Net Neutality

#102
#102
n_huffhines said:
No it's not. It's more like a nudge in favor of some corporations over other corporations.
Click to expand...

True but it is also a nudge to those corporations over consumer.

Why didn't they "cost more" before?
Click to expand...

Net Neutrality kept them from setting data caps as a pricing tier. Pricing was based on bandwidth. Wireless communication introduced the Data pricing because they were providing a link to the fiber backbone and it was a way to ease network traffic on overloaded cell towers.

Again, why weren't they capping me before?
Click to expand...

Net Neutrality
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#104
#104
Mick said:
True but it is also a nudge to those corporations over consumer.



Net Neutrality kept them from setting data caps as a pricing tier. Pricing was based on bandwidth. Wireless communication introduced the Data pricing because they were providing a link to the fiber backbone and it was a way to ease network traffic on overloaded cell towers.



Net Neutrality
Click to expand...

Net neutrality didn’t stop Comcast from capping my internet usage. It’s why I switched to EPB.
 
#105
#105
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Therefore less government is good.

Government contracts happen only because the government took the funds from consumers and businesses. And the bureaucrats don't go away after they've been fulfilled.
Click to expand...

The regulations you speak allowed for monopolies to be created without competition. But I know you are pro big business monopolies and anti government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#106
#106
Mick said:
True but it is also a nudge to those corporations over consumer.
Click to expand...

What do you think regulation does? Why do you think corporations lobby so much and donate so much. It's because they get to help write the rules and they write rules that favor them over the consumer and the competition.

Net Neutrality kept them from setting data caps as a pricing tier. Pricing was based on bandwidth.
Click to expand...

3 years ago it didn't. Everything worked just fine. Did the people who hated Comcast and Time Warner in 2014 stop hating them in 2016?
 
#108
#108
Mick said:
The regulations you speak allowed for monopolies to be created without competition. But I know you are pro big business monopolies and anti government.
Click to expand...

Where are these monopolies? I can buy internet from multiple companies that have cables and fiber running right down my street. I can buy it from multiple wireless providers. If the government stays out of the way, someday there should be boxes on the streets of every populated area blasting out WAN-like access.

As I've already mentioned, there are already laws in place that limit monopolistic practices by the big, bad, abusive corporations. Monopolies have been permitted, actually exclusivity for a finite period of time, as an incentive for businesses to build out a communication infrastructure where none existed. As those exclusivity incentives expire over builders have been added in the government controlled right of ways to bring competition. More cables can be strung on those poles and will be when consumers are charged unreasonable amounts for their access.

Capitalism works. Socialism fails.
 
#110
#110
n_huffhines said:
3 years ago it didn't. Everything worked just fine. Did the people who hated Comcast and Time Warner in 2014 stop hating them in 2016?
Click to expand...

They probably switched service if they could but I don't remember comcast and Time warner receiving love at anytime.
Why AT&T’s merger with Time Warner is such a huge deal:
The potential merger highlights one of the most definitive trends of the modern media business: the push from tech and telecommunications giants to control the lucrative, popular content they once passively supplied.

How Net neutrality helped kill the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger - CNET

How is doing away with NN good for consumers? Anyone? The only thing I can think of it might make people pay a premium for stupid posts. This is not directed at you or your posts just saying I have not heard how this is good for consumers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#112
#112
Mick said:
They probably switched service if they could but I don't remember comcast and Time warner receiving love at anytime.
Why AT&T’s merger with Time Warner is such a huge deal:
The potential merger highlights one of the most definitive trends of the modern media business: the push from tech and telecommunications giants to control the lucrative, popular content they once passively supplied.

How Net neutrality helped kill the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger - CNET

How is doing away with NN good for consumers? Anyone? The only thing I can think of it might make people pay a premium for stupid posts. This is not directed at you or your posts just saying I have not heard how this is good for consumers.
Click to expand...

Non-intrusive government policies allow businesses to grow and therefore add jobs and to innovate. So what if Netflix goes from $10/month to $15/month? So what if gamer data hogs have to pay for their usage? NN is a tactic used by Dems to buy votes from naive altruists. It's little different from Bernie buying votes by offering to forgive student loans.
 
#114
#114
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Where are these monopolies? I can buy internet from multiple companies that have cables and fiber running right down my street. I can buy it from multiple wireless providers. If the government stays out of the way, someday there should be boxes on the streets of every populated area blasting out WAN-like access.

As I've already mentioned, there are already laws in place that limit monopolistic practices by the big, bad, abusive corporations. Monopolies have been permitted, actually exclusivity for a finite period of time, as an incentive for businesses to build out a communication infrastructure where none existed. As those exclusivity incentives expire over builders have been added in the government controlled right of ways to bring competition. More cables can be strung on those poles and will be when consumers are charged unreasonable amounts for their access.

Capitalism works. Socialism fails.
Click to expand...

The regulations that Bill did away with did not allowed you the choice. Before that you had one phone, and one cable company. There was a phone bill and a cable bill. Your taxes paid for those local monopolies. And to this day the house I grew up in would not have cable if it wasn't for a government grant to the County.
 
#115
#115
So I log into Facebook and all I see is "RIP Internet" posts. I didn't realize we didn't have the internet until Net Neutrality was passed. Typical overreaction
 
#116
#116
Mick said:
The regulations that Bill did away with did not allowed you the choice. Before that you had one phone, and one cable company. There was a phone bill and a cable bill. Your taxes paid for those local monopolies. And to this day the house I grew up in would not have cable if it wasn't for a government grant to the County.
Click to expand...

A government incentive conceived long ago to build out a non-existant infrastructure is completely different from net neutrality legislation. Also Net Neutrality has no effect on rural areas served by NCTC and/or the public utilities that provide access. The heavily populated areas don't require NN as competition exists in those areas and it will grow if predatory pricing hits the consumers being served. Dems are smoke screening reality.
 
#117
#117
Thunder Good-Oil said:
A government incentive conceived long ago to build out a non-existant infrastructure is completely different from net neutrality legislation. Also Net Neutrality has no effect on rural areas served by NCTC and/or the public utilities that provide access. The heavily populated areas don't require NN as competition exists in those areas and it will grow if predatory pricing hits the consumers being served. Dems are smoke screening reality.
Click to expand...

Great how does that benefit the consumer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#118
#118
Mick said:
They probably switched service if they could but I don't remember comcast and Time warner receiving love at anytime.
Click to expand...

My point is NN didn't "fix" anything. ISP's were a mixed bag before and they still are.

How is doing away with NN good for consumers?
Click to expand...

In the short run, it won't make much of a difference either way. ISP's weren't magically better the last 2 years and they weren't worse either. Layers and layers of rules help to entrench the status quo. They don't allow for a free and robust marketplace to thrive because they disincentivize innovation.

No matter how you choose to view things, internet service has become substantially and consistently better year by year for the last 20+ years. Why are we suddenly so afraid of a market that produced such results? It's alarmism at its finest.

So the biggest cost to the consumer is less improvement of these technologies over time.

And again, the landmark NN case was not about the consumer at all and it actually reduced consumer choices. How can that be in the best interest of the consumer? The FCC is not your savior.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#119
#119
n_huffhines said:
My point is NN didn't "fix" anything. ISP's were a mixed bag before and they still are.



In the short run, it won't make much of a difference either way. ISP's weren't magically better the last 2 years and they weren't worse either. Layers and layers of rules help to entrench the status quo. They don't allow for a free and robust marketplace to thrive.

No matter how you choose to view things, internet service has become substantially and consistently better year by year for the last 20+ years. Why are we suddenly so afraid of a market that produced such results? It's alarmism at its finest.

So the biggest cost to the consumer is less improvement of these technologies over time.

And again, the landmark NN case was not about the consumer at all and it actually reduced consumer choices. How can that be in the best interest of the consumer? The FCC is not your savior.
Click to expand...

How did NN reduce choice? Pretty sure it helped all of the streaming services.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#120
#120
Mick said:
Great how does that benefit the consumer?
Click to expand...

You didn't specify what "that" is.

Government stimulus helped put communication infrastructure where non existed. They can now get out of the way.

Government not restricting cable and phone from each other's kingdom brought competition.

The government still owns the frequencies and the right of ways. The anti-trust laws still exist. They don't need to put in pro-active legislation that prevents heavy data consumers from paying a variable rate for their video and gaming connections. I'm all for Netflix subscribers not having their viewing habits subsidized by other consumers.
 
#121
#121
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Where are these monopolies? I can buy internet from multiple companies that have cables and fiber running right down my street. I can buy it from multiple wireless providers. If the government stays out of the way, someday there should be boxes on the streets of every populated area blasting out WAN-like access.

As I've already mentioned, there are already laws in place that limit monopolistic practices by the big, bad, abusive corporations. Monopolies have been permitted, actually exclusivity for a finite period of time, as an incentive for businesses to build out a communication infrastructure where none existed. As those exclusivity incentives expire over builders have been added in the government controlled right of ways to bring competition. More cables can be strung on those poles and will be when consumers are charged unreasonable amounts for their access.

Capitalism works. Socialism fails.
Click to expand...

My socialist internet provides internet at 50 times the speed and the same cost as the other provider in my area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#122
#122
Weezy said:
My socialist internet provides internet at 50 times the speed and the same cost as the other provider in my area.
Click to expand...

You have options. Larry Flynt can still mail you your porn -or- if you need it real quick big, bad corporations like UPS and FedEx can deliver it sooner.
 
#123
#123
Mick said:
How did NN reduce choice? Pretty sure it helped all of the streaming services.
Click to expand...

Probably at the expense of lower bandwidth users. Pretty sure that's why the streaming services are lobbying hard in favor of NN. Robbing Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's support.
 
#125
#125
Mick said:
How did NN reduce choice? Pretty sure it helped all of the streaming services.
Click to expand...

T-Mobile customers were paying for a plan that allowed them to stream Netflix and Pandora unlimited. This was great for consumers. Hulu can strike a similar deal with them or with AT&T, but instead, we got an FCC crackdown saying this wasn't fair to Hulu.

None of this was about the consumer at all. It was about corporations slicing up the pie. The ruling came down that T-Mobile has to offer this for every streaming service or none of them.

T-Mobile chose to offer the former, which means they incur more cost that must be passed onto consumers.

We don't need to be able to stream every freaking service on our networks. There are 104M Netflix subscribers. There are 12M Hulu subscribers. So now we have some percentage of 92M Netflix subscribers who are paying for unlimited Hulu streaming, but they aren't using it. Why on earth does it make sense to force a contract where T-Mobile users have to pay for both? They should have the choice to pay for whatever they want to pay for.

Oh yeah, I think T-Mobile had to pay $48M in the settlement. Who thinks this is good government?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top