Eliminating Net Neutrality Rules Will Favor Carriers Over Internet Content Providers

[Paulus]

36 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Wired high speed as of June 2015.  Nice how everyone ignores wireless, where LTE provides north of 15 Mbps to over 90% of population across 4 carriers, and big data packages available.  Also convenient to ignore that pending 5G investments which can deliver over 100Mbps speeds are directly influenced by net neutrality regs.

 

But go on carrying water for the impoverished Google.

The whole "data plan" thing is a pretty weak argument, IMO. I mean, everyone can also get satellite Internet, too. It is just insanely expensive if one were to use it in the same way people use traditional ISPs. You're really telling people that they can pay 10x the price, if they want the ability to choose. Fact is, some people can't afford it. Paying 10x to use a different channel of interstate commerce is akin to using an interstate toll road to get to work. 

 

I really think you're reaching too far down the toilet to make your argument.

5 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Other than the fact that I'm a paying customer, you mean? I should have access to any content I please.

 

If i have a telephone, I can call whoever I want, can I not? Why should THIS kind of communication be any different?

 

Exactly...

[GG]

9 minutes ago, Paulus said:

The whole "data plan" thing is a pretty weak argument, IMO. I mean, everyone can also get satellite Internet, too. It is just insanely expensive if one were to use it in the same way people use traditional ISPs. You're really telling people that they can pay 10x the price, if they want the ability to choose. Fact is, some people can't afford it. Paying 10x to use a different channel of interstate commerce is akin to using an interstate toll road to get to work. 

 

I really think you're reaching too far down the toilet to make your argument.

Exactly...

 

You're demonstrating an incredibly ignorant understanding of how the industry works, as well as conflating the differences between unserved areas, underserved areas and what's behind the build out decisions by the ISPs.  Fact is that fixed broadband build outs stopped cold as soon as Obama started talking about net neutrality.  But you and you pals think that continuing a stupid policy that is an RoI killer will somehow get the ISPs to build.

 

Do you have the same level of indignation when you walk into a Starbucks to demand a free cup of coffee because the pot is already brewed?

[Nanker]

1 hour ago, Paulus said:

Thanks, still doesn't change my mind much, outside of the argument that removing the regulations will for localities to allow more ISPs. This is a YUGE problem, IMHO. I really don't know why localities prevent new ISPs from entering the market. I find it disgusting, really. The question is, "why do localities do such things?"

 

If removing NN forces localities to allow more infrastructure building, then a compelling argument has been made, for me at least. 

Because they squeeze the cable companies for “free” local channels that are used for public-centric programming. They give the contract to the company that gives them the most “free” stuff.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

31 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Other than the fact that I'm a paying customer, you mean? I should have access to any content I please.

 

If i have a telephone, I can call whoever I want, can I not? Why should THIS kind of communication be any different?

 

As a paying customer, you have the right to whatever they sell, assuming they are willing to sell it to you.  You do not have the right to receive from them products or services they do not offer.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

As a paying customer, you have the right to whatever they sell, assuming they are willing to sell it to you.  You do not have the right to receive from them products or services they do not offer.

 

All i'm asking from the ISP is for packets of my choosing to be sent through my router to my computer without impediment.

 

 

I'm not asking for something they don't offer, like say, ice cream cones.

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

All i'm asking from the ISP is for packets of my choosing to be sent through my router to my computer.

 

I'm not asking for something they don't offer.

 

 

If they stop offering certain packets, you don't have a right to demand that they offer them.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

If they stop offering certain packets, you don't have a right to demand that they offer them.

 

 

I do, if they've received any kind of government money.

 

Now, if they never got any kind of taxpayer dollars, you may have a case to make.

 

[GG]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

 

I do, if they've received any kind of government money.

 

Now, if they never got any kind of taxpayer dollars, you may have a case to make.

 

 

Say what?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, GG said:

 

Say what?

 

have they received any incentive at any point in time from the federal or state government? any property easements? any kind of dollars to develop infrastructure? any tax breaks?

 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

 

I do, if they've received any kind of government money.

 

Now, if they never got any kind of taxpayer dollars, you may have a case to make.

 

No, you don't.

 

What other types of businesses, which have received subsidy, do you have the right to make demands of?

 

[GG]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

have they received any incentive at any point in time from the federal or state government? any property easements? any kind of dollars to develop infrastructure? any tax breaks?

 

 

 

What does that have to do with the type of content they have to offer?  Do you have a right to demand a first class seat on an airline because they benefit  from federal funding of airports? 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, you don't.

 

What other types of businesses, which have received subsidy, do you have the right to make demands of?

 

 

Unfortunately none.

 

Which is why I am generally against ANY corporate entity receiving taxpayer dollars. The taxpayer never sees benefit.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

have they received any incentive at any point in time from the federal or state government? any property easements? any kind of dollars to develop infrastructure? any tax breaks?

So because they are large companies operating within the United States, and are subject to the laws and policies of the United States and the member states; you have the right to dictate to them what services and products they must provide you?

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

Unfortunately none.

 

Which is why I am generally against ANY corporate entity receiving taxpayer dollars. The taxpayer never sees benefit.

 

So your argument is that because you don't like US tax policy you get to dictate to businesses living under that policy?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

So because they are large companies operating within the United States, and are subject to the laws and policies of the United States and the member states; you have the right to dictate to them what services and products they must provide you?

Since it's my tax dollars boosting their bottom lines (let alone my sub fees), I should.

 

But again, the system is what it is. It's tilted permanently in favor of corporations and against the taxpayer.

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack

[GG]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

Unfortunately none.

 

Which is why I am generally against ANY corporate entity receiving taxpayer dollars. The taxpayer never sees benefit.

 

 

So if I understand it correctly, you're against corporations receiving any taxpayer dollars mandated by the government, but you're perfectly fine with that same government dictating how those businesses should deploy their investment dollars? 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, GG said:

 

What does that have to do with the type of content they have to offer?  Do you have a right to demand a first class seat on an airline because they benefit  from federal funding of airports? 

 

Because airlines using airports is anything close to ISPs pushing packets.

 

Just now, GG said:

 

So if I understand it correctly, you're against corporations receiving any taxpayer dollars mandated by the government, but you're perfectly fine with that same government dictating how those businesses should deploy their investment dollars? 

 

if it's in the name of consumer protection, yes.

[GG]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

Because airlines using airports is anything close to ISPs pushing packets.

 

 

It's actually an exact analogy, especially since you have a broader choice in ISPs than in airports

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, GG said:

 

It's actually an exact analogy, especially since you have a broader choice in ISPs than in airports

 

Not exactly.

 

I have comcast, and that's pretty much it.

 

I'm sure they paid the local municipality WELL for the privilege as well.

 

I sort of agree with you and tasker...if I had a choice of choosing a provider who would push my packets I'd take my business there. But I don't have a choice. I have a monopoly. And now, with this ruling that monopoly has more power than it did before.

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

Since it's my tax dollars boosting their bottom lines (let alone my sub fees), I should.

 

But again, the system is what it is. It's tilted permanently in favor of corporations and against the taxpayer.

 

Your entire argument is a non-sequitur.

 

I don't like the tax/economic system the United States employs; therefor I have the right to dictate to individuals and companies the services they must provide.

 

 

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

Not exactly.

 

I have comcast, and that's pretty much it.

 

I'm sure they paid the local municipality WELL for the privilege as well.

 

I sort of agree with you and tasker...if I had a choice of choosing a provider who would push my packets. I'd take my business there. But I don't have a choice. I have a monopoly.

So that's the fight you fight.  Attack state sponsored monopoly.  I'll join you there.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

So that's the fight you fight.  Attack state sponsored monopoly.  I'll join you there.

 

I'd like some remedy in the interim while I tilt at THAT windmill.

 

[Paulus]

30 minutes ago, GG said:

 

You're demonstrating an incredibly ignorant understanding of how the industry works, as well as conflating the differences between unserved areas, underserved areas and what's behind the build out decisions by the ISPs.  Fact is that fixed broadband build outs stopped cold as soon as Obama started talking about net neutrality.  But you and you pals think that continuing a stupid policy that is an RoI killer will somehow get the ISPs to build.

 

Do you have the same level of indignation when you walk into a Starbucks to demand a free cup of coffee because the pot is already brewed?

I don't go to Starbucks, ha!

 

Also, as to the bold text, source? It seemed to me like they stopped years before. 

 

 

[GG]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

Not exactly.

 

I have comcast, and that's pretty much it.

 

I'm sure they paid the local municipality WELL for the privilege as well.

 

I sort of agree with you and tasker...if I had a choice of choosing a provider who would push my packets I'd take my business there. But I don't have a choice. I have a monopoly.

 

 

Comcast paid the municipality because the municipality DEMANDED the payment through a franchise tax and other schemes that would be illegal in the private sector. 

 

Comcast did not pay the municipality to ensure exclusivity and having exclusive concessions has been illegal for decades.  But I'm sure you knew that given your understanding of the subject.

Just now, Paulus said:

I don't go to Starbucks, ha!

 

Also, as to the bold text, source? It seemed to me like they stopped years before. 

 

 

 

Check the financial statements of thew major ISPs, especially Verizon's FIOS and AT&T's uVerse plans.

[Paulus]

23 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Because they squeeze the cable companies for “free” local channels that are used for public-centric programming. They give the contract to the company that gives them the most “free” stuff.  

This is actually vastly more important than NN.

 

GREASE

 

!@#$ers are literally jacking up the prices and taking bribes. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

8 minutes ago, GG said:

Comcast paid the municipality because the municipality DEMANDED the payment through a franchise tax and other schemes that would be illegal in the private sector. 

 

Comcast did not pay the municipality to ensure exclusivity and having exclusive concessions has been illegal for decades.  But I'm sure you knew that given your understanding of the subject.

So then why, pray tell, is comcast the exclusive provider for about a 75-mile radius? It's not like I live in Wyoming. I'm sure if the market were -truly- free, they'd have some competition.

 

I defer to your obvious advantage in knowledge on the topic

Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack

[Nanker]

7 minutes ago, Paulus said:

This is actually vastly more important than NN.

 

GREASE

 

!@#$ers are literally jacking up the prices and taking bribes. 

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.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Nanker

[GG]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

So then why, pray tell, is comcast the exclusive provider for about a 75-mile radius? It's not like I live in Wyoming.

 

I defer to your obvious advantage in knowledge on the topic

Because it costs up to $2k per home passed (not per customer) to wire a neighborhood.  So do the math, assuming 20% penetration and see if makes sense to build out and assuming that you can't pass the cost of increasing bandwidth traffic onto the actual bandwidth hogs.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes 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.

 

Because they're effective monopolies. Shame that. Linux is so good, so flexible and SO not MS/Apple.

 

But it can't gain any ground.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

17 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

I'd like some remedy in the interim while I tilt at THAT windmill.

 

Which of course entitles you to dictate to others what they must provide you with.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Which of course entitles you to dictate to others what they must provide you with.

 

Well, if the government were to break up comcast and dole out their precious property to the child companies in a way that allowed for competition, I'd be less likely to ask for that kind of thing.

 

Because then I'd at least have a choice.

 

And before you cry foul...realize this is what the feds did to Bell Tel back in the day, and we're all better for it.

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack

[GG]

6 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Well, if the government were to break up comcast and dole out their precious property to the child companies in a way that allowed for competition, I'd be less likely to ask for that kind of thing.

 

Because then I'd at least have a choice.

 

And before you cry foul...realize this is what the feds did to Bell Tel back in the day, and we're all better for it.

 

 

 

 

Ok, Bernie, let's play.  Exactly how would you propose breaking up Comcast that would ensure that you would get more competition in your area?

Edited December 15, 2017 by GG

[TakeYouToTasker]

6 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Well, if the government were to break up comcast and dole out their precious property to the child companies in a way that allowed for competition, I'd be less likely to ask for that kind of thing.

 

Because then I'd at least have a choice.

 

And before you cry foul...realize this is what the feds did to Bell Tel back in the day, and we're all better for it.

The differences between your philosophy, voiced here, and that of Hugo Chavez aren't all the different.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The differences between your philosophy, voiced here, and that of Hugo Chavez aren't all the different.

 

Except I'm not advocating for a government takeover of Comcast.

 

5 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Ok, Bernie, let's play.  Exactly how would you propose breaking up Comcast that would ensure that you would get more competition in your area?

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?

 

[Greybeard]

          Here is the conversation from the CEO of ZZZ ISP corp.

 

       "  Well this removal of Net Neutrality is a good thing for us.  We have lost 10% of our cable TV subscribers over the last 3 years and it is projected to go as high as 50% over the next 8 years.  This is our chance to make up for that.  So this is our new marketing strategy.  

          First, we are going to demand Netflix, Amazon and Youtube pay us $2 a month for each of the subscribers as a base entry charge.  This isn't a big deal for them because they will just pass the cost on to their subscribers.

       Now the issue with all these cable cutters is they don't necessarily use Netflix, Amazon or Youtube for video.  So break out

all the usage data we have and we will make a tiered volume usage cost plan.  We can probably start with a totally unlimited package for $120 a month, which is about what cable TV costs in non-competitive markets.  Then we will scale down from there.

      We want to get this out as soon as possible, so QQQ ISP corp will know what the market is.  When they beat our prices a little we will come down to their rates, but only in markets where there is direct competition.  Make sure no one has any contact with QQQ so it can't be viewed as price fixing.

      Now call a Board of Directors meeting.  I think we have to review my bonus plan"

 

     If you don't think things will play out like this, think about how the price of the Epipen sky rocketed.   Also, since this is basically ISP deregulation, it might be a good time to buy stock in ISP's.

 

[GG]

2 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Except I'm not advocating for a government takeover of Comcast.

 

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?

 

 

Tell me Bernie, after AT&T was split into Baby Bells, how many of them entered the other Bells' market to compete head on?

 

Are we better off now, as you say because of intense competition among the Baby Bells or because a totally new technology upended the industry?

 

BTW, whatever happened to AT&T and the Baby Bells since 1982?

[Deranged Rhino]

It's almost as if people forget the internet did just fine before 2015. 

 

Conditioning is a hell of a thing.

[Nanker]

10 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Tell me Bernie, after AT&T was split into Baby Bells, how many of them entered the other Bells' market to compete head on?

 

Are we better off now, as you say because of intense competition among the Baby Bells or because a totally new technology upended the industry?

 

BTW, whatever happened to AT&T and the Baby Bells since 1982?

I know! I know! 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

22 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Tell me Bernie, after AT&T was split into Baby Bells, how many of them entered the other Bells' market to compete head on?

 

Are we better off now, as you say because of intense competition among the Baby Bells or because a totally new technology upended the industry?

 

BTW, whatever happened to AT&T and the Baby Bells since 1982?

Well, essentially, they're now three companies, two of which are players in mobile more than landline and the third which is essentially an ISP.

 

Unlike in landline ISP, there IS competition in wireless...which is good for the consumer.

 

Coincidentally, I use the descendant of a baby bell for wireless service, and it's generally a better experience than I get from comcast.

 

Edit: also, would those technologies have developed under the watchful gaze of ma bell?

 

 

22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

It's almost as if people forget the internet did just fine before 2015. 

 

Conditioning is a hell of a thing.

 

traffic before 2015 =/= traffic since.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack

[TakeYouToTasker]

24 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

Except I'm not advocating for a government takeover of Comcast.

No, you're advocating exactly that.  The only difference is who you want to run the companies after using government force  to take over.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, you're advocating exactly that.  The only difference is who you want to run the companies after using government force  to take over.

 

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

 

[GG]

7 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

Well, essentially, they're now three companies, two of which are players in mobile more than landline and the third which is essentially an ISP.

 

Unlike in landline ISP, there IS competition in wireless...which is good for the consumer.

 

Coincidentally, I use the descendant of a baby bell for wireless service, and it's generally a better experience than I get from comcast.

 

 

traffic before 2015 =/= traffic since.

 

 

 

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?