TG: Net neutrality advocates to protest against 'hybrid' FCC solution in dozens of cities

[Larry]

Hence why I asked for an industry that isn't/wasn't a natural monopoly. I don't think anyone will argue there is only 1 internet provider (I had the option of Verizon, Comcast, HughesNet). Electricity I had the option of Dominion or candles.

 

Perhaps you could provide us with your definition of natural monopoly, since you seem to think that 1) you've created one, and 2) it's important. 

 

Remember, you must artificially construct it so that it applies to electricity and telephones, but not to the Internet. 

[Popeman38]

Perhaps you could provide us with your definition of natural monopoly, since you seem to think that 1) you've created one, and 2) it's important. 

 

Remember, you must artificially construct it so that it applies to electricity and telephones, but not to the Internet. 

 

You are a monumental pain in the ass sometimes, Larry. I thought DoJ breaking up AT&T into 7 regional carriers in an antitrust suit was, by very definition, labeling AT&T (aka Ma Bell) a natural monopoly.

 

First, let's define a natural monopoly (you can choose which definition applies, either work):

 

Option 1: A natural monopoly is a monopoly in an industry in which it is most efficient (involving the lowest long-run average cost) for production to be permanently concentrated in a single firm rather than contested competitively.

Option 2: A “natural monopoly” is defined in economics as an industry where the fixed cost of the capital goods is so high that it is not profitable for a second firm to enter and compete. There is a “natural” reason for this industry being a monopoly, namely that the economies of scale require one, rather than several, firms. Small-scale ownership would be less efficient.

 

Electricity, water, and natural gas are generally accepted, existing natural monopolies. Do you agree to accept this statement, or do I need to prove it? 

 

Now, about Ma Bell. Excerpt from AT&T Divestiture "What Killed Ma Bell?" 

http://www.beatriceco.com/bti/porticus/bell/whatkilledmabell.html 

What Vail invented was a unique way of organizing the system under private ownership while getting government approval of the concept of a "natural" monopoly which should be operated "in the public interest." A number of competing telephone systems had blossomed in the early part of the century, and in some cases people served by one system could not be connected with people hooked to another in the same area. 

I assume you will challenge the validity of what I quoted, so I will provide a more "trusted" source:

 

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=6025

AT&T

The breakup of AT&T is a decision that has made impact on the everyday life of Americans. Challenged as a monopoly through the years by potential entrants into the telecommunications industry, AT&T was granted a “natural monopoly” status by the U.S. Government for years.

In 1974, Attorney General Willam Saxbe filed suit against AT&T. Seven years and four Attorney Generals would pass before AT&T and the Department of Justice would enter into a stipulation settling the case between the two parties. AT&T would be split into seven companies, each of which would serve different regions of the United States.

I assume for arguments sake, you will accept the DoJ and multiple Attorney Generals of the U.S. as reliable sources?

 

Now, about the Internet. I don't have anything to prove here. Please provide any source that shows the internet is offered nationally by 1, and only 1, ISP tat permits users to connect to other networks.

 

I'll wait.

[Predicto]

 

Now, about the Internet. I don't have anything to prove here. Please provide any source that shows the internet is offered nationally by 1, and only 1, ISP tat permits users to connect to other networks.

 

I'll wait.

 

 

By your definition, a natural monopoly is one "in an industry in which it is most efficient (involving the lowest long-run average cost) for production to be permanently concentrated in a single firm rather than contested competitively."

 

That is the precisely the case for internet service providers in much of this country.   In addition, many economists will tell you that duopolys (which is what almost all of the other markets in the USA have) do not foster any reasonable amount of competition.   

[PokerPacker]

You are a monumental pain in the ass sometimes, Larry.

And that's why we love him.

[Popeman38]

By your definition, a natural monopoly is one "in an industry in which it is most efficient (involving the lowest long-run average cost) for production to be permanently concentrated in a single firm rather than contested competitively."

That is the precisely the case for internet service providers in much of this country. In addition, many economists will tell you that duopolys (which is what almost all of the other markets in the USA have) do not foster any reasonable amount of competition.

That isn't my definition. Those are book definitions. And there are new networks added to the Internet regularly. Additionally, L3 in their argument against Verizon provides proof that Internet access is not monopolistic. Listen, if you live in the sticks you aren't going to get a T1 delivered to your front door. And if the FCC mandates that like they did for phone service, access will skyrocket. And the fact that the FCC included wireless carriers in this ruling sucks. In most populated areas you have at minimum 3 ISPs competing for your business. Google is rolling out Google Fiber to more and more cities. Verizon is rolling out FiOS still. It's not like we are at a standstill access wise that needed the goVT to step in.

[Larry]

Now, about Ma Bell. Excerpt from AT&T Divestiture "What Killed Ma Bell?" 

http://www.beatriceco.com/bti/porticus/bell/whatkilledmabell.html 

I assume you will challenge the validity of what I quoted, so I will provide a more "trusted" source:

 

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=6025

I assume for arguments sake, you will accept the DoJ and multiple Attorney Generals of the U.S. as reliable sources?

So, your assertion is that the phone companies are a "natural monopoly", because the DoJ spent a bunch of money, turning Bill from one monopoly into seven monopolies?

The average person in the US, how many choices do you suppose they have, for ISPs? (At least, the physical connection?)

Me, I have two.

1) My phone company. (A government granted monopoly.)

2) Cox Cable. (A government granted monopoly.)

(Do you wonder why those two entities are both government-granted monopolies? Might it, perhaps, because they are "natural monopolies", too?)

And it looks like I can get Hughes, too. (I assume, for a higher price, since they only seem to even advertise their service to people who aren't in an ares served by an existing monopoly. Good thing launching a satellite doesn't represent a high cost of entrance or anything.)

----------

 

You are a monumental pain in the ass sometimes, Larry.

[Larry]

That isn't my definition. Those are book definitions. And there are new networks added to the Internet regularly. Additionally, L3 in their argument against Verizon provides proof that Internet access is not monopolistic. Listen, if you live in the sticks you aren't going to get a T1 delivered to your front door. And if the FCC mandates that like they did for phone service, access will skyrocket. And the fact that the FCC included wireless carriers in this ruling sucks. In most populated areas you have at minimum 3 ISPs competing for your business. Google is rolling out Google Fiber to more and more cities. Verizon is rolling out FiOS still. It's not like we are at a standstill access wise that needed the goVT to step in.

Yes, now days, it does appear that there is competition, in some markets, for some services.

Including telephones. (You know, one of the products that you said didn't count as being a product of successful regulation.)

(I'll also point out that the reason why there is competition for telephones, is because the government mandated it, and mandated that the companies all had to comply to identical standards for their interconnects.)

My Dad, who was with the FCC at the time, helped write the regulations. Basically they said that it was in the nation's interest to have one, single, PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network). And that, since any equipment connected to the network had the potential to damage the network, then the owners of the network were allowed to write whatever specifications they wanted, and that the FCC would verify that any equipment that wanted to connect, met said specifications. but, that all equipment used by the existing companies had to meet the same standards, and that said standards could be challenged.

Later, when more competition was mandated, part of the rules was that the companies who owned the copper, were not permitted to give better or worse quality of service to competitors, but had to provice the same quality to all people using the copper.

Sounds kinda like Net Neutrality, doesn't it?

[dfitzo53]

Not the internet.

 

ISPs.

 

Queue a bunch of politicians with no understanding of how any of this works, telling the rest of us what to think about it.

Indeed.  We've seen that movie before.

 

[Springfield]

So you still won't acknowledge long standing, industry standard settlement free peering is actually a thing? And that NetFlix, by purchasing wholesale Internet service from L3 and other wholesalers, was intentionally bypassing these agreements? See, if NetFlix wanted to peer directly with Verizon, they would have to pay because they know their relationship would be almost entirely one-sided. Hence buying from wholesalers to use the wholesalers settlement free peering with ISPs. ISPs called them on it, and NetFlix payed. If they really had a case against Verizon and Comcast and Time Warner, don't you think they would have gone the distance?

How is the relationship one sided?

Between Verizon and Netflix, yes. Because Netflix offers and exceptional service that many, many people enjoy. You might say that they enjoy Netflix's service so much that they are willing to pay Verizon more money for increased speeds so they can enjoy Netflix's service at the increased ability that Verizon advertises to their customers.

You seem to be focusing on the interaction between Verizon and Netflix (or any other bandwidth hog) and forgetting about the interaction between the end user and Verizon.

Verizon offers the upgraded packages (does anyone really need 75 Megs down other than to stream HD content? Hell, they don't even need a fraction of that but that's beside the point) to the consumer so that they can enjoy Netflix to its potential! Verizon says to the customer, "Hey, want to stream 8 TV shows at the same time? Enjoy our Quantum Internet!"

Verizon is increasing its sales because of companies like Netflix and then cries foul when customers do exactly what Verizon wants them to do. It is a bull**** power grab by Verizon.

[tshile]

L3 can pretend that Verizon is wrong, but their own settlement free peering arrangements with other ISPs betrays their point. No matter how much you want to swallow their wonderful blogpost.

I feel like you're missing the point.

Verizons customer complained about low bandwith messages when using netflix on Fios.

Verizon responded by saying Level 3 was capping it. In part of passing the blame they say they have all this open network capacity not even being used.

Level 3 comes out and shows how/why Verizon is capping it.

So I get that you understand more about this than the average person, and that's great, but there's no way Verizon doesn't come out looking like a giant ass in this situation.

If you think it's ok that verizon customers are paying $60+/month for service and verizon is capping selective services because they want that specific service provider to pay them money, while simultaneously boasting about how much unused capacity they have sitting around doing nothing... well, that sounds crappy.

Hence why I asked for an industry that isn't/wasn't a natural monopoly. I don't think anyone will argue there is only 1 internet provider (I had the option of Verizon, Comcast, HughesNet). Electricity I had the option of Dominion or candles.

Um, that's part of the problem, actually... it's a key component to why net neutrality is so important...

Because while it's great that you had 3 options for internet, there's a lot of the country that only have one choice.

I live 50 minutes west of the nation's capital. I have one internet provider to choose from. My in laws 10 minutes away have none. Zero.

Unless you consider the draconian cost structure and high latency of satellite an option.

[tshile]

That isn't my definition. Those are book definitions. And there are new networks added to the Internet regularly. Additionally, L3 in their argument against Verizon provides proof that Internet access is not monopolistic. Listen, if you live in the sticks you aren't going to get a T1 delivered to your front door. And if the FCC mandates that like they did for phone service, access will skyrocket. And the fact that the FCC included wireless carriers in this ruling sucks. In most populated areas you have at minimum 3 ISPs competing for your business. Google is rolling out Google Fiber to more and more cities. Verizon is rolling out FiOS still. It's not like we are at a standstill access wise that needed the goVT to step in.

 

 

It seems like you 1/2 get it

 

StopTheCap - erizon Won’t Expand FiOS Beyond Current Franchise Obligations, CFO Tells Investors

 

Verizon Fios rollouts stopped past those allocated in 2012. There's been plenty of rumors, but for 3 years now it's been stopped. if you weren't on the list then you aren't getting it.

You know what else stopped? The subsidies for rolling out fiber in 2012. Coincidence, right? I know it's so weird how that works.

 

TechDirt - What Billions In Subsidies Bought: The Final Map Of Verizon's FiOS Fiber

 

There's other links there to support how screwed up the entire situation is.

 

Yeah - the guys charging all that money for you to hook up to their network? They used tax payer dollars to build the network. And they're throttling netfix service to your house cause netflix won't give them extra money. What a sweet deal!

 

This is the type of crap ISPs pull, and you seem to be supporting it because the big government boogeyman is going to impose a bunch of taxes no one's talked about being enacted, ever.

 

Oh, and how about that google fibre? I mean at least they're still rolling that out, right?

DSL Reports - Google Fiber, the 'Free Market Success Story' That Wasn't,

Free Marketeers Celebrate Google Fiber, Ignore Subsidies

 

Just one example.

 

The ISP's are screwing us every which way. Why anyone has trouble understanding this is beyond me.

[Popeman38]

I feel like you're missing the point.

Verizons customer complained about low bandwith messages when using netflix on Fios.

Verizon responded by saying Level 3 was capping it. In part of passing the blame they say they have all this open network capacity not even being used.

Level 3 comes out and shows how/why Verizon is capping it.

So I get that you understand more about this than the average person, and that's great, but there's no way Verizon doesn't come out looking like a giant ass in this situation.

If you think it's ok that verizon customers are paying $60+/month for service and verizon is capping selective services because they want that specific service provider to pay them money, while simultaneously boasting about how much unused capacity they have sitting around doing nothing... well, that sounds crappy.

Um, that's part of the problem, actually... it's a key component to why net neutrality is so important...

Because while it's great that you had 3 options for internet, there's a lot of the country that only have one choice.

I live 50 minutes west of the nation's capital. I have one internet provider to choose from. My in laws 10 minutes away have none. Zero.

Unless you consider the draconian cost structure and high latency of satellite an option.

YOU are missing the point. Verizon isn't capping anything. They simply refuse to turn up more interconnects to Netflix paid delivery services in a settlement free environment. It is supposed to be an equitable relationship. Verizon is providing 75Mbps download speeds for a price. Netflix is providing HD streaming for a price. L3 is providing transport for NetFlix for a price. Now the way settlement free peering is supposed to work is an equitable exchange of data. It doesn't have to be exact, but within an order of magnitude. Netflix's carriers are not abiding by those industry approved standards. In that case, L3 should sign paid settlement agreements. As industry has been doing since the inception of the Internet.

You bought the L3 explanation as gospel truth. However, L3 peering agreements with other carriers exposes their hypocrisy.

You keep saying capping. There is no capping going on. It was a lack of interconnects to Netflix paid carriers. Wholesalers.

[tshile]

YOU are missing the point. Verizon isn't capping anything. They simply refuse to turn up more interconnects to Netflix paid delivery services in a settlement free environment.

When people say capping and throttling, what exactly is it that you think they mean?

[Popeman38]

We get it. You can Google and find pages critical of Verizon and other ISPs. They are evil, and the root of all that is bad with the Internet.

[spjunkies]

They are evil, and the root of all that is bad with the Internet.

 

I totally agree

[Popeman38]

When people say capping and throttling, what exactly is it that you think they mean?

Throttling is when you reduce speed or capacity. Like when a wireless carrier throttles your speed when you pass 2 GB on your "unlimited" plan. Capping is when you artificially put a lid on capacity. And NEITHER of those happened with NetFlix. Verizon simply refused to turn up more capacity for NetFlix paid carriers.

What do you think equitable relationship means?

Imagine you owned and operated a delivery service. And as part of an agreement with the USPS, you agreed to deliver a few of their pieces of mail in exchange for them delivering a few of your packages. This goes on for a while with no issues. Then one day the USPS hires a moving company to dump an 18 wheeler of mail on your lawn. Then the next day 2. Then the next day 3. And they keep doing this every day for a year. Would you hire more delivery guys out of your pocket or are you going to try to get the USPS to sign a contract?

[tshile]

We get it. You can Google and find pages critical of Verizon and other ISPs. They are evil, and the root of all that is bad with the Internet.

No they're just successful companies that need a little regulation to keep them in check.

Your whole rebuttal is to take shots at me for using Google to find articles?

Damm, guilty as charged. You know what made it easy? Knowing they existed before I went searching.

[Popeman38]

No they're just successful companies that need a little regulation to keep them in check.

Your whole rebuttal is to take shots at me for using Google to find articles?

Damm, guilty as charged. You know what made it easy? Knowing they existed before I went searching.

Says the guy who intimates I don't know what throttle and cap mean? Yeah, you know what makes having this whole conversation easier? Actually knowing the subject matter inside and out and how the I traction actually went down.

[tshile]

Says the guy who intimates I don't know what throttle and cap mean? Yeah, you know what makes having this whole conversation easier? Actually knowing the subject matter inside and out and how the I traction actually went down.

You've made it clear you know a whole lot about settlement free peering.

And that's great.

It seems to be the rest of the issue that you're having trouble with.

I didn't intimate you don't know what capping and throttling is. I pointed out (implied, if you like that better?) that you're playing a game of semantics. You know damn well what I meant, but kudos on sticking to that point.

[Popeman38]

You've made it clear you know a whole lot about settlement free peering.

And that's great.

It seems to be the rest of the issue that you're having trouble with.

I didn't intimate you don't know what capping and throttling is. I pointed out (implied, if you like that better?) that you're playing a game of semantics. You know damn well what I meant, but kudos on sticking to that point.

I also am very familiar with paid settlement, routing agreements, how the Internet works, and how quite a few people think the internet works. It isn't all unicorns and rainbows. It is a business, and treating it as a utility in the 21st century is asinine.

And pray tell, what game of semantics did I play? What I stated is exactly what the L3 exec showed in his diagram. He was willing to pay for a PIC or an ethernet cable to connect more 10G ports between L3 and Verizon. So L3 could route more NetFlix traffic to Verizon. Free of charge. Of course thats a great deal for L3. They can deliver more traffic and get paid more by NetFlix (NetFlix has paid routing agreements with multiple wholesalers like L3 and Cogent).

[tshile]

And pray tell, what game of semantics did I play?

When you started taking shots at my intelligence over my choice of the words capping and throttling. Was it really that hard to follow?

FYI - You're right, its not all unicorns and rainbows. As such you're not the only one around here that understands how the internet works.

[Popeman38]

When you started taking shots at my intelligence over my choice of the words capping and throttling. Was it really that hard to follow?

FYI - You're right, its not all unicorns and rainbows. As such you're not the only one around here that understands how the internet works.

Did I say I was? I do know that the way you portray the situation isn't accurate. It demonizes the ISP while absolving the other characters. I will defend the ISP, to a point. NetFlix was the problem, and there are many articles that explain it. Consumers blame the ISP because they pay for access. But you can't look at it in that simplistic fashion. Running a backbone is expensive and ever expanding. Allowing a single content generator to account for 33% of all internet traffic on your network for free isn't a sustainable model without massive markups in the cost of service. And since you complain about the cost now, I imagine you would be pissed at a 15% rate increase.

[tshile]

He was willing to pay for a PIC or an ethernet cable to connect more 10G ports between L3 and Verizon. So L3 could route more NetFlix traffic to Verizon. Free of charge. Of course thats a great deal for L3. They can deliver more traffic and get paid more by NetFlix (NetFlix has paid routing agreements with multiple wholesalers like L3 and Cogent).

Yup, and then it could use up their capacity that, as they admitted, was not being used. It's 50+% underutilized.

Then Verizon's paying customers could get the service they want.

As a bonus point, Verizon wouldn't need to lie and say that the issues are on Level3's side.

If Verizon had held their "We have all this unused capacity" card closer to their chest, they'd have a better shot not looking like the asshole here.

But you can't look at it in that simplistic fashion.

The only one looking at this in a simplistic fashion is you.

I've posted multiple points on the issue and you've latched on to this one incident and a poor choice of words on my part as if it's somehow meaningful. It's not.

This issue has been going on for decades and is visible in many, many different ways.

It's complex in terms of the history and how we got here, why the FCC did what it did, and what their intentions are.

By the way, what are all these fees and surcharges you mentioned on page 1?

[Popeman38]

Yup, and then it could use up their capacity that, as they admitted, was not being used. It's 50+% underutilized.

Then Verizon's paying customers could get the service they want.

As a bonus point, Verizon wouldn't need to lie and say that the issues are on Level3's side.

If Verizon had held their "We have all this unused capacity" card closer to their chest, they'd have a better shot not looking like the asshole here.

You can't be serious. Verizon did not lie. The issue was L3 was violating their settlement free peering arrangement with Verizon. Verizon could have rescinded that agreement and sent L3 a bill for the used capacity. And then Verizon would have stood up more capacity than they needed for L3. Instead, Verizon went to Netflix and said they weren't turning up any more capacity to Netflix's wholesale partners unless Netflix agreed to a paid settlement agreement. Netflix signed up with Time Warner, Comcast, and Verizon. Because they knew they were caught. And FYI, Cogent is a serial peering offender. They have been sued multiple times for only sending traffic and not accepting traffic.

[tshile]

Allowing a single content generator to account for 33% of all internet traffic on your network for free isn't a sustainable model without massive markups in the cost of service. And since you complain about the cost now, I imagine you would be pissed at a 15% rate increase.

Except Verizon's network was 50+% underutilized and your 33% number is meaningless.

If Verizon's network was at capacity and netflix was 33% of it and verizon made the call to throttle/cap/whatever netflix users then I could understand that. Offering to uncap if netflix pays I could even get behind because they could justify it as paying to boost the infrastructure netflix wants to use.

But 33% of less than 50% of used network... their customers are getting dicked around so Verizon can get a large piece on the other side of the deal.

No one is calling Verizon a big bad evil ISP company (actually i guess lots of people are, but I'm not.) They're just greedy and after trying every other way to get them to stop, and being absent real choice in many markets, we're left with the FCC treating them like a utility.

You want to blame someone for the impending government takeover of the internet? Blame the ISPs. They created this ENTIRE mess.