581–590 of 674 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you won't see it. they will force netflix to pay them more. And the charge will be passed on to all subscribers.
That's fine. Then I can decide if I want to pay that price for Netflix or not. I also have Amazon Prime video, and Youtube, and etc. so I have several competing choices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if all of those services are lumped into a bundle that you pay a blanket price for each month, separate from the rest of your online services.
Yes but I'm saying I would not accept that as a customer. People are not going to happily accept the old "bundling" cable TV model that they hate, having experienced the much more open internet model where you really only decide how much bandwidth you want to pay for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And that would be just fine under the new regulations. But would it be good for business? A lot of what is already legal is not good for business, even though it might appear to be in the short term. Raising your prices by 100% is perfectly legal. Why aren't we trying to prevent that hypothetical?
Raising prices for all information: Fine (as long as you're not a monopoly, which unfortunately many ISPs are). Raising prices for some information: Exerting control over what people see and can say; exerting control over the market and preventing fair competition. NOT OK. The whole issue at hand.
Who has done this? If monopolies can just raise prices, why would they bother only doing it for certain information? Seems like a BIG money loser!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The vast majority have some choice" I challenge this assertion -> please document it.
60% of the country has three providers of 10mpbs+ 90% has two providers of 10mpbs+. One of those is satellite, which sort of sucks, I'll grant you that. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we should have a one-size-fits-all law? You're not that unimaginative, are you?
Anti-trust laws are pretty much universal and we already have them. A lot of NN related abuse could be prevented if our legal system would have actually applied them, but it often doesn't.
Tweet in article: >On December 14, the FCC will vote on Chairman Pai's plan to repeal President Obama's heavy-handed Internet regulations and restore Internet freedom. I love how these laws are veiled with patriotic sentiments, e.g. "Internet Freedom". Just like the "Patriot Act", it is reasonable to assume anything with these sort of labels will likely be an encroachment on your freedoms. Also >"The job of the FCC i…
Where I live, I like spectrum-formerly-timewarner-formerly-roadrunner cable Internet just fine. There are a lot of alternatives to using it for home Internet around here, and I'm pretty sure the two are related. If you want better internet access, instead of begging the FCC for scraps get on repealing legislated monopoly rights for kinds of wires and/or unbundling last mile from ISP. Then ask yourself why internet re…
Not to mention, there are areas of the country which absolutely could not support more than one provider. Why should they have to suffer non-neutral net?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Competition surely can help, but currently there is no competition in a lot of places. Places with a lot of people? People who have been harmed by what NN is intending to fix? > Monopolists also created a lot of blockers that prevent increasing competition. Facilitated by government. If government was responsible in the first place, why not just undo what they did?
I live in Orange County, CA. I have access to literally one provider.
Tweet in article: >On December 14, the FCC will vote on Chairman Pai's plan to repeal President Obama's heavy-handed Internet regulations and restore Internet freedom. I love how these laws are veiled with patriotic sentiments, e.g. "Internet Freedom". Just like the "Patriot Act", it is reasonable to assume anything with these sort of labels will likely be an encroachment on your freedoms. Also >"The job of the FCC i…
> "If you like your cable company" I've never once, in my entire life, heard anyone say they like Comcast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This Net Neutrality issue sounds similar to the issue America faced in the late 1800s with the railroads. Some shippers (Standard Oil) wanted to monopolize the rails or at least they wanted rebates for shipping their freight. Others argued that the rails should offer the same rates to all shippers since they were using eminent domain in some cases to obtain property and they should exist as a shared resource.
AT&T is rapidly becoming what it once was, especially if the TW merger goes through. We’d be renting Wi-Fi cards, access and with additional fees by the second and byte if they had their way.
The old AT&T was heavily regulated, and provided lifetime employment with generous benefits to its employees. It was the largest employer after the Federal Government prior to divesture.