Big Cable wants even more Net Neutrality rules lifted

[Cal Jeffrey]

A hot potato: Once again Net Neutrality is under fire. The Register reports, USTelecom is lobbying for the lifting of a federal rule that allows smaller ISPs to compete with behemoths like Comcast and Charter Communications.

The rule in question is Section 251 of the Communications Act of 1996 regarding collocation requirements. In a nutshell, the regulation “forces cable carriers to allow competitors to resell their internet access at a rate set by the government.”

Lobbying group USTelecom has a long 33-page argument against the rule, but it boils down mainly to the ageless excuse that the regulation is outdated and that it was never meant to be permanent in the first place.

“Twenty-two years ago, Congress adopted an expansive set of network-sharing obligations and other mandates intended to break open the marketplace for telecommunications offerings — in particular, the local telephone market,” the filing opens.

It goes on to explain how the regulation's original purpose was meant to apply to “wireline voice service.” Since most people use cellular or VoIP services now, USTelecom believes the reg should be lifted.

“It is time for the Commission [FCC] to forbear from enforcing these ILEC-specific requirements. A regime that imposes special burdens on providers that hold a small and shrinking share of the market distorts competition, harms consumers, and simply makes no sense.”

At least one person begs to differ and has filed a counter-petition to the FCC. Economist William Zarakas believes that the rule is “an important driver of real competition in the market.” Using the industries own facts and figures Zarakas outlines how smaller competitors are more likely to offer faster internet service at lower prices than incumbent local exchange carriers (ILEC).

“While Big Cable is sitting pretty on its installed infrastructure, offering slower speeds at higher rates, the real competition to citizens is offered by smaller companies working with lower margins. Unsurprisingly, Big Cable wants the requirement that makes this possible removed – and has formally requested that the FCC get rid of it.”

Not surprisingly, Zarakas study was commissioned by Incompas — one of the only industry groups that stands behind Net Neutrality rules and measures.

Currently, CLECs — or “competitive local exchange carriers” — can resell ILEC’s access over copper lines under their own branding. Lifting Section 251 would virtually eliminate all small cable operators overnight. What is ironic is that it is these little guys that are actually providing far better service than the big ISPs.

Left alone CLECs can improve their services by reinvesting revenues into their own better equipment and fiber lines. This is how cable generally reaches out into rural areas. Eliminating the rule will allow Big Cable to do what they want — when they want, which has already proven unhelpful to smaller rural areas.

USTelecom filed its petitions back in May. Zarakas only filed his this month. There is no word on when the FCC is to decide on the matter.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/75903-big-cable-wants-even-more-net-neutrality-rules.html

 

[psycros]

This article totally nails it. The monopolism of Big Telecom is probably eclipsed only by the outright evil of our biggest food and drug industries, and our governments. Since the elites in our public and private sectors are one and the same corruption is naturally the norm.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

And the blue wave will wash it away.

 

[wiyosaya]

Any of you out there that claim there were no problems without NN that would still like to try to tell us all that there will be no problems?

Big telecom clearly wants to stomp out the little guy, pound him into the ground, and pretend that the little guy never existed thus reducing competition - as many of us have been trying to get across to many others - and here we have direct evidence of it.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Regulations that have to be enforced is not neutrality. The very definition of Net Neutrality is a contradiction to its name. It is the lies within the contradiction that I disagree with. Go ahead and stand behind a lie. I'm not going to, not even if it is for the better. I despise deception.

 

[m4a4]

Any of you out there that claim there were no problems without NN that would still like to try to tell us all that there will be no problems?
Big telecom clearly wants to stomp out the little guy, pound him into the ground, and pretend that the little guy never existed thus reducing competition - as many of us have been trying to get across to many others - and here we have direct evidence of it.

And what about NN would've stopped/prevented this? Last I checked they could request this (or try to stomp the little guy) with or without it.

 

[Puiu]

Regulations that have to be enforced is not neutrality. The very definition of Net Neutrality is a contradiction to its name. It is the lies within the contradiction that I disagree with. Go ahead and stand behind a lie. I'm not going to, not even if it is for the better. I despise deception.

It is ignorant comments like this that hurt everybody including those that write them. All you did was give us your personal opinion on what "neutrality" means to you which has absolutely nothing to do with what the rules do. This kind of logic is reminiscent of anti-vaxers.

 

[captaincranky]

Regulations that have to be enforced is not neutrality. The very definition of Net Neutrality is a contradiction to its name. It is the lies within the contradiction that I disagree with. Go ahead and stand behind a lie. I'm not going to, not even if it is for the better. I despise deception.

And many of us despise circular dogmatic nonsense. Thanks for always providing us the opportunity to revisit it. (y)

 

[Evernessince]

Regulations that have to be enforced is not neutrality. The very definition of Net Neutrality is a contradiction to its name. It is the lies within the contradiction that I disagree with. Go ahead and stand behind a lie. I'm not going to, not even if it is for the better. I despise deception.

So any regulation that needs to be enforced is not neutral? I hope you realize in the broadest of senses how quickly our society would collapse without regulation. Do you honestly believe that companies would invest in R&D if the government didn't protect and regulate patents and copyright? No stock market regulations either? Might as well just forget modern society as we know it.

Your views land squarely in the anarchy camp, in which case you should move to a desert island.

Otherwise society by default doesn't start at neutral, go read some Machiavelli.

 

[curbot]

Regulations that have to be enforced is not neutrality. The very definition of Net Neutrality is a contradiction to its name. It is the lies within the contradiction that I disagree with. Go ahead and stand behind a lie. I'm not going to, not even if it is for the better. I despise deception.

Quit your "holier than thou" ****. We all benefit from net neutrality, you even admit it's better.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Regulations that have to be enforced is not neutrality. The very definition of Net Neutrality is a contradiction to its name. It is the lies within the contradiction that I disagree with. Go ahead and stand behind a lie. I'm not going to, not even if it is for the better. I despise deception.

Might as well just forget modern society as we know it.

Your views land squarely in the anarchy camp, in which case you should move to a desert island.

Otherwise society by default doesn't start at neutral, go read some Machiavelli.

You really need to learn how to disagree with people without calling them an anarchist.

Anyway -

Regarding the article... I'd be more concerned with companies like US Cellular and Google's Fi service. They lease lines from major carriers and may be hurt by this.

And if this is trying to undo some of the communications act of 1996 then it's not the NN legislation. That was the 1930 utility designation. This is not the same law or the same thing as NN. I'm guessing it'll be easiest to get the public on the bandwagon if we call it part of NN.

NN makes it HARDER for small business to compete (because they'd need to serve Netflix up as fast as the big guys).

This section of the comm act of 1996 makes it EASIER for small businesses (because they can lease lines cheaply)

People against NN believe the comm act of 1996 was all we needed. I hope the FCC tells the cable companies to go jump in the lake. Sounds like this helps competition.

 

[EClyde]

This article totally nails it. The monopolism of Big Telecom is probably eclipsed only by the outright evil of our biggest food and drug industries, and our governments. Since the elites in our public and private sectors are one and the same corruption is naturally the norm.

Wrong. The big evil is gov regulation

 

[cliffordcooley]

Thanks for always providing us the opportunity to revisit it. (y)

Always (y)

I don't care if you agree with me or not. That doesn't make it false or nonsense.

You really need to learn how to disagree with people without calling them an anarchist.

Don't worry about it Mike. The truth often does stir up ****. That is the very thing they intended by naming something that wasn't neutral as neutrality.

 

[wiyosaya]

Regulations that have to be enforced is not neutrality. The very definition of Net Neutrality is a contradiction to its name. It is the lies within the contradiction that I disagree with. Go ahead and stand behind a lie. I'm not going to, not even if it is for the better. I despise deception.

I get what you are saying, and I would love to see that exist, too. However, given the world's current economic systems, this will not be possible unless those systems change - at least in my opinion.

This article totally nails it. The monopolism of Big Telecom is probably eclipsed only by the outright evil of our biggest food and drug industries, and our governments. Since the elites in our public and private sectors are one and the same corruption is naturally the norm.

Wrong. The big evil is gov regulation

Care to elaborate a bit more?

 

[Puiu]

You really need to learn how to disagree with people without calling them an anarchist.

Anyway -

Regarding the article... I'd be more concerned with companies like US Cellular and Google's Fi service. They lease lines from major carriers and may be hurt by this.

And if this is trying to undo some of the communications act of 1996 then it's not the NN legislation. That was the 1930 utility designation. This is not the same law or the same thing as NN. I'm guessing it'll be easiest to get the public on the bandwagon if we call it part of NN.

NN makes it HARDER for small business to compete (because they'd need to serve Netflix up as fast as the big guys).

This section of the comm act of 1996 makes it EASIER for small businesses (because they can lease lines cheaply)

People against NN believe the comm act of 1996 was all we needed. I hope the FCC tells the cable companies to go jump in the lake. Sounds like this helps competition.

Serving Netflix the same as the big guys is not a problem for smaller ISPs. They get help from Netflix, something which the big ISPs refused and actually blackmailed Netflix into paying to improve their own networks (hence why many smaller ISPs actually have better performance). Smaller ISPs also don't overcrowd their network nodes as much.

Here's what actually happens without NN: the big ISPs gobble up the content (exclusive deals) and leave the smaller competition in the dust. This is why the the small ISPs are suing the US government. The NN tries to prevent such egregious anti-competitive practices.

 

[captaincranky]

Always (y)...[ ]...I don't care if you agree with me or not. That doesn't make it false or nonsense....[ ].....

OK then, how about if we call it, "semantic hogwash"?

A government "of the people, by rhe people, and for the people", still needs rules, otherwise it turns into, "an anarchy of, by, and for the people".

What every body's rational and well founded complaint against lifting what you refuse to call "net neutrality", is, trhat it segues inro producing a government, "of the ISPs, by the ISPs, and for the ISPs", along with a "kill or be killed" struggle between providers.

So, your semantic nonsense aside, we do need rules against corporate corruption and takeover.

You've always spouted your opinion, but never offered any alternatives.

Surely, if we attached your logic to all phases of life, we wouldn't have crosswalks, stop lights, or safety inspections on airliners. That's just big government in action as our "helicopter parents". How about the SEC, is that government interference as well?

What needs to be changed, is the fact ther our government hjas migrated toward being "of the giant corporations, by the giant corporations, and for the giant corporations".

How can we change that? Around these parts, (New Jersey), we have a congressman running for re-election who has been indicted for bribery andf corruption, regarding campaign funding by major corporate players and lobbyists. His surname is "Menendez". You can bet with such a name, the Hispanic community will vote as a block, since he's "their representative".

Take a lesson from the story of one Adam Clayton Powell, the former congressional representative from Harlem. A more worthless legislator you'll never find. Senate censure vote after vote against him, failed to remove him. He was black, his constituates were black, and while he did next to nothing for them, it was good enough that he was there because of his race.

From Wiki, the stuff they bury at rthe end of their page.

By the mid-1960s, Powell was increasingly being criticized for mismanaging his committee's budget, taking trips abroad at public expense, and missing meetings of his committee.[2] When under scrutiny by the press and other members of Congress for personal conduct—he had taken two young women at government expense with him on overseas travel—he responded:

I wish to state very emphatically... that I will always do just what every other Congressman and committee chairman has done and is doing and will do."[24]

Opponents led criticism in his District, where his refusal to pay a 1963 slander judgment made him subject to arrest; he also spent increasing amounts of time in Florida.[2]

In January 1967, the House Democratic Caucus stripped Powell of his committee chairmanship. The full House refused to seat him until completion of an investigation by the Judiciary Committee. Powell urged his supporters to "keep the faith, baby," while the investigation was under way. On March 1, the House voted 307 to 116 to exclude him. Powell said, "On this day, the day of March in my opinion, is the end of the United States of America as the land of the free and the home of the brave."[32]

Powell won the Special Election to fill the vacancy caused by his exclusion, but he did not take his seat, as he was filing a separate suit. He sued in Powell v. McCormack to retain his seat. In November 1968, Powell was re-elected. On January 3, 1969, he was seated as a member of the 91st Congress, but he was fined $25,000 and denied seniority.[33] In June 1969, in Powell v. McCormack, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the House had acted unconstitutionally when it excluded Powell, as he had been duly elected by his constituents.[34]

Powell's increasing absenteeism was noted by constituents, which contributed, in June 1970, to his defeat in the Democratic primary for reelection to his seat (by Charles B. Rangel).[2] Powell failed to garner enough signatures to get on the November ballot as an Independent, and Rangel won that (and following) general elections.[2] In the fall of 1970, Powell moved to his retreat on Bimini in the Bahamas, also resigning as minister at the Abyssinian Baptist Church.

We're Back:

The sad part about government in the US, is that it's practically a certainty that the people will get something out of it, big corporations will still get the lion's share of the kill.


And for every action, there's a disparatly unequal reaction in corporate America's favor. Prescription drug coverage is a classic example. "Dubbya" touted that as his triumph, but with its implementation, it denied the government from negoting better prices on drugs with big pharma.

And yes kiddies, old people were dying from not being able to afford their medication, before prescription drug coverage, and the lecherous pricing of big pharma.

I have top notch coverage, AFTER government ruled that generic products (*) have to be substituted for proprietaty formulas when available, and that requires RULES put in place by government.

Your continued rant about "how neutrality isn't really neutrality, because it's regulated", doesn't really merit this elaborate of a response, but I thought the rest of our members mifght enjoy it, so here ya go..


(*) And yes kidz, a lot of those generic drug substitutes are made in India..

 

[EClyde]

I get what you are saying, and I would love to see that exist, too. However, given the world's current economic systems, this will not be possible unless those systems change - at least in my opinion.

Care to elaborate a bit more?

You do the research. Start with FM radio

 

[cliffordcooley]

OK then, how about if we call it, "semantic hogwash"?

You are absolutely correct. And it started with the dum-bass that named Net Neutrality. Basically a hidden agenda presented as a lie behind passing regulations. The sheer arrogance behind it is appalling. And apparently you don't care how they lie, to pass their hidden agendas. Naming it Net Neutrality was brilliant, because everyone is for keeping the Internet neutral. And by passing a few regulations (where no one says anything), it opens the door to passing many more regulations under the pretense of Net Neutrality. I'm wanting to keep it simple. You are preaching semantics and asking for confusion where no one will know what they want. It is the very thing news media does come election time.

This is for everyone that stands behind NN. So continue supporting lies and continue being part of the problem. Semantics or not, a lie is a lie. You only have yourself to blame.

 

[captaincranky]

You are absolutely correct. And it started with the dum-bass that named Net Neutrality. Basically a hidden agenda presented as a lie behind passing regulations. The sheer arrogance behind it is appalling. And apparently you don't care how they lie, to pass their hidden agendas. Naming it Net Neutrality was brilliant, because everyone is for keeping the Internet neutral. And by passing a few regulations (where no one says anything), it opens the door to passing many more regulations under the pretense of Net Neutrality. I'm wanting to keep it simple. You are preaching semantics and asking for confusion where no one will know what they want. It is the very thing news media does come election time.

This is for everyone that stands behind NN. So continue supporting lies and continue being part of the problem. Semantics or not, a lie is a lie. You only have yourself to blame.

-And when Comcast jacks up your internet bill to a couple of hundred dollars a month, don't come crying to me.

When competition no longer exist, don't come crying to me.

When Amazon is the only store in town, don't come crying to me.

This goes double for all of you with the heavy mobile phone addictions.
They're chatging me too much.! They're stealing my information!

Don't come crying to me.

Look at what you'rve become. You can't buy a gallon of milk at the supermarket without phoning home for confirmation.

And yeah Cliff, 500 members of congress are going to sit ariound and debate until any internet regulations passed, are samantically palatable to you. Delusions of grandeur, much?.

 

[Evernessince]

You really need to learn how to disagree with people without calling them an anarchist.

Anyway -

Regarding the article... I'd be more concerned with companies like US Cellular and Google's Fi service. They lease lines from major carriers and may be hurt by this.

And if this is trying to undo some of the communications act of 1996 then it's not the NN legislation. That was the 1930 utility designation. This is not the same law or the same thing as NN. I'm guessing it'll be easiest to get the public on the bandwagon if we call it part of NN.

NN makes it HARDER for small business to compete (because they'd need to serve Netflix up as fast as the big guys).

This section of the comm act of 1996 makes it EASIER for small businesses (because they can lease lines cheaply)

People against NN believe the comm act of 1996 was all we needed. I hope the FCC tells the cable companies to go jump in the lake. Sounds like this helps competition.

Excuse me for pointing out that Cliff's statement of "Regulations that have to be enforced is not neutrality." is indeed equal to anarchy. A government without regulations is no government at all. Textbook definition of anarchy: No rules, no regulations. Pretty sure there's even a song for that...

The truth hurts but I won't snowflake the facts.

You are absolutely correct. And it started with the dum-bass that named Net Neutrality. Basically a hidden agenda presented as a lie behind passing regulations. The sheer arrogance behind it is appalling. And apparently you don't care how they lie, to pass their hidden agendas. Naming it Net Neutrality was brilliant, because everyone is for keeping the Internet neutral. And by passing a few regulations (where no one says anything), it opens the door to passing many more regulations under the pretense of Net Neutrality. I'm wanting to keep it simple. You are preaching semantics and asking for confusion where no one will know what they want. It is the very thing news media does come election time.

This is for everyone that stands behind NN. So continue supporting lies and continue being part of the problem. Semantics or not, a lie is a lie. You only have yourself to blame.

Cliff, you can't agree with the Captain and then contradict that very agreement in the next sentence. I don't think you understand the basis for his disagreement.

Let me put it this way: Every major competitive athletic game has rules and regulations. These rules level the playing field and allow a wide range of people to compete. These games are fun because they are fair and neutral. This is the exact same concept that governments use when imposing regulations. They aren't put into place to destabilize an already level field, they remove bias that pre-exists in every system and in humans themselves. Of course no rule is ever perfect and that's why you should always seek to improve but it's a heck of allot better then having no rules at all.

 

[Cal Jeffrey]

And on another note: I apologize for not turning Pai's head into a watermelon. I ran out of time and couldn't get to it. Maybe someone else can do it.

 

[wiyosaya]

I get what you are saying, and I would love to see that exist, too. However, given the world's current economic systems, this will not be possible unless those systems change - at least in my opinion.

Care to elaborate a bit more?

You do the research. Start with FM radio

Explain it to me in your terms. You already know what side of the fence I am on. Convince me that the other side is better.

 

[wiyosaya]

OK then, how about if we call it, "semantic hogwash"?

You are absolutely correct. And it started with the dum-bass that named Net Neutrality. Basically a hidden agenda presented as a lie behind passing regulations. The sheer arrogance behind it is appalling. And apparently you don't care how they lie, to pass their hidden agendas. Naming it Net Neutrality was brilliant, because everyone is for keeping the Internet neutral. And by passing a few regulations (where no one says anything), it opens the door to passing many more regulations under the pretense of Net Neutrality. I'm wanting to keep it simple. You are preaching semantics and asking for confusion where no one will know what they want. It is the very thing news media does come election time.

This is for everyone that stands behind NN. So continue supporting lies and continue being part of the problem. Semantics or not, a lie is a lie. You only have yourself to blame.

Here's the thing: NN was only allowed by the courts in the context of classifying ISPs as common carriers. The FCC classified them as common carriers because the internet to most people has become an indispensable part of life - much as telephone was classified that way, and even though it is not covered by the FCC, much as electricity is classified in a similar fashion.

The ISPs fought this because they want to be able to charge customers whatever they want for access to their network. In other words, they want to be able to charge a negotiated rate to their network to anyone wanting to access it in any fashion. This type of negotiation favors money - nothing else. Those without deep pockets are at a disadvantage, I.e., smaller companies are at a disadvantage to larger companies and might not be able to afford access to an ISPs' network. The common factor in the ISPs' approach is money even though the internet is something that has become a necessity in modern life for most people.

The emphasis by the ISPs is on money. Nothing else. There is nothing fair about their approach, and given free reign to run their networks as they wish, they ultimately will, as is emphasized by the content of this article, exclude those who cannot afford to pay the price that they demand.

So on that ethical level of free access, I agree that having to regulate access to the internet is not truly net neutrality; however, left to their own ways, it is also not net neutrality when ISPs want to squeeze every single penny out of their customers and oh, by the way, if you do not have that extra penny that the ISPs demand, poof goes your access to their network.

 

[captaincranky]

And on another note: I apologize for not turning Pai's head into a watermelon. I ran out of time and couldn't get to it. Maybe someone else can do it.

Mr. Jeffrey, does this puppet remind you of anyone?

Allright, no freckles, so what?

Given the time period of the show, I'm sure ole Howdy had to be fully Anglicized anyway
( And yes kidz, the underlining barb is that they're both puppets).

 

[m3tavision]

OK then, how about if we call it, "semantic hogwash"?

You are absolutely correct. And it started with the dum-bass that named Net Neutrality. Basically a hidden agenda presented as a lie behind passing regulations. The sheer arrogance behind it is appalling. And apparently you don't care how they lie, to pass their hidden agendas. Naming it Net Neutrality was brilliant, because everyone is for keeping the Internet neutral. And by passing a few regulations (where no one says anything), it opens the door to passing many more regulations under the pretense of Net Neutrality. I'm wanting to keep it simple. You are preaching semantics and asking for confusion where no one will know what they want. It is the very thing news media does come election time.

This is for everyone that stands behind NN. So continue supporting lies and continue being part of the problem. Semantics or not, a lie is a lie. You only have yourself to blame.

Sound to me, you have no idea what Net Neutrality is, you are only hung up on it's name. And don't understand how the internet was regulated, so that ISP are neutral to the information/data/traffic that Internet users, use.

Comcast can now regulate a Citizen, instead of Citizen regulating Comcast.... Net Neutrality changes this back into Citizen's hands.