Net Neutrality

[Schnitzer318is]

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

Come on George. A capitalist market is supposed to work no matter the technology. It is supposed to evolve (and benefit consumers) through competition. Which we have none of. It's basic economics.

What we have now is some perversion of capitalism which has no competition. And worse competition is being stifled, thus hampering development and improvement. Again, it's basic economics. Anyone with eyes can see the problem. We have 2 choices for ISP's where I live. And I'm one of the "lucky" ones. Most have 1.

Man I can't wait for Google fiber to get here.

[gwb72tii]

Man I can't wait for Google fiber to get here.

you do realize you've made my argument, right?

I haven't argued there is competition, I've argued regulating the internet like a utility is the surest way to kill the possibility of competition. This is exactly what Obama tried to do.

[Schnitzer318is]

you do realize you've made my argument, right?

I haven't argued there is competition, I've argued regulating the internet like a utility is the surest way to kill the possibility of competition. This is exactly what Obama tried to do.

Do you know how long Google has been trying to get fiber infrastructure installed here? I proved MY point. You didn't post anything to the contrary. Just threw out a talking point about Obama regulating the internet... which yes, he did. And we were better for it.

The internet NEEDS to be regulated like a utility. Because it's just as important as one. Title 2 does not say that the only ISP available is run by a local municipality. Just that the infrastructure that serves that purpose is available to all competition. The fact there is no competition is the reason we need the regulation. If it were a fair market... I'd be on your side. And the IBM analogy is woefully unequivocal.

Title 2 also provides for a method of thwarting internet fast lanes, content blocking, etc, etc. When you buy electricity, do you want your service provider to say you can't use that electricity to run power tools while you work on your car? To do that you have pay for an extra "workman's" package. Sounds ridiculous right? Well the ISP's have done, want to do, and will do more. The only thing that stopped them in the past was Title 2.

Either you need to do more research into this issue, or you are not someone who gives a damn about the quality of service, availability of, and access to the internet. Instead of researching you are just touting the party line and throwing out your long held philosophies. I have no problem with belief systems... but like anything else in life they need to be reevaluated for relevance and applicability from time to time.

[z31maniac]

you do realize you've made my argument, right?

I haven't argued there is competition, I've argued regulating the internet like a utility is the surest way to kill the possibility of competition. This is exactly what Obama tried to do.

How do locally regulated monopolies provide competition?

[ELVA164]

Guys, net neutrality has nothing to do with stifling competition. I don't understand where this line of reasoning comes from. ISPs already provide different speed options to consumers. If they could, a start up ISP is just as capable of entering the market now as they would be once net neutrality is repealed. It isn't about the free market at all; it's about access to information and it's about price hiking.

I repeat: Nothing about repealing net neutrality increases a start up ISP's ability to compete in the market.

[Schnitzer318is]

Guys, net neutrality has nothing to do with stifling competition. I don't understand where this line of reasoning comes from. ISPs already provide different speed options to consumers. If they could, a start up ISP is just as capable of entering the market now as they would be once net neutrality is repealed. It isn't about the free market at all; it's about access to information and it's about price hiking.

I repeat: Nothing about repealing net neutrality increases a start up ISP's ability to compete in the market.

Not entirely so. The FCC ruled in 2015 that local municipalities could provide broadband services if they wished. This superseded some state's laws that disallowed this. If it had nothing to do with stifling competition... the incumbent ISP's would not be throwing $$$ at having it repealed.

But yes, I agree... the ISP's primarily want to be able to charge the consumers (and content providers) as much as they want because they have a monopoly in their service area. I think the discussion just logically turns to antitrust behavior when discussing title 2 because it's happening and the ISP's want to keep their monopolies as long as possible.

[gwb72tii]

looks as if the world is not coming to an end.
The FCC ends net neutrality, and what happens? multiple companies start rolling out 5G networks, which is 50X faster than today's internet.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/net-neutrality-zealots-are-wrong-the-market-just-proved-it/

[Massive Lee]

Oh wow. Last night I flushed a very long turd and and this morning "multiple companies start rolling out 5G networks". The cause to effect relation is as strong as net neutrality and 5G. ;-) Now, let me know what caused the implementation of 4G when only 3G existed back then and how it was related to net neutrality...

[GG///M3]

Yay more cancer with 5G


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Schnitzer318is]

looks as if the world is not coming to an end.
The FCC ends net neutrality, and what happens? multiple companies start rolling out 5G networks, which is 50X faster than today's internet.

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...ust-proved-it/

You have no idea how our network infrastructure works do you? It's "50x" faster than what? Our shitty current "broadband." It's not 50x faster than gigabit. Plus, the range of 5g is shorter than 4g... So yeah, more ugly ass towers everywhere.

The telecom companies wanted this all along as it is cheaper to implement than a hardwired connection to the house. You know what it won't be? Reliable. And it probably won't even be "fast." But that's okay because ajit pai is writhing on lowering the standards of what "fast" is so they can still legally call it fast.

The net neutrality "debate" is one issue all party members should be able to agree on if only everyone would take off the party blinders and biases. Such a clear cut issue, yet there is still idealism running roughshod over common sense.

[Wschnitz]

5G

l m a o

George posting the good memes.

[gwb72tii]

You have no idea how our network infrastructure works do you? It's "50x" faster than what? Our shitty current "broadband." It's not 50x faster than gigabit. Plus, the range of 5g is shorter than 4g... So yeah, more ugly ass towers everywhere.

The telecom companies wanted this all along as it is cheaper to implement than a hardwired connection to the house. You know what it won't be? Reliable. And it probably won't even be "fast." But that's okay because ajit pai is writhing on lowering the standards of what "fast" is so they can still legally call it fast.

The net neutrality "debate" is one issue all party members should be able to agree on if only everyone would take off the party blinders and biases. Such a clear cut issue, yet there is still idealism running roughshod over common sense.

yes and guess what, without government deciding who is a winner we might have someone bright enough with big enough balls to introduce something better if 5G or the next big thing turns out to be a dud.

You are not going to innovate when government gets in the middle. You should have a little patience and faith in your fellow man.

[Wschnitz]

Innovation my ass, the whole push for wireless technology is because Service Providers can charge way more for it.

You keep making these grand claims about 'government intervention stifling innovation'. Then by your own claims about the internet being fine before the government stepped in, ignoring that ISP's dismissed innovation such as Fiber and WiMax for years because they have no incentive to provide better service. There is no competition cause they made it that way, and there is no reason to innovate when you can keep selling your 1Mbps 'Broadband' for 100$ a month.

Its absolutely hilarious how clueless you are when it comes to Internet Technologies and Net Neutrality, so far off base you don't even know what the core argument is about, thinking its just a measure to 'harshly regulate' ISP's unfairly.

Please just stop.

Luckily steps in the right direction are already taking place in many states, including Washington State.

https://www.fastcompany.com/40537222/washington-just-passed-the-countrys-toughest-net-neutrality-legislation

FCC already got its ass kicked for trying to preempt that they could control municipal broadband, so the precedent is already set that they are unlikely to get headway challenging this.

[GG///M3]

Fuck 5G


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Massive Lee]

You are not going to innovate when government gets in the middle.

Interesting comment. Please explain your reasoning.