utiz4321

He was pretty good at being a public brand advocate for sprint. Too bad he is being cut out.

Neither. The point isnt correct.

They can't. They are a profit maximizing firm and demand for their produce isnt perfectly inelastic.

If netflix can get them to pay, yes. But they can work that out amongst themselves. The profits of the industry isnt my concern.

We were talking about wired. But now that you mention it what companies are most responsible for wireless data being unusable if it we're truly unlimited? Netflix, YouTube? Hmmm....... Should they flip part of the bill?

It isnt about keeping the internet open. It is about big content asking the government to tilt the profits of an industry towards them. It is package as keeping the internet open, but that is just a marketing. Low caps are the way ISP make up for not being able to charge netflex for the data they use. Caps are an effect of net neutrality not solved by it.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That isnt true. People have to want to go to the internet to want to pay for the ISP. the content providers are not going to be chanrge so much, nor will content providers be able to pass the cost on to consumer. Look, why would the ISP s just charge consumers more per gig so that it would be prohibatively expensive for them to stream video? That is another way the could go even in a net neutral environment, but guess what, they havent done it. Weird thing is it doesn't maximize profits. They arent going to charge the other side of the market so much that they make netflix so expensice no one would use it, that would kill their business because that is what people want to use on the internet, why they want to pay for ISPs. You guys are scaring youselves with fantastic outcomes that arent coming to happen and dont make sense, all to protect the profits of big content. It is going to be fine if Netflix makes a little less money.

You are missing the point. They are a symbiotic industry. One cant exist with out the other. ISPs have no inceitive to destroy innovation on the internet. Small companies wont be effected until they become large consumers of bandwidth, I.e. large content providers. The innovation of the internet is good for the ISP s.

If netflix doesnt want to pay? That is who they are tryinf to charge. Look, these companies are more than able of figuring out the costs and pricing for the delievery of content. The government should just let them. I dont see why the government would be better able to fihure out the proper pricing of content delivery.

I think there are some free speach issues that i am concerned about but that extends to platform owners like Facebook and google. I think these platforms have become so ubiquitous that i am uncomfortable with a hand full of companies having the ability to restrict access to them. But that can exist in a net neutrality environment, so that isnt a solution to the problem I am concered with.

Why wouod the FCC have any idea what they "right" amount of wireless carriers are? Unless you consume 1 percent of the internet traffic at any given time you have little to worry about fron your ISP. ISPs do currently restrict torrenting because they can be held libel for their users actions. if that was gone, they wouldnt care.

It depends on the depends on the elasticity of demand for Netflix, which I would think is rather high, meaning Netflix would pay most of the addition cost. Look, why wouldnt the ISPs just raise prices on consumers by the amount they want to extract from Netflix? The same reason, elasticities of demand. It wont raise costs to consumers, it just adjusts the distrabution of profits.

You are mixing up different things into the net neutrality basket. ISP were messing and are messing with torrent sites because content providers were threatening them with law suits. The part about netflix is true but why do you carw who gets what profits?

Exactly that. The victim culture needs to die and die hard. You went into the store signed up for the lease, you need to educate yourself about what it was you were signing up for. If they lied to you that is fraud, if you simply didnt educate yourself that is on you.