The Politics of Development

[grilled_cheese]

I work in the industry.

 

Classifying ISPs as common carriers is the right way to go.

 

If they were, I wouldn't have this 300Gb cap on my Comcast internet.

[Paramount747]

What does all of this have to do with development? This thread is supposed to be about the politics of development like Private Free Market Capitalist Corporations taking state and local incentives to build skyscrapers and hotels!

 

Conservatives are against federal funding for the AMP, but don't mind giving Bridgestone $50,000,000.00 to build a tower! Billion dollar corporations need TIF or State incentives? Really? It's okay to eliminate student loan funding, or reduce it, but Bridgestone gets 50 million? That is what we should be talking about, not Ted Cruz and Net Neutrality.

[UTgrad09]

I'm not generally one to side with the federal government, but if you think that Comcast or AT&T have an ounce of customer interests on their minds, you are severely mistaken. Both of those companies treat their customers like dogsh*t, and have zero interest in a free market. 

 

Remember when Comcast was fighting to keep AT&T Uverse out of our market? They made it sound like it was for our own protection! They don't want competition! Then they might have to provide customer service!

 

Now these same companies are fighting Google Fiber. Why? Because then they would have to provide a competitive service. Is Google Fiber really that advanced? Not when you think about it. In fact, the government paid these companies years ago to upgrade our fiber optics system so we would have something like this already in place. Did they? No, they did not. They squandered the money. It's the American taxpayers that got screwed there.

 

Then you have companies like Verizon, that are currently lobbying that they aren't a utility on one side (when it benefits them) and that they are on the other (when it benefits them).

 

 

In terms of industries, I would rank the communications companies below the oil industry in terms of scumbaggery. 

[Paramount747]

I'm not generally one to side with the federal government, but if you think that Comcast or AT&T have an ounce of customer interests on their minds, you are severely mistaken. Both of those companies treat their customers like dogsh*t, and have zero interest in a free market. 

 

Remember when Comcast was fighting to keep AT&T Uverse out of our market? They made it sound like it was for our own protection! They don't want competition! Then they might have to provide customer service!

 

Now these same companies are fighting Google Fiber. Why? Because then they would have to provide a competitive service. Is Google Fiber really that advanced? Not when you think about it. In fact, the government paid these companies years ago to upgrade our fiber optics system so we would have something like this already in place. Did they? No, they did not. They squandered the money. It's the American taxpayers that got screwed there.

 

Then you have companies like Verizon, that are currently lobbying that they aren't a utility on one side (when it benefits them) and that they are on the other (when it benefits them).

 

 

In terms of industries, I would rank the communications companies below the oil industry in terms of scumbaggery. 

Since we are off the built environment again, I would place big oil and insurance companies at the bottom.

[Guest]

And this is a direct result of potential FCC overloading -

 

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/tech/2014/11/12/att-halts-fiber-investment-internet/18919165/

 

 

Three months after announcing Nashville would be among the cities gaining its ultra high-speed Internet, AT&T is halting fiber investments, pointing to the potential for tighter regulations for Internet providers.

"We can't go out and invest that kind of money deploying fiber to 100 cities not knowing under what rules those investments will be governed," AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said at an analyst conference Wednesday, according to Reuters.

 

 

 

[BrandonTO416]

^Do you really believe corporate PR and spin on these issues? You really have that much faith in the mega telecom industry?

 

That's been my background for the majority of the past 10 years. In fact, the reason why I'm back in Tennessee is because of the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger where my job was among those not needed anymore as they've got the staff down in Philadelphia to do what we did and I left before the department closed.

 

As a telecom industry insider, I can tell you that net neutrality is absolutely necessary. At Time Warner Cable, while I was there, they'd even lie to our customer service agents and say we don't throttle bandwidth. Cable and telephone and other broadband providers - as it stands today - are increasingly limiting performance with specific services online like Netflix - where your 50Mbps connection chokes and putters when trying to deliver a single HD video bandwidth feed that doesn't even take 1/10th of that bandwidth to deliver. Netflix is being required to sign agreements and pay over tens of millions of dollars to these telecom companies to get a "fast lane" to their network, yet other companies aren't required to do this. Its anti-market, and its hurting small business that would like to compete in this field as Netflix can afford - for now - to do it.

 

If you really believe a company PR spin document from these mega corporations that states they won't invest because of regulation, then you really are misinformed my friend. I can assure you that net neutrality laws are necessary and just for a market to work and they have zero reason to do with why a company does or does not invest into fiber infrastructure for a neighborhood. It has zero to do with net neutrality.

 

Its no different than an electric company not offering enough electricity for Factory A to operate while they have the system wide open to Factory B. Its no different a concept at all, and you're protecting the electric company to throttle electric capacity if you're against net neutrality.

 

I ask myself if Republicans stand on the right side of history on any issue these days. They're almost always wrong anymore. Sad, really.

[BrandonTO416]

I work in the industry.

 

Classifying ISPs as common carriers is the right way to go.

 

If they were, I wouldn't have this 300Gb cap on my Comcast internet.

 

I've worked for Verizon (Wireless, not landline), Comcast, and Time Warner Cable for the majority of the past 10 years. I've had enough views inside this industry to realize how corrupt they are. As a network engineer, I'd run test after test after test to see what our network could do at TWC, and it was indeed throttling Netflix traffic. Yet, corporate customer service leaders issued documentation to our customer service agents to lie - flat out lie - to our customers anytime it was asked and they were told to repeat "we do not throttle traffic, it is related to 3rd party network performance/not our issue" and it simply wasn't true. I ran countless tests when I worked at TWC that clearly indicated the department that manages the handoff and peering with Level 3 backbones up where I used to live were throttling - severely throttling - Netflix traffic.

 

TWC was demanding Netflix to pay up when I worked for them so that the company would stop the throttling, but I left before that deal went through so I have no idea where it ended up.

 

Anyone who believes these telecom companies' PR spin is grossly misinformed. LOL

[BrandonTO416]

Samsonh,

I have answered that exact question multiple-times. Have you even read my posts? You act as if I am advocating for change....? I am advocating for the status quo.... no FCC oversight. It is you and the other NN advocates asking the FCC to regulate.

I do not want to end the existing state of affairs regarding the way the internet is operated. BUT there is currently no FCC overlord regulating the internet - that is the FCC is not in charge of internet serves - but that is about to CHANGE if you follow Obama's proposal... again it would be helpful if you actually read what I post before commenting. Then you can address specific points to agree/disagree with.

 

Currently if an provider wants to tier service offerings they can, however I know of only 2 cases where that has occurred. In the vast majority of locations consumers have multiple choices of service providers (cable, DSL, Satellite, WiMax, Cellular, etc...) so there are actually choices (and I would like more choices). What if ATT tiered services but charged less that Comcast for service.... What if ATT tired service prioritization but bundled a 4G hotspot to sweeten the deal for the more expensive tiers? We have no clues how the market will innovate...after all the consumer can choose their restriction. Maybe I do not care about Netflix but I am an avid gamer....maybe I can select a service that is customized to me...

If you are interested here is another viewpoint that this is all a money grab.....once the FCC regulates there is a new 16+% tax that we will all have to pay for service.... nice huh.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/haroldfurchtgottroth/2014/10/12/fcc-plans-stealth-internet-tax-increase/

 

 

 

As your opinion is grossly misinformed, all I can say is that I am sad to see this debate devolve into a left-right Democrat-Republican issue. Everyone who isn't in the leadership of the telecom industry should be for net neutrality.

 

Net neutrality isn't regulation for the sake of regulation, it is a response to industry abuse in where industry players - with their near-monopoly power - are forcing people and companies to pay more for services based on nothing but the sheer fact that they are big enough to do it.

 

If you think this is just big government takeover, then that is just drinking the koolaid from uninformed political hacks who just want a political argument over this instead of results.

[UTgrad09]

And this is a direct result of potential FCC overloading -

 

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/tech/2014/11/12/att-halts-fiber-investment-internet/18919165/

 

Yeah, again, AT&T is full of crap.

 

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394.html

 

 

They were already given money for fiber via tax breaks. The fiber network that they are installing should have been completed years and years ago.

 

Rather than hear them bitch and moan about regulations, we ought to send them a tax bill to recoup all of our losses.

[BrandonTO416]

^The concept of net neutrality being a partisan political issue is brand spanking new. Traditionally most Republicans I've spoken to in the past on this issue, along with a vast majority of Democrats as well, support net neutrality legislation.

 

The truth of the matter is AT&T doesn't want net neutrality because they want to sell 1 Gbps connections that aren't really 1 Gbps for most high bandwidth uses.

 

So, if you're against net neutrality and you actually believe corporations like AT&T, you're supporting AT&T's ability to sell you a 1 Gbps rated connection that does not have 1 Gbps performance for all bandwidth utilization. This is as simple as it gets, and in order to support that viewpoint, as an individual, whoever has the viewpoint is grossly misinformed and propagandized by politicians who recently picked the issue up to use it for political gain as opposed to any rational debate or understanding of the issue.

 

Net neutrality isn't about government regulation, its about enforcing honesty in pricing and performance, and keep companies from selling bad connections with the intent of slowing down your connection. I can't fathom how this has become a political partisan issue.

[samsonh]

Also interesting to look at the favorite house gop rep in the area and her telecommunications donors....

[Guest]

Who the hell made this a L vs. R discussion? This discussion is about not killing the patient (who is not yet sick) with a cure.

UTGrad - Did you read your own articles? The premise is that BAD regulation and corporate influence has held back US broadband rollout. Does that scenario not sound exactly like what the FCC is geared to repeat?

 

Brandon - I am NOT for overregulation period. There is currently not an problem that I can see. There is competition (you guys seems to be missing this factor). I can currently choose between 4 different companies to obtain broadband services. If one implements throttling that affects me negatively I have a choice to make as a consumer. 

 

Brandon - The electric utilities do use tiered demand delivery to commercial/industrial concerns... it is called PEAK Demand.

The bottom-line is that regulations (not standards) by-and-large result in LESS innovation. Unless the market fails, and in this case I do not believe that anyone is claiming that, then the heavy-hand of the government should not enter the fray.

 

My final word is that, for all the bemoaning the cozy relationships (some real some imagined) between big bad telecoms (you guys seem to overlook the content providers i.e Netflix, Google, etc.)  and politicians, you are placing more emphasis on those relationships by getting the government involved. 

 

The door that this kicks-open is for the ISPs to continue and increasingly price by bandwidth consumption. So if Netflix wants to be treated equally for 'free' then the Netflix user downloading 50GB/Mo will be charged more than a user consuming 5GB/Mo.

[UTgrad09]

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

[ruraljuror]

Who the hell made this a L vs. R discussion? This discussion is about not killing the patient (who is not yet sick) with a cure.

UTGrad - Did you read your own articles? The premise is that BAD regulation and corporate influence has held back US broadband rollout. Does that scenario not sound exactly like what the FCC is geared to repeat?

 

Brandon - I am NOT for overregulation period. There is currently not an problem that I can see. There is competition (you guys seems to be missing this factor). I can currently choose between 4 different companies to obtain broadband services. If one implements throttling that affects me negatively I have a choice to make as a consumer. 

 

Brandon - The electric utilities do use tiered demand delivery to commercial/industrial concerns... it is called PEAK Demand.

The bottom-line is that regulations (not standards) by-and-large result in LESS innovation. Unless the market fails, and in this case I do not believe that anyone is claiming that, then the heavy-hand of the government should not enter the fray.

 

My final word is that, for all the bemoaning the cozy relationships (some real some imagined) between big bad telecoms (you guys seem to overlook the content providers i.e Netflix, Google, etc.)  and politicians, you are placing more emphasis on those relationships by getting the government involved. 

 

The door that this kicks-open is for the ISPs to continue and increasingly price by bandwidth consumption. So if Netflix wants to be treated equally for 'free' then the Netflix user downloading 50GB/Mo will be charged more than a user consuming 5GB/Mo.

 

"I am not for overregulation. period"--No one if for 'overregulation' and I've yet to hear anyone who is not being paid by the cable companies characterize net neutrality as overregulation.  What gave you this idea in the first place?

 

"There is currently not an problem that I can see"--Yes!  This is part of the issue!  It's very difficult to know when throttling is going on, so it's not as easy to recognize what's happening and switch to a competitor as you seem to think it would be--not to mention that the competitor is almost certainly doing it, too, and most people don't live in a place with more than one option. 

 

"This discussion is about not killing the patient (who is not yet sick) with a cure."--What makes you think that the patient is not yet sick?  Because you can't yet see the problem and haven't felt the symptoms yet?  Every expert on the subject who works in the telecom field is telling you the patient is sick and this problem needs to be addressed before it gets worse and is irreparable; perhaps it might be wise to defer to their learned  opinions.  If you were the patient and doctors were telling you that you were sick even though you hadn't felt the symptoms yet, would you believe them?

 

"The electric utilities do use tiered demand delivery to commercial/industrial concerns... it is called PEAK Demand."  Do they create artificial peaks in the demand by withholding electricity in order to justify their peak demand pricing?  No.  Because that would be incredibly illegal for obvious reasons. 

 

"Who the hell made this a L vs. R discussion?"--The short answer is you did, when you say things like "The bottom-line is that regulations (not standards) by-and-large result in LESS innovation."  That's a purely political statement that reflects the assumptions and premises you are bringing to the table when you consider the net neutrality issue.  Do you really think regulations always stifles innovation in every case?  Can you not think of a few examples where regulation has actually encouraged innovation?  I can think of plenty.  In fact, I bet i can come up with way more examples of that than you can find people who have some knowledge of the telecom industry and oppose net neutrality that aren't on the cable companies or their lobbyists payrolls.  Up for the challenge? 

[Guest]

Well I do not believe that 61% of the population is paid by the cable/telecom companies....

 

 

 

"I am not for overregulation. period"--No one if for 'overregulation' and I've yet to hear anyone who is not being paid by the cable companies characterize net neutrality as overregulation.  What gave you this idea in the first place?

 

 

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Americans really like the online service they currently have and strongly oppose so-called “net neutrality” efforts that would allow the federal government to regulate the Internet.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 26% of American Adults agree the Federal Communications Commission should regulate the Internet like it does radio and television. Sixty-one percent (61%) disagree and think the Internet should remain open without regulation and censorship. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.  (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Only 19% believe more government regulation is the best way to protect those who use the Internet. Fifty-six percent (56%) feel more free market competition is the best protection. Twenty-five percent (25%) are undecided.

 

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/november_2014/61_oppose_federal_regulation_of_the_internet

[dmillsphoto]

That Rasmussen article was rigged to begin with because they asked "Would you like the internet to be regulated like TV & Radio?"

[ruraljuror]

Well I do not believe that 61% of the population is paid by the cable/telecom companies....

 

 

 

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/november_2014/61_oppose_federal_regulation_of_the_internet

 

 

If you want to talk about specific problems or concerns that you have with the proposed regulations, I think that would be a great discussion.   There are certainly a lot of technical issues that would be worth exploring.  Making broad statements like 'regulation stifles innovation' and trying to pass off poll results as support for your position, however, doesn't bring a whole lot to the table. 

 

Instead of surveying the American people at large, have you considered exploring what the telecom and legal experts have to say on the matter?  Might that not be a good place to start when evaluating the merits of the proposed regulation instead of a poll, or press release, or a congresswoman with major big telecom contributors, etc.?

 

What I'm trying to explain is that your understanding of net neutrality is fundamentally flawed.  It is unfortunately no surprise to me that more than half of the people in this country share your same confusion on the subject.  After all, there is a lot of cash being spent distributing misinformation about what net neutrality is.  Who do you think is providing that cash?  I'll give you a hint, it's the people promoting the very same messages that you're representing here!  Money well spent, apparently.

 

To be clear, you seem to want the internet to continue to operate as is, and yet you don't support net neutrality.  What can we do beyond repeat over and over that the cable companies are the ones trying to change the way the internet works, and that net neutrality is the way to keep the internet in it's current form?

 

I'll say it again.  Cable companies are trying to change the internet, and net neutrality is trying to preserve it the way it currently is.  Until you address that fact, there is not much else that can be done.  Did you look at the link that UTGrad sent out most recently?  You really can't boil it down any simpler than that.

[Guest]

RJ  - I appreciate the invitation but we have a problem - I am not the one trying to change the system. I am quite happy the way broadband is priced and delivered. I am happy that I have many choices of broadband providers.

 

I believe that the impetus is on those supporting the massively intrusive government regulations being proposed. Again, I only see a future of higher fees/taxes/costs and happened innovation once the FCC gets involved... at least to the extend that Obama recommends.

[Guest]

Not without proof, no...

 

 

 

"This discussion is about not killing the patient (who is not yet sick) with a cure."--What makes you think that the patient is not yet sick?  Because you can't yet see the problem and haven't felt the symptoms yet?  Every expert on the subject who works in the telecom field is telling you the patient is sick and this problem needs to be addressed before it gets worse and is irreparable; perhaps it might be wise to defer to their learned  opinions.  If you were the patient and doctors were telling you that you were sick even though you hadn't felt the symptoms yet, would you believe them?

"There is currently not an problem that I can see"--Yes!  This is part of the issue!  It's very difficult to know when throttling is going on, so it's not as easy to recognize what's happening and switch to a competitor as you seem to think it would be--not to mention that the competitor is almost certainly doing it, too, and most people don't live in a place with more than one option. 

 

If I do not perceive a problem there is no problem. I have Netflix I am happy with the quality of my Netflix service, thus even if ATT is throttling Netflix I do not care because it does not affect me.

 

Governments regulations will affect me.

 

 

 

"The electric utilities do use tiered demand delivery to commercial/industrial concerns... it is called PEAK Demand."  Do they create artificial peaks in the demand by withholding electricity in order to justify their peak demand pricing?  No.  Because that would be incredibly illegal for obvious reasons. 

 

Okay to follow your logic.... you are saying that you will be happy with a system that charges you a higher rate to download/view data from the internet when demand is higher? The Uber model as it were? That will increasingly be the result of government regulation. The reason is the services/users that use more bandwidth will have to pay the usage cost one way or the other.

 

"I am not for overregulation. period"--No one if for 'overregulation' and I've yet to hear anyone who is not being paid by the cable companies characterize net neutrality as overregulation.  What gave you this idea in the first place?

 

"There is currently not an problem that I can see"--Yes!  This is part of the issue!  It's very difficult to know when throttling is going on, so it's not as easy to recognize what's happening and switch to a competitor as you seem to think it would be--not to mention that the competitor is almost certainly doing it, too, and most people don't live in a place with more than one option. 

 

"This discussion is about not killing the patient (who is not yet sick) with a cure."--What makes you think that the patient is not yet sick?  Because you can't yet see the problem and haven't felt the symptoms yet?  Every expert on the subject who works in the telecom field is telling you the patient is sick and this problem needs to be addressed before it gets worse and is irreparable; perhaps it might be wise to defer to their learned  opinions.  If you were the patient and doctors were telling you that you were sick even though you hadn't felt the symptoms yet, would you believe them?

 

"The electric utilities do use tiered demand delivery to commercial/industrial concerns... it is called PEAK Demand."  Do they create artificial peaks in the demand by withholding electricity in order to justify their peak demand pricing?  No.  Because that would be incredibly illegal for obvious reasons. 

 

"Who the hell made this a L vs. R discussion?"--The short answer is you did, when you say things like "The bottom-line is that regulations (not standards) by-and-large result in LESS innovation."  That's a purely political statement that reflects the assumptions and premises you are bringing to the table when you consider the net neutrality issue.  Do you really think regulations always stifles innovation in every case?  Can you not think of a few examples where regulation has actually encouraged innovation?  I can think of plenty.  In fact, I bet i can come up with way more examples of that than you can find people who have some knowledge of the telecom industry and oppose net neutrality that aren't on the cable companies or their lobbyists payrolls.  Up for the challenge? 

[dmillsphoto]

Neither side is going to win this. Time will tell, but NB I'm still waiting to see where all that "competition" is. Comcast. AT&T (for about 1/5 of Nashvillians) for the wire. 4 wireless carriers. All of them priced the same for the most part.

 

 

 

If I do not perceive a problem there is no problem. I have Netflix I am happy with the quality of my Netflix service, thus even if ATT is throttling Netflix I do not care because it does not affect me.

 

AT&T didn't throttle. Comcast did. Comcast did until they got paid by Netflix.

[Guest]

I have found quite a difference between these providers.

ATT Telco (DSL)

Comcast (or local cable company)

ATT Wireless 4G (2nd cheapest and very cheap with family bundles)

Verizon Wireless 4G (Most expensive of the wireless)

T-Mobile 4G (and the cheapest by far)

Sprint 4G (3rd Cheapest)

Direct TV

WiMax

 

Potentially Google

Potentially ATT Giga until the fiasco of this week

[dmillsphoto]

So you listed 3 that are the same (AT&T) and one (DirecTV) that doesn't even do internet. Or, in this area, they partner with AT&T.

 

EDIT: Forgot to address WiMax. That's Sprint/Clear. So that's another off the list.

[ruraljuror]

RJ  - I appreciate the invitation but we have a problem - I am not the one trying to change the system. I am quite happy the way broadband is priced and delivered. I am happy that I have many choices of broadband providers.

 

I believe that the impetus is on those supporting the massively intrusive government regulations being proposed. Again, I only see a future of higher fees/taxes/costs and happened innovation once the FCC gets involved... at least to the extend that Obama recommends.

 

 

"In 2012 81% of Americans were using the Internet, which ranks the U.S. 28th out of 211 countries in the world.^[1] A large number of people in the US have little or no choice at all on who provides their internet access. The country suffers from a severe lack of competition in the broadband business.^[2] Nearly one-third of households in the United States have either no choice for home broadband Internet service, or no options at all."

 

That's from wikipedia.  I'm glad you're happy with your service and broadband provider selection, and that you don't care if AT&T is throttling Netflix because it "doesn't affect you" and that you like all the options that you have.  Unfortunately, I hope you will come to realize that there are considerations here that go beyond your personal preferences.

 

The internet is slower in America than in Europe, for example.  Who cares!  Throttling doesn't bother NB's movie streaming, never mind the net inefficiency disadvantages it creates cumulatively across the whole country.  So what if there are places to which the cable companies are unwilling to provide service because the ROI isn't there.  And if those places band together to run their own cable, why not let those same cable companies sue and stop them!?!?  That makes sense.

 

I'm still not sure that you've looked at UTGrad's link.  You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it do basic research. 

[ruraljuror]

 

Not without proof, no...

 

 

If I do not perceive a problem there is no problem. I have Netflix I am happy with the quality of my Netflix service, thus even if ATT is throttling Netflix I do not care because it does not affect me.

 

Governments regulations will affect me.

 

 

Okay to follow your logic.... you are saying that you will be happy with a system that charges you a higher rate to download/view data from the internet when demand is higher? The Uber model as it were? That will increasingly be the result of government regulation. The reason is the services/users that use more bandwidth will have to pay the usage cost one way or the other.

 

 

 

"If I do not perceive a problem, there is no problem"........wow.  mind=blown.

 

I feel like somebody could teach an entire class on that line alone.  Several classes in several disciplines in fact:  psychology, political science, sociology, philosophy--it's all there. 

[Guest]

Ha, have at it!
 

Dramatics aside, Why do you care if throttling is occurring (and I have yet to see evidence that it is) if you are happy with the service being provided. I pay for quality bandwidth and I am receiving quality bandwidth. If that changes I will perceive a problem and thus have an actual problem. I foresee any problems down the road to be a result of our lovely government bureaucrats / politicians ..... they are not the angels of virtue that you envision.