If you support this then you are a piece of shit. No other way to put it, really.
Is your post directed at me? Sorry, I believe in free markets, consumer choice, the law of supply and demand, and the law of elasticity. In the end, companies charge and consumer have choice. Its a wonderful world. I prefer this to some person sitting in a cushy leather seat, elected or appointed by one who was elected, deciding pricing/availability/profits.
You listen to the press too much. My advice is to lay off the MSNBC/FoxNews binge. You need another cup of
The internet - particularly high-speed internet - should absolutely be treated as a public utility and should be regulated as such, as it is just as much a necessity for modern living as any other public utility. Where I live, I have once choice for electric transmission service (Duquesne Light) and natural gas heat/cooking (People's) and they cannot raise rates for electricity transmission or gas service without hearings and approval by the Public Utility Commission. I have one choice for high-speed internet (Comcast) and they should not be allowed to raise my rates without PUC approval and oversight. Currently, there is none.
The last thing we need is to give ISP monopolies more autonomy where the only result will be even more attempts to nakedly suck more money out of the public for worse service using publicly-funded infrastructure. Municipally-owned ISPs would solve this issue, but some states (like Pennsylvania) have made that illegal in another transparent giveaway to big business.
The last thing we need is to give ISP monopolies more autonomy where the only result will be even more attempts to nakedly suck more money out of the public for worse service using publicly-funded infrastructure. Municipally-owned ISPs would solve this issue, but some states (like Pennsylvania) have made that illegal in another transparent giveaway to big business.
It’s directed at anyone that supports it.
Three of the five appointed chairs on the fcc are former cable company executives (republicans). Republicans will always vote in favor of what benefits corporations. (Tax plan, health care, gun control)
Only large ISP’s benefit from this.
Three of the five appointed chairs on the fcc are former cable company executives (republicans). Republicans will always vote in favor of what benefits corporations. (Tax plan, health care, gun control)
Only large ISP’s benefit from this.
well, the guy proposing it, Ajit Pai was appointed by President Obama and extended by Trump.
What’s happening in the U.S. isn’t without precedent. In Portugal, there are no net neutrality rules and internet packages, like what’s described above, already exist. The other countries without net neutrality enforcement include Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, and Slovenia.
Again, turn off cable news and stop hyperventilating over every little piece of legislation.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Not legislation but my guess is that will happen at some point. This is regulatory - which can change on a whim, which is why the major players in this space prefer legislation that is more permanent.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Do you want internet ‘packages’ like we have for cable and our phones? Do you want ISPs restricting content or speed based on the websites you visit? I don’t - and don’t know anyone who does.
Wow. Did you just play the "it exists in Portugal so it must be good card?" Everyone hates it in Portugal. Going out on a limb, I'm guessing you have zero knowledge of what is happening there (and have no interest) but others who would like to make fun of your lack of knowledge can go to this link to find out how wrong you are:
http://www.businessinsider.com/net-neutrality-portugal-how-american-internet-could-look-fcc-2017-11
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Even the folks here defending it are only doing so because of an ideology - not because things will be better (and won’t) as a result. Sad.
The debate over net-neutrality can be confusing but one aspect of the debate that is rarely addressed is that enabling broadband networks to handle the exponential growth in bandwidth from online video, cloud applications and 5G will require hundreds of billions of dollars of investment. Who should bear that cost? If new business models, such as paid prioritization with up stream providers, are restricted then the cost will ultimately fall on the consumer and investments will be delayed and in some geographies, may never happen. I don’t agree with carrier’s blocking sites for the sole purpose of being anti-competitive, but revenues need to be better aligned with costs. There is no debate over why the USPS, FedEx, or UPS charge more for heavier packages or faster delivery. Or why weigh stations on highways exist to determine road use taxes. Why should the Internet be different? Obama-era open-Internet rules discourage investment and will ultimately lead to higher prices for consumers. Bottom line, if we encourage carriers to invest in their networks, there will be no need to discuss net-neutrality in the future. Nice work Chairman Pai!!
Nope...its a complex issue. I am far from a supporter of big business. (as note of my recent complaint against AT&T). One person complained that they only have one provider. Why is that? Because it doesn't make financial sense for a company to provide it there at $100/mo or whatever it is.
Free markets suggest that a provider needs to make money and a consumer needs to feel it is worth the investment. On the first side of that equation, if a provider can't make money why should they endeavor? Answer is, they won't. Then nobody has a provider or providers. And with the revenue available for cable TV programming going away, that proviso is in even greater jeopardy. You don't even get to the consumer side of the equation.
so it gets complex:
- provider costs/revenues
- consumer investment
- ongoing technology changing the landscape
- mix of requirements from rural to suburban to urban locations.
So it isn't partisan. It isn't business versus consumer. It isn't city person versus country person. It isn't homeowner versus apartment renter. It is how to provide choice to both businesses and consumers to maximize profit potential, availability and competition as a check and balance.
I've been to Portugal, have you? The dynamics of mobile and cable availability is vastly different. So is the population, demand, demographics and topology. Finally, Portugal is one of the worst managed economies in the western world (being one of the PIGS).
Fact is, things change too much for govt to keep up. Govt needs to put in some rails or guidelines and let the free markets take it from there. Technology will change the landscape three times over in the next five years.
Why do I advocate free markets? Because the issues are too complex for me, you, anyone else on this board or Shumer/Pelosi/Trump/McConnell/Ryan to understand and legislate.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
In my experience it is partisan, but you’re sort of the lone wolf here who can back up his thinking and opinions with more than just ideology and partisanship. Thanks for your comments!
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
One more infographic for the good of the order.
That is why i don't have any of the sucker channels: hbo, stardust, stc.
I thought we were supposed to hate everything in those "socialist" European countries, like their healthcare.
You're all for free markets, for the ISPs, but what about for those businesses that use the internet? This is creating a pay to play system that benefits the big corporations, and stifles the ability of small companies and startups without huge VC funds to compete. The internet has become essential for doing business, and has helped create new small businesses and entrepreneurs big and small, and now you want the ISPs to be able to block access to, or slow down the delivery of, the websites of companies who can't afford to pay big bucks to the ISPs. I thought we were supposed to be helping out these "job creators." You're focused on only one side of the equation (how it affects consumers and ISPs) but you're not thinking about how this will affect businesses. Consumers won't use websites that are too slow, and if the ISPs are allowed to block or slow down delivery of your website, it will kill many businesses. And that won't change with "competition" and more ISPs (which as I've pointed out is already a problem in condos and apartment buildings). In fact, that makes it WORSE. More ISPs means more corporations with their hands out asking businesses for money to be included, or to be included at a reasonable download speed. And if you don't pay up, you're sunk. And if they pay up, they need to raise prices to cover it. I thought that one of the arguments against a higher minimum wage was it would raise consumer prices. But I guess that's OK with you if the large corporations can make more money and do stock buybacks.
IMHO, the internet should be treated as a utility. And unlike most regulations, net neutrality does not impose all kinds of restrictions. It simply says, all websites get treated equally in terms of users being able to access them. That's not something that people "can't keep up with." It's a fairly simple concept.
We already have your model. If a user wants faster download speeds, they can pay for it, just like they pay UPS for faster delivery. Then all websites are subject to those download speeds, so if one chooses slower download speeds, it applies to all websites. But those UPS packages travel (mostly) on roads that all shipping companies have equal access to. Imagine if the government stepped in and said, if you want to drive your delivery trucks on these roads, you have to pay or you can't deliver. Or, if the government said, if you pay X, you can drive 60 mph and get to your destination quicker. But if you can't afford X, you can pay us Y, but you can only drive 30 mph and not deliver as quickly.
Yes, businesses (and individuals) pay for the roads via taxes. But all have the same access after that.
Perhaps, but you are also missing the part that ISP's revenues are falling as fast as ESPN's. As such, they have to lower their expenditures or increase revenues. If they can't increase revenues, they are going to cut services. This may be cutting rural, unprofitable areas or cutting R&D for faster services in the future. Nothing is for free.
Let the free market dictate. If AT&T can't get their model in line, you go with Dish, Direct, Verizon, Spectrum, or whatever is available. Competition is a wonderful thing. If Hulu or Netflix can't deliver their products to their consumers, they will also have to adjust their models.
Its way too complex to legislate. Let the free market and civil laws dictate.
I have enjoyed this thread and the obvious partisan division of responses (especially by certain individual’s “likes” ), which begs the bigger question....
Is internet access:
Is internet access:
- a Right
- a Privilege
- a “Household Utility”?
Last edited:
Except cable and internet is not a true free market. Municipalities determine who can wire the area. Then individual buildings further restrict who can come on their property to wire. So unless you deal with those issues, you end up with monopolies and duopolies in many areas or individual buildings.
Their revenues are falling because they're mostly cable companies and people are cord cutting and they refuse to go to an a la carte model. They're free to do that, just as they're free to raise their prices, or implement cost cutting measures. No one is stopping them from that. They don't want to innovate and change, they want to maintain the status quo, and raise revenues in easier ways, by getting rid of net neutrality.
When people started buying cars instead of horses for transportation, the horse market suffered, as did the blacksmiths and related businesses. Many went out of business. Cable TV and internet is in changing but the ISPs don't really want to "innovate" like they say. They want to protect the cash cow. They may go the way of the blacksmith, or they can get with the program.
This is an interesting debate and enjoyed the various view points being proffered on this topic.
In terms of capital investment Obli is correct - the future is wireless 5G; either fixed (numerous small cell) or the T- mobile approach in leveraging high band and low band spectrum to reach as many customers as possible. Whose approach will work best remains to be seen as 5G remains somewhat of an evolving technology. The point is, this infrastructure could very easily supplant fixed landline internet over time (and quickly) if it delivers as promised. Fiber on poles will remain but largely (probably) as backhaul network elements. What the consumer pays for is always the last mile (connection to your home/ISP network – e.g. fiber from home to the frame in a central office). I believe the concern about pricing is valid (meaning for the consumers) – however T-Mobile is a market price disrupter and it’s hard not to envision them continuing in that role.
Competition amongst various ISP’s for data business is particularly fierce (provisioning Ethernet other hi-cap circuits, dark fiber, etc.). In the Albany area alone, I can name 5 competitive local exchange carriers competing with the big boys – and doing a good job at it.
Taxpayers subsidizing network elements for major ISP’s (ATT, VZ) is thing of the past. Many of those items have long surpassed their capital deprecation (poles, copper cable). The guaranteed rate of return business model remains valid only for the major Elco’s essentially.
The cost of modernizing said infrastructure improvements/enhancements/network paradigm shifts come straight from each companies bottom lines; be it the structure to get the attachments up (taller poles for ODAS transmitters, more CLEC fiber), improved electronics in the POP/Central offices to handle greater data traffic, etc. Companies in this context would be any of the ISPs – big and small.
That all being said, I believe a resolute Regulatory overseer still plays a necessary role. The day may come where ISP providers are like fast food choices, but we are nowhere near that yet - particularly for the consumer market.
In terms of capital investment Obli is correct - the future is wireless 5G; either fixed (numerous small cell) or the T- mobile approach in leveraging high band and low band spectrum to reach as many customers as possible. Whose approach will work best remains to be seen as 5G remains somewhat of an evolving technology. The point is, this infrastructure could very easily supplant fixed landline internet over time (and quickly) if it delivers as promised. Fiber on poles will remain but largely (probably) as backhaul network elements. What the consumer pays for is always the last mile (connection to your home/ISP network – e.g. fiber from home to the frame in a central office). I believe the concern about pricing is valid (meaning for the consumers) – however T-Mobile is a market price disrupter and it’s hard not to envision them continuing in that role.
Competition amongst various ISP’s for data business is particularly fierce (provisioning Ethernet other hi-cap circuits, dark fiber, etc.). In the Albany area alone, I can name 5 competitive local exchange carriers competing with the big boys – and doing a good job at it.
Taxpayers subsidizing network elements for major ISP’s (ATT, VZ) is thing of the past. Many of those items have long surpassed their capital deprecation (poles, copper cable). The guaranteed rate of return business model remains valid only for the major Elco’s essentially.
The cost of modernizing said infrastructure improvements/enhancements/network paradigm shifts come straight from each companies bottom lines; be it the structure to get the attachments up (taller poles for ODAS transmitters, more CLEC fiber), improved electronics in the POP/Central offices to handle greater data traffic, etc. Companies in this context would be any of the ISPs – big and small.
That all being said, I believe a resolute Regulatory overseer still plays a necessary role. The day may come where ISP providers are like fast food choices, but we are nowhere near that yet - particularly for the consumer market.
Huh? From a Wall Street Journal article published a year ago. Tell me again how ISPs are suffering.
2017 Tech Trends: Internet-Service Providers to See 6% Growth
Providing access to digital content will generate more revenue than ads, paid content, according to strategist Michael Wolf at the WSJ tech conference
Content may be king, but providing access to that content will generate the most revenue growth over the next five years, technology strategist Michael Wolf predicts.
Revenue from providing Internet access—including fixed broadband and cellular charges—is expected to grow at an average of 6.3% a year from 2016 to 2021, producing roughly $177 billion more revenue over that period, Mr. Wolf and his consulting firm Activate Inc. estimate in a presentation prepared for WSJDLive, The Wall Street Journal’s global tech conference. Growth in ad revenue is expected to average 4.7% and paid content at 2.6% a year.
Ding ding ding. Certain ISPs are falling (mostly cable sector) but as a whole it's going up as more people have access to more than just cable internet providers (I alas do not- my neighborhood developer and township made a deal so only Comcast is here even though the Verizon line goes right past).
My main concern isn't the 'packages' it's the monopolies that are (and will happen) using your own habits to create an individual plan 'just for you' that they will raise rates on.
This system could work if we had 8-10 choices but too many just have 1 or maybe 2. It's not just country bumpkins in that situation. Many townships made exclusive agreements for cable back in the 80s so they'd put the cable down. We are still at the mercy of those today and there's little incentive for the townships to give up their yearly 'donations'
The cable companies want to be treated like utilities when it benefits them but then scream they aren't when they want to have more control.
My main concern isn't the 'packages' it's the monopolies that are (and will happen) using your own habits to create an individual plan 'just for you' that they will raise rates on.
This system could work if we had 8-10 choices but too many just have 1 or maybe 2. It's not just country bumpkins in that situation. Many townships made exclusive agreements for cable back in the 80s so they'd put the cable down. We are still at the mercy of those today and there's little incentive for the townships to give up their yearly 'donations'
The cable companies want to be treated like utilities when it benefits them but then scream they aren't when they want to have more control.
The cable companies see the future is in wireless access and they want to make sure their hand is iut.
You people want to have to go through a portal like America online again. Because that's how it's going to be. Do you think you hate the cable boxes on top of your TVs just wait....
You people want to have to go through a portal like America online again. Because that's how it's going to be. Do you think you hate the cable boxes on top of your TVs just wait....
Last edited:
Your quote was about ISPs not cable companies (and apparently ISPs are doing well enough to offset any of their losses in their cable TV segments).
Even if we assume that cable/TV revenues are falling, how is that supposed to be an argument against net neutrality. Why should we allow companies to treat the internet just like cable TV, if the cable TV model is crashing?
I don't want to keep replying to myself but the tech is there to see what will happen. The ads with the packages seem silly until you realize what it will be like.
Comcast for example will prob roll their 'internet' into their X1 system. others will go a similar route. To access a site you will need access to their 'app'. In order to have an app the site will have to pay comcast for the privalidge to have one in the first place. Startups will be few and far between. All access will be from the Comcast portal/X1 platform.
The tech is already there for this....it will start with the old and young who only use their 'google machines' for a handful of sites and before long the rest of us will be boxed (or priced) out.
Comcast for example will prob roll their 'internet' into their X1 system. others will go a similar route. To access a site you will need access to their 'app'. In order to have an app the site will have to pay comcast for the privalidge to have one in the first place. Startups will be few and far between. All access will be from the Comcast portal/X1 platform.
The tech is already there for this....it will start with the old and young who only use their 'google machines' for a handful of sites and before long the rest of us will be boxed (or priced) out.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
I just don't see how consumers benefit from this at all. We go from controlling our own access and discretion to having it controlled for us. In places with already few ISPs, you'll see worse options. ISPs should be in the business of providing internet access - not controlling which content we are able to access and at which speeds we can access them. Google, Apple, and others are already fighting back. For the most part, there is bi-partisan support for net neutrality. I think once the disaster hits as a result of this reversed regulation, Congress will be forced to act, and will (which would be in the best interest of all involved).
Congress acting in the best interests of anyone but themselves? That would be refreshing. I don't expect to ever see it, but it would be refreshing.
My employer has nothing to do with content creation or ISP, but nice try. There are millions of people in the US who think socialism is a good idea too, despite the fact that it has never worked in 100 years of trying. Your lemming argument is not a good one. Read mises, reason or Cato if you want some thoughtful reasoning from "nobody" who is against NN.
Last edited:
Today, cable companies pay for content and charge consumers for it's delivery.
Today Netflix consumes 37% of available internet bandwidth. It would be perfectly reasonable for a consumer to pay a small access fee for a streaming service or for the ISP to charge Netflix a fee for consuming that much bandwidth, that Netflix would likely add to their monthly subscriber fee
I live just outside the city of Seattle and can only get Comcast. Downtown residents have two choices.
55% of the population only has one provider option
I’m registered independent...I vote 50/50 for Democrats and Republicans historically. I won’t ever vote republican again after this net neutrality debacle. Sorry to make this political, but it is at the heart of the net neutrality discussion
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
FB Recruiting 2024 Transfer Portal Thread -- Spring Window Edition
- Latest: Chickadee34
-
Football Happy Valley United announces Retain The Roar NIL campaign
- Latest: Chickadee34