FCC Revokes Net Neutrality [WAS: FCC Approves Net Neutrality]

[utiz4321]

9 minutes ago, jefbal99 said:

Do you want to be nickle and dimed for every service you want to use?

Example...

Comcast/Xfinity is your ISP, you pay say $70/month, so all the NBC Universal Streaming services are untiered, they want you to use their services, view their commercials, etc

But wait, you want ESPN GO, Fox Sports Go, NBA League Pass, MLS Live, etc then in addition to paying the provider for those services, you need yo pay Comcast an extra $5/month

Hold on, you love you social media platforms, well Twitter, Instagram, facebook, reddit, etc are going to cost you $5/month

Oh you like video streaming? Netflix, Hulu, HBO Go, Paramount, etc kick Comcast about $15/month, on top of paying for the services.

You might still be able to use all these services for your $70/month, but the data rates will be heavily capped or rate shaped to extort more money from you.

Couple years down the road, new ISP pops up and you switch because its the same $70 for faster speeds.  Uh oh, its not Xfinity any longer, so all those NBC Universal streaming services that have been given network priority at no cost to you, stump up $25/month to the new ISP.

As noted earlier, just because this hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't.  Corporations a greedy and will squeeze every penny they can out of every side of a business deal to drive up stock prices.  There isn't any competition in the Wired Internet market because the infrastructure is so freaking expensive and so hard to deploy with the myraid of local government regulations.

More sand castles in the sky. It didnt have anytime before net neutrality (2015) and it wont happen now. The cable package comparison make zero sense if you think about it for just five seconds.  The internet has not had net neutrality regulations for its entire history out side of the last year and a half and no one has been able to package the internet in the way you are talking. 

[tybo31316]

More sand castles in the sky. It didnt have anytime before net neutrality (2015) and it wont happen now. The cable package comparison make zero sense if you think about it for just five seconds.  The internet has not had net neutrality regulations for its entire history out side of the last year and a half and no one has been able to package the internet in the way you are talking. 

ISPs are always looking for new innovative ways to increase revenue and profits. Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean that it’s not. Ending Net Neutrality is going to open the flood gates for these ISPs to do whatever they want. ISPs knows there is little to No competition in most markets in America. The year is now 2017 not 2015 or prior. Anything is possible.

[utiz4321]

4 minutes ago, tybo31316 said:

 

 

ISPs are always looking for new innovative ways to increase revenue and profits. Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean that it’s not. Ending Net Neutrality is going to open the flood gates for these ISPs to do whatever they want. ISPs knows there is little to No competition in most markets in America. The year is now 2017 not 2015 or prior. Anything is possible.

 

 

The first company that does this will hemerage customers like crazy. Competition means you cant do something that would so obviously piss off your consumers. And any move to package the internet that increases the end user cost isnt going to happen. Let these mega corps fight out who gets what profits, it make no never mind to me or you. 

[cyclone]

My question to everyone who's only retort is how it hasn't happened, therefore it won't happen...why are you opposed to keeping the current provisions in place? If you claim it's pointless and has no necessity, why not just leave it be? This isn't knocking on wood, throwing salt over your shoulder or saying a quick prayer. Don't be so naive to believe that a stunt like that wouldn't be attempted if allowed. You seriously believe in the good Samaritan situation...from a corporation? What's the saying? Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

As for "Let these mega corps fight out who gets what profits, it make no never mind to me or you." where do profits come from? Payer's pockets. As a payer, I should have a say in where and how my money is spent. Not some corporation. Next thing you know, electric companies will say that if you want to watch tv while doing laundry at home, it'll be an extra 10cents to power your washing machine and possibly 5 more cents to power your dryer.

[JustinRP37]

14 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

More sand castles in the sky. It didnt have anytime before net neutrality (2015) and it wont happen now. The cable package comparison make zero sense if you think about it for just five seconds.  The internet has not had net neutrality regulations for its entire history out side of the last year and a half and no one has been able to package the internet in the way you are talking. 

Your whole argument is flawed. I hate to say it but just because they didn't do it prior to X date means absolutely nothing in the technology sector. The technology is evolving and therefore it will and can change. Cable companies used to post profits on the video stream into the house. Over time that has dried up as more people move to a streaming sources. The pricing strategy, likewise, has to shift. The reason behind Net Neutrality was because companies were trying to change up how data was handled (and are wanting to now). I can tell you it is a lot more complicated than you are willing to give it credit for. I know many people on the insides of these companies and I can tell you the corporations would love to be able to increase their profits from data carriage. And sorry, your Netflix example does not fly. Netflix would not be the one paying the costs, that would be passed on to the consumer. Much like when you tax companies, wealthy, etc, they can typically pass the increased costs on. Netflix itself still is not that profitable. It has huge overhead costs and has been spending money at a very high rate. 

Further, when you say 'the first company that does this will hemorrhage customers like crazy', is definitely not true. Many people only have one or two choices and usually 1 is not as good as the other (DSL versus Cable). Verizon HAS been steadily increasing FiOS internet prices over the last few years, and this year even increased video prices substantially by hitting everyone with a RSN fee (which equates to a price increase). People would be forced to shut up and pay or change the way they live. Even a $15 a month increase, while not a lot to many people, the profits will increase and people will pay. Just look at the iPhone X. Many people said nobody will pay for it, yet it looks like it was an extreme hit. Hell Verizon literally took away 4k HD steaming on the cellular side and offered it back to customers as a $10 add on! 

Just because something has not happened in the past does not mean it won't happen in the future. Companies, specifically publicly traded companies, have an obligation to the shareholder, not necessarily the customer. Usually you treat the customer okay, they will stick with you, but there are many cases where this is not true. Comcast is one of the most hated companies in America, yet continues to do well financially. Being an economics major in college I can tell you companies are always looking for a way to increase their bottom line in the long run. 

 

[utiz4321]

1 minute ago, JustinRP37 said:

Your whole argument is flawed. I hate to say it but just because they didn't do it prior to X date means absolutely nothing in the technology sector. The technology is evolving and therefore it will and can change. Cable companies used to post profits on the video stream into the house. Over time that has dried up as more people move to a streaming sources. The pricing strategy, likewise, has to shift. The reason behind Net Neutrality was because companies were trying to change up how data was handled (and are wanting to now). I can tell you it is a lot more complicated than you are willing to give it credit for. I know many people on the insides of these companies and I can tell you the corporations would love to be able to increase their profits from data carriage. And sorry, your Netflix example does not fly. Netflix would not be the one paying the costs, that would be passed on to the consumer. Much like when you tax companies, wealthy, etc, they can typically pass the increased costs on. Netflix itself still is not that profitable. It has huge overhead costs and has been spending money at a very high rate. 

Further, when you say 'the first company that does this will hemorrhage customers like crazy', is definitely not true. Many people only have one or two choices and usually 1 is not as good as the other (DSL versus Cable). Verizon HAS been steadily increasing FiOS internet prices over the last few years, and this year even increased video prices substantially by hitting everyone with a RSN fee (which equates to a price increase). People would be forced to shut up and pay or change the way they live. Even a $15 a month increase, while not a lot to many people, the profits will increase and people will pay. Just look at the iPhone X. Many people said nobody will pay for it, yet it looks like it was an extreme hit. Hell Verizon literally took away 4k HD steaming on the cellular side and offered it back to customers as a $10 add on! 

Just because something has not happened in the past does not mean it won't happen in the future. Companies, specifically publicly traded companies, have an obligation to the shareholder, not necessarily the customer. Usually you treat the customer okay, they will stick with you, but there are many cases where this is not true. Comcast is one of the most hated companies in America, yet continues to do well financially. Being an economics major in college I can tell you companies are always looking for a way to increase their bottom line in the long run. 

 

The past is the only evidence that we have and while it is true that the future may not look like the past at least usingnit as a guide is better than just making stuff up. 

Futher let's examine your made up, evidence free hypothesis. That an extra 15 dolllar charge for access to content people want by cable companies would cause people to leave.  If it is likily that they would do this with a cost why not just raise internet pricing? I mean that is all that it is in the end and in fact it is worse. Consumer behavior is EXTREMELY hard to change companies try at the own risk and when it comes to the internet the end user experience is I get on and do what i want without obstruction from my ISP.  That is not going to change. 

 

Ps. The internet hasnt changed much in a year and a half years. 

[S4GRU]

It hadn't happened before Net Neutrality. But it was starting to be discussed. And the free and open internet was getting more and more centralized around a few operators and content providers. And more consolidation will happen. Remember the Netflix ISP battles? All it took was an unholy alliance from one content provider and a mega ISP and a snow ball effect could Cascade. The waters started to be tested. The writing was on the wall and the plans being considered.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[jefbal99]

46 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

More sand castles in the sky. It didnt have anytime before net neutrality (2015) and it wont happen now. The cable package comparison make zero sense if you think about it for just five seconds.  The internet has not had net neutrality regulations for its entire history out side of the last year and a half and no one has been able to package the internet in the way you are talking. 

Take a look at Portugal....

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-portugal-internet-20171127-story.html

[JustinRP37]

1 minute ago, utiz4321 said:

The past is the only evidence that we have and while it is true that the future may not look like the past at least usingnit as a guide is better than just making stuff up. 

Futher let's examine your made up, evidence free hypothesis. That an extra 15 dolllar charge for access to content people want by cable companies would cause people to leave.  If it is likily that they would do this with a cost why not just raise internet pricing? I mean that is all that it is in the end and in fact it is worse. Consumer behavior is EXTREMELY hard to change companies try at the own risk and when it comes to the internet the end user experience is I get on and do what i want without obstruction from my ISP.  That is not going to change. 

 

Ps. The internet hasnt changed much in a year and a half years. 

My hypothesis is not evidence free. I was an economics concentration in college. If you would like I can send you some papers that study these exact cases for corporations over the years. That extra $15 would be disguised as a 'fee' and most people would not change carriers over that. Plus with ISPs there is largely no place for most customers to churn to. Fees are the best way to increase prices while not changing the overall rate. That is basic marketing. Sure Verizon could have increased my price plan for video on FiOS, but that would make it seem like a price increase. By adding an RSN fee they are making the customer feel like they had no choice but to tack on the fee based on the RSNs. Another industry to look at is the airline industry. The extra fees are everywhere. I work in academia, and I can tell you most colleges have drastically slowed down tuition increases but guess what is much higher now, fees!!! That is still revenue! 

Also, there were cases already of ISPs harming the end user experience, so I don't know what you mean by that. Many people were complaining of throttling before. There are plenty of cases out there from 2012 until Net Neutrality.

[utiz4321]

42 minutes ago, JustinRP37 said:

My hypothesis is not evidence free. I was an economics concentration in college. If you would like I can send you some papers that study these exact cases for corporations over the years. That extra $15 would be disguised as a 'fee' and most people would not change carriers over that. Plus with ISPs there is largely no place for most customers to churn to. Fees are the best way to increase prices while not changing the overall rate. That is basic marketing. Sure Verizon could have increased my price plan for video on FiOS, but that would make it seem like a price increase. By adding an RSN fee they are making the customer feel like they had no choice but to tack on the fee based on the RSNs. Another industry to look at is the airline industry. The extra fees are everywhere. I work in academia, and I can tell you most colleges have drastically slowed down tuition increases but guess what is much higher now, fees!!! That is still revenue! 

Also, there were cases already of ISPs harming the end user experience, so I don't know what you mean by that. Many people were complaining of throttling before. There are plenty of cases out there from 2012 until Net Neutrality.

I have a b.s. in economics. So what? Your arguement is evidence free. ISP could simply raise the prices now, they could add any fees they want now. What you are talking about is a price hike and they can do it now if they wanted but apparently it doesnt maximize profits. 

The issue is wheather or not they can make this a two sides market and that is simply about were the profits for the industry go and who cares, market are more than capable of figuring that out. 

[utiz4321]

1 hour ago, jefbal99 said:

Take a look at Portugal....

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-portugal-internet-20171127-story.html

That is a mobile ISP and giving people extra data for certain apps isnt the same as making the internet in to pay cable.  If you read this very deceptive article if looks like in Portugal you buy a data package and then you can add extra data for certain apps. So what? That is a good deal for people who dont use those apps much and a good deal for those that do. It makes the plans more complex but look out how it compares to the US market. 

 

If you are on a metered plan in the US you go over your data there where to models: one you pay 10-15 dollars per gig in overages or your internet slowed down to the end of the month. In Portugal you can by extra data for 5 euros for specific apps, that sounds like a better deal for wide segments of the comsumer base. 

 

The fact that the only place in the entire article it is mentioned that this is for extra data for these apps is under the graphic and it is present as if you dont have access to these apps unless you pay, shows you why you have to criticle read news articles.  These things are written with agendas in mind. 

[JustinRP37]

38 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

I have a b.s. in economics. So what? Your arguement is evidence free. ISP could simply raise the prices now, they could add any fees they want now. What you are talking about is a price hike and they can do it now if they wanted but apparently it doesnt maximize profits. 

The issue is wheather or not they can make this a two sides market and that is simply about were the profits for the industry go and who cares, market are more than capable of figuring that out. 

Agree to disagree. People have presented evidence of companies trying to change the internet before net neutrality. You seem to favor the internet not being treated like a utility and I respect that. However, you cannot say that companies have not tried to change the way the internet was handled before Net Neutrality. That is where people are pointing out it HAS happened (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/06/13/fcc-probes-netflix-isp-fight/10439635/). You can see further what is predicted in this article (http://fortune.com/2017/11/21/net-neutrality-fcc-winners-losers/). While the Verge is not my go to news source this is a decent article (https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/28/16710450/fcc-net-neutrality-fact-sheet-is-total-nonsense). Paid fast lanes (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-quietly-drops-promise-not-to-charge-tolls-for-internet-fast-lanes/). Throttling before net neutrality (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-throttling-bittorrent-was-no-big-deal-fcc-says/). And if you do not think ISPs charge more simply because of competition in the area, I can tell you my cable bill is lower in the NYC area than my parents in CT and in-laws in Ohio merely because my building is a FiOS and Optimum building. The building down the street has higher prices for Optimum because they cannot receive FiOS.

So yes you can make the case that prices will not increase with a repeal of net neutrality, but there is evidence that this will not be the case as noted above. The costs of these paid fast lanes will ultimately come down to the consumer. If you think Netflix is going to pay huge interconnect fees WITHOUT increasing their prices to the consumer, then I have a bridge to sell you, especially if their competitors face the same fees. And again companies have been raising the price steadily of the internet over the past few years. This will likely just increase that cost on multiple fronts (content providers like Netflix) and your ISP bill with additional fees. People do not tend to switch ISPs readily, even with price increases. Again, I'm not looking to change your mind, but I do want you to at least notice why people might be nervous/upset about this change. Saying that market will handle it, is not a good argument when most people have to purchase from a monopoly. I am fully aware that you believe the markets can and will respond and I am making the case for a market inefficiency. Whether or not the repeal of net neutrality will actually change the way the internet is handled can be debated for awhile until we actually see changes. I suspect we would see changes within the year. But you cannot use the argument that because it has not been done in the past does not mean it will not in the future. Times change and the way we consume media has drastically changed over the last 5 years. 

 

As for price increases: http://bgr.com/2017/10/07/home-internet-service-providers-no-contract-price-2017/

[utiz4321]

21 minutes ago, JustinRP37 said:

Agree to disagree. People have presented evidence of companies trying to change the internet before net neutrality. You seem to favor the internet not being treated like a utility and I respect that. However, you cannot say that companies have not tried to change the way the internet was handled before Net Neutrality. That is where people are pointing out it HAS happened (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/06/13/fcc-probes-netflix-isp-fight/10439635/). You can see further what is predicted in this article (http://fortune.com/2017/11/21/net-neutrality-fcc-winners-losers/). While the Verge is not my go to news source this is a decent article (https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/28/16710450/fcc-net-neutrality-fact-sheet-is-total-nonsense). Paid fast lanes (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-quietly-drops-promise-not-to-charge-tolls-for-internet-fast-lanes/). Throttling before net neutrality (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-throttling-bittorrent-was-no-big-deal-fcc-says/). And if you do not think ISPs charge more simply because of competition in the area, I can tell you my cable bill is lower in the NYC area than my parents in CT and in-laws in Ohio merely because my building is a FiOS and Optimum building. The building down the street has higher prices for Optimum because they cannot receive FiOS.

So yes you can make the case that prices will not increase with a repeal of net neutrality, but there is evidence that this will not be the case as noted above. The costs of these paid fast lanes will ultimately come down to the consumer. If you think Netflix is going to pay huge interconnect fees WITHOUT increasing their prices to the consumer, then I have a bridge to sell you, especially if their competitors face the same fees. And again companies have been raising the price steadily of the internet over the past few years. This will likely just increase that cost on multiple fronts (content providers like Netflix) and your ISP bill with additional fees. People do not tend to switch ISPs readily, even with price increases. Again, I'm not looking to change your mind, but I do want you to at least notice why people might be nervous/upset about this change. Saying that market will handle it, is not a good argument when most people have to purchase from a monopoly. I am fully aware that you believe the markets can and will respond and I am making the case for a market inefficiency. Whether or not the repeal of net neutrality will actually change the way the internet is handled can be debated for awhile until we actually see changes. I suspect we would see changes within the year. But you cannot use the argument that because it has not been done in the past does not mean it will not in the future. Times change and the way we consume media has drastically changed over the last 5 years. 

The verge is extremelely biased on this issue. You are not getting analys from them you are getting an agenda pushed. The guy that ran the verge on 2012 said that there was only one choice for him in the election because obama promised to push net neutrality. 

Yeah, companies may try to change the way we interact with the internet but they have failed because they need to change it in a way that adds value to the consumer and no one has figure it out. 

As far as charging netflix for preferred access I am fine with that and see no reason why that shouldnt be allowed.  That is a dispute between huge companies about who gets what profits. 

Throttling bit torrent sites continues today if they think you are violating intellectual property. The internet is a dynamic place, if you make it a public utility you are going to murder that dynamism. 

 

And pricing is increasing now and regardless up net neutrality. You would have to show that the increase is caused by net neutrality going away. 

[WillM]

21 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

The verge is extremelely biased on this issue. You are not getting analys from them you are getting an agenda pushed. The guy that ran the verge on 2012 said that there was only one choice for him in the election because obama promised to push net neutrality. 

 

Regardless of ones view on this topic I think it's safe to say most "reporting" on this topic has just been horrible with a lot of it just thinly veiled advocacy. The Verge being one of the worst offenders. Hit pieces that seem designed to radicalize readers. Looking at some of the comments there are just scary. 

Personally I've never cared about this subject. It's always been a solution in search of a problem in my view. 

[ingenium]

The first company that does this will hemerage customers like crazy. Competition means you cant do something that would so obviously piss off your consumers. And any move to package the internet that increases the end user cost isnt going to happen. Let these mega corps fight out who gets what profits, it make no never mind to me or you. 

And that's the point you're missing, there isn't competition for most ISPs. It's a monopolistic environment. It's akin to saying to switch electric or gas companies, it's not possible. That's why it needs to be regulated just like other utilities.

Honestly, I'd take it a step further and prefer the government to own the infrastructure (fiber to the home), and then lease it to companies at a reasonable cost and contract out maintenance. That's how you ensure actual competition.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

2 hours ago, S4GRU said:

It hadn't happened before Net Neutrality. But it was starting to be discussed.

Is "discussed" a strong enough word?  The threats and schemes go back more than a dozen years, at least to 2005...

Quote

 

Interviewer: How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google (GOOG ), MSN, Vonage, and others?

SBC CEO Ed Whitacre: How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?

The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!

 

https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2005/10/5498-2/

AJ

[utiz4321]

47 minutes ago, ingenium said:

And that's the point you're missing, there isn't competition for most ISPs. It's a monopolistic environment. It's akin to saying to switch electric or gas companies, it's not possible. That's why it needs to be regulated just like other utilities.

Honestly, I'd take it a step further and prefer the government to own the infrastructure (fiber to the home), and then lease it to companies at a reasonable cost and contract out maintenance. That's how you ensure actual competition.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

There is a ton of competition even in equal areas and there will be more if those companies are allowed to make it a two sides market. 

[tybo31316]

There is a ton of competition even in equal areas and there will be more if those companies are allowed to make it a two sides market. 

You must be a shareholder of some of these ISPs. There’s not much competition at all. My city has basically 2 ISPs. Comcast in the city and outlying areas. Also patches of AT&T Fiber and DSL scattered throughout bits and pieces of Comcast coverage area.

[utiz4321]

21 minutes ago, tybo31316 said:

 

You must be a shareholder of some of these ISPs. There’s not much competition at all. My city has basically 2 ISPs. Comcast in the city and outlying areas. Also patches of AT&T Fiber and DSL scattered throughout bits and pieces of Comcast coverage area.

 

Wireless is cannibalizing low usage customers. I know plenty of people that use there wireless plan alone. 

 

Have you not seen the inovation that has taken place of the last decade on the pipe side of things? Nationalize it and that ends. What is cable was nationalized in 2000? 3mbs persecond, no wireless broadband.  That is not a world I would like to live in thanks. Markets work fine. 

[superbluepsd]

17 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

It is going to be fine if Netflix makes a little less money.  

Netflix isn't going to make a little less money they will just charge the consumer more for what they are already getting..

[jefbal99]

11 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

There is a ton of competition even in equal areas and there will be more if those companies are allowed to make it a two sides market. 

So much competition, ha.  My only options are capped plans from mobile providers or satellite.  No wired, no wisp, no competition, no options. I live two miles out of town, in a neighborhood, but we can't get the only cable provider to run service down here.

[utiz4321]

4 hours ago, superbluepsd said:

Netflix isn't going to make a little less money they will just charge the consumer more for what they are already getting..

Why dont they raise prices now then? If They arent maximizing profits now? 

[superbluepsd]

1 minute ago, utiz4321 said:

Why dont they raise prices now then? If They arent maximizing profits now? 

Because they are not yet paying the extra price for bandwidth that would cost them more without net neutrality.

[utiz4321]

1 hour ago, jefbal99 said:

So much competition, ha.  My only options are capped plans from mobile providers or satellite.  No wired, no wisp, no competition, no options. I live two miles out of town, in a neighborhood, but we can't get the only cable provider to run service down here.

That sounds like you chose to live in an area with limited access to broadband. Fortunately the majority of Americans did not inflict that probelm on themselves. Only 2 percent of americans are in you position. 63 percent have more than two broadband wired choices. 

[utiz4321]

3 minutes ago, superbluepsd said:

Because they are not yet paying the extra price for bandwidth that would cost them more without net neutrality.

So? If the could raise prices and increase profits (your claim) they would do it now. Why wait? That doesnt make sense.