a massive giveway to the telecoms.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
gbasden
Posts: 7664
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:57 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by gbasden »

noxiousdog wrote:
It's kind of funny how against corporate subsidies you guys are, until it's something you want.

Regardless, this is a philosophical argument. You're not going to convince me and the way it was done was bullshit.
Internet connectivity is infrastructure, the same way telephone lines and roads are. Are you also against the highway system?
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by Isgrimnur »

Hitler was in favor of highway systems. :think:
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by Rip »

noxiousdog wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
noxiousdog wrote: It's kind of funny how against corporate subsidies you guys are, until it's something you want.
There's no hypocrisy in that. The US exists for it's people, not for it's corporations. The government should act to benefit it's citizens, not for the benefit of its corporations at the *expense* of its citizens.

Tax money is being collected. Tax money is being spent. You think it's funny that people want it spent in such a way as to benefit them?
...

Last mile service benefits less than 6% of the population, but it's a massive giveway to the telecoms.
While QE is a massive giveaway to the 1%.

:ninja:
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by GreenGoo »

noxiousdog wrote: Last mile service benefits less than 6% of the population, but it's a massive giveway to the telecoms.
Eh? I'm not following. Who here doesn't benefit from last mile?
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by noxiousdog »

GreenGoo wrote:
noxiousdog wrote: Last mile service benefits less than 6% of the population, but it's a massive giveway to the telecoms.
Eh? I'm not following. Who here doesn't benefit from last mile?
Subsidized last mile.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by noxiousdog »

gbasden wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
It's kind of funny how against corporate subsidies you guys are, until it's something you want.

Regardless, this is a philosophical argument. You're not going to convince me and the way it was done was bullshit.
Internet connectivity is infrastructure, the same way telephone lines and roads are. Are you also against the highway system?
If highways were subsidized in remote rural areas, while the rest of us not only paid for it, but also had to use toll roads, yes.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by Isgrimnur »

Of course, there are already new lawsuits.
Mobile trade group CTIA, cable trade group the National Cable and Telecommunications Association [NCTA] and the American Cable Association, which represents small cable operators, all filed lawsuits Tuesday.
...
In late March, the United States Telecom Association, another trade group, and ISP Alamo Broadband filed lawsuits challenging the net neutrality rules. USTelecom refiled its lawsuit Monday after the FCC’s rules were published in the Federal Register, the official publication for U.S. agency rules.

Typically, plaintiffs have to wait until FCC orders are published in the Federal Register to file lawsuits, but USTelecom had some procedural questions because of the sprawling nature of the FCC rules.

The lawsuits against the FCC’s rules will likely be consolidated into one case in one court. Most of the challenges were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, although the Alamo lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, based in Louisiana.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41245
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by El Guapo »

noxiousdog wrote:
gbasden wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
It's kind of funny how against corporate subsidies you guys are, until it's something you want.

Regardless, this is a philosophical argument. You're not going to convince me and the way it was done was bullshit.
Internet connectivity is infrastructure, the same way telephone lines and roads are. Are you also against the highway system?
If highways were subsidized in remote rural areas, while the rest of us not only paid for it, but also had to use toll roads, yes.
Aren't we paying for roads in remote rural areas? I mean, I doubt the cost is material to the overall budget, but I would imagine we're paying for something out there.

I will say that I support the government doing what it reasonably can to spread broadband and make it broadly available and affordable. But the "reasonable" part of that is important, and I don't support them making sure that broadband is available in every remote podunk part of the country - like obviously the government shouldn't spend millions to make sure that the five people who live in the middle of the Alaskan tundra can stream Game of Thrones at an adequate speed.

But I support public support for broadband availability and affordability as a general rule, with the understanding that there's going to be a line somewhere beyond which it would not be reasonable to expend public money to spread broadband to X area.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by noxiousdog »

El Guapo wrote: Aren't we paying for roads in remote rural areas? I mean, I doubt the cost is material to the overall budget, but I would imagine we're paying for something out there.
Yes, of course. But we're also paying for the one in front of my house. Per mile it's roughly the same share. In addition, the federal government only does interstate highways.
I will say that I support the government doing what it reasonably can to spread broadband and make it broadly available and affordable. But the "reasonable" part of that is important, and I don't support them making sure that broadband is available in every remote podunk part of the country - like obviously the government shouldn't spend millions to make sure that the five people who live in the middle of the Alaskan tundra can stream Game of Thrones at an adequate speed.
I concur. I'm also open to it as a discussion to how much they should do and when. My main objection is the FCC has just annexed the power.
But I support public support for broadband availability and affordability as a general rule, with the understanding that there's going to be a line somewhere beyond which it would not be reasonable to expend public money to spread broadband to X area.
I think that's very reasonable.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by GreenGoo »

noxiousdog wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
noxiousdog wrote: Last mile service benefits less than 6% of the population, but it's a massive giveway to the telecoms.
Eh? I'm not following. Who here doesn't benefit from last mile?
Subsidized last mile.
I'm struggling to follow you, I admit.

What's the give away? We pay to have electrical infrastructure in all sorts of remote places. Whether someone chooses to use it or not is their decision, at which point they pay for electricity just like the rest of us.

Is the give away the free infrastructure we're helping pay for so the telecoms can have new customers? Well we already do that with the power grid. Is the give away the infrastructure or the customers?

For the record, the infrastructure most of us take advantage of was *ALREADY* subsidized by the tax payer. The give away that you're so worried about (assuming I understand what you mean here) is something that you are probably already benefiting from. Telecoms have already benefited from huge subsidies even in urban areas.

So I guess I'm not sure what your concern is. That we pay for it? That telecoms benefit from it? That people who live far away from core infrastructure don't have to pay the true costs of the service they are receiving?

And to be fair, I agree that broadband is not a necessity. Not yet. Where you and I part ways is that I can see a time in the very near future where it becomes one, whereas you still believe it's the 90's and that internet is a luxury and a choice.

The disadvantages one would face in lots of aspects of their life, if they did not have decent internet access while they are surrounded by those who do have that access would become very obvious very quickly, in both a professional and social capacity. And it's going to get worse.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by noxiousdog »

GreenGoo wrote: What's the give away? We pay to have electrical infrastructure in all sorts of remote places. Whether someone chooses to use it or not is their decision, at which point they pay for electricity just like the rest of us.
I am fine with saying electricity is a necessity.
For the record, the infrastructure most of us take advantage of was *ALREADY* subsidized by the tax payer. The give away that you're so worried about (assuming I understand what you mean here) is something that you are probably already benefiting from. Telecoms have already benefited from huge subsidies even in urban areas.
I'm not sure I believe this, but feel free to cite.
So I guess I'm not sure what your concern is. That we pay for it? That telecoms benefit from it? That people who live far away from core infrastructure don't have to pay the true costs of the service they are receiving?
That 94% of the people are being taxed for the benefit of 6% (note: that's fixed broadbase: cable or fiber) and the telecoms.
And to be fair, I agree that broadband is not a necessity. Not yet. Where you and I part ways is that I can see a time in the very near future where it becomes one, whereas you still believe it's the 90's and that internet is a luxury and a choice.

The disadvantages one would face in lots of aspects of their life, if they did not have decent internet access while they are surrounded by those who do have that access would become very obvious very quickly, in both a professional and social capacity. And it's going to get worse.
Ok. Well, we can revisit it then.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41245
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by El Guapo »

noxiousdog wrote:
El Guapo wrote: Aren't we paying for roads in remote rural areas? I mean, I doubt the cost is material to the overall budget, but I would imagine we're paying for something out there.
Yes, of course. But we're also paying for the one in front of my house. Per mile it's roughly the same share. In addition, the federal government only does interstate highways.
I will say that I support the government doing what it reasonably can to spread broadband and make it broadly available and affordable. But the "reasonable" part of that is important, and I don't support them making sure that broadband is available in every remote podunk part of the country - like obviously the government shouldn't spend millions to make sure that the five people who live in the middle of the Alaskan tundra can stream Game of Thrones at an adequate speed.
I concur. I'm also open to it as a discussion to how much they should do and when. My main objection is the FCC has just annexed the power.
But I support public support for broadband availability and affordability as a general rule, with the understanding that there's going to be a line somewhere beyond which it would not be reasonable to expend public money to spread broadband to X area.
I think that's very reasonable.
All right, I'm glad that we could come to consensus. :D

Anyway, so it doesn't really matter whether you call broadband a "necessity" (which from what I can tell is how Pyperkub described it, but is not a term that the FCC has used as to broadband) or a public good or whatever else. You don't really dispute the ultimate public policy goal, just that the FCC is the one doing it.

Which is fair enough. I'm often torn on stuff like this where a legislative process would be better in theory, only our political system is so badly broken, with no reasonable prospect of it getting much better soon, that if agencies don't act then problems will simply deteriorate with no effort to address them.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by Kraken »

noxiousdog wrote:
It's kind of funny how against corporate subsidies you guys are, until it's something you want.
What corporate subsidies?

After years of waiting for private companies to bring fast Internet connections to the region, communities — with a lot of help from the Massachusetts Broadband Institute, a public agency — may do it themselves.

Some towns, like Leverett and Princeton, are building their own systems. Others are trying a regional approach. In about 30 communities up and down the hilly spine of Western Massachusetts, voters this year will decide whether to spend tax dollars to build out the “final mile” of broadband — the fiber-optic link that brings service from the so-called “middle mile” trunk to the home. The state is providing $40 million in bond funds to help offset local costs, but municipalities must fund the rest of the effort. The project is expected to cost between $112 and $119 million and will be built by MBI.

If voters agree to fund the bonds, and at least 40 percent of residents sign up for service, WiredWest would morph from a planning organization into a local service provider. Participating towns will get telephone, television, and Internet services at an affordable price from a local cooperative.
Where the telecoms won't provide service, we band together and provide it ourselves. That's just good old-fashioned socialism.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41245
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by El Guapo »

Kraken wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
It's kind of funny how against corporate subsidies you guys are, until it's something you want.
What corporate subsidies?

After years of waiting for private companies to bring fast Internet connections to the region, communities — with a lot of help from the Massachusetts Broadband Institute, a public agency — may do it themselves.

Some towns, like Leverett and Princeton, are building their own systems. Others are trying a regional approach. In about 30 communities up and down the hilly spine of Western Massachusetts, voters this year will decide whether to spend tax dollars to build out the “final mile” of broadband — the fiber-optic link that brings service from the so-called “middle mile” trunk to the home. The state is providing $40 million in bond funds to help offset local costs, but municipalities must fund the rest of the effort. The project is expected to cost between $112 and $119 million and will be built by MBI.

If voters agree to fund the bonds, and at least 40 percent of residents sign up for service, WiredWest would morph from a planning organization into a local service provider. Participating towns will get telephone, television, and Internet services at an affordable price from a local cooperative.
Where the telecoms won't provide service, we band together and provide it ourselves. That's just good old-fashioned socialism.
Where is that article from?

And when is Boston doing that? We've got plenty of socialism.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by LawBeefaroni »

"We're at max capacity, we're at max capacity, our margins are razor thin, we're at max...what's that? Competition you say? We're at 1/6th max capacity, we're at 1/6th max capcacity, we can charge you the same for 6 times the speed...."

ARS wrote:With Google Fiber preparing an expansion into Charlotte, North Carolina, incumbent cable operator Time Warner Cable is trying to hold onto customers by dramatically increasing Internet speeds at no extra charge.

"The Internet transformation will begin this summer and will include speed increases on TWC residential Internet plans at no additional cost, with customers experiencing increases up to six times faster, depending on their current level of Internet service," Time Warner Cable announced last week. "For example, customers who subscribe to Standard, formerly up to 15Mbps, will now receive up to 50Mbps, customers who subscribe to Extreme, formerly up to 30Mbps, will now receive up to 200Mbps; and customers who subscribe to Ultimate, formerly up to 50Mbps, will receive up to 300Mbps, at no extra charge."

...

TWC is not the only company to boost service in order to fend off a challenge from Google Fiber. "Most of us live in monopoly, or at best duopoly, territory for broadband providers," Consumerist wrote Friday. "But when Google announces plans to expand into a new market, competitors either strive to dive in first, like Comcast in Atlanta, or drop prices to match, like AT&T in Austin and Kansas City."
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by Rip »

Yep, they did the same thing when the local municipal fiber went to market. You can get decent speeds here at a reasonable rate from them only because they had to and they spent millions and millions trying to stop it.

They warned as they sued that the taxpayers would be on the hook because there was no way the economics would work. So far so good and they are paying their debt as planned.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by GreenGoo »

Ok, bear with me. This is a bit long, disjointed, and covers a few different points. I haven't bothered to do a historical study to see how we got to where we are today, but I should and I will. The history of telecommunications is rife with public funding and subsidies.

This won't all be cited perfectly. Feel free to copy and paste some of the key words into google. I started out doing a quick look and then started semi-documenting. Like I said, this is not a thesis, just factoids.

The US has the Universal Service Fund, which is used to subsidize the telecommunications industry. The catch is that the fund is funded by taxing the telecom companies themselves. The double catch is that the telecom companies just pass the cost onto their customers (sometimes as an actual line item!). So the customer is charged not only for the service he/she receives, but also for any subsidies from this fund. I think 2013 saw 8+ billion in subsidies handed out.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration also funds internet subsidies, to a lesser extent. I think they've handed out 4 or 5 billion, but that's overall, not per year.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/grants-combined


The US dept. of Agriculture is already handing out funding for rural areas. Not to much effect apparently. One program is called The Rural Utilities Service program.


Verizon makes deal, receives tax benefits and deregulation. Verizon reneges on contract. There are a pile of these out there.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030 ... 2250.shtml

For example.

Article from 2007 regarding $200 billion worth of similar situations. This number has risen to about $300 billion since then.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007 ... 02683.html

These companies are being paid with tax payer money for services they promise to provide, then don't provide those services, then walk away with the money.


article on the US's slipping broadband market penetration as compared to other industrialized nations. Blame is put squarely on the telecom companies.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/20 ... has-failed


article on the US being charged more than any other country for slower broadband access with a nice parallel to the power grid and it's evolution.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... er-service


another article lamenting the shitty internet service the US enjoys. When I tell you that you guys suck, some of you don't understand how badly you're getting screwed. This isn't Canada enjoying all your pharma hardwork R&D for less. This is you guys getting screwed by private industry. Unforunately our (Canada's government and industry are trying to follow suit)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -internet/

Here's a wiki quote expressing the importance of the internet. I realize it's not proof of anything, but it does convey the thoughts behind those who feel that decent access to the internet is important.
Internet access has become a vital tool in development and social progress since the start of the 21st century. As a result, Internet penetration and, more specifically, broadband Internet penetration rates are now treated as key economic indicators. The United States is widely perceived as falling behind in both its rate of broadband Internet penetration and the speed of its broadband infrastructure.[59]
Last edited by GreenGoo on Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Interesting details about the various subsidies. Thanks.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by GreenGoo »

LawBeefaroni wrote:Interesting details about the various subsidies. Thanks.
There are tons more. Each state does it's own thing too, so if you want to know about your particular state, just do a search and I'm sure you'll find a whole pile of info. Everybody wants to help provide internet access. It's almost like they think it's important. Or dare I say, a necessity? :whistle:

I particularly liked the idea that broadband penetration (% of people with access to it) is now an economic indicator.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by noxiousdog »

GreenGoo wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:Interesting details about the various subsidies. Thanks.
There are tons more. Each state does it's own thing too, so if you want to know about your particular state, just do a search and I'm sure you'll find a whole pile of info. Everybody wants to help provide internet access. It's almost like they think it's important. Or dare I say, a necessity? :whistle:

I particularly liked the idea that broadband penetration (% of people with access to it) is now an economic indicator.
I'm not sure I'm following your original premise which was that most of broadband was done with government subsidies.

But regardless, if they have been screwing us for decades, why do we want to give more money out of the USF to telecoms?

Kraken's idea makes much more sense.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41245
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by El Guapo »

Note that the FCC is not saying that it's going to demand more money for the USF. It's just, I gather, that one of the implications of Title II reclassification is that it gives the FCC the power to expand the USF fee to cover broadband providers. Also as the article notes, even if it decided to impose a USF fee on broadband providers, it doesn't necessarily follow that overall USF fees would increase - e.g., it could reduce the telecom USF fee while adding the broadband USF fee, such that the same amount of funding would come from a broader base of consumers.

Also, if I were Tom Wheeler, even if I were inclined to expand the USF fund, now is not the time that I would choose to do so.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by GreenGoo »

noxiousdog wrote:Kraken's idea makes much more sense.
Kraken's idea has been stymied by telecom lobby and legal actions for years, as Rip can attest.

If the telecoms are receiving subsidies, than by definition you are benefiting from those subsidies. That being said, I'll look for more concrete examples.

Oh crap, I forgot something in my original post, which was that a study found that only 41% of the subsidies handed out by the USF were used to actually build infrastructure. 59% of those subsidies were used to pay for basic operating costs. i.e. thanks for the subsidies, you just increased our profit margin. I didn't read the study so I don't know the details.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by noxiousdog »

GreenGoo wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:Kraken's idea makes much more sense.
Kraken's idea has been stymied by telecom lobby and legal actions for years, as Rip can attest.
I know. So again, why give them MORE subsidies?
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41245
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by El Guapo »

GreenGoo wrote:
If the telecoms are receiving subsidies, than by definition you are benefiting from those subsidies.
That's not really true, unless ND happens to be a telecom executive. At the very least, and at least for areas where telecoms do not face material competition, the public benefit of the subsidies is (I suspect) probably a fraction of their cost. Similar to farm subsidies.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by GreenGoo »

El Guapo wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
If the telecoms are receiving subsidies, than by definition you are benefiting from those subsidies.
That's not really true, unless ND happens to be a telecom executive. At the very least, and at least for areas where telecoms do not face material competition, the public benefit of the subsidies is (I suspect) probably a fraction of their cost. Similar to farm subsidies.
Well that's a different argument. Nox doesn't want to subsidize other people's access to the internet. What happens to his fees if the feds yank the USF subsidies out from under the telecoms. How do the subsidies not benefit Nox (and everyone else) in this way?

His fees are already less than they would be if subsidies didn't exist. Well, that's the capitalist theory. I can envision a world where they just pocket the subsidies as free money, because that's what they sort of do, but still...the theory is sound.

But even if none of that were true, the privatization of the internet backbone was essentially the Federal Government creating the data transfer technology, the Network access points, market demand and then handing it over to private industry. I'd say that's a fair amount of subsidy. If the Feds were to create a cure for cancer and then hand it to a private company to sell for profit, that's a pretty freakin' huge subsidy. And that's what happened with the internet.

So we've already seen a number of ways the government makes it easier for the telecoms, but that's still not what Nox is looking for, so I'll see what I can find tonight. To be honest, I personally feel we're arguing over details that don't change the reality that telecoms get government handouts by the truckload. But that's fine. I wonder how many more ways I can find that the Feds fund the telecoms.
Last edited by GreenGoo on Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by GreenGoo »

noxiousdog wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:Kraken's idea makes much more sense.
Kraken's idea has been stymied by telecom lobby and legal actions for years, as Rip can attest.
I know. So again, why give them MORE subsidies?
I guess I'm not following.

What is your plan to increase broadband penetration, again? I might have missed it.

Are we talking past each other here? Something fundamental is missing in our exchanges, I think.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41245
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by El Guapo »

GreenGoo wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
If the telecoms are receiving subsidies, than by definition you are benefiting from those subsidies.
That's not really true, unless ND happens to be a telecom executive. At the very least, and at least for areas where telecoms do not face material competition, the public benefit of the subsidies is (I suspect) probably a fraction of their cost. Similar to farm subsidies.
Well that's a different argument. Nox doesn't want to subsidize other people's access to the internet. What happens to his fees if the feds yank the USF subsidies out from under the telecoms. How do the subsidies not benefit Nox (and everyone else) in this way?

His fees are already less than they would be if subsidies didn't exist. Well, that's the capitalist theory. I can envision a world where they just pocket the subsidies as free money, because that's what they sort of do, but still...the theory is sound.

But even if none of that were true, the privatization of the internet backbone was essentially the Federal Government creating the data transfer technology, the Network access points, market demand and then handing it over to private industry. I'd say that's a fair amount of subsidy. If the Feds were to create a cure for cancer and then hand it to a private company to sell for profit, that's a pretty freakin' huge subsidy. And that's what happened with the internet.

So we've already seen a number of ways the government makes it easier for the telecoms, but that's still not what Nox is looking for, so I'll see what I can find tonight. To be honest, I personally feel we're arguing over details that don't change the reality that telecoms get government handouts by the truckload. But that's fine. I wonder how many more ways I can find that the Feds fund the telecoms.
If you look at his exchange with me, I don't think he is opposed in principle to the government subsidizing in some form broadband expansion. I think he's mainly opposed to the USF fund and to the potential expansion thereof.

Which from what I've read in this thread so far, I kind of am too. The fees are borne entirely by consumers, since the telecoms just pass them along 100% (one of the benefits of monopoly power). So the telecoms get all of the fat, and as you noted earlier only a minority of it (41%) is used to build infrastructure at all, and none of the funds (from what I can tell) incentivize broadband build out.

Kind of seems like a blank check to the telecom companies with vague benefits. Ideally the USF fund money would be kept by the FCC who would then use it to do stuff like, say, build out broadband infrastructure, or otherwise spend it to promote widespread and affordable broadband. But I'm not sure I would shed a tear if it were eliminated.

Though I've only read a few tidbits about the fund from this thread, so I could be persuaded otherwise. But the early indications are not promising about the value of it.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by Isgrimnur »

That 59%, conceivably, is keeping internet on in places that don't make enough money to cover operating costs, sunk costs notwithstanding.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by GreenGoo »

Ok, I'll back out for now, as I guess I missed his opposition was strictly based on the USF. I thought I was introducing the USF to the thread. :oops:

This also gives more context to our disagreement on whether current networks have been subsidized or not.

Part of the problem in identifying simple examples of cash for networks is that the feds have been subsidizing telecommunications for decades, and everything has evolved from that. The networks didn't show up in whole cloth, and they weren't paid for as a one time payment. Investment is ongoing and hasn't ever really stopped from when it started over a century ago. Are the majority of phone lines in Boston new developments or remnants of the 60's? Did Boston get subsidized in the 60's?

It's a nightmare of a mess to try to decipher. The federal government absolutely subsidized telecoms for years in a zillion different ways, but finding a clear, simple example for illustrative purposes is proving difficult. It doesn't help that the internet is currently obsessed with future subsidies for low service areas, so 95% of the articles want to talk about that (just as we are).
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by GreenGoo »

Oh yeah, don't forget the USF is funding by the telecoms themselves. The feds literally force the telecoms to pay into the fund. The twist is that the telecoms get to play the victim card, passing on the costs while pointing at the government as scap goat. They then re-acquire those funds and misuse them for their own gain.

It's not that the fund is broken imo, although how it is used could use some work.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41245
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by El Guapo »

Isgrimnur wrote:That 59%, conceivably, is keeping internet on in places that don't make enough money to cover operating costs, sunk costs notwithstanding.
That could be, but it seems unlikely. They're monopolies, as a rule, so they can charge almost whatever they want and move money around freely. The USF fund does not, as far as I am aware, force them to spend money in less profitable areas. It just gives them a slightly larger pool of money to play with.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41245
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by El Guapo »

GreenGoo wrote:Oh yeah, don't forget the USF is funding by the telecoms themselves. The feds literally force the telecoms to pay into the fund. The twist is that the telecoms get to play the victim card, passing on the costs while pointing at the government as scap goat. They then re-acquire those funds and misuse them for their own gain.

It's not that the fund is broken imo, although how it is used could use some work.
That's a fair point. I guess that would make the fund more of a meaningless waste of time than something malicious.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by Kraken »

El Guapo wrote:
Where is that article from?

And when is Boston doing that? We've got plenty of socialism.
The first link in the post that I've referenced twice since then. I knew you guys weren't reading it. :lol:

I don't know about Boston, but the Braintree Electric Light Department competes vigorously with Verizon and Comcast. And the competition occasionally gets ugly; residents have reported salesmen going door-to-door telling customers that BELD is going to go out of business.
GreenGoo wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:Kraken's idea makes much more sense.
Kraken's idea has been stymied by telecom lobby and legal actions for years, as Rip can attest.
I like "Kraken's idea" but I have to tip my hat to Thomas Watson. Thanks to him we've enjoyed public power since 1891, broadband internet since 1999. BELD employees are town residents. My cable/internet payments stay in the local economy. Their "profit" gets split between reinvestment and payments in lieu of taxes to town government. When I have a question I get personal attention because I'm one of fewer than 10,000 customers.

And yes, it's criminal that the telecoms have successfully blocked public utilities in most of the US. Because socialism. (It's been fun watching Rip avoid that word since he got the same setup.)
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by Rip »

Kraken wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
Where is that article from?

And when is Boston doing that? We've got plenty of socialism.
The first link in the post that I've referenced twice since then. I knew you guys weren't reading it. :lol:

I don't know about Boston, but the Braintree Electric Light Department competes vigorously with Verizon and Comcast. And the competition occasionally gets ugly; residents have reported salesmen going door-to-door telling customers that BELD is going to go out of business.
GreenGoo wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:Kraken's idea makes much more sense.
Kraken's idea has been stymied by telecom lobby and legal actions for years, as Rip can attest.
I like "Kraken's idea" but I have to tip my hat to Thomas Watson. Thanks to him we've enjoyed public power since 1891, broadband internet since 1999. BELD employees are town residents. My cable/internet payments stay in the local economy. Their "profit" gets split between reinvestment and payments in lieu of taxes to town government. When I have a question I get personal attention because I'm one of fewer than 10,000 customers.

And yes, it's criminal that the telecoms have successfully blocked public utilities in most of the US. Because socialism. (It's been fun watching Rip avoid that word since he got the same setup.)
The word?

Have you heard?

Image

:P
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by Pyperkub »

Am I reading this wrong or does it pretty much seem to state "oh poor us, it's too expensive to NOT spy on our customers and sell that information"?
The extra work caused by protecting customer privacy is one of the recurring themes in declarations made by ISPs as part of the lawsuit filed on May 1 by the American Cable Association and National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

There are 137 mentions of CPNI in the cable companies' petition.

"Petitioners’ members would face extensive burdens to comply with Section 222(c)(1), including the creation of processes to ensure that CPNI is not used in marketing without customer approval," the petition states.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Biyobi
Posts: 5440
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:21 pm
Location: San Gabriel, CA

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by Biyobi »

Pyperkub wrote:Am I reading this wrong or does it pretty much seem to state "oh poor us, it's too expensive to NOT spy on our customers and sell that information"?
The extra work caused by protecting customer privacy is one of the recurring themes in declarations made by ISPs as part of the lawsuit filed on May 1 by the American Cable Association and National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

There are 137 mentions of CPNI in the cable companies' petition.

"Petitioners’ members would face extensive burdens to comply with Section 222(c)(1), including the creation of processes to ensure that CPNI is not used in marketing without customer approval," the petition states.
OH NOES! An extra yes/no column in the customer table of our database!
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by GreenGoo »

Why bother with creating these "new" processes when they are simply going to be ordered to hand it all over to the government anyway?
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: FCC and Net Neutrality

Post by Defiant »

The debate over the potential harm of T-Mobile's Binge On continues, with a new study from Stanford University claiming that the perk violates key net neutrality principles and is "likely illegal." Binge On lets T-Mobile subscribers watch videos from streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu without eating into their data plan. It's proved popular with users, with T-Mobile claiming video views on its network have "more than doubled" since the deal was introduced, but critics say it's creating a tiered internet service, with the Uncarrier given the unfair advantage of deciding who wins and who loses.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/29/10867 ... ly-illegal
Post Reply