Jump to content
JThorson

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

Recommended Posts

 

1 hour ago, bigsnake49 said:

Fixed 5G will not solve anything when the backhaul provider will charge you an arm and a leg and is the same provider whosex you're goring by providing competition for his last mile fixed wired connection.

There is a ton of backhaul competition. And even if there weren't it isnt as if a monopoly or duopoly can charge whatever they want. They are profit maximizing firms. You guys are freaking out over nothing. It would be quit amuzing to watch the melt down of the net neutral crowd if there werent bomb threats and threatening of children involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

 

There is a ton of backhaul competition. And even if there weren't it isnt as if a monopoly or duopoly can charge whatever they want. They are profit maximizing firms. You guys are freaking out over nothing. It would be quit amuzing to watch the melt down of the net neutral crowd if there werent bomb threats and threatening of children involved. 

I supported the FCC’s action yesterday.

I don’t like monopolies, but I dislike duopolies more because it’s the illusion of competition.

I support policies that ensure and encourage vibrant competition between multiple market participants.

When physical threats and intimidation are involved, that undermines any legitimacy to one’s position in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

This needs to be substantially improved.

Yup. This is the major problem. The process needs to be improved for fiber companies too. The reason why google  had cities bid to bring google fiber to their town was because the regulatory cost would have been too high to make it worth it to them.  Local government shouldn't be allowed to impose such burdens on infrastructure companies. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RedSpark said:

I supported the FCC’s action yesterday.

I don’t like monopolies, but I dislike duopolies more because it’s the illusion of competition.

I support policies that ensure and encourage vibrant competition between multiple market participants.

When physical threats and intimidation are involved, that undermines any legitimacy to one’s position in my opinion.

Duopolies do have competition and does transfer welfare to the consumer. Look, the number efficient of players in a market is determined largely by returns to scale.  The one thing the government can do to help a market have more competition and reach an efficient state is lower the fixed cost associated with regulations. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

Duopolies do have competition and does transfer welfare to the consumer. Look, the number efficient of players in a market is determined largely by returns to scale.  The one thing the government can do to help a market have more competition and reach an efficient state is lower the fixed cost associated with regulations. 

I concur with you about scale and fixed cost.

Government policies establish the guardrails for this equilibrium.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RedSpark said:

Put the blame where it belongs:

Officials on City Councils or Local Governments who don’t have pro-competition policies or who sign exclusive franchise agreements with one company.

 

So are you just going to ignore the anti-competitive practices that existing ISPs use to keep new providers out from their territories?

And again, we are several years away from 5G deployment, with or without government interference. It's not going to cover every neighborhood and reliability won't be guaranteed. 5G will not be a safeguard to NN.

You keep blaming the wrong people for the lack of competition.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

Yup. This is the major problem. The process needs to be improved for fiber companies too. The reason why google  had cities bid to bring google fiber to their town was because the regulatory cost would have been too high to make it worth it to them.  Local government shouldn't be allowed to impose such burdens on infrastructure companies. 

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/att-and-comcast-win-lawsuit-they-filed-to-stall-google-fiber-in-nashville/

 

But let's keep blaming local government, ja?😆

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

Jesus you guys are paranoid. ISP owned content before 2015 and they couldn't force people to only buy their services then. Look, walmart has their store brands but the can't force people going to their store to buy their brands. In fact They usually sell as the cheap alternative. 

 

How would a company force you to buy something anyway. The don't have access to force. 

I answered all of this in the previous post. Do you not read and just post? ISPs will be able to do what they want if they don't deceive their customers. 

Good luck getting the FTC to do anything about it. Any good lawyer will be able to throw any "anti-competitive" claims out the window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this repeal is that the ISP industry simply does not function as a free market in current form. Google, with near-infinite (and certainly more than many existing ISPs) financial and legal resources, has had so much trouble getting a foot in the door in this market that they've suspended expansion.

On top of that, our economy is so heavily dependent on the internet that any drastic change in pricing from all ISPs could have a real impact on the entire country. Now, I know that sort of thing won't happen any time soon because at that point the ISPs would incur the wrath of Congress, but all other things being equal the cost of using and doing business over the internet can (and likely will, though gradually) substantially increase without net neutrality regulation in place. You can nitpick industry market details, but there would definitely be a macro impact on productivity if every business had to handle the added overhead of paying for separate internet packages and data traffic. (Productivity is a determinant of SRAS...)

You can argue that the problem is at a local level, but then why the need to repeal net neutrality RIGHT THIS SECOND before you solve those local issues? (Or look into the blatantly obvious fraud in the public comment system.)

I completely understand the ISP viewpoint here, but we really shouldn't give them complete power over the entire Internet-dependent economy. Especially when there is essentially no invisible hand in place to correct the market. I can't think of another industry that everyone (individuals, firms, the government, etc) depends on as much as we do the Internet that isn't regulated like a public utility. And net neutrality is a far cry from actual utility-style regulation.

As I said, if legitimate competition can be introduced to the market then my points are moot. But I don't see that ever happening.

Tldr deregulation is great except when you're putting a massive economic growth medium on the line to protect the profits and growth of an industry that makes up a tiny slice of GDP compared to E-Commerce and digital services when there are plenty of alternatives to help out the ISPs available. And I have looked those numbers up before; it really is a small fraction.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, greenbastard said:

 

I do not think that is a very good case to use to try and make your argument though.  The one touch rule was ruled illegal and two, the rule was stupid to begin with.  With how advanced fiber and cable networks are these days, who is going to just roll over and allow an outside company touch their network?

 

No doubt, the true intention of taking this court was to slow down deployment of google fiber but they had a solid argument here and at the end of the day, it is just business as usual.  Take up your competitors time and money and hope they go away.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caspar347 said:

...but then why the need to repeal net neutrality RIGHT THIS SECOND before you solve those local issues?

It is a chicken or the egg scenario.  Free marketers questionably believe that regulation is the overwhelming impediment to investment in the last mile broadband sector, that extreme deregulation inherently will lead to innovation from incumbents and competition from new market entrants.  Never mind other barriers to entry -- entrenched incumbents, high startup costs, largely fixed market size -- that are characteristic of near, if not absolute natural monopoly, such that innovation and competition are not guaranteed to arise or may take an unacceptably long time to materialize.

AJ

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, greenbastard said:

So are you just going to ignore the anti-competitive practices that existing ISPs use to keep new providers out from their territories?

And again, we are several years away from 5G deployment, with or without government interference. It's not going to cover every neighborhood and reliability won't be guaranteed. 5G will not be a safeguard to NN.

You keep blaming the wrong people for the lack of competition.

Go on name them. What anti-competitive practices? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

Go on name them. What anti-competitive practices? 

Hmm, what industry lobby funds and helps write anti municipal broadband legislation?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

AJ

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, greenbastard said:

I answered all of this in the previous post. Do you not read and just post? ISPs will be able to do what they want if they don't deceive their customers. 

Good luck getting the FTC to do anything about it. Any good lawyer will be able to throw any "anti-competitive" claims out the window.

How do markets work in your mind? No company can do whatever it wants. No company can restrict new entrance by force without the government.  So in this fantasy world of yours, in which cable companies are omnipotent, then you would be right. That just isnt the way the world works.  

 

In any case the point I made from google fiber came from Schmidt himself.

 

His answer on Google fiber starts at 37:45

Note, he didnt complain about competitors,  he complains about Local government. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, WiWavelength said:

Hmm, what industry lobby funds and helps write anti municipal broadband legislation?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

AJ

Sounds like That is local government using force to me and the best solution would be to disallow municipalities from having this kind of power. The anticompetitive behavior comes from the government here.  Nice Try though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

Sounds like That is local government using force to me and the best solution would be to disallow municipalities from having this kind of power. The anticompetitive behavior comes from the government here.  Nice Try though. 

Give me a fucking break.  Stop with your "alternative facts" bullshit.

This is documented anti competitive behavior from the telecom industry by leading the charge, funding, and actually writing anti municipal broadband legislation -- out of fear of public works treading on its private enterprise rent seeking.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/who-wants-competition-big-cable-tries-outlawing-municipal-broadband-in-kansas/

AJ

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WiWavelength said:

Give me a fucking break.  Stop with your "alternative facts" bullshit.

This is documented anti competitive behavior from the telecom industry by leading the charge, funding, and actually writing anti municipal broadband legislation -- out of fear of public works treading on its private enterprise rent seeking.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/who-wants-competition-big-cable-tries-outlawing-municipal-broadband-in-kansas/

AJ

You are missing the point, behavior is an action. There are two separate actions occurring here: one lobbying and two government instituting a policy.  To lobby the government for anything isn't anti-competitive because everone can do it. It is hyper competitive actually. The government actions are the anticompetitive element in this process. Another way to put it is that cable companies, through lobbying, express a desire for the government to take anti-competitive action but the government is the one taking the anti-competitive action, and it is the only institution that actually can be anti-competitive. 

The government shouldn't have this kind of authority and this example you gave of government using it's force to create anticompetitive market would not be possible if it did not or if the voters didnt accept that this is a proper thing for the government to do. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

How do markets work in your mind? No company can do whatever it wants. No company can restrict new entrance by force without the government.  So in this fantasy world of yours, in which cable companies are omnipotent, then you would be right. That just isnt the way the world works.  

Tell us, how does the world work? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

Another way to put it is that cable companies, through lobbying, express a desire for the government to take anti-competitive action but the government is the one taking the anti-competitive action, and it is the only institution that actually can be anti-competitive. 

So you admit that ISPs WANT and are TRYING to be anti-competitive, yet you have no issue with the repeal of Net Neutrality, (which prevented anti-competitive practices)

Anyone else confused? :confused:

giphy.webp

Edited by greenbastard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, greenbastard said:

So you admit that ISPs WANT and are TRYING to be anti-competitive, yet you have no issue with the repeal of Net Neutrality, (which prevented anti-competitive practices)

Anyone else confused? :confused: 

So you admit that ISPs WANT and are TRYING to be anti-competitive, yet you have no issue with the repeal of Net Neutrality, (which prevented anti-competitive practices)

Anyone else confused?  

giphy.gif

 

Sorry you couldnt keep up, but my statement was clear. The government is the necessary and sufficient condition for the anticompetitive regulations. The cable companies are neither necessary or sufficient therefore the cable companies cannot be causal. 

33 minutes ago, greenbastard said:

Tell us, how does the world work? 

No where near the way you fantasize. Tell me grocery stores prevent Innovation amongst food producers? Yet, the charge both the consumer looking to shop with them, carry their own brands, charge other food producers for shelf space and some how the market works just fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

Sorry you couldnt keep up, but my statement was clear. The government is the necessary and sufficient condition for the anticompetitive regulations. The cable companies are neither necessary or sufficient therefore the cable companies cannot be causal. 

 

So blame the government for creating anti competitive laws and blame the government for creating laws that prevent anti-competitive practices???

Damned if you do, damned if you don't :rolleyes:. Are you some type of anarchist?

Quote

No where near the way you fantasize. Tell me grocery stores prevent Innovation amongst food producers? Yet, the charge both the consumer looking to shop with them, carry their own brands, charge other food producers for shelf space and some how the market works just fine.

torbush-wow.gif

This isn't an Apples to oranges comparison. This is an Apples to manure comparison. You absolutely cannot and should not compare ISPs to stores. It's laughable that you even tried.

Edited by greenbastard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, greenbastard said:

So blame the government for creating anti competitive laws and blame the government for creating laws that prevent anti-competitive practices???

Damned if you do, damned if you don't :rolleyes:. Are you some type of anarchist?

torbush-wow.gif

This isn't an Apples to oranges comparison. This is an Apples to manure comparison. You absolutely cannot and should not compare ISPs to stores. It's laughable that you even tried.

You are completely ignorant about economics. It is not apple to oranges it is apples to apples. They are both two sided market in with the distributers sell their own competing product with their suppliers.

 

If the government creates a problem with a shitty ser of laws and then kind of fixes it with another shitty set of laws, then yes the government is the problem.  You all seem to forget how innovative pipe has been and that treating them like a utility might not be the best thing in the world. After all how innovative are utilities generally? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2017 at 5:04 AM, rkitt said:

That's great for those with more than one option.
Now how about the 50 million household's that only have one option, or you just saying sucks to be them.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-million-us-homes-have-only-one-25mbps-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/?amp=1

I would be curious as to how the arrive at that number. I omce live in an appartment complex that had one provider wired to in because the had worked out a deal with that ISP.  If the count those types of arrangments they are over counting as they are still choices. The end user has simplied allowed the property owner to make it instead of them. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure method matters.

I can say this though I am one of those 50 million households.  I live 5 miles from the cities edge and I have exactly 1 option for broadband and that is spectrum.  In the area here there are a couple subdivisions so say 30 - 50 houses in my immediate area all with only Spectrum for broadband (25 mbps or higher rated speed).   AT&T, not that I would ever use that crap company, has no offerings out here.  Too far out for DSL as well all the providers say, so since my job requires internet 100% I have to accept whatever spectrum offers at whatever price they offer it at as there is no other reasonable option.

 

Before some one pipes in with the 4G/5G wireless will fix it,  that wont work as i regularly because of working out of the house use between 350gb and 1 tb a month depending on how many patches or OS updates I have to push to machines at work and of course personal usage like streaming video and music.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

You are completely ignorant about economics. It is not apple to oranges it is apples to apples. They are both two sided market in with the distributers sell their own competing product with their suppliers.

 

If the government creates a problem with a shitty ser of laws and then kind of fixes it with another shitty set of laws, then yes the government is the problem.  You all seem to forget how innovative pipe has been and that treating them like a utility might not be the best thing in the world. After all how innovative are utilities generally? 

If you can't see how ISPs and market stores are Apples to oranges (but closer to manure), then I can't help you. You want to believe your alternatives facts, then knock yourself out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Oh yeah I do not disagree with you there. Satellite Internet is very outdated. As is Dial and DSL.  So I’m interested to see if they actually do rural deployment of 5g
    • not in urban areas, but for rural, yes it will scoop dial up and dsl customers right up, not to mention satellite internet customers 
    • This is one of a few mobilitie small cells I have found in the area. I'm wondering if it is sprint because there is no relay installed. Actually some that had the relay before has since been removed. It looks to be connected to a wire line network... The two underground communication hatches are on the sidewalk and the unnamed one in the landscaping, yards away from the site. As mentioned, one is unnamed and one says Comcast. Let me know what you guys think. Just as a disclaimer, this site wasn't here about two weeks ago. (Midtown Detroit) Also; Verizon is using a completely different vendor in SE Mich so I highly doubt this site is a verizon one.  https://imgur.com/gallery/irfkNzk If I have time i'd like to create a map of all the sprint small cells provided by mobility in SE Mich... stay tuned as my time is limited. 
    • Okay so I managed to make it out to that other wireline mobilitie site today(or yesterday lol whatever haha) It was getting dark so my photos are not the best but here is what I have. (Btw I also included some of the development going on in this area that may have been reason Sprint decided to locate a small cell here. That and well, its pretty close to Ford Field, Comerica Park and Little Caesars Arena.) Again, sorry for the poor lighting but this is definitely another small cell connected by wire-line as apposed to relay. The last few images are construction for a massive development from Bedrock, which is affiliated with Rocket Fiber.(Both part of quicken loans if that matters) They could be providing the backhaul but unfortunately due to lighting the only wire-line on the utility poles i could spot with a name was Comcast; that's not to say there were many other lines on the utility poles. It was just to dark to spot. Anyway;  here it is:  https://imgur.com/a/HTaHdmD Any thoughts? 
    • Okay so I managed to make it out to that other wireline mobilitie site today(or yesterday lol whatever haha) It was getting dark so my photos are not the best but here is what I have. (Btw I also included some of the development going on in this area that may have been reason Sprint decided to locate a small cell here. That and well, its pretty close to Ford Field, Comerica Park and Little Caesars Arena.) Again, sorry for the poor lighting but this is definitely another small cell connected by wire-line as apposed to relay. The last few images are construction for a massive development from Bedrock, which is affiliated with Rocket Fiber.(Both part of quicken loans if that matters) They could be providing the backhaul but unfortunately due to lighting the only wire-line on the utility poles i could spot with a name was Comcast; that's not to say there were many other lines on the utility poles. It was just to dark to spot. Anyway;  here it is:  https://imgur.com/a/HTaHdmD Any thoughts?   
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×