Adult Content Warning

This community may contain adult content that is not suitable for minors. By closing this dialog box or continuing to navigate this site, you certify that you are 18 years of age and consent to view adult content.

The FCC vs. the Internet.

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Jimmy James, May 9, 2014.

  1. Robbie Clark

    Robbie Clark
    Expand Collapse
    Disturbed

    Reputation:
    17
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    357
    I do not disagree that the internet is necessary for business in today's world. And businesses can be hurt by poor internet connections. The company I work for is actually affected by this regularly, given it operates almost exclusively in rural areas, but it still gets by. And thrives. It's a compromise the company had to make to do the work it does. I'm fine with that and fine with individuals having to make similar compromises. If everyone in a country doesn't have great internet, that's not a job for the feds to fix.

    By your own standards you said those countries are stupid.
     
  2. Robbie Clark

    Robbie Clark
    Expand Collapse
    Disturbed

    Reputation:
    17
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    357
    I hope no one will say Juice is retarded or insane for believing that broadband (or any) internet is unnecessary to exist in modern life.

    My argument is the oligopoly only arises because of crony deals between companies and local/state/federal governments. And the solution is to end these crony deals and prevent them from happening by removing government ability to make the deals in the first place.

    I suppose an argument can be made that since Comcast benefited from these deals, then they should be restricted from how they manipulate their service, but that's a slippery slope. End the deals, and then the network belongs wholly to Comcast and they can do what they like with it. If you don't like that deal, then you can switch providers or cancel your service.
     
  3. Robbie Clark

    Robbie Clark
    Expand Collapse
    Disturbed

    Reputation:
    17
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    357
    In my experience, which has included several jobs over the past years, and several living arrangements, this is not true. I'll allow that I'm incorrect on this, but I don't think it disproves my point. Dialup or cellular internet would suffice for job or house/apartment hunting.

    As far as the constitutionality, simply point to me a provision for the FCC to even exist in the Constitution. I've read the document many times and have never found such.

    The Constitution itself, in fact, prohibits the federal government from doing things not explicitly outlined in the Constitution.

     
  4. Juice

    Juice
    Expand Collapse
    Moderately Gender Fluid

    Reputation:
    1,382
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    13,397
    Location:
    Boston
    .

    Actually its quite the opposite. With a few exceptions, oligopolies rise because of collusion between the few dominating companies. Monopolies rise because of collusion between the company and the state. The major factors creating an oligopoly are the following: economies of scale, high barriers to entry, and mutual interdependence.

    The first one is the ability to mass produce, with high technological efficiency and at a low cost. High barriers of entry could potentially be influenced by the government, but usually by the time that happens it reinforces it, but doesnt create it. And mutual interdependence is price setting with no illegal collusion. An example being how two gas stations across the street from each other have relatively similar gas prices.

    Mergers are also another major factor. Many times, the government actively works against anti-competitive mergers.
     
  5. Robbie Clark

    Robbie Clark
    Expand Collapse
    Disturbed

    Reputation:
    17
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    357
    Absent state interference this is the perfect opportunity for competing businesses to join the market.
     
  6. D26

    D26
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    110
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,305
    Allow me to correct you briefly:

    Article I Section 8 of the United States constitution gives the Federal government the power:

    "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

    In other words, regulate commerce between the states. Last I checked, companies like Comcast, Time Warner, AOL, and even broadcast companies like NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, and other cable networks, all operate across state lines and charge money for their services, whether it be directly or indirectly. Therefore, the federal government absolutely has the power to regulate these businesses.

    In addition, before you say "but it doesn't say they can create the FCC...", the constitution also gives the federal government the power:

    "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

    Here ya go, for the link.

    In other words, the federal government can create any law that is "necessary and proper" to carry out the aforementioned powers of the federal government, including interstate commerce, which includes companies that operate across state lines regularly, like Internet Service Providers.

    So yeah, the whole "powers not delegated to the federal government..." thing doesn't apply, because the power to regulate commerce between the states is a power delegated to the federal government, and hence the creation of the FCC.

    As for internet not being "required," once again I will disagree, and give you an example.

    See, I am a teacher at a school with what we call a "one to one" initiative. All our students have laptop computers, and assignments are online. It is, therefore, expected that students have internet access at home and the ability to complete assignments and submit them online outside of the classroom. There are some (very few) students that lack this access, and I can personally attest that they struggle to complete their work and are falling behind their peers with regular access. I can also attest that not only are we NOT the only school in my state to make this adjustment, we are actually one of the LAST to make this step because we are a more rural school. I expect that within the next 5 to 10 years, all schools will make the internet a requirement for students to complete even basic high school.

    In fact, many schools are moving to a system of "online days" rather than "snow days." In other words, in cases of extreme weather that would cancel school and require make-up days, many schools are now requiring (note: not suggesting, requiring) students to get online and complete assignments, and the state government (Indiana, one of the most conservative states in the country, and in fact regularly referred to as Indiassippi by its residents) allows this. Their other option is to take an unexcused absence. Meaning the state government is, for all intents and purposes, saying that it is a realistic expectation that all students have reliable enough internet access at their homes that they can complete school requirements online, rather than actually attending class, in cases of extreme weather.

    But no, you're right, the internet isn't a requirement in today's society. Except that within the next ten years, it absolutely will be, if you want to be a high school graduate (at least in the state of Indiana, though I am fairly certain we're not the only state going this direction).
     
  7. The Village Idiot

    The Village Idiot
    Expand Collapse
    Porn Worthy, Bitches

    Reputation:
    274
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,267
    Location:
    Where angels never dare
    I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this point. I think the internet is a requirement in our society. There are government agencies that unless you visit them in person require an online application. I know what you're getting at, that we will only rely on it more in the coming years, but I do think we've reached the point where it is necessary for the average person to have internet access.

    Some people don't, just like they don't have heat, or food, but the absence of something doesn't mean it isn't necessary. But again, I get your point.
     
  8. Binary

    Binary
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    382
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,060
    Dial-up will not suffice. The average size of webpages has increased dramatically in the last 10 years. Surfing with dial-up today is a hilarious exercise in futility. In regards to cellular internet, I guess it's a good thing these rules are planned to apply to that, too. Even CDMA 3G speeds are about 1 Mbps down and that's slow compared to GSM 3G and all 4G tech, which covers most of the country now.

    Why are you throwing "cellular internet" in there like it changes anything I've said? It's still dreadfully expensive to implement wide-spanning wireless networks. "Wireless" isn't really wireless at all. There are enormously expensive towers complete with miles of fiber backhauls and hundreds of millions of dollars of head-end gear. There's still a giant cost to enter the market that has meant a very few large providers are in charge of prioritizing traffic.

    Nope. Not going to go down this path. This is about net neutrality, not whether you know better than all the constitutional lawyers and courts in the country. Just don't slip "unconstitutional" in there like it actually means anything since nothing about this regulation is unconstitutional.
     
  9. CharlesJohnson

    CharlesJohnson
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    401
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    3,974
    I agree we're already there.

    Most job applications have moved online. My old company didn't even make paper applications. Highschools and colleges already require some portion of online assignments for brick/mortar classes. My electric company has moved its billing department online; paper checks are penalized with an extra fee. If you want the IRS to do anything in a timely (LAWL) fashion your best bet is to do it electronically.
     
  10. D26

    D26
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    110
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,305
    I just didn't do a great job of getting my point across there. I think the Internet is almost certainly a requirement today. You CAN live without it, just like you can live without heat, air conditioning, electricity, a car, (assuming you're not a city dweller) and a refrigerator; but your standard of living will simply be so much lower than everyone else you'll be at an immediate disadvantage socially and economically.

    Should have added a [/sarcasm] tag to the end of that first sentence.
     
  11. Robbie Clark

    Robbie Clark
    Expand Collapse
    Disturbed

    Reputation:
    17
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    357
    It's obvious by the language of that clause that it means the federal government can regulate commerce laws among the state governments. Sometimes large, politically connected corporations behave like states, but technically they are not states. It doesn't say that it can regulate the actions of a corporation that operates in multiple states.

    I'm aware that the courts probably unanimously disagree with that, but nothing less is to be expected from people that support and are supported by the federal government and its power.

    This seems insane for a state to do. Are there no poor people in your state?

    Since these federal government employees swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, I think it's important, but I won't bring it up again.
     
  12. Binary

    Binary
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    382
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,060
    Let's keep this on focus. It's about a piece of legislation, not about whether the FCC is a legal regulating body.
     
  13. wexton

    wexton
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    351
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    3,239
    Location:
    North Coast BC
  14. D26

    D26
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    110
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,305
    How is it obvious that it meant they could regulate state commerce laws? That makes less than no sense.

    Are you reading it like I'm calling Comcast or Time Warner a state? Because that isn't even implied by my post (or the constitution that you purport to have read multiple times).

    The intent of that clause is actually pretty clear. The founders realized that a business that went between states to operate or operated across multiple states might be subject to many different laws. What is legal for a business in Massachusetts might be illegal in New York. So, to solve those issues and avoid confusion, the federal government assumes the power to regulate businesses that operate across state lines, to ensure fair treatment of the businesses and consumers across all states.

    Otherwise, a business with headquarters in New York could break a state law in Maine and say "but we're based in New York and subject to only New York laws, therefore Maine laws can fuck off."

    This was upheld in the landmark case of Gibbons v Ogden (a case about steamboat businesses running between New York and New Jersey), it was ruled that commerce had a broad definition, but even then (1824) they believed the federal government had the power to regulate any business that operated across multiple states. Fuck, back in 1824, the question wasn't "can the government regulate commerce between states," because they can. It was "what is commerce, exactly?"

    Your remark about (paraphrasing) "oh, I'm sure the courts disagree, because they're puppets of the government" is... I don't even know. You're implying that the Supreme Court willingly allows Congress more power because... Reasons? The broad view of the commerce clause dates back to even before the Civil War. This isn't some new, "liberal, big government" bullshit, this is dating back to the 1820s when "liberal" meant "don't whip that slave more than 10 times, it's cruel."

    You're basically saying "I know literally every government official and judge for the past 200 years has upheld the meaning of this constitutional clause, but they're all wrong and I am right, because... Uhh... Because they have power!"
     
  15. E. Tuffmen

    E. Tuffmen
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    53
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    904
    Location:
    Negative space
    See this is what I don't understand about all this. If this is the gist of what the new FCC rules mean, I don't understand what the problem is. However, other than Comcast trying to screw Netflix, I' not aware of any other case where this is happening. It's hard for me to get my head around because I feel I have other choices other than just one internet provider. In my area we have Charter Cable, which absolutely sucks, which is why I went with AT&T. I think I even have another choice beyond that, so I don't see how Comcast can be the only game in town for some, or Time Warner for that matter. Unless you live in a pretty remote area, aren't there other choices already?
     
  16. wexton

    wexton
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    351
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    3,239
    Location:
    North Coast BC
    Most places from what I understand don't have any options.
     
  17. Binary

    Binary
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    382
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,060
    Actually, Netflix had this problem with multiple cable providers, not just Comcast. Verizon has repeatedly blocked various voice and video applications from accessing their network. Many ISPs have been found to throttle various video services like YouTube. Some ISPs have throttled Bittorrent traffic - and while sure, Bittorrent can be used for piracy, it's not an illegal protocol and a fair number of businesses have turned to Bittorrent to distribute large files. I know I read a report on one ISP throttling competitive VOIP products in favor of their own but I can't find my bookmark and am at work so my research is a little limited.

    Last I read, it was at least third of the country that had only one choice in their broadband ISP. It doesn't have to be that remote - the last two cities I lived in only had one broadband option since both places where I lived in the city (not remote, just where I happened to be located in the urban area) could not get DSL. Additionally, as discussed earlier in the thread, some people who are served by DSL might not still be on the edges of acceptable.

    When I lived in NH, I believe the entire region around where I lived was basically a single ISP. It was rural but nowhere near "remote" - the town I lived in had more than 30k people and a state college. There were select areas of the city where you could get DSL but for the most part it was the one cable provider in the area or nothing.
     
  18. Parker

    Parker
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    90
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    Messages:
    5,831
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Let's not forget renters here. I lived in a building in the middle of goddamn Chicago where a lot of people rent. The only option I had for the first three years was RCN (who sucks) and that's it. Options is a magical word when it comes to cabl, because certain providers only have certain ranges, even in cities.
     
  19. Nettdata

    Nettdata
    Expand Collapse
    Mr. Toast

    Reputation:
    2,863
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    25,731
    There are tons of "network fuckery" that go on at an ISP level... from "magically" dropping/capping performance on video gamers or torrenters, to injecting adds into clients, to a whole bunch of other things that are sketchy as hell. All in the name of "better service".

    With more and more outlets moving away from mainstream cable, and the mainstream cable companies owning a large number of the ISPs and infrastructure, they've been positioning themselves to make money while their customer base shifts away from them and to on-demand services like Netflix, Hulu, etc. "Fuck it, if you're not going to subscribe to our specialty movie channels and use HBO/Netflix instead, then we're going to charge you to access them on our network... over and above your Netflix fees".

    In Canada, Bell was offering unlimited bandwidth to people on their mobile network to watch Bell TV content, while other providers were subject to the end-user's data cap. So I could watch all the Bell TV I wanted without using any of my data plan, but paid through the nose for Netflix, because that network usage was applied to my data plan. So that unfairly benefited Bell, and the CRTC told them to knock it off: http://business.financialpost.com/2015/ ... =0c66-f8b6

    Imagine if your ISP saw that Facebook was a hugely popular site, and then extorted FB into paying them huge fees in order to let their ISP customers access them, because they could. Or you, as the customer of the ISP, were told "you'll have to pay the $5/month FB fee if you want to use Facebook. And another $3/month for Twitter."

    While this activity has not been implemented widely, it has been well in the works with Netflix being one of the first to feel the pain. If anything, Netflix was kind of the test case for some of the ISP, and they were testing the waters to see what they could get away with. In the end, it was their "if you don't like it, Netflix, go somewhere else... oh, right... there is nowhere else, because we are the only ISP for that market you're going after" stance that really pushed the issue.

    The core of this ruling basically states that there is no special pricing for performance or access for specific places on the internet... it's all treated the same. You get ISP connectivity, you can reach all places with the same performance, at least from an ISP perspective.
     
  20. Nettdata

    Nettdata
    Expand Collapse
    Mr. Toast

    Reputation:
    2,863
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    25,731