Net Neutrality

[Massive Lee]

The only purpose of the repeal of Net Neutrality is to allow ISPs to make more money by allowing them to charge a fee for certain websites to go on the fast lane. Or to filter ideologies that don't fit big corporations or powerful religious groups with (lotsa) money. Small and perhaps more interesting websites and forums will be more difficult to access. Is that what competition is about? Ironically, the repeal is strongly supported by the same president who claims that he is for the little people and the working class... yeah. Sure. Look who's pocketing... ;-)

[mrsleeve]

^
You really think that providers are going to do that to their rate paying customer base, and risk them to go to another provider. This is not NK, has this happened in the cable networks I am fairly sure the local cable companies in red state OK. still air CNN and MSNBC, and Fox is still on the air in the big liberal urban cities. At most your going to see advertising that says no throttling for your Netflix and you no content filtering at no extra charge.....

Sounds like you think those of in metro areas should subsidize your desire to live in the sticks. In many metro areas, you essentially have one choice. I live in a metro area of well past 1 million people.

No I dont expect that in the least I dont live but a few miles from town where there is boradband service. I was addressing the point that the telcoms have run service to remote areas and the "promised" to run better data to those areas. When in fact it was everyone paying a charge on their bill to cover the infrastructure costs to run basic phone out into the boonies thanks to the same law passed in the 30s that created the FCC.

I can have Cox for broadband, or pay for DSL that is an order of magnitude slower.......to the point I can't work from home through the VPN.

sounds like your stuck too, and might benefit from a someone trying to start up a new service.

Expensive to build out? Have you heard of Williams and how they were laying fiber with their pipelines for decades?

LOL thats funny. Of course I have....... Williams is out of the telcom game and nearly went broke in the process. they ran trunk line fiber optic in old out of service pipelines not to your door step..... It was cheaper to run it in the existing infrastructure than install on it on its own and lease the bandwidth to the established telcoms, in short the went bankrupt doing so. They sold that side of the business they had remaining and to Century Tel IIRC 15 years ago or better just before filing for bankruptcy..... And the 1st spin off MCI was bought up by VZN about a decade ago.

Your desire to stay fuck the gov't and taxation is theft is beyond the sane point now. Do you have an issue with gas/elec being regulated as monopolies so they aren't allowed to run away with costs?

infrastructure is expensive and those costs need to be able to be recovered somehow...... if there is no incentives to be better than someone else trying to take your customers then progress stagnates and the status quo is miked to beat hell .......

In places where the power and gas markets are not price controlled you have plenty of competitors buying up blocks of power or gas and paying lease fees to the current suppliers distribution networks and then charging less than the legacy out fits.

*insert I'm on the road and I'll respond later as a cop out because I can't defend my position*

Nahh I got a little time off right now to catch up on some medical shit I have going on.

[Wschnitz]

infrastructure is expensive and those costs need to be able to be recovered somehow...... if there is no incentives to be better than someone else trying to take your customers then progress stagnates and the status quo is miked to beat hell .......

You mean the taxes we have paid multiple times to get rollouts of cable and fiber already? Local tax subsidies to increase minimum speeds for all users in counties and states?

Z31 is right, you are off your rocker with this.

[gwb72tii]

yes, we absolutely need the federal government regulating the internet. I mean it hasn't worked very well so far.

i'm waiting for Amazon to offer free high speed with Prime membership. I'm also sure that federal regulation will kill that idea.

[z31maniac]

yes, we absolutely need the federal government regulating the internet. I mean it hasn't worked very well so far.

i'm waiting for Amazon to offer free high speed with Prime membership. I'm also sure that federal regulation will kill that idea.

Yes, it worked well because it essentially was regulated but at the state and local level through monopolies.

This idea that there is competition in ISP providers is beyond bizarre to me.

[Wschnitz]

yes, we absolutely need the federal government regulating the internet. I mean it hasn't worked very well so far.

i'm waiting for Amazon to offer free high speed with Prime membership. I'm also sure that federal regulation will kill that idea.

???

Ignoring that you still don't know what you are talking about, how is having corporations regulate the market by stifling competition better? Did you miss the part where they said they need to be the ones to write the laws? Did you miss the part pre 2014, 2010, and 2005? Where ISP's blocked VOIP programs, P2P traffic, and streaming websites in favor of their own services?

I really wish you guys would just not talk about this if you have no idea what you are talking about. Its hilariously sad, the only competition and innovation that was stifled was ISP's ability to give us Cable 2.0 in the form of internet.

[z31maniac]

^This is what happens when you're a slave to ideology.

[gwb72tii]

ideology?

LOL. how about a deep belief in capitalism and the power of the private sector to work it out to the benefit of the consumer

[Wschnitz]

ideology?

LOL. how about a deep belief in capitalism and the power of the private sector to work it out to the benefit of the consumer

George Ill make sure you block all your content when this bill passes, its only a fair capitalist endeavor if I have the money to do it right? You'll just have to attempt to find a competitor, which is unlikely considering the three major ISP's make it a point to not interfere in eachothers playgrounds so they can price hike without delivering any more service.

Im pretty sure at this point george is one of those crazies that walks into the library wearing tin foil just to use the library computers to shitpost online.

[gwb72tii]

George Ill make sure you block all your content when this bill passes, its only a fair capitalist endeavor if I have the money to do it right? You'll just have to attempt to find a competitor, which is unlikely considering the three major ISP's make it a point to not interfere in eachothers playgrounds so they can price hike without delivering any more service.

Im pretty sure at this point george is one of those crazies that walks into the library wearing tin foil just to use the library computers to shitpost online.

yes less regulation means less content, right?

BTW - you and I probably agree on more issues surrounding the internet than we disagree on, and also on the recent tax bill.

The tax bill raises deficit spending unproductively. The USA doesn't invest in itself. I'd give up my tax reduction to see the federal government do something useful if it's going to spend more than it takes in, like laying a country-wide fiber optic grid we can all access, where we might actually have competition among ISP's.

[Schnitzer318is]

You have valid points I dont disagree to a certain extent and a title I classification would be a step in a better direction IMO. All that said, haow about some alternate perspective to some of your "assumptions" and also why the govt steeping in and killing any incentive to actually try to compete.

Net Neutrality actually took away any incentive for service providers to run broadband connections to remote/rural locations. Because in most cases it costs more to run and maintain than revpenue it generates (thats why EVERYONE pays a fee that helped pay to run phone service to remote area a service which costs far less money to provide).......broadband would be even more costly by a very large margin.

So who would benefit from this at the carriers expense? Places like Amazon, Net Flix etc....while the ISPs who spend all the money to provide the infrastructure lose money. Allowing the carriers to better manage bandwidth allows them to provide better service to those current existing customers.

Telecom infrastructure is FUCKING expensive, especially fiber. The fewer subscribers per mile the less revenue to recover on that cost of hardware and installation . Thats exactly why you see better higher bandwidth service in densely populated areas. Existing copper has finite bandwidth capacity (like you find in remote areas that have not had large amounts of development that would have required large upgrades. Replacing copper with fiber carries not only the high cost to string on the poles or trench/plow/bore it in ..but also the equipment that is associated with it at every stage of the game form install to general up keep and maintenance.


True its all being replaced as required when the equipment and lines approach end of life...but thats also why the remote areas are the last to see this sort of stuff. No carrier has the capital to throw at major upgrades that take YEARS and couple hundred billion to get accomplished when you consider how many millions of miles of cable thats out there...both above and below ground.


I live in one of those areas, where our DSL in front of my house is 85 a month for 1.5mbs Down 0.5 up. Thats IF and i stress highly IF you can get off the waiting list and get a service slot. We have to use satellite ISP at 130 a month for 50gb. I am all for some competition maybe the smaller local outfit will start to better serve my house

^Your understanding of the current state of ISP's and their business practices is not on target with reality. ALL of the points in your position are incorrect.

The ISP's are only now spending SOME money (NOT ALL) of the money they collected from their consumer base (under the 96 Telecom Act) to expand infrastructure... and only because of the direct threat of Google's fiber service. Competition good right? But they are being allowed to block Google's expansion in most places, and delay it in most others. Sounding like antitrust yet? How about blocking municipalities from starting local ISP's, or preventing states from making their own net neutrality laws? All of this is happening NOW and was under title 2 as well. The telecoms are not hurting... and now under title 1 they can merge to be even larger and more monopolistic.

The money is already collected for all of us, including you in rural areas, to have fiber to the home. The current infrastructure (and competition) in the ISP sector is garbage. Do some reading... plenty of factual places to get info out there after you weed through the left wing and right wing propaganda.

ideology?

LOL. how about a deep belief in capitalism and the power of the private sector to work it out to the benefit of the consumer

I share the same ideology. And if we were allowed to have a capitalist style economy in all industries... that would be wonderful. We aren't, and so we can't. Companies have gotten too large and branched out into too many different industries under the same corporate umbrella through DEREGULATION. And it's been allowed to happen through deregulation. Once companies get large enough it is almost impossible to have a startup succeed and give true competition to the current monopoly company/companies.

[z31maniac]

^Well said.

sleeve and oldguy...............I'm looking forward to a non-coherent rant from both of you. Drink first if you need to, don't disappoint me.

[Wschnitz]

^Well said.

sleeve and oldguy...............I'm looking forward to a non-coherent rant from both of you. Drink first if you need to, don't disappoint me.

I feel like they regularly mistake capitalism for being inherently favorable to competition too, ignoring that a truly capitalist society can be completely bought out and price fixed. Like it already is.

[gwb72tii]

I share the same ideology. And if we were allowed to have a capitalist style economy in all industries... that would be wonderful. We aren't, and so we can't. Companies have gotten too large and branched out into too many different industries under the same corporate umbrella through DEREGULATION. And it's been allowed to happen through deregulation. Once companies get large enough it is almost impossible to have a startup succeed and give true competition to the current monopoly company/companies.

sorry but your argument has been disproved by history. Go tell IBM that they were so big there could be no competitive threat to their dominance in tech.

you all put so little faith in capitalism. you all want a fix now as if the tech we have (yes even the internet) is frozen and will never change. LOL

[z31maniac]

sorry but your argument has been disproved by history. Go tell IBM that they were so big there could be no competitive threat to their dominance in tech.

you all put so little faith in capitalism. you all want a fix now as if the tech we have (yes even the internet) is frozen and will never change. LOL

Does your family understand you aren't coherent?

I live in the 25th largest city in the country, I have one choice for internet.

How is that competition?