MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Net Neutrality  (Read 4836 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RAW

« on: December 14, 2017, 17:49 »
+4
If you live in the US best get your HD and 4K video clips online asap as Comcast/Verizon will soon want their cut of each upload.


« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2017, 17:56 »
0
Well America first!  ;)

« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2017, 18:35 »
+5
The attorney general in my state (Washington) is going to sue, and there are a couple of other organizations that said they would sue as well - as soon as the regulation was made. We'll see how this plays out, but the basis of the suit was that there was no reason to change a rule that businesses depended on. The stated reasons are all demonstrably bogus.

« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2017, 18:52 »
+4
A big problem n the U.S. right now is that the big news media companies have learned how to very effectively keep the public perpetually split, 50/50 red vs. blue, on every major issue.  As a result of that, a party gains a 50.1% edge in an election, then sets to work ramming through an agenda that's really only supported by 30% of the public.

In general, Republicans try to give big business what it wants.  In this case that's particularly bad because polls show a solid majority want net neutrality - and the rest have no idea what it is and don't care.

It doesn't help that the current FCC chair, Ajit Pai, is a smirking, arrogant jerk who doesn't even try to hide the fact that he's an industry shil.


 

« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2017, 19:51 »
0
Is it the actual law that will forbid internet providers to supply internet as they did up to now or they are changing the law/regulation to let them charge extra if they please?

« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2017, 19:57 »
+3
Is it the actual law that will forbid internet providers to supply internet as they did up to now or they are changing the law/regulation to let them charge extra if they please?

The short answer is, nobody seems to know what will be allowed, which is exactly what the industry wants.  I suspect they'll be able to do pretty much whatever they want.

It won't happen all at once, though.   Comcast etc. won't run out and invest big sums in pay-to-play schemes right away because they know quite well that the Republicans may be out of power in a couple years and the Democrats will just reinstate neutrality.  That's the real problem with 51/49 politics - we run from one side of the boat to the other.  The game has become: find ways to do things that can't be easily undone, legally speaking.   It stinks.

« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2017, 20:03 »
+6
Is it the actual law that will forbid internet providers to supply internet as they did up to now or they are changing the law/regulation to let them charge extra if they please?

They have voted to change a rule (not a law) that categorized ISPs as common carriers, which are not permitted to charge differing rates based on what content or which provider you're accessing - they can charge for more speed, but not charge more for accessing Netflix (for example) than the ISPs own streaming video service. The new category of information service is very lightly regulated and will free up the larcenous scum that run the local monopolies to charge consumers more.

Like many areas in the US, there is a monopoly for my local broadband provider - it's Comcast or nothing (there's a very slow copper wire service but nothing fast). If they behave badly I can move or stop using broadband internet. Verizon's no better and is likewise a monopoly in many areas.

Comcast is a horrible company with wretched customer service but we're stuck. I don't believe for one second the rubbish about how they have no interest in making customers unhappy now the rules are gone - their whole business model is based around maximizing revenue from angry and dissatisfied customers :)

RAW

« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2017, 20:38 »
+4
Russian meddling in US elections will pale into insignificance if this all goes ahead.

The large media companies will totally control information.
Comcast could refuse to carry The Huffington Post.
Verizon could put CNN on the 'slow tier' or not show it at all in some areas.

A sad day.

« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2017, 21:57 »
+4
Then I guess there should be some ISPs that will just leave it neutral as it is as a business model to gain more customers who are sick of paying extra. In theory and based on availability in areas and of course unless services like Netflix, you mention, start to charge ISPs for letting them stream their service or vice versa.
Anyway they are always coming up with a brilliant new solutions how to squeeze every last penny out of customers which in turn probably never corresponds to raises to their employees but yet another yacht for the CEO.   

« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2017, 21:57 »
+3
I think the action on this will move to the states for a while.  "Consumers" (as citizens of this country are now known) don't understand the issue but hate Comcast more than Satan, so the state governments may find "net neutrality" a popular issue if Comcast is in the crosshairs.  Republicans will try to head this off by getting a Federal court to say the states can't do this. And on and on.




« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2017, 22:01 »
+2
I don't think ISPs will favor partisan content, although that's a possible future (think "Subscribe now to FOX high speed internet and get the truth faster!").  What Comcast wants to do is extort money out of companies like Netflix, that sell content over the internet.   

RAW

« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2017, 22:09 »
+2
We will have to buy 'packages' just as we do now with TV.
You want the Social Media Package - that'll be $xx.
You want the Upload Package - that'll be $xx and your uploads will cost $xx per GB.
You want the Skype Package - that'll be $xx.

Take a look at Portugal. You have to pay to access Amazon:
https://qz.com/1114690/why-is-net-neutrality-important-look-to-portugal-and-spain-to-understand/

« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2017, 03:40 »
+1
We will have to buy 'packages' just as we do now with TV.
You want the Social Media Package - that'll be $xx.
You want the Upload Package - that'll be $xx and your uploads will cost $xx per GB.
You want the Skype Package - that'll be $xx.

Take a look at Portugal. You have to pay to access Amazon:
https://qz.com/1114690/why-is-net-neutrality-important-look-to-portugal-and-spain-to-understand/

Not sure it is the same thing.
You always have to pay for data, since spectrum is a very scarce resource for mobile operators and intensive data usage creates congestion slowing down services for everybody.
Now when a company allows you to access music streaming at no costs or at a reduced cost, I see that as an advantage for consumers. You don't pay more for music, you pay less. Obviously if you want unlimited data you have to pay more or much more to start with. It looks to me that even if you add up all packages in your example, you end up paying much less than in US, where all operators offer unlimited data, at a much higher cost, even under Net Neutrality laws. Most countries have enough mobile operators to insure a decent competition, the only efficient way to protect consumers.

It is a different story for cable operators. They enjoy geographical monopoly. About 46% of americans can only be served by one monopolistic cable operator. They can easily decide to make Netflix more expensive for full bandwidth.
In these cases, mobile operators might be their only competition, but a competition not strong enough to deter them from abusing their monopoly. Technology will evolve and 5G will be able to offer similar performance as through today's cable. But this requires massive investments and it might take a while before it happens.
The other alternative is for your municipalities to ease up regulations, zoning laws, etc to make the environment attractive for more cable operators, for the smaller ones that are prevented from expanding by these expensive municipal restrictions.
Remember that long term monopolies don't exist in free markets. Long term monopolies only survive with government favours and restrictive laws that kill competition.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2017, 03:47 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2017, 03:41 »
+1
A big problem n the U.S. right now is that the big news media companies have learned how to very effectively keep the public perpetually split, 50/50 red vs. blue, on every major issue. 

 

Paranoid nonsense.

« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2017, 04:28 »
+3
"Remember that long term monopolies don't exist in free markets." In the real world there are no free markets which is where your theoretical stance falls down.

« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2017, 06:05 »
+1
Perhaps it would be better then to say: "the freer the market, the less likely monopolies are to survive"


« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2017, 06:18 »
+3
Perhaps it would be better then to say: "the freer the market, the less likely monopolies are to survive"

Free market or not, the internet backbone is owned by a small number of big companies. There is not much new competitors can do about that, except rent access to the cables.


« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2017, 07:20 »
+1
Perhaps it would be better then to say: "the freer the market, the less likely monopolies are to survive"
Yes the freer the market, the less likely MOST  monopolies are to survive. In the real world we have to be pragmatic I think. In theory yes advancing technology may help but in practice those holding the monopoly now will do all they can to prevent it.........

« Reply #18 on: December 15, 2017, 09:36 »
+1
Perhaps it would be better then to say: "the freer the market, the less likely monopolies are to survive"

Free market or not, the internet backbone is owned by a small number of big companies. There is not much new competitors can do about that, except rent access to the cables.

Yes but we have laws on the books today to manage monopolies and oligopolies.  So the reality of net neutrality is merely an attempt by our government to taker over another huge element of our economy (like the failed healthcare called ACA) and control the free market. Other than sensible laws, the government should stay out of the economic engine business.  It's just more government control.  Think about it, you can make the SAME ARGUMENT about net neutrality for a lot of other industries.  Companies have tiered packages all the time, every day.  Should the government control them too?   

« Reply #19 on: December 15, 2017, 10:04 »
+1
I expect progressive states like California will pass their own net neutrality laws.  Red states will be left to indulge themselves...

« Reply #20 on: December 15, 2017, 11:56 »
+2
Some of you guys who think 'neutrality' represents a government takeover need to look up 'common carrier' and understand a concept that goes back quite a ways. 

Then imagine a world of privatized highways where everyone is charged a different rate and assigned different priveleges.  Wow, those convoys of triple-bottom Walmart trucks are allowed to go 10 mph faster than you and and itn the winter they might blow you right into the ditch as they pass.   Same with the employees of those big banks downtown, their employers ponied up to get them in on time.  Now here comes the bridge - you pull over and get in line, while suburbanites go ahead because they're getting a special promotion this month to increase market share.   Don't like it? Feel "free" to take the back roads.   

« Reply #21 on: December 15, 2017, 12:31 »
+1
Some of you guys who think 'neutrality' represents a government takeover need to look up 'common carrier' and understand a concept that goes back quite a ways. 

Then imagine a world of privatized highways where everyone is charged a different rate and assigned different priveleges.  Wow, those convoys of triple-bottom Walmart trucks are allowed to go 10 mph faster than you and and itn the winter they might blow you right into the ditch as they pass.   Same with the employees of those big banks downtown, their employers ponied up to get them in on time.  Now here comes the bridge - you pull over and get in line, while suburbanites go ahead because they're getting a special promotion this month to increase market share.   Don't like it? Feel "free" to take the back roads.
That will happen when the technology allows.....there has been discussion in the UK about differential road pricing by time of day once the smart boxes in places only a matter of time......

« Reply #22 on: December 15, 2017, 13:19 »
+2

Yes but we have laws on the books today to manage monopolies and oligopolies. 

Obviously these laws are not working, since as I mentioned above, 46% of Americans have only 1 cable provider. I'm one of them and I hate it. We need less red-tape, less restrictions, less permits, etc from local authorities to allow smaller operators to penetrate the market and compete with Comcast & Co. Regulations only help monopolies to remain monopolies, since only large companies can afford to pay an army of lawyers and lobbyists to deal with them. Moreover these lobbyists and lawyers are in fact the ones writing the laws for themselves.
Removing net neutrality without removing all the bureaucracy needed to compete is only helping the big guys to thrive. This is a decision made by a former Verizon executive, and it proves my point. Verizon and Comcast of the world will have a blast, while smaller companies will be prevented from competing
« Last Edit: December 15, 2017, 13:23 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #23 on: December 15, 2017, 13:21 »
+1
Some of you guys who think 'neutrality' represents a government takeover need to look up 'common carrier' and understand a concept that goes back quite a ways. 

Then imagine a world of privatized highways where everyone is charged a different rate and assigned different priveleges.  Wow, those convoys of triple-bottom Walmart trucks are allowed to go 10 mph faster than you and and itn the winter they might blow you right into the ditch as they pass.   Same with the employees of those big banks downtown, their employers ponied up to get them in on time.  Now here comes the bridge - you pull over and get in line, while suburbanites go ahead because they're getting a special promotion this month to increase market share.   Don't like it? Feel "free" to take the back roads.
That will happen when the technology allows.....there has been discussion in the UK about differential road pricing by time of day once the smart boxes in places only a matter of time......

And so easy once all vehicles are self-driving.  If you're not paying attention to the road, you won't even know you've just been stiffed.   It's becoming a 2-tiered world in so many ways. 

Basically if you love Comcast, or own a lot of their stock, you don't want net neutrality.  All those who love Comcast please raise your hands...


« Reply #24 on: December 15, 2017, 13:31 »
+2

Yes but we have laws on the books today to manage monopolies and oligopolies. 

Obviously these laws are not working, since as I mentioned above, 46% of Americans have only 1 cable provider. I'm one of them and I hate it. We need less red-tape, less restrictions, less permits, etc from local authorities to allow smaller operators to penetrate the market and compete with Comcast & Co. Regulations only help monopolies to remain monopolies, since only large companies can afford to pay an army of lawyers and lobbyists to deal with them. Moreover these lobbyists and lawyers are in fact the ones writing the laws for themselves.
Removing net neutrality without removing all the bureaucracy needed to compete is only helping the big guys to thrive. This is a decision made by a former Verizon executive, and it proves my point. Verizon and Comcast of the world will have a blast, while smaller companies will be prevented from competing

The lack of competition reflects real-world barriers to entry, not an excess of regulation.  Many years ago, companies like Comcast were given sweet deals by cities and municipalities - to come in, run cable on the utility poles and dig trenches.  How is a  new cable provider supposed to get in the game today?  That's why cable internet has to be publicly regulated - just like the electric power companies.  It's always going to be a de facto monopoly.   Want to compete by wireless?  Try getting spectrum from Ajit Pai and his industry buddies.   And yet, radio spectrum clearly has to be regulated.   Want to start an airline?  You can't get gates, because the airports can't physically expand.

Sorry but Ayn Rand didn't anticipate the internet.  Or a lot of other things.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
596 Views
Last post May 11, 2017, 16:46
by Jo Ann Snover

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors