Net neutrality update

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Market forces happen instantly. The government reaction happens months lAter.
xoxoxoBruce

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Market forces can be changed instantly by legislation, war, or cataclysmic events.

Market changes can seemingly happen instantly when previously undisclosed; or, unrealized market forces are suddenly disclosed and/or realized by the general market.

The term Market Force; however, has a particular definition that seems to be outside of your application. Legislation and war are not impromptu events. Even most cataclysmic events are predictable to some extent. These are already reflected in market forces based on probability.

Blindsiding the general market is common, blindsiding the individual market forces not so much; yet, that is what would have to happen for market forces to be changed instantly. That's only likely to happen on a microeconomic scale.

Of course, might makes right and if you go out and blow up enough market forces when no one is anticipating that from you, it could be a revelation.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The San Andreas fault can change things very quickly.

[sexobon]

Lex Luthor tried that by firing a nuclear missile into it; but, Superman brought the tectonic plates back together again. The market forces got over.

[Happy Monkey]

Somewhat (not directly) related story.

Verizon's throttling was described in fire department emails beginning June 29 of this year, just weeks after the FCC's repeal of net neutrality rules took effect.

Even when net neutrality rules were in place, all major carriers imposed some form of throttling on unlimited plans when customers used more than a certain amount of data. They argued that it was allowed under the rules' exception for "reasonable network management." But while such throttling is generally applied only during times of network congestion, the Santa Clara Fire Department says it was throttled at all times once the device in question went over a 25GB monthly threshold.

Even if Verizon's throttling didn't technically violate the no-throttling rule, Santa Clara could have complained to the FCC under the now-removed net neutrality system, which allowed Internet users to file complaints about any unjust or unreasonable prices and practices. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's decision to deregulate the broadband industry eliminated that complaint option and also limited consumers' rights to sue Internet providers over unjust or unreasonable behavior.

[Happy Monkey]

Follow-up to the previous story, specifically on the net-neutrality aspects.

[BigV]

A for profit publicly held company acting in the best fiduciary interests of the owners--biggest non-story ever.

[Undertoad]

the story has nothing to do with net neutrality

net neutrality is wallpapered onto the story anyway

why? ~ because more clicks, that is why ~

Because scaring you is in the best fiduciary interests of the owners of Ars Technica... Conde Nast.

[Happy Monkey]

It is tangentially associated, as described in the "Net neutrality rules and throttling" section of the second link. Not directly to the net neutrality specific rules, but in the general customer protection rules that the FCC threw away when they abandoned regulation of ISPs.


And while Ars Technica is unabashedly pro-net-neutrality, Santa Clara County's lawyers explicitly tied the story to net neutrality.

[Undertoad]

I'm sorry. The *incident* had nothing to do with net neutrality.

The incident was they were throttled, like everybody else with a data plan who goes over it. The plans weren't different, before and after the rule changes. The practices weren't different. It's most likely a mistake was made.

Verizon says they failed to apply the conditions for an emergency provider to the plan. If this is a net neutrality thing, aren't they supposed to just brazenly change their policies? Not, like, make a customer support mistake and then fix it.

I mean, anyone use Verizon Wireless? Anyone ever have 'em make a mistake? Okay then.

But the thing is, last year, pro-net-neutrality elected officials in Santa Clara County filed a suit against the FCC for ending net neutrality.

Now, they get to add this incident as an addendum, of evidence that their suit has merit.

It doesn't mean that it has merit. Doesn't mean anything at all really. It appears to be lawyer money, spent by public officials in pro-net-neutrality land, using public funds to make sure they get re-elected by their pro-net-neutrality voters.

Ordinarily, a pro-plaintiff lawyer making an addendum is not really newsworthy. But if you are Ars Technica, you are part of the process and you can write not just one, but two stories about it.

Santa Clara County's lawyers explicitly tied the story to net neutrality? YES THEY DID. They gettin' PAID to do that shit.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I'm sorry. The *incident* had nothing to do with net neutrality.

The incident was they were throttled, like everybody else with a data plan who goes over it. The plans weren't different, before and after the rule changes. The practices weren't different. It's most likely a mistake was made.

The "Net neutrality rules and throttling" section of the second link discusses the connection of net neutrality to throttling plans. They allowed throttling only for "reasonable network management", and a commissioner interested in enforcing that rule (ie, not Ajit Pai) probably would not have accepted "because they hit a monthly limit" as a "reasonable network management" reason to allow the exception, in the absence of actual network congestion. So, while the story is mostly tangential to network neutrality, that aspect is directly connected.

But the thing is, last year, pro-net-neutrality elected officials in Santa Clara County filed a suit against the FCC for ending net neutrality.

Now, they get to add this incident as an addendum, of evidence that their suit has merit.
...
Santa Clara County's lawyers explicitly tied the story to net neutrality? YES THEY DID. They gettin' PAID to do that shit.

Indeed. Hence my initial "not directly", and my follow-up to the story that described the connection fully.


I'lll add one errata for my last post: When I initially said it was Santa Clara County's lawyers, it was actually 22 state attorneys general (nice to see a couple of Republican states in there), the District of Columbia, Santa Clara County, Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District, and the California Public Utilities Commission, in the case MOZILLA CORPORATION, et al. v. FCC.

[Undertoad]

The "Net neutrality rules and throttling" section of the second link discusses the connection of net neutrality to throttling plans. They allowed throttling only for "reasonable network management", and a commissioner interested in enforcing that rule (ie, not Ajit Pai) probably would not have accepted "because they hit a monthly limit" as a "reasonable network management" reason to allow the exception, in the absence of actual network congestion. So, while the story is mostly tangential to network neutrality, that aspect is directly connected.

No it isn't. It's bullshit. Ars Technica has to go back to 2014 and a commissioner who argued against throttling for people with unlimited data plans.

Unlimited, which the fire folks did not have...

Unlimited, a program that Verizon stopped offering at the time. Maybe because they couldn't do it without throttling. It's arguable that they should not throttle people with unlimited. Arguable that there should be a rule about that. But it has no bearing on this story.

And now, in 2018, they offer it without throttling. Even after the end of net neutrality rules.

The Santa Clara folks should look into Unlimited, because it's only a little more expensive -- they used 25GB in a month so they are "power users" -- and it would be a HELL of a lot cheaper than hiring LAWYERS.

In fact, wouldn't one single hour of one single lawyer pay for the entire difference to upgrade for several years? Ah, but if they did that, then the Santa Clara officials haven't fought the FCC, and can't make a case for re-election.

[Happy Monkey]

No it isn't. It's bullshit. Ars Technica has to go back to 2014 and a commissioner who argued against throttling for people with unlimited data plans.

Unlimited, which the fire folks did not have...

Yes they did, by Verizon's current definition of "unlimited" (get the unlimited that's right for you).

[Undertoad]

a limited unlimited aw fuck it let us just wait for a real fuckin' net neutrality violation

[tw]

Thank you for proving my point, market forces can change instantly.

With a new constitution in 1999, Hugo Chávez changed market forces by using oil revenues and by nationalizing key industries. Short term economic improvements resulted between 2003 and 2007 (ie money games). Then a massive downturn afterwards. Things got so bad that he declared an "economic war" in 2010 due to shortages of most everything. The changes he started in 1999 resulted in massive economic damage and market changes almost 10 years later.

Changes, that he made in the early 2000s, result in economic calamity years later. Market forces take that long to affect / change an economy. Nicolas Maduro continued those changes in 2013 resulting in the recent 96% devaluation of the currency and a 2018 mass exodus by Venezuela citizens.

Only time a market force can cause immediate change this year - war and other forces that intentionally subvert / destroy all markets. Productive changes affect markets typically four years and sometimes decades later.

Economic destruction created by subverting net neutrality did not appear for many years. It takes long for markets to reap or suffer from changes. Longer to prosper. Sometimes shorter to suffer. Years for these next destructive net neutrality rules to harm the market.

Destruction of net neutrality will prosper the few, big, and rich at the expense of the many and innovative. American rating of internet access will continue to decline as the market did four plus years when Michael Powell first did so much harm to net neutrality in early 2000s.

[Happy Monkey]

Insight into the telecom lobbyist approach to the issue.