new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Herminio Hernandez, Jr.]

> On Nov 25, 2017, at 10:25 AM, Steve Litt <slitt at troubleshooters.com> wrote:
>
> [snip tech explanation that could be addressed without making the
> Internet oligopoly owned]
>

How does net neutrality keep the internet from being oligopoly owned?
Does it say
that ISPs are no longer have the protection of a natural monopoly?
That would break
its power sadly that is not NN is. NN is built on a technical premise
that seriously flawed.

> Those poor ISPs. What are there, about six of them? Neatly dividing the
> country so few have more than two choices, and lots have only one? Is
> this how capitalism is supposed to work?
>

In a truly free market there would no government protect monopolies.
This fact is more the
reason we are in the mess we are in.

> You can make the next Netflix. Make a better protocol, have better
> films. You CANNOT make a competitor to Verison:
>

Really? Ever heard of wireless ISPs? The reason there is "no
competitor" (and I would
doubt that assertion) is not b/c Verizon is a 'natural monopoly', but
rather ISPs have
certain government protections that prevents or hinders entry to  the
market place. One
of the great benefits of the Free Market is possibility of innovation.
Pre 2006 did anyone
have any idea how a phone made by apple would change how we do computing?


> Monopolies that must dig up your yard (or use scarce radio bandwidth)
> to deliver a very necessary service are called utilities. They're
> heavily regulated to prevent monopolistic exploitation.

Utilities are regulated under laws that were written in the 1930s that
simply unsuitable
for modern technology.

> The first decade of the popular Internet were backboned by phone lines,
> completely regulated as utilities. Everybody had the same chance, the
> same deal. The result was a level of competition that spawned
> innovation that drove the 1990's economy: Probably some of you remember
> that. Capitalism's benefits are amazing if you get monopolism out of
> the way.
>

The internet thrived because it was not heavily regulated. Remember
the Telecommunications
Act of 1996? It labeled the internet as an 'information service' not a
'utility' and insured
light regulation. The system worked pretty well from 1996 - 2014.

> But wait, there's more. If Net Neutrality goes away, the oligopolists
> become gatekeepers. Compete with their programming? It's back to the
> slow lane for you. Have a website or service promoting Net Neutrality
> and criticizing the oligopoly? Yeah, it's too bad about those data
> glitches you somehow keep encountering.
>

The scary distopia that pro NN advocates are pushing simply did not
exist pre 2015 when NN took effect.
Yes there attempts by ISPs to screw people but they complained, fought
back and in the end the ISPs
relented. This is how markets work.

>
> Pre-cisely! And most of the campaign contributions electing
> anti-net-neutrality people come from the oligopoly, who want to become
> more monopolistic, extracting more money for less service.
>

Really and pro NN lobbiest like Microsft, Google, Facebook have our
best interest in heart. You really think they
care about our free speech?

> Net Neutrality is serious business. I'm betting that if it's discarded,
> innovation decreases, and there go the tech jobs. There's a planned
> nationwide pro-net-neutrality protest at Verizon stores
> (https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/22/net-neutrality-advocates-plan-protests-for-december-7-at-verizon-stores/)
>

Once again this does not describe the internet pre 2015. NN has only
been in effect for 2 years and you really
want me to believe that removing will usher the technical apocalypse?