Jump to content
JThorson

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

Recommended Posts

On 12/15/2017 at 2:06 PM, 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.

No. I’m going to put the blame squarely on government at the local level for failing to ensure fair competition. These companies need to be held accountable and fined as appropriate for these exclusionary practices.

5G Wireless will inevitably happen... and it would happen sooner if the permitting process was more efficienty run and administered by local, state and the federal government.

I blame local governments for failing to provide the conditions for multiple market participants and for failing to prevent anticompetitive actions taken by incumbents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2017 at 10:21 AM, 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 whose ox you're goring by providing competition for his last mile fixed wired connection.

So are you saying you would support more competition for backhaul?

What government-level policies would be conducive for facilitating this?

Share this post


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

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. 

ISP’s aren’t charities. They are profit maximizing public (and perhaps privately held) companies.

They advocate for their own interests by lobbying government officials, as they are allowed to do by law, but those officials are not obligated to listen or abide by their policy requests. If those policy requests include anti-competitive measures or actions, officials who enact those measures are complicit and ultimately responsible for the abusive market practices of which you speak. 

Those same officials are also charged and empowered with the responsibility for ensuring viable conditions for competition. If these officials fail to do so, the responsibility is on them and only them. That’s where the blame belongs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2017 at 10:31 AM, rkitt said:

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.

 

 

Does the repeal of net neutrality make it more or less likely you’ll have a competitor to choose from?

Share this post


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

Does the repeal of net neutrality make it more or less likely you’ll have a competitor to choose from?

I doubt it is going to alter the availability of a provider in either way.

 

What I can see happening eventually though is spectrum going and saying we are going to set up lanes and saying look I know your paying x $ for 100 Mbps connection but any traffic going to Y domain (work) or z domain (netflix, directtv now, essentially any non spectrum owned stream)  is going to be slowed to 10 Mbps unless you pay y $ additional to get back to the 100 Mbps you are already paying for.

 

Realistically though even if there were multiple providers available they could all put into play the pay for lanes or paid QOS and keep the pricing all close to each other any way so its not like having multiple options is really going to quell the desire to squeeze as much money out of the consumer as possible.  

 

Sure there could be the straight talks of internet that will say okay we can give you the connection for 50% of what spectrum charges and there will be no pay lanes no throttling of traffic but it is at 25 Mbps and capped at 200 GB which could be an option for some

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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. 

The question is do the two markets share relavent characteristics in common and they do. You should really spend some time either reading about the economics of a two side markets or just informing yourself on some the basic insights of economics before you go off and start fantasizing about the doom markets will inflict because companies "can" do something.  People like you are why we cant have nice things. 

Share this post


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

I doubt it is going to alter the availability of a provider in either way.

 

What I can see happening eventually though is spectrum going and saying we are going to set up lanes and saying look I know your paying x $ for 100 Mbps connection but any traffic going to Y domain (work) or z domain (netflix, directtv now, essentially any non spectrum owned stream)  is going to be slowed to 10 Mbps unless you pay y $ additional to get back to the 100 Mbps you are already paying for.

 

Realistically though even if there were multiple providers available they could all put into play the pay for lanes or paid QOS and keep the pricing all close to each other any way so its not like having multiple options is really going to quell the desire to squeeze as much money out of the consumer as possible.  

 

Sure there could be the straight talks of internet that will say okay we can give you the connection for 50% of what spectrum charges and there will be no pay lanes no throttling of traffic but it is at 25 Mbps and capped at 200 GB which could be an option for some

That will not happen. You are not going to charge the end user for 100 mbs for part of the internet and then 10 for everything else unless they end users pays again to get it back up to 100.  That would run into all kinds of legal issues and in against the pre-2015 FCC rules governing broadband that we are reverting too.

 

The best way to think of "fast lanes" is two fold: a way of mananging network trafic and a way of pipe capturing a greater share of the profits on a two sides market. 

What would you rather have happen during peak times; everything you try to access is slowed (and streaming services impossible) or Netflix (and other) popular services to work fine and everything else is slow? 

 

Futher if pipe is able to capture a greater share of the profits their returns on investment are better and it becomes more atractive for new entrances. 

Pipe should not be treated as a utility unless you believe we have now or in the very near future reached the apogee of broadband internet. I don't. The industry has been incredibly Dynamic and Innovative and will continue to be so as long as regulations dont strangle it to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That will not happen. You are not going to charge the end user for 100 mbs for part of the internet and then 10 for everything else unless they end users pays again to get it back up to 100.  That would run into all kinds of legal issues and in against the pre-2015 FCC rules governing broadband that we are reverting too.

 

 

So what positives (for consumers) do you think can come out of ending Net Neutrality?

 

Share this post


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

ISP’s aren’t charities. 

Nobody is arguing they are. Where did you read this?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The question is do the two markets share relavent characteristics in common and they do. 

This is the exact definition of "alternative facts".

A real fact is that I can buy my food from Kroger, Whole Foods, Walmart, Tom Thumb, Albertsons, Fiesta, Target, Aldi, Trader Joe's, Sprouts, and an endless amount of ethnic specialty stores in and around Dallas.

I can only get my internet from Spectrum.

 

But keep believing that these two markets are sooo similar :rolleyes:

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

This is the exact definition of "alternative facts".

A real fact is that I can buy my food from Kroger, Whole Foods, Walmart, Tom Thumb, Albertsons, Fiesta, Target, Aldi, Trader Joe's, Sprouts, and an endless amount of ethnic specialty stores in and around Dallas.

I can only get my internet from Spectrum.

 

But keep believing that these two markets are sooo similar :rolleyes:

Lots of people have one grocery to choose from, for example people that live in rural areas. They arent forced to by the store brand. 

 

You might have access to one broad band provider where you live but compatition among broad band providers exist at a market level. How many providers does dallas have? 

https://broadbandnow.com/Texas/Dallas

45. That is a very competitive mark.  But countinue being completely ignorant of have markets work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tybo31316 said:

 

So what positives (for consumers) do you think can come out of ending Net Neutrality?

 

I think it will go along way in keeping the ISPs innovative and increase investment if ISP are able to capture more of the industries profit, which isnt guaranteed at all. It might be the case That demand for services like netfilx are sufficient  inelastic they wont have that ability and given that netflix brand is stronger than compainies like Comcast that might the case. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

40 minutes ago, greenbastard said:

Nobody is arguing they are. Where did you read this?

Not sure what you want me to say other than that no one has said this, except for me: I’m making a declarative statement that these companies are not charities. They do not function as non-profits and we cannot expect that market behavior from them.

Interested in your thoughts on the rest of my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, tybo31316 said:

 

So what positives (for consumers) do you think can come out of ending Net Neutrality?

 

See this MOU between the FCC and FTC.

https://www.ftc.gov/policy/cooperation-agreements/restoring-internet-freedom-fcc-ftc-memorandum-understanding

Things will be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think secretly. The big corporations (Google, Amazon and Facebook) wanted Net Neutrality to be repealed. They have enough money to put up a fight against the FCC and didn’t. I think they wanted to see Net Neutrality repealed to keep their place in the top spot. Those corporations can pay their way through anything.

Share this post


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

Lots of people have one grocery to choose from, for example people that live in rural areas. They arent forced to by the store brand. 

 

I used to live in a little small town called Anderson, TX. Ever heard of it? Probably not. It's off the beaten path and has absolutely no grocery stores. Whenever I needed to buy produce, my only choice was the local gas station which carried essentials (potatoes, carrots, oranges, bananas, etc.). But you know what I did if I wanted better variety? I drove my happy ass down to College Station or Conroe to stock up on goods. It wasn't hard and it wasn't impossible. HEB, Sam's Club, Target, Walmart, Kroger, Albertsons, even a damn Michoacana. If I want to buy groceries, I just drive and buy it.

If I want Comcast as an ISP, it may as well be impossible. Getting the option of buying from a wide variety of ISPs isn't as easy as getting in your car and driving.

You can awe at that number you provided all you want, but it's an alternative fact...nay, it's fake news. Those 45 providers are all spread out among the metroplex and not competing with each other. Stop being dense. They're aren't a threat to each other, hence NO COMPETITION.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Not sure what you want me to say other than that no one has said this, except for me: I’m making a declarative statement that these companies are not charities. They do not function as non-profits and we cannot expect that market behavior from them.

Interested in your thoughts on the rest of my post.

Your post was pretty self-contradictory. You pretty much blame local government for creating this anti-competitive environment......Yet, you don't want them implementing proactive laws that will prevent future anti-competitive practices by ISPs.

In other words;

297.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I used to live in a little small town called Anderson, TX. Ever heard of it? Probably not. It's off the beaten path and has absolutely no grocery stores. Whenever I needed to buy produce, my only choice was the local gas station which carried essentials (potatoes, carrots, oranges, bananas, etc.). But you know what I did if I wanted better variety? I drove my happy ass down to College Station or Conroe to stock up on goods. It wasn't hard and it wasn't impossible. HEB, Sam's Club, Target, Walmart, Kroger, Albertsons, even a damn Michoacana. If I want to buy groceries, I just drive and buy it.

If I want Comcast as an ISP, it may as well be impossible. Getting the option of buying from a wide variety of ISPs isn't as easy as getting in your car and driving.

You can awe at that number you provided all you want, but it's an alternative fact...nay, it's fake news. Those 45 providers are all spread out among the metroplex and not competing with each other. Stop being dense. They're aren't a threat to each other, hence NO COMPETITION.

What does me "probably" not hearimg of a Podunk town in texas have to do with anything. I know this a hard comcept for you to understand, but competition amongest ISPs doesnt happen at the individual home level. It occurs, for a variety of reason at a market level. For example, there are 20 ISPs in my market. Most residence have alternatives to choose from, some one (most of those are apartment complexes) and some there. The people with only one choice pays the same rate as the people with 3, why because it is the overall market competition that governs the price and incentives.

 

Ps if you want comcast you can get it, move. It is inconvenient but then again so is driving 3 hours every other week to get it to a different grocery store.

You are kind of proving my point with your last example. 

Share this post


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

What does me "probably" not hearimg of a Podunk town in texas have to do with anything. I know this a hard comcept for you to understand, but competition amongest ISPs doesnt happen at the individual home level. It occurs, for a variety of reason at a market level. For example, there are 20 ISPs in my market. Most residence have alternatives to choose from, some one (most of those are apartment complexes) and some there. The people with only one choice pays the same rate as the people with 3, why because it is the overall market competition that governs the price and incentives.

Then why do I get different prices for Charter than what At&t offers my neighbors down the road? It's not similarly priced.

Share this post


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

Ps if you want comcast you can get it, move. It is inconvenient but then again so is driving 3 hours every other week to get it to a different grocery store.

You are kind of proving my point with your last example. 

 :realitycheck:

Dude...just stop.

Share this post


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

 :realitycheck:

Dude...just stop.

That was the most convincing thing I have ever seen. I think I am going to through out everything that i learned studying economics because of that little emoji holding a sign that says "reality check" and your statement "dude....just stop". Grow up. Seriously. 

Share this post


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

Then why do I get different prices for Charter than what At&t offers my neighbors down the road? It's not similarly priced.

Charter doesnt offer a different price to you than it offers to your neighbor down the street. ATT offers you a different price because it is a different service, using a different technology and a different brand. 

To clarify, the price each company sets is determined at a market level. The price carries between companies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of the high volume traffic of utiz4321's posts arguing against Net Neutrality, his posts are being hidden for the time being -- until such time that utiz4321 can reach a mutually beneficial, private financial agreement with S4GRU.  Said arrangement will allow for utiz4321's posts to be displayed without delay, while also accounting for the greater burden placed upon S4GRU staff to monitor his volume of posts, enabling additional investment in S4GRU infrastructure costs, and opening up new, innovative ways for S4GRU to deliver services to its members.

This is a required disclosure message of any newly implemented blocking/throttling policies at non neutral S4GRU.

AJ

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


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

Because of the high volume traffic of utiz4321's posts arguing against Net Neutrality, his posts are being hidden for the time being -- until such time that utiz4321 can reach a mutually beneficial, private financial agreement with S4GRU.  Said arrangement will allow for utiz4321's posts to be displayed without delay, while also accounting for the greater burden placed upon S4GRU staff to monitor his volume of posts, enabling additional investment in S4GRU infrastructure costs, and opening up new, innovative ways for S4GRU to deliver services to its members.

This is a required disclosure message of any newly implemented blocking/throttling policies at non neutral S4GRU.

AJ

This seems like an abuse of power. Especially if to prove a point.

But go ahead and remove my post too. I guess there’s no one to stop you. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Your post was pretty self-contradictory. You pretty much blame local government for creating this anti-competitive environment......Yet, you don't want them implementing proactive laws that will prevent future anti-competitive practices by ISPs.

In other words;

297.png

I don’t agree that it’s self-contradictory.

Given its inherent responsibilities and authorities, local government is actually the problem and the solution here.

Local government has the responsibility to ensure the market conditions for both competition and fair competitive practices at a local level.

Net Neutrality is not necessarily the best way to accomplish either of these goals.

Instead, local Governments should encourage market entry and overbuilding by providers by reducing bureaucracy and improving efficiency to do so.

Companies want to make money. Even in a market with a single ISP, they’re there because they think they’ll make money there... otherwise they wouldn’t be there at all.

It’s possible to have protections for customers without resorting to full Title II which can have impacts on CapEx for example. I support light touch regulation as Ajit Pai discussed here in a PBS interview back in April:

To the extent that state governments and the federal government can improve the processes for network expansion by providers, they should do so.

For example, we all want Sprint’s network to improve and expand coverage. These government bodies can either make it harder or easier for this to happen.

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


×