Net neutrality ends June 11, Senate Democrats force last-minute vote

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 76
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    I agree with Mr Ajit Pai. Future services like self driving cars ,will need prioritization over video or music streaming. Government regulations always have unintended consequences. If big companies like Apple & Netflix support NN ,then it must be good news for them.
    They support net neutrality. They don't support the revocation.
    They support it because it benefits them. When government gets involved in things like this, no good comes of it.
    designr
  • Reply 22 of 76
    ceek74ceek74 Posts: 324member
    ceek74 said:
    I literally have a choice of one ISP.  Great choices.
    Do you live in a small town or in a large metropolitan area? I'm guessing a small town.
    Yep, small town that used to have 3 ISPs.
  • Reply 23 of 76
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Good article which outlines why competition makes for a better Internet than a government regulated Internet, "The Government Did Invent The Internet, But The Market Made It Glorious::  https://mises.org/library/government-did-invent-internet-market-made-it-glorious
     
    This isn't a political issue, it's an economic one.
    edited May 2018 designr
  • Reply 24 of 76
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 1,139member
    Personally, if NN rules are repealed than my hope is that Apple, Google and Amazon will pool their resourses and build out true high speed internet services without throttling of any service throughout the country and the world.

    Most of us would jump on it and abandon the price gouging ISPs like Comcast etc.

    With NN out of the way, we will pay more and get less no matter what the free market zealots say...

    I just moved to an urban adjacent neighborhood and I enquired about fiberoptic internet.  None was available.  I only had the choice of an adequate internet service with Comcast or shitty DSL with AT&T.  To get adequate speed on Comcast, they forced me to accept a bundle I did not want or need.

    For those of you that oppose NN for your idealism of true markets, come down to the real world.
    Alex1N
  • Reply 25 of 76
    chelinchelin Posts: 91member
    ceek74 said:
    I literally have a choice of one ISP.  Great choices.
    Do you live in a small town or in a large metropolitan area? I'm guessing a small town.
    When I lived in NYC I had TW to “choose” and here in SF I have Xfinity to “choose”.
    The American infrastructure is crumbling but no one is willing to do any investments for the long haul.


    JaiOh81
  • Reply 26 of 76
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    chelin said:
    ceek74 said:
    I literally have a choice of one ISP.  Great choices.
    Do you live in a small town or in a large metropolitan area? I'm guessing a small town.
    When I lived in NYC I had TW to “choose” and here in SF I have Xfinity to “choose”.
    The American infrastructure is crumbling but no one is willing to do any investments for the long haul.


    When competition and profit are involved, things do get maintained. Look at the state of the roads in most cities, versus the advances from cellular service providers. Cities responsible for maintaining basic things are unable to do so because the rising costs of public service employee retirements and benefits. Those costs are literally bankrupting cities.
    designr
  • Reply 27 of 76
    kerpowkerpow Posts: 12member
    badmonk said:
    I just moved to an urban adjacent neighborhood and I enquired about fiberoptic internet.  None was available.  I only had the choice of an adequate internet service with Comcast or shitty DSL with AT&T.  To get adequate speed on Comcast, they forced me to accept a bundle I did not want or need.

    For those of you that oppose NN for your idealism of true markets, come down to the real world.
    You're not forced to accept a bundled package from Comcast. You can opt for Internet only and choose the speed you want to pay for. You can get somewhat better prices if you bundle services, but you are not forced to do so. 

    https://www.cabletv.com/xfinity/internet
    SpamSandwichAlex1N
  • Reply 28 of 76
    minisu1980minisu1980 Posts: 132member
    badmonk said:
    Personally, if NN rules are repealed than my hope is that Apple, Google and Amazon will pool their resourses and build out true high speed internet services without throttling of any service throughout the country and the world.

    Most of us would jump on it and abandon the price gouging ISPs like Comcast etc.

    With NN out of the way, we will pay more and get less no matter what the free market zealots say...

    I just moved to an urban adjacent neighborhood and I enquired about fiberoptic internet.  None was available.  I only had the choice of an adequate internet service with Comcast or shitty DSL with AT&T.  To get adequate speed on Comcast, they forced me to accept a bundle I did not want or need.

    For those of you that oppose NN for your idealism of true markets, come down to the real world.
    Agreed, those companies were free to do that before net neutrality, and Google even tried to do it, however the regional monopolies that have been given to the encumbants (for political donations?) made entering the market not profitable for competitors even one with pockets as deep as Google’s. Truthfully, I can only lay part of the blame on the broken ISP market place, Goggle has a almost uncanny knack for just giving up on all their “change the world ideas” and a pretty poor track record of be able to run a profitable business outside of search.
  • Reply 29 of 76
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    badmonk said:
    Personally, if NN rules are repealed than my hope is that Apple, Google and Amazon will pool their resourses and build out true high speed internet services without throttling of any service throughout the country and the world.

    Most of us would jump on it and abandon the price gouging ISPs like Comcast etc.

    With NN out of the way, we will pay more and get less no matter what the free market zealots say...

    I just moved to an urban adjacent neighborhood and I enquired about fiberoptic internet.  None was available.  I only had the choice of an adequate internet service with Comcast or shitty DSL with AT&T.  To get adequate speed on Comcast, they forced me to accept a bundle I did not want or need.

    For those of you that oppose NN for your idealism of true markets, come down to the real world.
    Agreed, those companies were free to do that before net neutrality, and Google even tried to do it, however the regional monopolies that have been given to the encumbants (for political donations?) made entering the market not profitable for competitors even one with pockets as deep as Google’s. Truthfully, I can only lay part of the blame on the broken ISP market place, Goggle has a almost uncanny knack for just giving up on all their “change the world ideas” and a pretty poor track record of be able to run a profitable business outside of search.
    You're on the right track. The companies most dependent on high-speed or widespread Internet services, such as Facebook, Netflix, Google, etc. could very easily start buying up cable or fiber systems in cooperation or in competition. Plus, since the development and deployment of low-latency satellite-based Internet is now underway, the ground-based competition with need to compete.
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 30 of 76
    minisu1980minisu1980 Posts: 132member
    kerpow said:
    badmonk said:
    I just moved to an urban adjacent neighborhood and I enquired about fiberoptic internet.  None was available.  I only had the choice of an adequate internet service with Comcast or shitty DSL with AT&T.  To get adequate speed on Comcast, they forced me to accept a bundle I did not want or need.

    For those of you that oppose NN for your idealism of true markets, come down to the real world.
    You're not forced to accept a bundled package from Comcast. You can opt for Internet only and choose the speed you want to pay for. You can get somewhat better prices if you bundle services, but you are not forced to do so. 

    https://www.cabletv.com/xfinity/internet
    Bundling should be illegal. Why should I have to pay more for one service simply because I am unwilling to buy a different device I don’t want or need.
    JaiOh81
  • Reply 31 of 76
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    kerpow said:
    badmonk said:
    I just moved to an urban adjacent neighborhood and I enquired about fiberoptic internet.  None was available.  I only had the choice of an adequate internet service with Comcast or shitty DSL with AT&T.  To get adequate speed on Comcast, they forced me to accept a bundle I did not want or need.

    For those of you that oppose NN for your idealism of true markets, come down to the real world.
    You're not forced to accept a bundled package from Comcast. You can opt for Internet only and choose the speed you want to pay for. You can get somewhat better prices if you bundle services, but you are not forced to do so. 

    https://www.cabletv.com/xfinity/internet
    Bundling should be illegal. Why should I have to pay more for one service simply because I am unwilling to buy a different device I don’t want or need.
    Illegal? No, competition and the forces of supply and demand should sort things out. More legislation for every perceived "ill" is what makes things worse.
    designr
  • Reply 32 of 76
    minisu1980minisu1980 Posts: 132member
    badmonk said:
    Personally, if NN rules are repealed than my hope is that Apple, Google and Amazon will pool their resourses and build out true high speed internet services without throttling of any service throughout the country and the world.

    Most of us would jump on it and abandon the price gouging ISPs like Comcast etc.

    With NN out of the way, we will pay more and get less no matter what the free market zealots say...

    I just moved to an urban adjacent neighborhood and I enquired about fiberoptic internet.  None was available.  I only had the choice of an adequate internet service with Comcast or shitty DSL with AT&T.  To get adequate speed on Comcast, they forced me to accept a bundle I did not want or need.

    For those of you that oppose NN for your idealism of true markets, come down to the real world.
    Agreed, those companies were free to do that before net neutrality, and Google even tried to do it, however the regional monopolies that have been given to the encumbants (for political donations?) made entering the market not profitable for competitors even one with pockets as deep as Google’s. Truthfully, I can only lay part of the blame on the broken ISP market place, Goggle has a almost uncanny knack for just giving up on all their “change the world ideas” and a pretty poor track record of be able to run a profitable business outside of search.
    You're on the right track. The companies most dependent on high-speed or widespread Internet services, such as Facebook, Netflix, Google, etc. could very easily start buying up cable or fiber systems in cooperation or in competition.
    That is probably the only way to accomplish this in the current legal/political environment, buy up monopolies so you can have your own. I doubt the big providers who own the vast majority of the market would take even a premium buyout price. There is far more money to be made by suppressing free speech and competing services which the current administration has no issue with, ala the end of net neutrality which was put in place to prevent this very thing.
    Alex1N
  • Reply 33 of 76
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    badmonk said:
    Personally, if NN rules are repealed than my hope is that Apple, Google and Amazon will pool their resourses and build out true high speed internet services without throttling of any service throughout the country and the world.

    Most of us would jump on it and abandon the price gouging ISPs like Comcast etc.

    With NN out of the way, we will pay more and get less no matter what the free market zealots say...

    I just moved to an urban adjacent neighborhood and I enquired about fiberoptic internet.  None was available.  I only had the choice of an adequate internet service with Comcast or shitty DSL with AT&T.  To get adequate speed on Comcast, they forced me to accept a bundle I did not want or need.

    For those of you that oppose NN for your idealism of true markets, come down to the real world.
    Agreed, those companies were free to do that before net neutrality, and Google even tried to do it, however the regional monopolies that have been given to the encumbants (for political donations?) made entering the market not profitable for competitors even one with pockets as deep as Google’s. Truthfully, I can only lay part of the blame on the broken ISP market place, Goggle has a almost uncanny knack for just giving up on all their “change the world ideas” and a pretty poor track record of be able to run a profitable business outside of search.
    You're on the right track. The companies most dependent on high-speed or widespread Internet services, such as Facebook, Netflix, Google, etc. could very easily start buying up cable or fiber systems in cooperation or in competition.
    That is probably the only way to accomplish this in the current legal/political environment, buy up monopolies so you can have your own. I doubt the big providers who own the vast majority of the market would take even a premium buyout price. There is far more money to be made by suppressing free speech and competing services which the current administration has no issue with, ala the end of net neutrality which was put in place to prevent this very thing.
    The way to prevent monopolies is to make sure local markets aren't protected from competition. All monopolies in US history came about because they were protected FROM competition.

    Also, "Net Neutrality" is a fake solution. It was enacted very late in the second half of the previous administration as a bone tossed to special interests. Things were fine before it was enacted and they'll be better after it's gone.
    edited May 2018 designr
  • Reply 34 of 76
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    I guess the hope is that 5G will make it somewhat easier for companies to offer competing internet services, since they would be able to provide competitive speeds without running a cable to your house. 
    Yeah, but, cable offers unlimited data while cell service charges something like $10 per GB.
    Alex1N
  • Reply 35 of 76
    minisu1980minisu1980 Posts: 132member
    kerpow said:
    badmonk said:
    I just moved to an urban adjacent neighborhood and I enquired about fiberoptic internet.  None was available.  I only had the choice of an adequate internet service with Comcast or shitty DSL with AT&T.  To get adequate speed on Comcast, they forced me to accept a bundle I did not want or need.

    For those of you that oppose NN for your idealism of true markets, come down to the real world.
    You're not forced to accept a bundled package from Comcast. You can opt for Internet only and choose the speed you want to pay for. You can get somewhat better prices if you bundle services, but you are not forced to do so. 

    https://www.cabletv.com/xfinity/internet
    Bundling should be illegal. Why should I have to pay more for one service simply because I am unwilling to buy a different device I don’t want or need.
    Illegal? No, competition and the forces of supply and demand should sort things out. More legislation for every perceived "ill" is what makes things worse.
    As I understand it this practice is already outlawed in several other industries. Plus it is not a perceived ill, I have one choice for internet that is of usable speed, those that offer unusable speeds cost even more. I don’t want cable tv as I don’t watch tv nor do I want their phone service because I conduct all my business over my cell phone. As a result of me not agreeing to aggregately give them more of my money per month by taking the bundled package, I get to pay more for the same internet service. If I don’t like it I have no place to turn and my only option is to go without something that has been deemed a basic human right by more enlightened countries. It is easy to select a single part of this problem and apply free market thinking and arrive at the conclusion that it can solve the problem, in fact when viewed though this narrow lens it logically makes sense. When the situation is looked at as a whole however, free market becomes an indefensible solution to the real world where the concept is to be applied.
  • Reply 36 of 76
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    kerpow said:
    badmonk said:
    I just moved to an urban adjacent neighborhood and I enquired about fiberoptic internet.  None was available.  I only had the choice of an adequate internet service with Comcast or shitty DSL with AT&T.  To get adequate speed on Comcast, they forced me to accept a bundle I did not want or need.

    For those of you that oppose NN for your idealism of true markets, come down to the real world.
    You're not forced to accept a bundled package from Comcast. You can opt for Internet only and choose the speed you want to pay for. You can get somewhat better prices if you bundle services, but you are not forced to do so. 

    https://www.cabletv.com/xfinity/internet
    Bundling should be illegal. Why should I have to pay more for one service simply because I am unwilling to buy a different device I don’t want or need.
    Illegal? No, competition and the forces of supply and demand should sort things out. More legislation for every perceived "ill" is what makes things worse.
    As I understand it this practice is already outlawed in several other industries. Plus it is not a perceived ill, I have one choice for internet that is of usable speed, those that offer unusable speeds cost even more. I don’t want cable tv as I don’t watch tv nor do I want their phone service because I conduct all my business over my cell phone. As a result of me not agreeing to aggregately give them more of my money per month by taking the bundled package, I get to pay more for the same internet service. If I don’t like it I have no place to turn and my only option is to go without something that has been deemed a basic human right by more enlightened countries. It is easy to select a single part of this problem and apply free market thinking and arrive at the conclusion that it can solve the problem, in fact when viewed though this narrow lens it logically makes sense. When the situation is looked at as a whole however, free market becomes an indefensible solution to the real world where the concept is to be applied.
    I didn't see you mention where exactly you live, so if high-speed Internet is a "must have" for you right now, have you considered moving? Again, if it's uneconomic to build out Internet access, then companies should not be subsidizing it by forcing people in more densely populated areas to pay.
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 37 of 76
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    volcan said:
    I guess the hope is that 5G will make it somewhat easier for companies to offer competing internet services, since they would be able to provide competitive speeds without running a cable to your house. 
    Yeah, but, cable offers unlimited data while cell service charges something like $10 per GB.
    Cox cable in Santa Barbara eliminated unlimited. They now charge extra if you pass 1TB in usage of your cable internet service. 
  • Reply 38 of 76
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    jd_in_sb said:
    Cox cable in Santa Barbara eliminated unlimited. They now charge extra if you pass 1TB in usage of your cable internet service. 
    Fine but that would work out to be $10,000 a month on AT&T cellular service.
  • Reply 39 of 76
    minisu1980minisu1980 Posts: 132member
    kerpow said:
    badmonk said:
    I just moved to an urban adjacent neighborhood and I enquired about fiberoptic internet.  None was available.  I only had the choice of an adequate internet service with Comcast or shitty DSL with AT&T.  To get adequate speed on Comcast, they forced me to accept a bundle I did not want or need.

    For those of you that oppose NN for your idealism of true markets, come down to the real world.
    You're not forced to accept a bundled package from Comcast. You can opt for Internet only and choose the speed you want to pay for. You can get somewhat better prices if you bundle services, but you are not forced to do so. 

    https://www.cabletv.com/xfinity/internet
    Bundling should be illegal. Why should I have to pay more for one service simply because I am unwilling to buy a different device I don’t want or need.
    Illegal? No, competition and the forces of supply and demand should sort things out. More legislation for every perceived "ill" is what makes things worse.
    As I understand it this practice is already outlawed in several other industries. Plus it is not a perceived ill, I have one choice for internet that is of usable speed, those that offer unusable speeds cost even more. I don’t want cable tv as I don’t watch tv nor do I want their phone service because I conduct all my business over my cell phone. As a result of me not agreeing to aggregately give them more of my money per month by taking the bundled package, I get to pay more for the same internet service. If I don’t like it I have no place to turn and my only option is to go without something that has been deemed a basic human right by more enlightened countries. It is easy to select a single part of this problem and apply free market thinking and arrive at the conclusion that it can solve the problem, in fact when viewed though this narrow lens it logically makes sense. When the situation is looked at as a whole however, free market becomes an indefensible solution to the real world where the concept is to be applied.
    I didn't see you mention where exactly you live, so if high-speed Internet is a "must have" for you right now, have you considered moving? Again, if it's uneconomic to build out Internet access, then companies should not be subsidizing it by forcing people in more densely populated areas to pay.
    I live in a city that has a population of over 150,000, third or fourth largest city in the state. Comcast is the only provider that has a speed capable of typical and ordinary internet usage. The other provider Frontier provides DSL service whose top tier speed is offered as 3mbps, however in actual use performs at around 500kbps - 1mbps. This not just my house, I do occasional service work for people all over the city and I have yet to see anyone get anywhere close to what they have been paying for. This is not an issue of transmission, they basic have oversold there backbone and get away on a technicality that they are providing a link of 3mbps to the POP. High speed internet is not a must have for just me, but mainly for anyone else who does not want to be severely economically disadvantaged (in a whole host of ways). It is not even possible to purchase a backbone in most areas to resell through you own paid for infrastructure because your only option for securing the backbone is through the existing provider who is supplying the last mile service in some fashion and thus require a contract that forbids reselling the bandwidth. 
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 40 of 76
    bluefire1bluefire1 Posts: 1,243member
    We're keeping this conversation open -- for now. Before you delve, read the commenting guidelines, conveniently linked below.

    Be civil, don't instigate, and don't escalate.
    Mike— why not have a little more faith in us and consider leaving all threads initially open. 
     A few bad apples (pun intended) shouldn’t  prevent the rest of us from having a civil discussion, political or otherwise. 
    SpamSandwich
Sign In or Register to comment.