Eliminating Net Neutrality Rules Will Favor Carriers Over Internet Content Providers

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, GG said:

 

Answer the question, how many Baby Bells went into direct competition with one another?

 

Why are there only 2 out of 7 Baby Bells left?

 

merger, of course.

 

You may have missed my edit asking whether or not wireless would have happened were it not for the breakup of bell.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

So I'll put you down as being in favor of monopoly, then. Excellent.

 

If you're an abject moron with zero sense of nuance, sure.  Does that describe you, Joe?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

If you're an abject moron with zero sense of nuance, sure.  Does that describe you, Joe?

 

So then how about YOU prescribe a remedy, Dr. TYTT?

[GG]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

merger, of course.

 

You may have missed my edit asking whether or not wireless would have happened were it not for the breakup of bell.

 

 

No **** sherlock, they merged.  Have you wondered why?

 

Yes, wireless would have happened with or without the AT&T breakup, because there were 10 licensees getting concessions in a region.  And the same thing would have happened - you'd see consolidation because it's an industry that requires a lot of mass and capital where the little guy can't compete (because it's not an industry made for the little guy)

[Azalin]

3 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Same way they broke up Bell. Split it into smaller companies. The smaller companies then have the impetus to grow their service areas and customer bases, not to mention offering a wider range of services with price competition.

 

Are you really advocating for monopoly here, Mr. Rockefeller?

 

 

When Ma Bell was broken down in 1982, they were not divided into competing entities. What was left after the divestiture were seven regional "Baby Bells" AKA "RBOCs" (Regional Bell Operating Company) that served different territories (for example Bell South, Ameritech, Southwestern Bell, etc) that handled all the local telecom traffic, AT&T became a separate entity that only handled long distance, with the new MCI as AT&T's sole competitor until Sprint came along.

 

Outside of the still very young cellular service, there was no local competition that I recall until the telecommunication act of 1996 was signed into law. That forced the RBOCs to open a portion of their facilities to prospective competitors, where they could install transport equipment of their own. The bill also forced the baby Bells to sell dial tone from their own networks to competitors at a rate that allowed them to pass it along to customers for less. The point here is that it wasn't the breakup of AT&T that led to competition in local markets. 

 

I know you said that Comcast is your ISP, but do you not have a local telephone company where you live?

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

So then how about YOU prescribe a remedy, Dr. TYTT?

Natural monopolies, when they exist, do so because the service levels, products, and prices they provide are unable to be met or bettered by their competitors.  However natural monopolies are exceedingly rare.  Most monopolies, or entities you would describe as monopolies, exist because regulatory barriers create insurmountable hurdles for market entry.  The solution is to deregulate, thereby lowering the cost of market entry, which will stimulate competition.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

When Ma Bell was broken down in 1982, they were not divided into competing entities. What was left after the divestiture were seven regional "Baby Bells" AKA "RBOCs" (Regional Bell Operating Company) that served different territories (for example Bell South, Ameritech, Southwestern Bell, etc) that handled all the local telecom traffic, AT&T became a separate entity that only handled long distance, with the new MCI as AT&T's sole competitor until Sprint came along.

 

Outside of the still very young cellular service, there was no local competition that I recall until the telecommunication act of 1996 was signed into law. That forced the RBOCs to open a portion of their facilities to prospective competitors, where they could install transport equipment of their own. The bill also forced the baby Bells to sell dial tone from their own networks to competitors at a rate that allowed them to pass it along to customers for less. The point here is that it wasn't the breakup of AT&T that led to competition in local markets. 

 

I know you said that Comcast is your ISP, but do you not have a local telephone company where you live?

Verizon, whose only option is DSL, which as a telecommuter 3/4ths of the time would not be a viable option. So, I have Comcast and Comcast as choices.

 

But it appears I'm not alone:

 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-no-broadband-competition-at-25mbps-fcc-chair-says/

 

Does that look like healthy capitalism to you?

 

And now that they've pushed the FCC into taking any regulatory shackles off, they're more powerful than ever.

 

11 minutes ago, GG said:

 

No **** sherlock, they merged.  Have you wondered why?

 

Yes, wireless would have happened with or without the AT&T breakup, because there were 10 licensees getting concessions in a region.  And the same thing would have happened - you'd see consolidation because it's an industry that requires a lot of mass and capital where the little guy can't compete (because it's not an industry made for the little guy)

 

Hey, since you're the smartest guy in the room, care to inform us all about how Comcast grew into the behemoth it is today?

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack

[Paulus]

1 hour ago, Nanker said:

No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. Our local government officials only have our best interests at heart. 

 

While we're at it... why hasn't anyone ever sued Microsoft and Apple for the buggy software and hardware they churn out? 

That's one industry that has prospered incredibly without any government intervention and they've never suffered for the ****ty products they mass produce.

I need to do the Linux thing... Windows is ****, the more I think about how much of my ram/cpu it is now using compared to when I first bought my comp. And, the bulk of the usage is Windows "upgrade" crap. "To make Windows better." 

 

I really do think those two issues are pretty huge. Suprised others even care.

[GG]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

Verizon, whose only option is DSL, which as a telecommuter 3/4ths of the time would not be a viable option. So, I have Comcast and Comcast as choices.

 

But it appears I'm not alone:

 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-no-broadband-competition-at-25mbps-fcc-chair-says/

 

Do you people enjoy providing links that prove our points?

 

You're showing an article from 2014 where the FCC commissioner complains about substandard coverage, and then the same FCC commissioner enacts regulations that kill RoI and then people are still miffed that coverage didn't improve. 

 

Time to nationalize ISPs, because that will fix things, right.?

 

I wonder if anyone who understood the industry would have predicted something like this would happen when Australia nationalized its network grid?  This is your solution, Bernie.

 

[Azalin]

2 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

Verizon, whose only option is DSL, which as a telecommuter 3/4ths of the time would not be a viable option. So, I have Comcast and Comcast as choices.

 

But it appears I'm not alone:

 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-no-broadband-competition-at-25mbps-fcc-chair-says/

 

Verizon doesn't offer FIOS there yet? If not, it's coming. So is Google Fiber, and eventually more.

 

Nothing in the Net Neutrality controls that were reversed were going to do anything to remedy the lack of availability of high speed internet access, and reinstating them will not do so either. 

[Paulus]

7 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

Verizon, whose only option is DSL, which as a telecommuter 3/4ths of the time would not be a viable option. So, I have Comcast and Comcast as choices.

 

But it appears I'm not alone:

 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-no-broadband-competition-at-25mbps-fcc-chair-says/

 

Does that look like healthy capitalism to you?

 

 

I have ATT and Cox as choices. ATT is DSL only. I was getting lIke .7MBPS download speed and they said it was the best they had. Cellular and satellite services are insanely expensive or not available  (house in side of large mountain/hill. 

 

So, I am left with Cox, if I want to use the Internet like the rest of the world.

 

Whatever happened to that 400 billion the ISPs got for fiber infrastructure?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Do you people enjoy providing links that prove our points?

 

You're showing an article from 2014 where the FCC commissioner complains about substandard coverage, and then the same FCC commissioner enacts regulations that kill RoI and then people are still miffed that coverage didn't improve. 

 

Time to nationalize ISPs, because that will fix things, right.?

 

I wonder if anyone who understood the industry would have predicted something like this would happen when Australia nationalized its network grid?  This is your solution, Bernie.

 

 

So again, your solution is what? Allow comcast to do whatever it pleases? Merge with whoever it pleases?

 

That increases innovation and competition how?

 

[Paulus]

2 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Verizon doesn't offer FIOS there yet? If not, it's coming. So is Google Fiber, and eventually more.

 

Nothing in the Net Neutrality controls that were reversed were going to do anything to remedy the lack of availability of high speed internet access, and reinstating them will not do so either. 

It's been coming for decades in many places... what a load...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Paulus said:

I have ATT and Cox as choices. ATT is DSL only. I was getting lIke .7MBPS download speed and they said it was the best they had. Cellular and satellite services are insanely expensive or not available  (house in side of large mountain/hill. 

 

So, I am left with Cox, if I want to use the Internet like the rest of the world.

 

Whatever happened to that 400 billion the ISPs got for fiber infrastructure?

 

SOMEONE had to pay those CEO bonuses.

 

those yachts won't pay for themselves.

 

4 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Verizon doesn't offer FIOS there yet? If not, it's coming. So is Google Fiber, and eventually more.

 

Nothing in the Net Neutrality controls that were reversed were going to do anything to remedy the lack of availability of high speed internet access, and reinstating them will not do so either. 

 

no, no fios here.

 

I anticipate it'll take about 20 years before any fiber's run out here.

 

[Azalin]

1 minute ago, Paulus said:

It's been coming for decades in many places... what a load...

 

You live out in the middle of nowhere and expect Net Neutrality to help you attain greater choices in ISPs?

Really?

 

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

no, no fios here.

 

 

 

I anticipate it'll take about 20 years before any fiber's run out here.

 

 

Not trying to be funny, that was a sincere question. I'm genuinely surprised you live in New Jersey and can't get decent high speed access there.

 

Your solution probably won't come in the form of fiber optics, but rather in wireless.

[DC Tom]

Just now, Azalin said:

 

You live out in the middle of nowhere and expect Net Neutrality to help you attain greater choices in ISPs?

Really?

 

 

Not trying to be funny, that was a sincere question. I'm genuinely surprised you live in New Jersey and can't get decent high speed access there.

 

Your solution probably won't come in the form of fiber optics, but rather in wireless.

 

I'm not surprised.  It's tough to find anything decent in New Jersey.

[Paulus]

3 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

You live out in the middle of nowhere and expect Net Neutrality to help you attain greater choices in ISPs?

Really?

 

When Palm Springs and beach cities of the OC are the middle of nowhere... Dude, come on now.

[TakeYouToTasker]

20 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

SOMEONE had to pay those CEO bonuses.

 

those yachts won't pay for themselves.

So your problem is with capitalism.  GG had it right with the Bernie Bro tag.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

17 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

You live out in the middle of nowhere and expect Net Neutrality to help you attain greater choices in ISPs?

Really?

 

 

Not trying to be funny, that was a sincere question. I'm genuinely surprised you live in New Jersey and can't get decent high speed access there.

 

Your solution probably won't come in the form of fiber optics, but rather in wireless.

 

Let's hope so. I present a diagram to you:

 

4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

So your problem is with capitalism.  GG had it right with the Bernie Bro tag.

 

 

 

He raised a legitimate question about "where the 400 billion for fiber infrastructure" handed out by the taxpayers went to.

 

I posited an answer to the legitimate question.

 

My problem isn't with capitalism. It's with whatever you call the system we live under currently where corporations buy politicians who then stuff the corporate executives' pockets and do them favors.

 

if we lived in a capitalist system, half our banks and the entirety of our auto industry wouldn't be here today.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack

[GG]

16 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Your solution probably won't come in the form of fiber optics, but rather in wireless.

 

Correct, no one in their right mind is going to greenlight a wireline  buildout with 5G around the corner.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Correct, no one in their right mind is going to greenlight a wireline  buildout with 5G around the corner.

 

How long is that corner, anyway?

 

I've been hearing about 5G for about 5+ years now.

 

[Azalin]

15 minutes ago, Paulus said:

When Palm Springs and beach cities of the OC are the middle of nowhere... Dude, come on now.

 

My mistake. You described your residence further up the page as being in the side of a mountain, so I naturally assumed a setting other than cities or beaches.

 

3 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Correct, no one in their right mind is going to greenlight a wireline  buildout with 5G around the corner.

 

Oh, 5G is really going to rile a few people around here.

[Doc Brown]

Will it drastically increase my Netflix subscription?  That's all I really care about.

[GG]

10 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

How long is that corner, anyway?

 

I've been hearing about 5G for about 5+ years now.

 

 

These types of tech evolutions & rollouts take well over a decade

[DC Tom]

20 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Correct, no one in their right mind is going to greenlight a wireline  buildout with 5G around the corner.

 

And the real reason for ending net neutrality comes forth: the government wants to accelerate the obsolescence of cable and fiber optic and promote 5G, which is easier to intercept, so they can increase the scope of the surveillance state.

 

 

 

[Paulus]

1 hour ago, Azalin said:

 

My mistake. You described your residence further up the page as being in the side of a mountain, so I naturally assumed a setting other than cities or beaches.

 

I know it really may seem like it isn't a problem for other folks when you have options but it is. Albeit a first world problem and hard to empathize with. 

 

It is really part of why I dislike the localities and their throttling of ISP options. Seriously, I remember when I lived in Palm Springs there was at least one company who had been trying to install wireless towers but had been denied for years. Their service was better than the Verizon DSL and at like 30/mo. The two options being Comcast (good, reliable, and a bit pricey) and Verizon DSL (complete crap, but priced at like $40/mo plus feeeeeees).

 

There are certainly issues with people given 2 options, with one being DSL and the other being cable. Do you really think Verizon or ATT is going to lay line (outside of business areas) when wireless is taking over at such a rate? 

 

Who knows? Maybe, removing NN will force people to put pressure on the crooks in their local government to allow new building. But, there certainly is are problems when DSL carriers claim they provide serviceable Internet access. Maybe for the AOL days, but not anymore, which is why I really am not sure if it should count as a "second option."

[Azalin]

1 minute ago, Paulus said:

I know it really may seem like it isn't a problem for other folks when you have options but it is. Albeit a first world problem and hard to empathize with. 

 

It is really part of why I dislike the localities and their throttling of ISP options. Seriously, I remember when I lived in Palm Springs there was at least one company who had been trying to install wireless towers but had been denied for years. Their service was better than the Verizon DSL and at like 30/mo. The two options being Comcast (good, reliable, and a bit pricey) and Verizon DSL (complete crap, but priced at like $40/mo plus feeeeeees).

 

There are certainly issues with people given 2 options, with one being DSL and the other being cable. Do you really think Verizon or ATT is going to lay line (outside of business areas) when wireless is taking over at such a rate? 

 

Who knows? Maybe, removing NN will force people to put pressure on the crooks in their local government to allow new building. But, there certainly is are problems when DSL carriers claim they provide serviceable Internet access. Maybe for the AOL days, but not anymore, which is why I really am not sure if it should count as a "second option."

 

I've had no issue with anything you've posted in this thread except the assertion that maintaining net neutrality will remedy any of the complaints you've made. What will solve your issues is improved technology and broader deployment, not government control of web content.

 

The biggest problem with the entire issue is that it's been politicized. Technology isn't a right vs left issue, but the freedom to have an independent internet is something both sides should want.

 

 

[Paulus]

32 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

I've had no issue with anything you've posted in this thread except the assertion that maintaining net neutrality will remedy any of the complaints you've made. What will solve your issues is improved technology and broader deployment, not government control of web content.

 

The biggest problem with the entire issue is that it's been politicized. Technology isn't a right vs left issue, but the freedom to have an independent internet is something both sides should want.

 

 

I don't think removing or keeping NN will. The article you referenced did conclude that the removal may force localities to allow more ISP options. 

 

I do agree that this shouldn't be a left v. right issue. Honestly, I think most folks opining about this have zero clue what the effects will really be. I mean, this is above my pay grade. But, I hadn't heard anything from the pro-removal folks that would convince me the removal would be a good thing (outside of the forcing localities to allow more ISP options). 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Paulus

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, Paulus said:

I don't think removing or keeping NN will. The article you referenced did conclude that the removal may force localities to allow more ISP options. 

 

I do agree that this shouldn't be a left v. right issue. Honestly, I think most folks opining about this have zero clue what the effects will really be. I mean, this is above my pay grade. But, I hadn't heard anything from the pro-removal folks that would convince me the removal would be a good thing (outside of the forcing localities to allow more ISP options).  

What is troubling here, is that the government is trying to grasp control over the internet, which would give them even greater control over the flow of information to the population.  That's incredibly dangerous.

 

Even more troubling is the framing of the argument from the pro-government position:  "Give me reasons why the government shouldn't control the internet."

 

This is totally backwards in a free society. 

[westerndecline]

19 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

What is troubling here, is that the government is trying to grasp control over the internet, which would give them even greater control over the flow of information to the population.  That's incredibly dangerous.

 

Even more troubling is the framing of the argument from the pro-government position:  "Give me reasons why the government shouldn't control the internet."

 

This is totally backwards in a free society. 

There's reasons why the police and fire are government entities and not private ones just like there's reasons why your local bar or ice cream parlor is private and not public....

 

 

Apply those same logical reasons to the internet and you have your answer

Edited December 15, 2017 by westerndecline

[Paulus]

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

What is troubling here, is that the government is trying to grasp control over the internet, which would give them even greater control over the flow of information to the population.  That's incredibly dangerous.

 

Even more troubling is the framing of the argument from the pro-government position:  "Give me reasons why the government shouldn't control the internet."

 

This is totally backwards in a free society. 

I'm not so sure that is the argument. The government is still going to control the Internet (no illegal content like ISIS crap or kid porn for example). Anyways, I have seen multiple people claim that the Internet could be bundled, like cable. Where people have to pay for 100 channels they don't want. ISPs throttling speeds of individuals, in order to get them to pay more for the use of these new internet toll roads. 

 

What scares me most is the possibility that I'll be forced to let the ISPs control what information I get. Corporations could literally force propaganda on people by controlling this information. Imagine being forced to get your news strictly from FOX or MSNBC. As it is, I think cable news is 95% worthless crap.

 

So, tell me why that won't happen.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, Paulus said:

I'm not so sure that is the argument. The government is still going to control the Internet (no illegal content like ISIS crap or kid porn for example). Anyways, I have seen multiple people claim that the Internet could be bundled, like cable. Where people have to pay for 100 channels they don't want. ISPs throttling speeds of individuals, in order to get them to pay more for the use of these new internet toll roads. 

 

What scares me most is the possibility that I'll be forced to let the ISPs control what information I get. Corporations could literally force propaganda on people by controlling this information. Imagine being forced to get your news strictly from FOX or MSNBC. As it is, I think cable news is 95% worthless crap.

 

So, tell me why that won't happen.

It's a much greater danger to have the government doing that exact same thing. 

[westerndecline]

17 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

It's a much greater danger to have the government doing that exact same thing. 

This is fallacious reasoning and a key example of lacking critical thinking skills

 

Is it more dangerous when the military or police are under govt control??

 

Again it depends on the topic or entity

[GG]

28 minutes ago, Paulus said:

I'm not so sure that is the argument. The government is still going to control the Internet (no illegal content like ISIS crap or kid porn for example). Anyways, I have seen multiple people claim that the Internet could be bundled, like cable. Where people have to pay for 100 channels they don't want. ISPs throttling speeds of individuals, in order to get them to pay more for the use of these new internet toll roads. 

 

What scares me most is the possibility that I'll be forced to let the ISPs control what information I get. Corporations could literally force propaganda on people by controlling this information. Imagine being forced to get your news strictly from FOX or MSNBC. As it is, I think cable news is 95% worthless crap.

 

So, tell me why that won't happen.

It is insane to think that the ISPs have greater control over the flow of information than the Internet companies.  

 

You are the prime example of falling for a false narrative, and guess which companies have been pushing  that narrative?

 

You probably never even knew what net neutrality was until you heard it from Google and Facebook. 

[Paulus]

7 minutes ago, GG said:

It is insane to think that the ISPs have greater control over the flow of information than the Internet companies.  

 

You are the prime example of falling for a false narrative, and guess which companies have been pushing  that narrative?

 

You probably never even knew what net neutrality was until you heard it from Google and Facebook. 

I'm just repeating the arguments I have heard from both sides. If you care to refute them, then please do. 

36 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

It's a much greater danger to have the government doing that exact same thing. 

With that the people have redress. When I'm stuck with just Cox as an ISP, then I'm pretty much !@#$ed. 

 

 

And, how will this affect the dark webs/proxies?

Edited December 15, 2017 by Paulus

[Azalin]

1 hour ago, Paulus said:

I don't think removing or keeping NN will. The article you referenced did conclude that the removal may force localities to allow more ISP options. 

 

I do agree that this shouldn't be a left v. right issue. Honestly, I think most folks opining about this have zero clue what the effects will really be. I mean, this is above my pay grade. But, I hadn't heard anything from the pro-removal folks that would convince me the removal would be a good thing (outside of the forcing localities to allow more ISP options). 

 

 

I don't believe I've referenced any articles.

 

What I'm beginning to see, at least as far as this thread is concerned, is frustration aimed at telecom & ISPs over availability (or lack thereof) of premium services in all areas. If that is indeed the case, then as I've already said, NN will do nothing to fix that.

[GG]

1 hour ago, Azalin said:

 

I don't believe I've referenced any articles.

 

What I'm beginning to see, at least as far as this thread is concerned, is frustration aimed at telecom & ISPs over availability (or lack thereof) of premium services in all areas. If that is indeed the case, then as I've already said, NN will do nothing to fix that.

If anything, it made it worse because it removed the incentive to expand wireline network coverage. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, Paulus said:

With that the people have redress. When I'm stuck with just Cox as an ISP, then I'm pretty much !@#$ed. 

You're going to make the argument that a corporation is capable of greater harm than the government? Really?

 

Outline for me, please, what redress the people have when the government, legally sanctioned to regulate the information people are allowed to receive, regulate the information people are allowed to receive? 

 

How is that working out in China?

Edited December 16, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[westerndecline]

42 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

You're going to make the argument that a corporation is capable of greater harm than the government? Really?

 

Outline for me, please, what redress the people have when the government, legally sanctioned to regulate the information people are allowed to receive, regulate the information people are allowed to receive? 

 

How is that working out in China?

Its called voting genius lol

 

 

In a corporation its a dictatorship

[boyst]

14 hours ago, GG said:

 

Why can't it be both?

 

BTW, why do you think all you can eat data plans went the way of the do do bird?

I still have one. A 9 yr old Verizon plan I got for the blackberry curve with unlimited data. I buy my phone straight from the factory and cruise well with a free WiFi hotspot, too.