MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Net Neutrality  (Read 17818 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: December 15, 2017, 13:31 »
0
"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.


« Reply #26 on: December 15, 2017, 13:38 »
0

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 ;-).

« Reply #27 on: December 15, 2017, 13:38 »
+1

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.

« Reply #28 on: December 15, 2017, 13:40 »
0

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?

« Reply #29 on: December 15, 2017, 13:47 »
0

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.

« Reply #30 on: December 15, 2017, 13:53 »
0
"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.

« Reply #31 on: December 15, 2017, 14:46 »
0

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)

« Reply #32 on: December 15, 2017, 18:07 »
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?

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.

« Reply #33 on: December 15, 2017, 18:13 »
0

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.

« Reply #34 on: December 15, 2017, 18:23 »
+1


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.

« Reply #35 on: December 15, 2017, 18:34 »
0


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.

« Reply #36 on: December 15, 2017, 19:21 »
0

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
« Last Edit: December 15, 2017, 19:32 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #37 on: December 15, 2017, 19:30 »
0

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.

« Reply #38 on: December 16, 2017, 01:45 »
0

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/ Strangely most of the best countries for internet access for the many not the few are quite interventionist.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2017, 01:50 by Pauws99 »

« Reply #39 on: December 16, 2017, 13:39 »
+1
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

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.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2017, 13:46 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #40 on: December 16, 2017, 13:56 »
+9
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.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2017, 14:01 by etienjones »

RAW

« Reply #41 on: December 16, 2017, 14:29 »
+2
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.


« Reply #42 on: December 16, 2017, 15:52 »
0
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.

« Last Edit: December 16, 2017, 16:02 by Minsc »

« Reply #43 on: December 16, 2017, 16:15 »
+2
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.

« Reply #44 on: December 16, 2017, 16:26 »
0
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.




RAW

« Reply #45 on: December 16, 2017, 16:29 »
+5
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

« Reply #46 on: December 16, 2017, 16:48 »
0
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.

« Reply #47 on: December 16, 2017, 17:01 »
+1
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.


RAW

« Reply #48 on: December 16, 2017, 17:04 »
0
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).

« Reply #49 on: December 16, 2017, 17:28 »
0
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

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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
1957 Views
Last post May 11, 2017, 16:46
by Jo Ann Snover

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors