MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: RAW on December 14, 2017, 17:49

Title: Net Neutrality
Post by: RAW on December 14, 2017, 17:49
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.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: r2d2 on December 14, 2017, 17:56
Well America first!  ;)
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on December 14, 2017, 18:35
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.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: stockastic on December 14, 2017, 18:52
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.


 
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: qunamax on December 14, 2017, 19:51
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?
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: stockastic on December 14, 2017, 19:57
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.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on December 14, 2017, 20:03
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 :)
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: RAW on December 14, 2017, 20:38
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.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: qunamax on December 14, 2017, 21:57
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.   
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: stockastic on December 14, 2017, 21:57
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.



Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: stockastic on December 14, 2017, 22:01
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.   
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: RAW on December 14, 2017, 22:09
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/
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 15, 2017, 03:40
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.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: namussi on December 15, 2017, 03:41
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.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Pauws99 on December 15, 2017, 04:28
"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.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: namussi on December 15, 2017, 06:05
Perhaps it would be better then to say: "the freer the market, the less likely monopolies are to survive"

Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: increasingdifficulty on December 15, 2017, 06:18
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.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Pauws99 on December 15, 2017, 07:20
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.........
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Mantis on December 15, 2017, 09:36
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?   
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: trek on December 15, 2017, 10:04
I expect progressive states like California will pass their own net neutrality laws.  Red states will be left to indulge themselves...
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: stockastic on December 15, 2017, 11:56
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.   
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Pauws99 on December 15, 2017, 12:31
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......
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 15, 2017, 13:19

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
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: stockastic on December 15, 2017, 13:21
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...

Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: stockastic on December 15, 2017, 13:31

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.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 15, 2017, 13:31
"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.

This is true.
What I'm pointing out is the direction we need to move towards. Towards more free market, not backwards. It is obvious that the more freedom there is in a market, the tougher the competition is and that's good for consumers. No government can take better care of consumers than tough competition on a market as free as possible.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Pauws99 on December 15, 2017, 13:38

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.
Of course in a free market you could just build your own airports controlling air traffic might be a bit dicey though  but I'm sure the market would find a way ;-).
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 15, 2017, 13:38

The lack of competition reflects real-world barriers to entry, not an excess of regulation.

Do you know how much a permit costs to dig across a road in my area? With such prohibitive prices, zoning laws etc how can you expect competition? All these laws are build around Comcast and they enjoy it.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 15, 2017, 13:40

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.
Of course in a free market you could just build your own airports controlling air traffic might be a bit dicey though  but I'm sure the market would find a way ;-).

There are numerous private airports today. What are you talking about?
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Pauws99 on December 15, 2017, 13:47

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.
Of course in a free market you could just build your own airports controlling air traffic might be a bit dicey though  but I'm sure the market would find a way ;-).

There are numerous private airports today. What are you talking about?
You can't just start flying planes from them though there all sorts of pesky regulations many to stop planes flying into each other.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Pauws99 on December 15, 2017, 13:53
"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.

This is true.
What I'm pointing out is the direction we need to move towards. Towards more free market, not backwards. It is obvious that the more freedom there is in a market, the tougher the competition is and that's good for consumers. No government can take better care of consumers than tough competition on a market as free as possible.
I think the point is that while it is generally true there are exceptions and access to the Internet is arguably one of them. In Economics and Politics there are no absolute truths.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 15, 2017, 14:46

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.
Of course in a free market you could just build your own airports controlling air traffic might be a bit dicey though  but I'm sure the market would find a way ;-).

There are numerous private airports today. What are you talking about?
You can't just start flying planes from them though there all sorts of pesky regulations many to stop planes flying into each other.

Check John Travolta's private airport ;)
https://goo.gl/images/x2F3ZJ

It's amazing isn't it?  8)
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: DallasP on December 15, 2017, 18:07
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 :)

I loved Comcast back about 10 years back. Now they're absolutely the worst ... and the thing is, they've got their staff and half their customers duped into thinking that they're for Net Neutrality. (Meanwhile, lubing them up for their streaming video service.) I wouldn't be surprised to see them be the first ones to take advantage of this and start bottlenecking Netflix and the like.

Our local provider isn't the best here in Central Utah but, I think I can deal with a dropped connection every week or so while knowing (or at least as far as they've announced) that they don't really have big media ties.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Mantis on December 15, 2017, 18:13

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

If you believe that then lobby to get them fixed rather than pile on new government controls.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: DallasP on December 15, 2017, 18:23


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

LOL. They just split them off into subsidiaries and pretend that it's all new and okay ... think Exxon Mobile ... Alphabet Inc. and Chinese Telecommunications.
We already live in an oligocracy ... the voting and many little brands and decisions basically just give us the illusion of choice.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: DallasP on December 15, 2017, 18:34


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

LOL. They just split them off into subsidiaries and pretend that it's all new and okay ... think Exxon Mobile ... Alphabet Inc. and Chinese Telecommunications.
We already live in an oligocracy ... the voting and many little brands and decisions basically just give us the illusion of choice.

I'd dare go on to say that even the nation that we live is part of that illusion. Things like the UN and other Intergovernmental Agencies have the power and the motive to control all of the pawns on the board.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 15, 2017, 19:21

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

If you believe that then lobby to get them fixed rather than pile on new government controls.

You misread me. I don't want a pile of new government controls. I want to see many unnecessary and bureaucratic OLD controls scrapped away, in order to stimulate competition, instead of protecting monopolies.
I remember that Bernie once tweeted that Romania has better internet than US and he wrote: "this must stop".
That's also what we want, except that the government cannot increase your internet speed with a fiat law.
Only competition can do that. And that's why the internet was fast and cheap in Romania, not because their government imposed it. Romania had 0% taxes for IT people, among other things.
Needless to say that Bernie has deleted my tweet, since it didn't fit his agenda. lol!  :D
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Mantis on December 15, 2017, 19:30

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

If you believe that then lobby to get them fixed rather than pile on new government controls.

You misread me. I don't want a pile of new government controls. I want to see many unnecessary and bureaucratic OLD controls scrapped away  in order to stimulate competition, instead of protecting monopolies.

Apologies sir.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Pauws99 on December 16, 2017, 01:45

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


If you believe that then lobby to get them fixed rather than pile on new government controls.


You misread me. I don't want a pile of new government controls. I want to see many unnecessary and bureaucratic OLD controls scrapped away, in order to stimulate competition, instead of protecting monopolies.
I remember that Bernie once tweeted that Romania has better internet than US and he wrote: "this must stop".
That's also what we want, except that the government cannot increase your internet speed with a fiat law.
Only competition can do that. And that's why the internet was fast and cheap in Romania, not because their government imposed it. Romania had 0% taxes for IT people, among other things.
Needless to say that Bernie has deleted my tweet, since it didn't fit his agenda. lol!  :D
Better for some......http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users-by-country/ (http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users-by-country/) Strangely most of the best countries for internet access for the many not the few are quite interventionist.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 16, 2017, 13:39
This guy is making similar points about the lack of competition in this industry:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/a-public-internet-is-possible (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/a-public-internet-is-possible)

But for him the solution is coming from the left, asking for municipalities to become ISPs. His solution is avoiding the root cause of this non-existing competition: prohibitive permits, zoning laws and regulations.
But municipal bureaucracy is not applicable to municipalities, is it?

If a municipality can build a network, then so can many other companies, provided bureaucracy and red tape is removed.
And private companies will do a much better job.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: etienjones on December 16, 2017, 13:56
The real victim of this trend is Free Speech.  If Neutrality is ended then the large companies can control what is available on the internet.  Controlling knowledge/speech is a fascist pursuit.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: RAW on December 16, 2017, 14:29
The real victim of this trend is Free Speech.  If Neutrality is ended then the large companies can control what is available on the internet.  Controlling knowledge/speech is a fascist pursuit.

Very well said.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Minsc on December 16, 2017, 15:52
I don't think there is much to worry about. NN didn't exist before 2015 and the internet was doing just fine. The side effects of not having NN has been blown out of proportion by fear mongers, specifically the companies that use more traffic than everyone else.

There are certain companies that has been waging a public war against the repeal of NN and they are using people as palms in their chess game. They're the ones who are fear mongering and putting ideas into people's heads. They spend millions every year lobbying to keep NN so they can continue to generate massive profits. And those companies...Google, Apple, Facebook, Hulu, NetFlix, EA Origin, Steamworks, Amazon...basically any big website that delivers a massive amount of video and gaming content. Everything else has little to nothing to worry about.

Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 16, 2017, 16:15
I don't think there is much to worry about. NN didn't exist before 2015 and the internet was doing just fine.

Not really. I had Comcast back then and my Netflix was obviously throttled. I remember I even called their lousy customer service to complain. They did nothing so I switched to Fios and everything got better. Competition, even if only between 2 providers worked for me.
Today I'm only served by Optimum and I can only hope they will not do what Comcast did before Net Neutrality.
Again, net neutrality is not the issue here. Lack of competing alternatives is.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Minsc on December 16, 2017, 16:26
Not really. I had Comcast back then and my Netflix was obviously throttled. I remember I even called their lousy customer service to complain. They did nothing so I switched to Fios and everything got better. Competition, even if only between 2 providers worked for me.
Today I'm only served by Optimum and I can only hope they will not do what Comcast did before Net Neutrality.
Again, net neutrality is not the issue here. Lack of competing alternatives is.

I'm sure there was some throttling at peak time back then. Internet speeds has been greatly improved since then and the repeal of NN may affect 1080p and 4K streaming content...especially 4K content. But NetFlix will pay if they want to continue to hog internet traffic. They've been steadily increasing rates over years anyway and since they won't be spending those millions on lobby, they'll be using that money to pay ISPs.

The reality is that only couple dozen massive companies are affected with the repeal of NN. Google is the biggest supporter of NN and they've used that to their advantage by putting people out of competition. And they've been the ones controlling what they want people to see throughout this process, not ISPs.



Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: RAW on December 16, 2017, 16:29
The Republicans say they are for 'Free Markets'
They have just handed the internet over to Comcast/Verizon. There is nothing 'Free Market' about that.

It's just double speak. George Orwell would be proud.

RESIST
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 16, 2017, 16:48
But NetFlix will pay if they want to continue to hog internet traffic. They've been steadily increasing rates over years anyway and since they won't be spending those millions on lobby, they'll be using that money to pay ISPs.

This sounds logical. Hopefully Netflix will absorb these extra costs.
But, without a decent competition among ISPs, without negotiating partners, there is a high risks that these extra fees will be too high. If not all, at least a part of it will be passed on to consumers. More competition should lower the costs Netflix will be asked to pay, therefore it will minimize the potential extra costs consumers will be forced to swallow.

Again, net neutrality is not an issue. Lack of competition is.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Minsc on December 16, 2017, 17:01
This sounds logical. Hopefully Netflix will absorb these extra costs.
But, without a decent competition among ISPs, without negotiating partners, there is a high risks that these extra fees will be too high. If not all, at least a part of it will be passed on to consumers. More competition should lower the costs Netflix will be asked to pay, therefore it will minimize the potential extra costs consumers will be forced to swallow.

Again, net neutrality is not an issue. Lack of competition is.

I agree. That's why I'm very much against the merger of AT&T and Time Warner and any merging of ISPs. Google and Netflix will work out their problems, but we shouldn't have to fight their battles. They have enough money and they don't care much about consumers either. Like ISPs, they want their own monopoly and make as much money as possible for their shareholders.

I think the important thing is that people don't fall into trap of over-worrying and spread false information at the behest of internet giants. Very little is going to change with or without NN.

Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: RAW on December 16, 2017, 17:04
Again, net neutrality is not an issue. Lack of competition is.

Net neutrality is the issue as the new regulations are just a way of stifling competition (and many other things).
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: DallasP on December 16, 2017, 17:28
This guy is making similar points about the lack of competition in this industry:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/a-public-internet-is-possible (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/a-public-internet-is-possible)

But for him the solution is coming from the left, asking for municipalities to become ISPs. His solution is avoiding the root cause of this non-existing competition: prohibitive permits, zoning laws and regulations.
But municipal bureaucracy is not applicable to municipalities, is it?

If a municipality can build a network, then so can many other companies, provided bureaucracy and red tape is removed.
And private companies will do a much better job.

A few cities already have done that ... they still have to rent lines from established networks though.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 16, 2017, 17:31
Again, net neutrality is not an issue. Lack of competition is.

Net neutrality is the issue as the new regulations are just a way of stifling competition (and many other things).

No. You are mixing the cause with the effect.
You need net neutrality because other regulations killed the competition favoring geographical monopolies.
Do away with regulations, stimulate competition and net neutrality will be obsolete.

I have a similar example from Telecom.
EU struggled for years to eliminate the abusive roaming charges between EU members.
In US, T-Mobile did exactly that (and even more), without any governmental mandate, more than one year ahead of EU.
I am in Iceland right now, debating with you without extra data costs. I can SMS for free and calls back home are only 20 cents/minute. I can read my emails, use google navigation or check my microstock sales for free and without being afraid of exceeding some quota.

No government asked T-Mobile to do that, they did it only to differentiate themselves from the old school competitors.

If only we could have 3 or 4 ISPs to choose from, Net Neutrality will become obsolete (for at least one of them), the same way abusive roaming charges became obsolete for T-Mobile.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: jjneff on December 16, 2017, 18:38
The internet as you know it is not going anywhere, I hate all this fear mongering! The less the govt. is involved in business the better! Business will provide what the people demand. If anything this helps keep the internet more free and open. After all it was fine up until 2015 when the law was passed! Where was all the screaming about this in 2014??
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: RAW on December 16, 2017, 19:49
The internet as you know it is not going anywhere, I hate all this fear mongering! The less the govt. is involved in business the better! Business will provide what the people demand. If anything this helps keep the internet more free and open. After all it was fine up until 2015 when the law was passed! Where was all the screaming about this in 2014??

That is not true.

The law was past in 2015 to protect the internet. Up until that point it was not needed as there were no plans to change things.

Why do you think Comcast/Verizon have spent so much money trying to overturn the protections?
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: jjneff on December 16, 2017, 20:23
Nothing stopped them in 2013 or 2014. Your internet will be just fine, just wait and see!!
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: namussi on December 16, 2017, 21:32

I have a similar example from Telecom.
EU struggled for years to eliminate the abusive roaming charges between EU members.
In US, T-Mobile did exactly that (and even more), without any governmental mandate, more than one year ahead of EU.
I

They're not really the same, are they?

You are comparing one company operating in one country, with an area with dozens of companies, perhaps hundreds, operating in 28 countries.

(And don't forget that T-Mobile is a German company)
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: RAW on December 16, 2017, 22:24
Nothing stopped them in 2013 or 2014. Your internet will be just fine, just wait and see!!

Net Neutrality means that 1GB of data from Joe Blow should be treated the same as 1GB of data from Netflix.

Comcast/Verizon/AT&T do not want that. That is why they have spent $572 million lobying to remove the 'neutrality'.

Do you really think that they've spent $572 million dollars to make the internet more competitive and open?
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Minsc on December 17, 2017, 01:16

Net Neutrality means that 1GB of data from Joe Blow should be treated the same as 1GB of data from Netflix.

Comcast/Verizon/AT&T do not want that. That is why they have spent $572 million lobying to remove the 'neutrality'.

Do you really think that they've spent $572 million dollars to make the internet more competitive and open?

NetFlix accounts for 36.5% of all traffic in the US at its peak. Combined with YouTube, it makes up 50% of the internet traffic in the United States.

ISPs constantly upgrade to handle these 2 streaming services. I'm talking about billions of dollars in infrastructure upgrades because of 2 companies. That's a lot of money spent, all the while enriching NetFlix and Google. And some of that upgrade cost has already been passed on to the consumer. It's a bit unfair to look from the outside and ask ISPs who spent billions for 2 companies to treat all websites the same way.

If 2 companies uses 50% of the highway traffic in the US, wouldn't it be fair to ask them to pay a higher tax? Net Neutrality may sound noble, because everything is treated equally, but 2 websites using 50% of the traffic compared to the millions and millions of websites out there are not very equal.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 17, 2017, 03:23

I have a similar example from Telecom.
EU struggled for years to eliminate the abusive roaming charges between EU members.
In US, T-Mobile did exactly that (and even more), without any governmental mandate, more than one year ahead of EU.
I

They're not really the same, are they?

You are comparing one company operating in one country, with an area with dozens of companies, perhaps hundreds, operating in 28 countries.

(And don't forget that T-Mobile is a German company)

In US, T-Mobile obeys American laws. And no law forced them to do what is definitely very good for consumers. Competition forced them to do that.

As I said, give me 3 or 4 competing ISPs to choose from (instead of only 1) and NN will not matter anymore.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: namussi on December 17, 2017, 06:11

I have a similar example from Telecom.
EU struggled for years to eliminate the abusive roaming charges between EU members.
In US, T-Mobile did exactly that (and even more), without any governmental mandate, more than one year ahead of EU.
I

They're not really the same, are they?

You are comparing one company operating in one country, with an area with dozens of companies, perhaps hundreds, operating in 28 countries.

(And don't forget that T-Mobile is a German company)

In US, T-Mobile obeys American laws. And no law forced them to do what is definitely very good for consumers. Competition forced them to do that.

As I said, give me 3 or 4 competing ISPs to choose from (instead of only 1) and NN will not matter anymore.

That doesn't really address my point.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: niktol on December 17, 2017, 06:51

ISPs constantly upgrade to handle these 2 streaming services. I'm talking about billions of dollars in infrastructure upgrades because of 2 companies. That's a lot of money spent, all the while enriching NetFlix and Google. And some of that upgrade cost has already been passed on to the consumer. It's a bit unfair to look from the outside and ask ISPs who spent billions for 2 companies to treat all websites the same way.



It would be more "free-market"-like to charge customers per transferred Gig. Price rather than rationing.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: jjneff on December 17, 2017, 07:46
Supporters of net neutrality say that it protected everyday Americans from having their internet slowed down or their favorite websites blocked by a greedy, evil internet service provider. Others have said net neutrality made sure free speech wasn’t stifled by ISPs. These claims are nothing more than myths.

Market forces already protected consumers, because if an ISP started deliberately slowing down people’s favorite websites and streaming services, or putting an end to free speech, consumers would simply switch to a different ISP.

No internet service provider wants to be known for having “slow service” or being “anti-free-speech,” so there’s nothing for consumers to worry about.

Further, if a rogue ISP does decide to start unjustly penalizing a business or group of consumers, the Federal Trade Commission and FCC will still be able to stop these actions through their other regulatory powers.

Perhaps most importantly, if net neutrality was so important, why is it that the internet was able to grow and operate so successfully from its creation all the way until 2015 without any of these dire problems?

Make no mistake about it, net neutrality wasn’t really about paid prioritization or ensuring internet “fairness.” The truth is that net neutrality was passed by the left-wing Obama administration to give more power over the internet to the federal government.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 17, 2017, 07:58

I have a similar example from Telecom.
EU struggled for years to eliminate the abusive roaming charges between EU members.
In US, T-Mobile did exactly that (and even more), without any governmental mandate, more than one year ahead of EU.
I

They're not really the same, are they?

You are comparing one company operating in one country, with an area with dozens of companies, perhaps hundreds, operating in 28 countries.

(And don't forget that T-Mobile is a German company)

In US, T-Mobile obeys American laws. And no law forced them to do what is definitely very good for consumers. Competition forced them to do that.

As I said, give me 3 or 4 competing ISPs to choose from (instead of only 1) and NN will not matter anymore.

That doesn't really address my point.

Instead, that is really addressing the point of this topic.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: niktol on December 17, 2017, 08:03
consumers would simply switch to a different ISP.


Indeed. All I need is a 28K modem.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 17, 2017, 08:04

Market forces already protected consumers, because if an ISP started deliberately slowing down people’s favorite websites and streaming services, or putting an end to free speech, consumers would simply switch to a different ISP.

Unfortunately this is not the case. As I stated already twice, 46% of Americans have access to only 1 (one) ISP. I'm one of them.
I would love to switch but I'm stuck and forced to swallow a price increase every year.

The government should fix first the lack of competition and then only abolish NN.

But they put the cart before the horse!
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: qunamax on December 17, 2017, 10:41

Net Neutrality means that 1GB of data from Joe Blow should be treated the same as 1GB of data from Netflix.

Comcast/Verizon/AT&T do not want that. That is why they have spent $572 million lobying to remove the 'neutrality'.

Do you really think that they've spent $572 million dollars to make the internet more competitive and open?

NetFlix accounts for 36.5% of all traffic in the US at its peak. Combined with YouTube, it makes up 50% of the internet traffic in the United States.

ISPs constantly upgrade to handle these 2 streaming services. I'm talking about billions of dollars in infrastructure upgrades because of 2 companies. That's a lot of money spent, all the while enriching NetFlix and Google. And some of that upgrade cost has already been passed on to the consumer. It's a bit unfair to look from the outside and ask ISPs who spent billions for 2 companies to treat all websites the same way.

If 2 companies uses 50% of the highway traffic in the US, wouldn't it be fair to ask them to pay a higher tax? Net Neutrality may sound noble, because everything is treated equally, but 2 websites using 50% of the traffic compared to the millions and millions of websites out there are not very equal.

It would all sound fine if the ISPs were giving internet access for free, but they ain't. If it weren't for the Google, Netflix and other companies and similar internet services they wouldn't have that much paying customers.
Should they just collect customer's money and never invest in infrastructure upgrades?
If they can't handle it then they can close their doors, I'm sure there are a lot of companies just waiting to take their place. But I'm sure they can handle it just alright, don't tell me they are broke and need customer's help, because they are either going to charge customers for Google and Netflix traffic or they are going to charge those companies which will in return raise their prices or stop being free.
I'm sure they want to adopt the scheme used by hardware companies, charging premium and raising prices with every new generation of tech while keeping the old tech at the same price. If it only reflected in their empoyees paychecks it would be great, be those are going to remain the same and money will go elsewhere, but surely not to infrastructure upgrades as they would like us to think.   

 

Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: RAW on December 17, 2017, 14:00
Supporters of net neutrality say that it protected everyday Americans from having their internet slowed down or their favorite websites blocked by a greedy, evil internet service provider. Others have said net neutrality made sure free speech wasn’t stifled by ISPs. These claims are nothing more than myths.

Market forces already protected consumers, because if an ISP started deliberately slowing down people’s favorite websites and streaming services, or putting an end to free speech, consumers would simply switch to a different ISP.

That's just nuts.

There is no ISP competition in the US (I have the choice of one provider - and they are lousy).

The new law gives massive powers to Comcast/Verizon and there is no oversight. We are left hoping that the new corporate super powers will do the right thing (and when has that ever happened before).

They now have the power to come after anyone (not just Neflix) that makes a living online and expect their cut.

There will soon be an eCommerce tier along with a Netflix tier, an Amazon tier, a Social Media tier etc. They are going to spit the internet into packages and charge accordingly.

. . . and if you want to upload videos to Shutterstock you will have to buy the Upload Package.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: RAW on December 17, 2017, 14:24
It's obvious from some of the posts in this thread that several of you are Republicans so I won't bother mentioning how much net neutrality helps low income families not just with education but also healthcare.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Shelma1 on December 17, 2017, 17:24
Supporters of net neutrality say that it protected everyday Americans from having their internet slowed down or their favorite websites blocked by a greedy, evil internet service provider. Others have said net neutrality made sure free speech wasn’t stifled by ISPs. These claims are nothing more than myths.

Market forces already protected consumers, because if an ISP started deliberately slowing down people’s favorite websites and streaming services, or putting an end to free speech, consumers would simply switch to a different ISP.

That's just nuts.

There is no ISP competition in the US (I have the choice of one provider - and they are lousy).

The new law gives massive powers to Comcast/Verizon and there is no oversight. We are left hoping that the new corporate super powers will do the right thing (and when has that ever happened before).

They now have the power to come after anyone (not just Neflix) that makes a living online and expect their cut.

There will soon be an eCommerce tier along with a Netflix tier, an Amazon tier, a Social Media tier etc. They are going to spit the internet into packages and charge accordingly.

. . . and if you want to upload videos to Shutterstock you will have to buy the Upload Package.

Really. Comcast has a monopoly where I live...there is no other choice. And they're probably the worst company ever. I haven't had cable in years because their customer service is so awful, though I'm forced to use them as my ISP (and then I also have to pay to use my iphone as a wireless hotspot because Comcast service goes down so often).

A large group of residents in a retirement community near here actually sued them for throttling service a few years ago.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 17, 2017, 17:33
It's obvious from some of the posts in this thread that several of you are Republicans so I won't bother mentioning how much net neutrality helps low income families not just with education but also healthcare.
Things are not as black and white as you think.
For the record, I'm registered independent and I voted democrats in the past elections.
Yet I see no problem in abolishing NN as long as it is done when competition is strong enough to protect consumers. And I want to see even more regulations abolished to reach that level of competition.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: DallasP on December 17, 2017, 19:05
It's obvious from some of the posts in this thread that several of you are Republicans so I won't bother mentioning how much net neutrality helps low income families not just with education but also healthcare.
Things are not as black and white as you think.
For the record, I'm registered independent and I voted democrats in the past elections.
Yet I see no problem in abolishing NN as long as it is done when competition is strong enough to protect consumers. And I want to see even more regulations abolished to reach that level of competition.

Registered republican. Voted Independant ... I would have voted for the bern if dems hadn't handed the nomination to that hag. I'm in a red state so it really doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: namussi on December 17, 2017, 20:29

I have a similar example from Telecom.
EU struggled for years to eliminate the abusive roaming charges between EU members.
In US, T-Mobile did exactly that (and even more), without any governmental mandate, more than one year ahead of EU.
I

They're not really the same, are they?

You are comparing one company operating in one country, with an area with dozens of companies, perhaps hundreds, operating in 28 countries.

(And don't forget that T-Mobile is a German company)

In US, T-Mobile obeys American laws. And no law forced them to do what is definitely very good for consumers. Competition forced them to do that.

As I said, give me 3 or 4 competing ISPs to choose from (instead of only 1) and NN will not matter anymore.

That doesn't really address my point.

Instead, that is really addressing the point of this topic.

I guess I win this skirmish then.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: jjneff on December 17, 2017, 20:43
Come on back when you have no internet service and we will chat again. My speed is the same now as it was in 2010 so Net Neutrality did nothing for me!
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Minsc on December 17, 2017, 21:09
It's obvious from some of the posts in this thread that several of you are Republicans so I won't bother mentioning how much net neutrality helps low income families not just with education but also healthcare.

What is obvious is that you're uninformed about the whole NN situation. You're making assumptions because people are disagreeing with you. The repeal of NN will not affect as much as you think it does. The internet was fine before 2015 and it will be fine after 2017. There will be no packaged deals, no censoring of information...that's just misinformation and fear-mongering spread by Google's PR arm and people ate it up.

The whole point of NN was to make it easy for companies like NetFlix, Google, Amazon and other giant companies to destroy the competition. It doesn't affect healthcare, it doesn't affect low income families (unless they spend the whole day watching NetFlix at 4K) , it doesn't affect startups and it won't affect 99.99% of the websites out there. The reason why NN came into existence was because of a large lobbying effort by large internet companies to maintain the status quo. It's corporate socialism at the expense of other companies and consumers.

In 2014 (and previous years), the ISPs throttled NetFlix not because they're evil, but because they can't handle the amount of traffic going through their networks. NN forced ISPs to treat all traffic the same at the expense of the ISPs and consumers. ISPs pass their infrastructure upgrade cost to the consumers on their monthly plans. You may think you are getting a benefit, but you're actually paying more because of NN. If NetFlix paid more for their massive amount of traffic, there is a decent chance our monthly internet bills would have been lower over the years.

Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: namussi on December 17, 2017, 22:08
It's obvious from some of the posts in this thread that several of you are Republicans so I won't bother mentioning how much net neutrality helps low income families not just with education but also healthcare.

Yes, you didn't mention it. Except, of course, you did.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 18, 2017, 08:36

In 2014 (and previous years), the ISPs throttled NetFlix not because they're evil, but because they can't handle the amount of traffic going through their networks. NN forced ISPs to treat all traffic the same at the expense of the ISPs and consumers. ISPs pass their infrastructure upgrade cost to the consumers on their monthly plans. You may think you are getting a benefit, but you're actually paying more because of NN. If NetFlix paid more for their massive amount of traffic, there is a decent chance our monthly internet bills would have been lower over the years.

They throttled Netflix not because they're evil, indeed, but because being in a monopolistic situation, they had no incentive to upgrade their network.
If this situation doesn't change, without NN, they will charge Netflix extra or start throttling again. Since they have no competition to be concerned with, they will have no incentive to lower their fees, to upgrade their network nor to improve their internal processes and become more efficient. Why would they do that?
Because they are nice? Don't be naive!

Only competition will lower our fees and insure the quality we expect. Obviously, no regulation will ever be able to "compete with competition" and compensate enough the lack of it.

Moreover, more competition means the traffic will be split over multiple networks, therefore less congestion for consumers. More competition is in fact better than those required network upgrades you considered too expensive to be carried out by a single, lazy and arrogant, monopolistic ISP.

I would rather see Netflix absorbing a part of these extra costs, since there is much stronger competition on the content provider side.
Logically this can impact the content quality Netflix is able to provide today, less movies from third parties and less Netflix originals.

Overall, without competition among ISPs, consumers are losing with or without NN, so please don't avoid this side of the equation in your otherwise thorough justifications.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Minsc on December 18, 2017, 14:01
They throttled Netflix not because they're evil, indeed, but because being in a monopolistic situation, they had no incentive to upgrade their network.
If this situation doesn't change, without NN, they will charge Netflix extra or start throttling again. Since they have no competition to be concerned with, they will have no incentive to lower their fees, to upgrade their network nor to improve their internal processes and become more efficient. Why would they do that?
Because they are nice? Don't be naive!

Only competition will lower our fees and insure the quality we expect. Obviously, no regulation will ever be able to "compete with competition" and compensate enough the lack of it.

Moreover, more competition means the traffic will be split over multiple networks, therefore less congestion for consumers. More competition is in fact better than those required network upgrades you considered too expensive to be carried out by a single, lazy and arrogant, monopolistic ISP.

I would rather see Netflix absorbing a part of these extra costs, since there is much stronger competition on the content provider side.
Logically this can impact the content quality Netflix is able to provide today, less movies from third parties and less Netflix originals.

Overall, without competition among ISPs, consumers are losing with or without NN, so please don't avoid this side of the equation in your otherwise thorough justifications.

I don't disagree with you. It's important to look at both sides of the situation and the side effects of it. I don't like the ISPs either and on a side note, I'm glad the merger between Sprint and T-Mobile failed. Competition is healthy for the industry and it only benefits the consumers.

In the case of NN, there are no good sides. Both sides are sleazy and both sides are not friendly to the consumer. Both Google and NetFlix painted themselves as the victims, but they completely misrepresented their situation. They used their powerful PR arm (And Google with their massive network) to spread false information. They turned it into ideological battle and painted it as a Trump vs Obama situation and ensnared unwitting supporters into the fold. It's dirty and untruthful. It was a great propaganda campaign (on both sides), I give them that much.

NetFlix only seem less evil because they entertain us, but they're just like the ISPs. A monopoly who answer to their shareholders and only care about raising rates to meet their bottom line. They will be less effective at producing new shows like you said, but society as a whole needs to be binging less anyway.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 18, 2017, 14:31

NetFlix only seem less evil because they entertain us, but they're just like the ISPs. A monopoly who answer to their shareholders and only care about raising rates to meet their bottom line. They will be less effective at producing new shows like you said, but society as a whole needs to be binging less anyway.

Except that Netflix is NOT a monopoly, while ISPs are, for 46% of Americans.

Netflix has a plethora of competitors, from Amazon, to Hulu and HBO to online rental services like Vudu, Fandango, Google, Amazon, iTunes or On Demand and pre-recorded shows from streaming TV  providers like PlayStation Vue and many other smaller specialised streaming services (Acorn, IndieFlix, Tubi, etc)

Big, big difference!
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: DallasP on December 18, 2017, 14:54

NetFlix only seem less evil because they entertain us, but they're just like the ISPs. A monopoly who answer to their shareholders and only care about raising rates to meet their bottom line. They will be less effective at producing new shows like you said, but society as a whole needs to be binging less anyway.

Except that Netflix is NOT a monopoly, while ISPs are, for 46% of Americans.

Netflix has a plethora of competitors, from Amazon, to Hulu and HBO to online rental services like Vudu, Fandango, Google, Amazon, iTunes or On Demand and pre-recorded shows from streaming TV  providers like PlayStation Vue and many other smaller specialised streaming services (Acorn, IndieFlix, Tubi, etc)

Big, big difference!

Agreed, on the content side there are at least a dozen I can think of ... on the ISP side most locations are lucky to have 3
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: increasingdifficulty on December 18, 2017, 15:26
Although, if you want to be picky, if you want to watch Game of Thrones (HBO), Breaking Bad (Netflix) or Seinfeld (Hulu) there aren't really any competitors, as each company mostly has exclusive content.

I see them more as complementing each other rather than competing.

If I want Jessica Jones and Narcos I can't just look for the cheapest alternative. Netflix is the only choice. And if I want Game of Thrones, HBO is the only choice.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 18, 2017, 15:43
Although, if you want to be picky, if you want to watch Game of Thrones (HBO), Breaking Bad (Netflix) or Seinfeld (Hulu) there aren't really any competitors, as each company mostly has exclusive content.

I see them more as complementing each other rather than competing.

If I want Jessica Jones and Narcos I can't just look for the cheapest alternative. Netflix is the only choice. And if I want Game of Thrones, HBO is the only choice.

You are peaky, indeed!  ;D
If you have a normal lifestyle, you probably need a full month to binge watch GoT, most likely more.
You can put your Netflix or Hulu on hold for a month and subscribe to HBO until you are done. Same goes for Seinfeld or Breaking Bad.
Therefore the 3 service providers are actually competing for your monthly subscription.
Not to mention that you can also rent Seinfeld or BB from the above mentioned On Demand streaming services (or even buy them).
You do have choices.

You can not do that with your ISPs since 46% of Americans have no other choice but to accept what their ISP monopoly is forcing them to accept.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: k_t_g on December 18, 2017, 18:08
What happened in the US with this net neutrality is eventually going to happen in Canada despite what our government says.  And we have terrible monopolies happening over here as well.  ::)
Yup a slow boil brought to you by the so called elite of the world.
"Its a rich man's world"
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: DallasP on December 18, 2017, 19:56
Although, if you want to be picky, if you want to watch Game of Thrones (HBO), Breaking Bad (Netflix) or Seinfeld (Hulu) there aren't really any competitors, as each company mostly has exclusive content.

I see them more as complementing each other rather than competing.

If I want Jessica Jones and Narcos I can't just look for the cheapest alternative. Netflix is the only choice. And if I want Game of Thrones, HBO is the only choice.

Meh, if it's not on Amazon we just don't watch it or rent ... We pay for prime. There's no reason to worry about which specific show/movie we're wasting time with ... there are tons of content providers and tons of content. We could almost just watch YouTube.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Semmick Photo on December 19, 2017, 05:50
But NetFlix will pay if they want to continue to hog internet traffic. They've been steadily increasing rates over years anyway and since they won't be spending those millions on lobby, they'll be using that money to pay ISPs.

This sounds logical. Hopefully Netflix will absorb these extra costs.



Tell me you both are not this naive?

This is the email I got from Netflix over their latest price increase.

Quote
Subject: Why our monthly prices are changing

More of what you like

Hi Ronald,
The cost of your Netflix membership will increase to €10.99 on Thursday, 7th December 2017. Why? So we can add more of what you like to watch. Awesome entertainment built around you is what we’re all about.

Netflix uses the price increase to produce more own content. If you think Netflix will absorb the cost of higher ISP cost without passing the cost on to their customers, you need to wake up.

Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Semmick Photo on December 19, 2017, 06:01
Come on back when you have no internet service and we will chat again. My speed is the same now as it was in 2010 so Net Neutrality did nothing for me!
You dont know, because had NN not been in place you might have felt the pain 2 years ago. You dont know what NN has prevented from happening, but you will know in 2018.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 19, 2017, 07:57
But NetFlix will pay if they want to continue to hog internet traffic. They've been steadily increasing rates over years anyway and since they won't be spending those millions on lobby, they'll be using that money to pay ISPs.

This sounds logical. Hopefully Netflix will absorb these extra costs.



Tell me you both are not this naive?

This is the email I got from Netflix over their latest price increase.

Quote
Subject: Why our monthly prices are changing

More of what you like

Hi Ronald,
The cost of your Netflix membership will increase to €10.99 on Thursday, 7th December 2017. Why? So we can add more of what you like to watch. Awesome entertainment built around you is what we’re all about.

Netflix uses the price increase to produce more own content. If you think Netflix will absorb the cost of higher ISP cost without passing the cost on to their customers, you need to wake up.

This is what I said and meant:

" I would rather see Netflix absorbing a part of these extra costs, since there is much stronger competition on the content provider side"

You decide what is more probable:

1. An ISP monopoly not taking advantage of NN abrogation (after spending multi-millions to lobby for it)
2. A company in a competitive industry trying their best to keep prices low to remain competitive.

What say you?
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: RAW on December 19, 2017, 19:33
Things are not as black and white as you think.
For the record, I'm registered independent and I voted democrats in the past elections.
Yet I see no problem in abolishing NN as long as it is done when competition is strong enough to protect consumers. And I want to see even more regulations abolished to reach that level of competition.

I think things are as black and white as I think.
The new regulations do nothing to improve competition (just the opposite).
The new regulations do nothing for low income families. The digital divide will get bigger.

Where's the grey area?
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: Zero Talent on December 19, 2017, 21:01
Where's the grey area?

In your assumption that those who see no problem in eliminating NN are republicans.
Not so black and white.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality
Post by: RAW on December 19, 2017, 23:22
Where's the grey area?

In your assumption that those who see no problem in eliminating NN are republicans.
Not so black and white.

I have never assumed that.
. . . so no grey areas.