US court strikes down 'Net Neutrality' rule (Update)

Jan 14, 2014 by Rob Lever
A US appeals court struck down as unconstitutional a "Net Neutrality" rule that bars broadband Internet providers from blocking or playing favorites for online services.

A US appeals court on Tuesday struck down as unconstitutional a "Net Neutrality" rule that bars broadband Internet providers from blocking or playing favorites for online services.

The court ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks authority to impose the rule requiring high-speed Internet firms to treat all traffic equally.

The case brought by US telecom giant Verizon has divided some of the biggest players in the tech sector in a key test of what is officially called "Open Internet" rules.

Backers of Net Neutrality say the case could give the big telecom operators the power to block or degrade services like Netflix or YouTube, while promoting services of their own partners.

The appellate panel in Washington said in its 81-page ruling that the FCC cannot regulate the broadband firms as "common carriers" that are barred from discriminating against different online services.

"Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order," the court said.

But the ruling did back some FCC ability to regulate these Internet firms.

The ruling said "the Telecommunications Act of 1996 vests (the FCC) with affirmative authority to enact measures encouraging the deployment of broadband infrastructure (and)... to promulgate rules governing broadband providers' treatment of Internet traffic."

But it added that "even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates."

Verizon and its allies have argued that the FCC lacks authority to interfere with their business, and that Congress never decided these companies were regulated utilities or "common carriers."

Others say that overturning the rule could give a handful of companies that dominate broadband the ability to control services, and limit innovative online services.

FCC chairman Tom Wheeler said the court "correctly held" that the agency can regulate broadband firms but said the FCC would "consider all available options, including those for appeal, to ensure that these networks on which the Internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression."

Verizon executive vice president Randal Milch said the ruling "will not change consumers' ability to access and use the Internet as they do now."

He added that the ruling "will allow more room for innovation, and consumers will have more choices to determine for themselves how they access and experience the Internet."

"Verizon has been and remains committed to the open Internet which provides consumers with competitive choices and unblocked access to lawful websites and content when, where, and how they want," he said.

But Barbara Stripling, president of the American Library Association, said the ruling "gives commercial companies the astounding legal authority to block Internet traffic, give preferential treatment to certain Internet services or applications, and steer users to or away from certain websites based on their own commercial interests."

The activist group Free Press, meanwhile, said the decision means "companies like Verizon will now be able to block or slow down any website, application or service they like. And they'll be able to create tiered pricing structures with fast lanes for those who can afford the tolls and slow lanes for everyone else."

However, Scott Cleland of the research and consulting firm Precursor LLC and a former White House telecom policy adviser, said the ruling was "an unusual win-win outcome... that enabled each party to win on their respective and different must-win issues."

Cleland said the FCC won its "general authority to regulate" and Verizon "avoided common carrier regulation of broadband."

He said if both sides let the ruling stand, they "effectively could settle into a de facto net neutrality peace."

Explore further: Court case renews debate on US 'Open Internet' rules

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

FCC sued over new Internet rules

Sep 28, 2011

(AP) -- A media and Internet advocacy group sued the federal government Wednesday over its new rules covering Internet traffic, saying they don't protect wireless traffic from interference by phone companies.

FCC loses key ruling on Internet 'neutrality'

Apr 06, 2010

(AP) -- A federal court threw the future of Internet regulations into doubt Tuesday with a far-reaching decision that went against the Federal Communications Commission and could even hamper the government's plans to expand ...

Recommended for you

Scalping can raise ticket prices

5 hours ago

Scalping gets a bad rap. For years, artists and concert promoters have stigmatized ticket resale as a practice that unfairly hurts their own sales and forces fans to pay exorbitant prices for tickets to sold-out concerts. ...

User comments : 50

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

foolspoo
3 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2014
Yet hundreds of millions of gullible bigots will defend this "republic"
foolspoo
4 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2014
"The appellate panel in Washington said in an 81-page ruling that the FCC cannot regulate the broadband firms as "common carriers" which are barred from discriminating against different online services.

........Took 81 pages to say "we are far too vested in these companies to apply equality to this situation"
Returners
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2014
This is shameful capitalism at work.

While European and Asian nations provide cheap internet access to their citizens, the U.S. court gives the keys to our access to greedy corporations.

Americans pay more for data plans on phone services.
Americans pay more for wired internet connections.
Americans pay more for...everything really.

Watch, if an insurance company buys out some ISPs, they'll be able to legally block access to the government's healthcare sites, and if they buy out some tax preparer firms, they can block access to the IRS site and force their users to file taxes through them.

Think about it, this is a step in the wrong direction, and actually bolsters monopolies and hostile takeovers of entire sectors of the economy.

Has it reached the point that we need a constitutional amendment WITH a ten page explanation from the legislature of what it does and does not mean, just to ensure common sense interpretation in real world problems?

Impeach the entire Supreme Court.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2014
While European and Asian nations provide cheap internet access to their citizens,

This is shameless socialism.
Someone has to pay for the power, infrastructure, etc.

This is a step in the RIGHT direction as users need to pay for their content. Why should someone who continuously downloads and uploads video data be subsidized by those who don't?
if they buy out

No one can be forced to sell, and competition prevents anyone from a monopoly.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2014
" For any of the nation's competing ISPs to offer customers slow, patchy, let alone nonexistent access to the websites they seek to visit, would be commercial suicide. As for innovation, websites are free to continue using standard, non-prioritized Internet service. The fact that this would be slower than premium service does not mean that it would be slow, just as UPS's decision to offer overnight delivery did not lead them to suddenly degrade their Ground shipping. Premium Internet services would enable, not stifle, innovation, by giving websites creative options they did not have before."
"The Internet is not a collectivist commune; it is a free, voluntary, and private association of individuals and corporations harmoniously pursuing their individual goals."
"The widespread support for net neutrality among successful Internet companies--including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, eBay, and Amazon--is short-sighted and contemptible"
http://www.aynran...id=12767
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2014
'Liberalism' is a mental disorder.
'returners' demands net neutrality and so do the big corporate internet giants like Google, MS.
Socialists like ret. complain bitterly about the big corps and worries about monopoly yet he and Google are on the same side of the issue.
Why isn't ret. worried about Google becoming a monopoly?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2014
"This week, ISPs and content providers came together to form a private working group called the Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (or BITAG). It's headed by a well regarded technologist (Dale Hatfield) and there is not a government bureaucrat sitting at the table. "
"Thus far, the group has received relatively favorable praise, but organizations like Free Press and Public Knowledge gave only half-hearted support to the group, stating "is not a substitute for the government setting basic rules of the road for the Internet" and "it is not a substitute for FCC rules," respectively. This shows the true colors of Free Press and Public Knowledge. For them, it has never really been about "consumer protection" to ensure full access to web content. "

Read more: http://atr.org/fr...qQXy4pEc
Follow us: @taxreformer on Twitter
Yes, it is ALL about more govt control as 'ret' dreams of.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2014
"Net Neutrality comprises an astounding list of government-imposed terribles – stuff liberty-lovers must always remain watchful of and work to defeat. So, if you care about free speech, private property, free markets, or the rule of law, then Net Neutrality, which undermines all of this, should concern you. Greatly."
http://mediafreed...-people/
dav_daddy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2014


No one can be forced to sell, and competition prevents anyone from a monopoly.


Are you high or just really ignorant? Where exactly in this country is there competition between ISP's? I've lived in the bay area and Phx metro for the better part of my 36 years on this planet. Know how many options I have ever had for highspeed i-net?

1.

I've been a card carrying Libertarian since I was old enough to vote and even I admit this is HORRIBLE for the American consumer!
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2014
This is a step in the RIGHT direction as users need to pay for their content. Why should someone who continuously downloads and uploads video data be subsidized by those who don't?


They aren't.

The uploading and downloading isn't the thing that you pay for - paying for bits or minutes or download caps are completely artifical. The bits are free - it's the infrastructure that actually costs you money, and it exists equally for the people who use it a lot and who use it a little. You pay for the maintenance and electricity to run the local DSLAM box near your house whether or not you are watching Youtube at the moment. You pay for the potential to download a youtube video - not for the fact that you do.

That's why people who use the internet more aren't in any debt to the people who use it less - as long as they aren't causing network congestion - but that's a problem of the ISP selling them more network capacity than what actually exists!
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2014
It's absurd to claim that someone using their internet connection more should pay more than those who use it less. You buy or rent a slice of the infrastructure maintained by the ISP, which then in principle is reserved to you because the ISP has to give you as much bandwidth as they sold you when you do decide to use it. Otherwise you do get to complain.

If you don't use it, that's your problem. If you buy a car, you don't complain that it's unfairly expensive to you - that you're somehow "subsidizing cars for the taxi drivers" - because you only drive it on sundays.

The main problem here is that ISPs sell bandwidth "up to" in the small print, so they get away with selling the same infrastructure over and over so many times that nobody is really getting what they thought they paid for, and thus becomes the illusion that someone else is using the bandwidth you paid for.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2014
The uploading and downloading isn't the thing that you pay for - paying for bits or minutes or download caps are completely artificial. The bits are free
Yes the dark fiber doesn't care it you send one or a trillion bits. What matters is peer connectivity. In the old days there were PACs where carriers exchanged traffic for free in the common interest of communication. That was the beginning of network neutrality

Ironic that Ryggie supports the very mechanism that would allow him to be completely and finally censored!
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 15, 2014
In the old days there were PACs where carriers exchanged traffic for free in the common interest of communication.


And nowadays there's roaming fees where calling from one network to the other may sometimes cause a x1000 increase in your phone bill just because "f**k you", and downloading a youtube video too close to another country's carrier's network may cost you your house when your phone switches over.

Hence why the EU is doing the exact opposite to the US and coercing carriers to drop roaming fees and treat traffic from different networks equally.

Imagine if it ends up the same and sending an IM from Verizon's network to a Comcast user would suddenly cost you a penny each for "outbound traffic".
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2014
For any of the nation's competing ISPs to offer customers slow, patchy, let alone nonexistent access to the websites they seek to visit, would be commercial suicide.


Each ISP is a natural monopoly in its area because internet is about infrastructure, and any competing company would have to pay a large up-front cost to install their own cable, fibre, copper and routing systems in parallel with the existing ones. That is why the existing ISP can always afford to outcompete the newcomer and stop them from entering the market, which means that it's futile for any competitor to even try.

Hence, the ISP can afford to lower quality and up the prices in the knowledge that if a competitor made the attempt, they can push them off.

Unless there is a law that makes them share the infrastructure with competitors, at a fair price without playing favorites. Aka. network neutrality.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Jan 15, 2014
Yet hundreds of millions of gullible bigots will defend this "republic"

While I can understand your sentiment the courts are only charged with applying current law (or in this case the currently valid version of the constitution). They are not in charge of making just pronouncements - only legal ones (big difference!).
If the laws are unjust then the courts have no way of dealing with that other than by applying these unjust laws to people.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2014
it's the infrastructure that actually costs you money, and it exists equally for the people who use it a lot and who use it a little


The use of the infrastructure is not unlimited. More users, more data, more infrastructure.

Each ISP is a natural monopoly in its area because internet is about infrastructure,

Only because the govts give them the monopoly.
I have a choice among fiber, cable and wireless internet providers at my house. Comcast had exclusive rights until Verizon began laying fiber.
'Natural monopoly' is bunk and another excuse for govt to tax.
billpress11
not rated yet Jan 15, 2014
Maybe I do not understand this "net neutrality" thing completely. Isn't it about blocking ISP from determining which sites a subscriber can visit and how fast they provide service to those sites? If that is all it is about I would support net neutrality. Would anyone like the phone company determining which numbers you can call?

My internet service provider already has levels of service at different prices, faster download speeds at higher prices. The speeds are determined by the amount of traffic at the moment. After all only a finite amount of information can be transmitted at any given moment in time.

This I do have a problem with. Why should I have my downloads speeds slowed so someone can download movies by the dozen?

Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2014
The use of the infrastructure is not unlimited. More users, more data, more infrastructure.


Yes. More users. For each user, you need to build a certain amount of bandwidth in case of congestion. Doesn't matter if you use it a lot or a little - it's still there.

Only because the govts give them the monopoly.


Did you just completely ignore what I said? The monopoly exists when the government doesn't interfere, because the ISP excludes others from the network to give itself a competetive advantage.

Comcast had exclusive rights until Verizon began laying fiber.


Point in case. Verizon had to spend a whole lot of money just to get to the same marketplace.

Plus, now there exists two networks to serve the same neighborhood, duplicated effort, double the money spent, and both options are more expensive for it. It's like having two water pipes from two different companies so you could choose whose water you want to drink. It's completely ridiculous and a waste
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 15, 2014
This I do have a problem with. Why should I have my downloads speeds slowed so someone can download movies by the dozen?


You shouldn't. Your ISP has simply sold too many connections for their bandwidth in an attempt to profit more. You should switch services... oh right, you can't, because there's only one or two available and they're all doing the same thing anyhow. Thanks Obama.

Or as I said earlier, your contract actually says "up to nnn Mbps" and you don't have a right to complain because they're delivering exactly what you agreed to.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 15, 2014
I have a choice among fiber, cable and wireless internet providers at my house.


More precisely, these are all different types of service. If you want fast fiber, there's only Verizon. If you want to endure cable with its congestion issues, you only have Comcast. If you want to enjoy unreliable wireless, there's only that third company.

The apparent multitude of choice is transient: Verizon is now in the position to push Comcast out of the area because cable is an obsolete technology and Comcast would have to upgrade to a fiber network to compete, which would make them more expensive than Verizon, and this barrier of entry means it's not sensible for them to compete until the next better thing comes along.

Especially outside of major cities, the town is usually only large enough for one ISP at a time.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2014
Doesn't matter if you use it a lot or a little - it's still there.

Depend upon how big the pipe is and how many people are using.
Obama found out the limit of internet access with his failed web site.
The monopoly exists when the government doesn't interfere,

The monopoly exists BECAUSE the govt interferes.
It's like having two water pipes from two different companies so you could choose whose water you want to drink. It's completely ridiculous and a waste

Waste for whom? As the customer, you then have more choice.
More precisely, these are all different types of service.

Yes, internet service. So?
not sensible for them to compete

Not sensible for whom? The customer or the company.
Eikka sounds like a crony capitalist/socialist who want the state to protect his market share so he won't have to compete for business.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2014
" Internet usage has penetrated faster than any technology in history. Rapid adoption of Internet-enabled mobile devices is profoundly improving the lives of billions of people, especially in the developing world. It is also helping to change their political expectations as it strengthens the sovereignty of the individual by providing fast and inexpensive access to the world's information. Authoritarian regimes feel threatened by unfettered Internet access. That's why they've embarked on a patient diplomatic strategy to accrue power over its on-ramps."
http://online.wsj...02913926
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2014

This is related in the sense the content provider is trying to use the govt to force the service provider to carry its content.

""We launched WeatherNation (DIRECTV channel 361) as an alternative to provide 24/7 hard news weather coverage in response to numerous customer complaints that more than 40 percent of The Weather Channel's programming is dedicated to reality television shows. DIRECTV also offers city-by-city weather coverage on more than 1,400 local broadcast stations and on DIRECTV's emergency channels in times of severe weather."
http://www.breitb...-DirecTV
DirecTV cusomers can switch to Dish if Dish has the weather channel.
I'd rather see the govt get out of the way and let people pay only for the channels they want.
billpress11
not rated yet Jan 15, 2014
Quote Eikka: "Yes. More users. For each user, you need to build a certain amount of bandwidth in case of congestion. Doesn't matter if you use it a lot or a little - it's still there.'

While I certainly am not an expert, isn't bandwidth just another term for frequencies? If it is the same as frequencies isn't there a finite number available? If so one may need more cables to increase the capacity of the internet and ISP during peak time periods.

If that is so why should heavy user of the internet be able to degrade the quality of my service? Shouldn't they pay for what they using?

billpress11
not rated yet Jan 15, 2014
I could be wrong, but doesn't "net neutrality" only deal with an individual's access to internet sites that cannot be controlled by or limited by ISP? I would agree with this,

Or does it also limit an ISP charges over an individual's usage? On this there are two sides because of the limited competition in many areas of the country.
billpress11
not rated yet Jan 15, 2014
Sorry, double post deleted.
billpress11
not rated yet Jan 15, 2014
Okay, I just heard them discussing "net neutrality" on CNBC and they mentioned that the ISP want to charge the big traffic creators like Netflix more to "speed up" delivery of their products. So I assume from that information Net Neutrality does not permit that. Now of course the users of Netflix would be charged more for the products in the end to get this faster delivery of the movies they want to download. Parcels are already able to charge for faster delivery, this would be similar to that. But they also mentioned on CNBC that this could make it harder for new start ups to enter into competition with companies like Netflix.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2014
harder for new start ups to enter into competition with companies like Netflix.

Life's hard....
Net 'neutrality' limits competition with govt coercion.
Competitors for Netflix abound, and now some content providers refuse to use Netflix to distribute.
What are you going to do, bill, force them to use Netflix?
Netflix has its own programming now. Would you force Neflix to distribute this programming on Hulu or Amazon or on a cable channel?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2014
"The return of A&E's Duck Dynasty all but guarantees big ratings for the network. The show is a cultural sensation complete with best-selling books and musical side projects."
http://www.breitb...troversy
Should the govt force A&E to cancel Duck Dynasty?
kochevnik
not rated yet Jan 16, 2014
@Ryggie Net 'neutrality' limits competition with govt coercion.
First you say carriers can do anything they want. Then you claim all the evil the trusts do is because of governments, and nothing innate to the trust itself. Yet you know that it is not usually efficient to deliver every carrier in tandem to every customer. I can only conclude you as usual don't know what you wrote about
ryggesogn2
not rated yet Jan 16, 2014
Yet you know that it is not usually efficient to deliver every carrier in tandem to every customer.


Efficient for whom?
I have access to both cable, fiber, G4, and satellite ISPs.
Then you claim all the evil the trusts do is because of governments,

What evil?
Code_Warrior
not rated yet Jan 18, 2014
I don't pay an ISP for content, I pay them for network access and bandwidth. I pay content providers for content. If my bandwidth requirement at any moment exceeds my contracted max bandwidth then I would expect to be throttled down to my contractual max bandwidth at that moment. If my contractual bandwidth allows for a variable bandwidth connection based on the total bandwidth and number of users connected, then I would expect my bandwidth to vary accordingly. However, the ISP cannot care and should not be held liable for any content flowing within my bandwidth.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 19, 2014
Efficient for whom?


Everybody. Your whole society would be wealthier if it wasn't spending time and resources in pointless duplication of effort.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 19, 2014
While I certainly am not an expert, isn't bandwidth just another term for frequencies? If it is the same as frequencies isn't there a finite number available?


No, but the principle is the same.

If so one may need more cables to increase the capacity of the internet and ISP during peak time periods. If that is so why should heavy user of the internet be able to degrade the quality of my service? Shouldn't they pay for what they using?


The ISP has promised to deliver N number of people M amount of bandwidth each, but they only build B amount of bandwidth where B is always smaller than N x M because not everybody is using theirs all the time.

The problems start when the ISP has built far too little bandwidth and sold far too much for far too many people. The others aren't using -your- bandwidth - it's the ISP that fails to deliver it to all.

That's why the ISP in principle has to build some additional bandwidth for additional users to stop that from happening.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 19, 2014
Not sensible for whom? The customer or the company.


If you have two companies that compete to build an internet infrastructure using the same technology, the one who builds a network first becomes the natural monopoly. The cost of catching up for the other company naturally prevents them from offering a cheaper service, which means they get no customers. They will just waste a ton of money in the attempt and lose the competition anyways.

The only way for actual competition to exist, so the customer can choose between providers for the same thing, is for the government to stop such monopolies from forming, by saying that the network is a common carrier network that has to be shared with all competing companies. That means the infrastructure itself becomes a joint effort.

Eikka sounds like a crony capitalist/socialist who want the state to protect his market share so he won't have to compete for business.


You somehow manage to read the opposite of what I write
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 19, 2014
The internet infrastructure likens very much to a road. Competition between private toll roads means that if you as the customer want to choose between going to town by company A instead of company B road, both A and B would have to build their roads one right next to the other.

Splitting the infrastructure like that means that the same number of customers are divided between two redundant roads, when only one road was needed, so everyone pays twice the infrastructure cost for absolutely nothing. And, if for some reason company A got a few more customers than company B, there would be more people paying for A's maintenance costs than B's, and so company A can afford lower prices than B, so A gets all the customers while as B has to increase prices just to stay in business.

B can't just choose to undercut A because they'd be losing money, so the one who got the most customers is in complete control of the situation. It's a natural monopoly.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 19, 2014
Most other societies have long before understood that the problem of natural monopolies can't be solved by the free market alone. It's always going to come out with one company on top, and if you try to force competition by some sort of anti-trust law etc. the top dog company will just graciously allow some little guy to grab 10-20% of the market by adjusting their profit margins, while the overall level of prices to the customer remain high and the service minimal.

The only way to get proper competition between service providers to the customer is to declare the infrastructure itself as common, and that means no company can filter or restrict what goes on inside it, which can only work if you have net neutrality.

If you go across the Atlantic to Europe, you'll see that local network operators have to allow other ISPs to sell services in their networks at a fair price paid to the operator. That way the local telco alone can't dictate what the internet service prices are.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2014
Efficient for whom?


Everybody. Your whole society would be wealthier if it wasn't spending time and resources in pointless duplication of effort.



Efficiency in a market increase with competition.

If you have two companies that compete to build an internet infrastructure using the same technology, the one who builds a network first becomes the natural monopoly.


Why would a competitor risk his wealth to build the same thing? He would only risk his wealth if he could build a better, or cheaper system
Cable providers were granted monopolies by govts to limit competitors. Only the govt can create a monopoly.
declare the infrastructure itself as common,

Then that infrastructure will collapse as there is no incentive to upgrade and improve.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 19, 2014
Efficiency in a market increase with competition.


Not when competition means doubling of effort.

Why would a competitor risk his wealth to build the same thing?


Exactly. Glad you can see that.

Now, when there is no better or cheaper thing to be built, how can there be competition?

When the fastest option for internet was cable, the cable company that got there first became the monopoly. Now when theres fiber, the one who builds a fiber network first becomes the monopoly. Everyone else gets pushed out because they have worse service.

Going back to your example, you had cable, fiber and wireless. The cable will lose to the fiber, and then your consumer has two choices: wireless or wired, which are not in competition with each other because they're different kinds of services, both monopolies in their own right.

Only the govt can create a monopoly.


Monopolies form quite naturally where competition is not feasible due to circumstances
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 19, 2014
Then that infrastructure will collapse as there is no incentive to upgrade and improve.


Do you think the ISPs would let it collapse, when it means the end of their business?

That problem simply hasn't come up in countries where the internet infrastructure is treated as a common carrier network. Companies maintain and upgrade it quite normally since they benefit from it just as much as anyone else.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2014
Do you think the ISPs would let it collapse, when it means the end of their business?


Yes, the problem of the commons. No one will invest their wealth unless they can earn a profit.
nowhere
not rated yet Jan 20, 2014
Do you think the ISPs would let it collapse, when it means the end of their business?


Yes, the problem of the commons. No one will invest their wealth unless they can earn a profit.

But they will invest their wealth to maintain existing profit, especially since multiple businesses using the same network can share the cost of the maintenance.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2014



But they will invest their wealth to maintain existing profit, especially since multiple businesses using the same network can share the cost of the maintenance.


Maintenance is not innovation or growth.
nowhere
not rated yet Jan 20, 2014



But they will invest their wealth to maintain existing profit, especially since multiple businesses using the same network can share the cost of the maintenance.


Maintenance is not innovation or growth.

Maintenance is a continued requirement of any business.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2014



But they will invest their wealth to maintain existing profit, especially since multiple businesses using the same network can share the cost of the maintenance.


Maintenance is not innovation or growth.

Maintenance is a continued requirement of any business.

Yes, but if the business wants to survive, it must innovate and improve.
A cable or fiber has limited bandwidth. Simply maintaining that bandwidth will lead to network failure when capacity is exceeded.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2014
"As rapidly increasing demand for bandwidth strains the Internet's capacity, a team of engineers has devised a new fiber optic technology that promises to increase bandwidth dramatically. The new technology could enable Internet providers to offer much greater connectivity -- from decreased network congestion to on-demand video streaming."
http://www.scienc...2406.htm
But if there is no incentive for profit, why should anyone take the risk of rolling out this technology?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2014
It's interesting that content provider, The Weather Channel (TWC) , is so upset that a service provider, Directv (DTV) has stopped carrying their channel, that they are spending air time on other service providers, cable, Dish, ... to have Congress pressure DTV to carry TWC (partially owned by NBC, which also owns a cable service Comcast).
Why doesn't TWC encourage DTV customers to drop DTV and migrate to Dish or cable?
BTW, DTV does provide a channel for weather its customers seem to like better than TWC. TWC customers complain they are producing more non-weather content and not providing the 24/7 weather information expected.
Also, TWC has apps on internet devices DTV customers could access.
The analogy with net neutrality would have the govt force DTV to carry TWC regardless of any costs and all service providers would have to carry the same content.
I subscribed to DTV when I could because they had content no other carrier had.
adam_russell_9615
not rated yet Jan 20, 2014
Anytime government regulation supports monopolistic power it gives gov the right and duty to regulate the industry. City governments wont allow the streets to be dug up over and over every time someone new wants to enter the broadband market so that is effectively supporting a local monopoly and makes it proper to regulate. Even if there are a few competitors that share cable a new player cannot lay their own cable so that limits their competitiveness. Thats why there are not many choices. As far as isp's go the free market is not exactly a free market.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2014
But they will invest their wealth to maintain existing profit, especially since multiple businesses using the same network can share the cost of the maintenance.
@ryggie Maintenance is not innovation or growth.
You don't support innovation. You support hoarding monopolies which limit innovation to infinitesimal levels and kills other's innovation by "embracing and extending"
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2014
koch, who can innovate without capital, aka money?
Who is hoarding and where is it being hoarded?