Net Neutrality

[metalskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The examples I use, Ma Bell and the Post Office, are historical examples that we can actually see what happened when monopolies were broken and regulations reduced. In both cases it was a win for consumers.

What I hear here, is the expectant continuation of monopolistic ISP's in local regions. BUT with advances in wifi and broadband availability, those should break up naturally much like the regional baby bells early on had semi monopolistic tendencies, but now are competitive players in there markets, not monopolies that leave consumers no choice.

I agree that monopolistic tendencies and handshake deals need to be broken up, but easing competitive pressures on monopolies is not the way to get that done.

As a consumer, I haven't seen any real choice. What I've seen are a lot of "gotchas" with each company that provides Pay TV and internet service. For me, it really comes down to only one choice for internet. I can choose different sources for TV, or choose no source at all, but then, the choosing no source at all usually means I supplement with HULU or NETFLIX, which brings me back to the point earlier. If Spectrum forces you to use their streaming app, then they may shut off access to Hulu and Netflix, or either charge me more to use those apps on top of the monthly charge with those companies. After awhile, they really force you back on their own products, which is what a lot of us in the tech biz fear will happen, because we've seen it over and over again.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by metalskins

Not necessarily. Because each ISP has their own product they'll want to push before a third party product. Such as Comcast pushing their own streaming product, and AT&T pushing theirs. Essentially what would happen is Netflix would either be put on a higher tier internet plan, which then forces more money out of the consumer, or Netflix has to pay out more to those ISPs to remain on the "fast" track and in turn, will pass that cost on to the consumer.



I haven't seen it done yet. What I've seen are these companies continuing to absorb the smaller companies. In a lot of areas, there is only one ISP or only one cable company that provides unlimited internet. And they treat their customers as if they're monopolies by charging them an outrageous amount of money already.




AT&T isn't created equal with what they offer me. Their internet is a third of the speed for the same price as I'm paying Spectrum, and it's limited bandwidth. That is no viable option for someone who works from home and does video streaming.

Historically, more competition is good. Net Neutrality actually limits competition because it means every provider must have the ability to provide high volume streams the same access as low volume streams, along with other basic concepts of market capitalism.

If you want to argue that we need to open up competition at the broadband level then we can fight that fight together, I agree 100%. If you want to say that because some locations are currently limited we must make the entry point to high for all but the largest ISPs, I am not ok with that.

As I said HISTORICALLY the option that provides the best long term innovation and consumer choice is more competition, more incentive for companies to find a better solution to problems, and more opportunity for those companies to make a profit.

Also historically rent control in any form - even data bandwith "fairness" has backfired in stagnation corruption and more blatant taxation and regulations.


I think we all agree the big issue is monopolistic tendencies of the ISPs we just disagree on Title II's importance as the solution.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

How Anti-Capitalist are You?


[I don't own an SUV, I have changed my own oil other than that it was a fair assessment ]

The answer is not to move towards a non-competitive state, but to increase the competition. And that can and does happen in the US. More regulations - like Title 2 (net neutrality) - leads to less innovation, and ultimately degraded services or more cost.

The thing that brought innovation and price competition to the phone market was the break up of Ma Bell, and the same with the post office.

I get what you're saying, but we'll have to agree to disagree. Splitting up the monopolies that rule the ISP landscape would be great for the consumer, I just don't see it happening.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by metalskins

As a consumer, I haven't seen any real choice. What I've seen are a lot of "gotchas" with each company that provides Pay TV and internet service. For me, it really comes down to only one choice for internet. I can choose different sources for TV, or choose no source at all, but then, the choosing no source at all usually means I supplement with HULU or NETFLIX, which brings me back to the point earlier. If Spectrum forces you to use their streaming app, then they may shut off access to Hulu and Netflix, or either charge me more to use those apps on top of the monthly charge with those companies. After awhile, they really force you back on their own products, which is what a lot of us in the tech biz fear will happen, because we've seen it over and over again.

so you don't think you have a choice in how you overnight a package or which cell phone company you go with.

Competition doesn't work in milliseconds, or hours. AOL was a dominant ISP, it isn't anymore. maybe Spectrum offers a better HULU, or maybe enough people become a market place for an ISP that will offer HULU.

If we can keep the regulations down for 6 years, let's see what happens. I am confident that a free market for ISP's would result in far better options then the dismal picture you paint, but, no it is true that tomorrow there won't be miniISP's knocking at your door ready to tear you away from Spectrum. Although with wifi, and localized 5g networks coming online you may see more options sooner than you think.

[mooby]

S/N here's my 5 min intro to net neutrality for those interested.

As the internet developed, rules were introduced to govern the ISP landscape. As the internet grew, Verizon and other providers started bending the rules (for example throttling people on the unlimited data plan, and AT&T tried to force IPhone users to buy its' highest priced plan to use Facetime). The FCC tried to enforce the rules. Verizon sued the FCC in federal court, the argument being FCC doesn't have the power to enforce the rules. The court agreed, however saying if the FCC reclassified ISP's from Title 1 (common carrier) to Title 2 (utility) it would have the power. FCC did just that, and in 2015 regained the power to enforce already existing laws governing net neutrality. Fast forward to today, corporate boy-whore/Verizon puppet Ajit Pai rolled back all those protections, and now the ISP monopolies are free to do whatever they like.

The next battle in this fight is states suing to reverse the FCC's decision, which the NY AG already promised to do. Several other states have joined NY. The argument will be that the FCC totally ignored citizen complaints and also ignored the fact that there were millions of pro-repeal comments made by bots/internet shills, like the one seen here.

[BaltimoreSkins]

I see this going the way of cellular service providers and cable where options become limited and those providing the services become concentrated into a few companies. I am not sure what kind of impact it will have on small businesses or local but I think it will have a huge negative impact on medium sized businesses. Discord for example offers a superior gaming experience than Google, FaceBook etc but will have to make a choice of slowing down streaming or pay the ISPs for the faster rates, they won't be able to hid that cost from the customer the way the "big box" internet organizations can. Either way they may no longer be cost competitive or to make ends meet be bought by one of the major players and decrease actual competition in the service. I worry about this too with news outlets like The Young Turks as well. I also want to know how education is going to be handled. Technology access has been important in decreasing discrepancies between school districts in regards to supplies and outdated textbooks. Are free education websites going to be allowed to provide their content at the same streaming feed or are they going to be required to pay for it and then pass it on to school districts?

[jamf]

Originally Posted by mooby

S/N here's my 5 min intro to net neutrality for those interested.

As the internet developed, rules were introduced to govern the ISP landscape. As the internet grew, Verizon and other providers started bending the rules (for example throttling people on the unlimited data plan, and AT&T tried to force IPhone users to buy its' highest priced plan to use Facetime). The FCC tried to enforce the rules. Verizon sued the FCC in federal court, the argument being FCC doesn't have the power to enforce the rules. The court agreed, however saying if the FCC reclassified ISP's from Title 1 (common carrier) to Title 2 (utility) it would have the power. FCC did just that, and in 2015 regained the power to enforce already existing laws governing net neutrality. Fast forward to today, corporate boy-whore/Verizon puppet Ajit Pai rolled back all those protections, and now the ISP monopolies are free to do whatever they like.

The next battle in this fight is states suing to reverse the FCC's decision, which the NY AG already promised to do. Several other states have joined NY. The argument will be that the FCC totally ignored citizen complaints and also ignored the fact that there were millions of pro-repeal comments made by bots/internet shills, like the one seen here.

This!
Skype, Vonage, Googlepay and other popular services have been blocked in the past while carriers push their preferred services out to the customer.

ATT owns Directv, ATT could start blocking/throttling YoutubeTV, Netflix, or Hulu forcing customer to change carriers or go sign up for Directv.

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out over the next year or two. I'd imagine ATT will want to recoup some of the money they are losing from all the cord cutters

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by jamf

This!
Skype, Vonage, Googlepay and other popular services have been blocked in the past while carriers push their preferred services out to the customer.

ATT owns Directv, ATT could start blocking/throttling YoutubeTV, Netflix, or Hulu forcing customer to change carriers or go sign up for Directv.

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out over the next year or two. I'd imagine ATT will want to recoup some of the money they are losing from all the cord cutters

If life is static, and carriers have their own mini-monopolies, then it's an issue. But life isn't static, and if profits are high enough (which they probably will be) other companies will find ways in. That's basically the point of the cord-cutting consumers. Right now I have Verizon, but I have had Comcast and Direct TV (not for internet) at various points. Verizon got my business by offering the best combination of services over Comcast/Direct TV and a few others locals. But if they start going crazy with charges or blocking services, I would switch without thinking twice.

I just can't see how limiting competition - which really is what net neutrality does by not giving small ISP's opportunities to differentiate themselves - wins out over bringing back profit motive and competition.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

If life is static, and carriers have their own mini-monopolies, then it's an issue. But life isn't static, and if profits are high enough (which they probably will be) other companies will find ways in. That's basically the point of the cord-cutting consumers. Right now I have Verizon, but I have had Comcast and Direct TV (not for internet) at various points. Verizon got my business by offering the best combination of services over Comcast/Direct TV and a few others locals. But if they start going crazy with charges or blocking services, I would switch without thinking twice.

I just can't see how limiting competition - which really is what net neutrality does by not giving small ISP's opportunities to differentiate themselves - wins out over bringing back profit motive and competition.

You have a choice. There are many areas where consumers do not have a choice. They have one carrier offering decent service and that is it. That's a major problem.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

You have a choice. There are many areas where consumers do not have a choice. They have one carrier offering decent service and that is it. That's a major problem.

So if that's the problem, how do we encourage more isp choices? I don't think it's by taking away the one thing that can let a smaller isp's find niche to grow in. But we will see. I for one will be interested to see if it has any effect over a 5 year span. I know what I believe will happen, but am open to actual results.

[CRedskinsRule]

Forget it, I change my opinion:

Free porn could be impacted significantly by net neutrality ruling

[metalskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Forget it, I change my opinion:

Free porn could be impacted significantly by net neutrality ruling

Told you it was going to be a problem!

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Forget it, I change my opinion:

Free porn could be impacted significantly by net neutrality ruling

It's ok, you can always switch back to magazine subscription. Yes it'll cost more than free porn online, but the free market is never wrong. Besides, magazines never have to buffer.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by mooby

It's ok, you can always switch back to magazine subscription. Yes it'll cost more than free porn online, but the free market is never wrong. Besides, magazines never have to buffer.

True and you never have that sticky key board problem!

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

You have a choice. There are many areas where consumers do not have a choice. They have one carrier offering decent service and that is it. That's a major problem.

This...