• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

With net neutrality gone, you will pay a lot more for your internet!!

LostArtist said:
yay! good for you!

and it appears it's not like a straight up deal is cut, and it's complicated but the end result is that Return on Investment for a new start up to get into an underserved area isn't very good


https://www.quora.com/Why-are-American-ISPs-cable-companies-allowed-regional-monopolies-What-is-the-benefit-of-this-and-why-doesn%E2%80%99t-the-FTC-dismantle-them-since-they-result-in-a-lack-of-competition-for-consumers
Click to expand...

That's much more what the problem is and a far cry from what you said earlier about local gov'ts giving Comcast a mini-monopoly.
 
Critter7r said:
That's much more what the problem is and a far cry from what you said earlier about local gov'ts giving Comcast a mini-monopoly.
Click to expand...

what, am I not allowed to learn as I go? or do I have to stagnant in my beliefs regardless of what I find,

in the end, local government giving first dibs to whoever, and therefor giving them a solid customer base first, still has the effect of limiting competition and creating a virtual monopoly in local areas, so now not only do new competitors have to invest in whatever right of way fee the government wants, and pay for the infrastructure, but they have to pay for advertising and a plan to break into an already served market adding yet another barrier to entry to competition. I wouldn't say that's a far cry, the original ISP still has an innate advantage.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Right up there with "There is a fix for that tyrant Putin, do what he says",

No.
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur

I was suggesting that someone not buy a product from a company because they don't offer what he wanted.

Here again, we have someone talking out of both sides of their mouth. We're supposed to adore the "free market" (such that it is) that we have, yet somehow, when one makes an attempt to exert force on the market by voting with their dollars, it gets compared to Russia.

You can't have it both ways. You're get to say either that the market works when you work the market, or cable companies are commies. But not both.
 
LostArtist said:
what, am I not allowed to learn as I go? or do I have to stagnant in my beliefs regardless of what I find,

in the end, local government giving first dibs to whoever [SHOWS UP FIRST], and therefor giving them a solid customer base first, still has the effect of limiting competition and creating a virtual monopoly in local areas, so now not only do new competitors have to invest in whatever right of way fee the government wants [THE FIRST COMPANY HAD TO PAY THOSE FEES TOO], and pay for the infrastructure [AGAIN, FIRST COMPANY HAD TO PAY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLATION], but they have to pay for advertising and a plan to break into an already served market adding yet another barrier to entry to competition. [SO DID THE FIRST COMPANY THAT CAME IN] I wouldn't say that's a far cry, the original ISP still has an innate advantage. [BUT THAT ADVANTAGE WASN'T PROVIDED BY THE LOCAL GOV'T]
Click to expand...

See my helpful edits above. (the caps are just so my edits are obvious, I'm not yelling!!)

The "far cry" part is that the MARKET and the PROVIDERS are the ones that decide who comes into an area first. The local gov't just collects fees from whoever sets up shop.

The local gov't has zero hand in determining WHICH company comes in first. But you are correct that the first company into an area has an advantage, assuming that the area has enough potential customers per mile of cable installed.
 
Lutherf said:
If that's your concern then what makes you think Comcast wouldn't listen to the protests of customers who can no longer get a service they want?
Click to expand...

Because over a 3rd of the country at least doesn't have the option of threatening to go elsewhere from the theoretical "comcast" in this scenario, and the majority of people only perhaps have one other choice. Comcast, acting alone, in trying to promote their own services at the expense of competitors on their network would be problematic for a fairly large amount of people, but at least able to be dealt with in theory by others. However, the problem with these monopoly to duopoly situations is that it doesn't take much to become a "business standard", and suddenly there is no choice.

Right now the biggest barrier to new hard wire ISPs coming into a given community is the cost of infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Actually, the cost of infastructure is simply part of the larger issue with new ISP's coming in, which is various local and state government regulations and restrictions that basically make such things nearly impossible. When a company the size, scope, and capability as ****ing GOOGLE is finding it nearly impossible to make any legitimate headway into setting up startup ISPs in various places of the country it's hilariously unrealistic to act like it's an even mildly reasonable option for some random mom and pop start up.
 
joG said:
That is a question of Regulation and must be addressed.
Click to expand...

The network telecommunication industry is difficult to regulate into a competitive environment, primarily due to (necessary) sunk costs, at this current time. A completely wireless internet infrastructure could be handled differently, but again... sunk costs and all that jazz.

None the less, your comment fails to account for reality.
 
Zyphlin said:
Because over a 3rd of the country at least doesn't have the option of threatening to go elsewhere from the theoretical "comcast" in this scenario, and the majority of people only perhaps have one other choice. Comcast, acting alone, in trying to promote their own services at the expense of competitors on their network would be problematic for a fairly large amount of people, but at least able to be dealt with in theory by others. However, the problem with these monopoly to duopoly situations is that it doesn't take much to become a "business standard", and suddenly there is no choice.



Actually, the cost of infastructure is simply part of the larger issue with new ISP's coming in, which is various local and state government regulations and restrictions that basically make such things nearly impossible. When a company the size, scope, and capability as ****ing GOOGLE is finding it nearly impossible to make any legitimate headway into setting up startup ISPs in various places of the country it's hilariously unrealistic to act like it's an even mildly reasonable option for some random mom and pop start up.
Click to expand...

Well, if government is why there isn't as much broadband competition as there should be then why the hell would anyone want MORE government control of the issue? Doesn't that sound just a little bit insane? Doesn't it make sense that if we add ANOTHER layer of government things will just get worse?
 
Quote Originally Posted by LostArtist View Post
what, am I not allowed to learn as I go? or do I have to stagnant in my beliefs regardless of what I find,

in the end, local government giving first dibs to whoever [SHOWS UP FIRST], and therefor giving them a solid customer base first, still has the effect of limiting competition and creating a virtual monopoly in local areas, so now not only do new competitors have to invest in whatever right of way fee the government wants [THE FIRST COMPANY HAD TO PAY THOSE FEES TOO] <but they were also in the most powerful position to negotiate those fees, everyone afterwards has to settle for what they negotiated, probably> , and pay for the infrastructure [AGAIN, FIRST COMPANY HAD TO PAY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLATION], but they have to pay for advertising and a plan to break into an already served market adding yet another barrier to entry to competition. [SO DID THE FIRST COMPANY THAT CAME IN] <not really, word of mouth probably did a bunch of work for them, and they didnt' have to advertise in a competitive way, they were all there was, so a lot less heavy lifting on their budget for that> I wouldn't say that's a far cry, the original ISP still has an innate advantage. [BUT THAT ADVANTAGE WASN'T PROVIDED BY THE LOCAL GOV'T]





Critter7r said:
See my helpful edits above. (the caps are just so my edits are obvious, I'm not yelling!!)

The "far cry" part is that the MARKET and the PROVIDERS are the ones that decide who comes into an area first. The local gov't just collects fees from whoever sets up shop.

The local gov't has zero hand in determining WHICH company comes in first. But you are correct that the first company into an area has an advantage, assuming that the area has enough potential customers per mile of cable installed.
Click to expand...


made a few additional explanations. and a local government can say NO to any and all companies trying to get in, and if they are corrupt and or just happy with how things are, they can deny future companies coming in. wanting to avoid a new negotiation or whatever, so yeah, it's complicated, all kinds of things can happen, so now add content providers into that mix, which may or may not happen, I'm aware,
 
Lutherf said:
Well, if government is why there isn't as much broadband competition as there should be then why the hell would anyone want MORE government control of the issue? Doesn't that sound just a little bit insane? Doesn't it make sense that if we add ANOTHER layer of government things will just get worse?
Click to expand...

well, one government intervention, local government, is addressing/screwing up one issue, while the Federal government was trying to address how content on the internet is handled. you are kinda saying well if the local government is the problem with trash pickup why do we need federal government intervening with how trash is disposed of in landfills... 2 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things
 
LostArtist said:
well, one government intervention, local government, is addressing/screwing up one issue, while the Federal government was trying to address how content on the internet is handled. you are kinda saying well if the local government is the problem with trash pickup why do we need federal government intervening with how trash is disposed of in landfills... 2 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things
Click to expand...

What I'm hearing is that global corporations have a monopoly over the internet and they're all going to squeeze us for every nickel they can. Now, I happen to know that competition is the best way to fend off a monopoly. I kind of get the idea that if there isn't a monopoly over the internet then all this fretting is for nothing. So the logical thing, at least in my mind, is to take steps to make sure competition between ISPs can flourish. That sure seems to make more sense than adding another layer of government control to an industry that is already being mismanaged by government control.

It also occurs to me that making a trip downtown to my city council is a hell of a lot easier than making a trip to Washington, DC to talk to the FCC and congress. I'd MUCH rather be able to solve issues like this at the local level than have to travel across the country where the decision makers are insulated by distance and cocktail parties.
 
HowardBThiname said:
The Chairman of the FCC, Ajit Varadaraj Pai, is the one who pushed this through. He's been opposed to it since 2015.

By the way, he was appointed by Obama.
Click to expand...

I think you are confused.

Tom Wheeler was appointed by Obama as a chairman. Ajit served in the commission and recommended by Obama and Mitch but not as a chairman. He was appointed and confirmed to Chairmen position in Jan 2017


Diving Mullah
 
Geoist said:
The FCC has handed the reigns over to unelected CEOs in a near-monopoly industry. We, the taxpayers, invested into what is now the internet, and the corporate few get to reap the profits.
Click to expand...

Good grief, man! The taxpayers didn't invest in anything, they bought a product.
Every time somebody comes up with a brilliant idea and has the money to promote it, he'll get rich (in most cases).

If a certain guy/entity didn't fork out the money in the first place, you would have never been able to call your aunt in Europe.
Or are you saying the ordinary people forked over the money to lay all those cables and pay for the the switch-board ladies?!?
 
LostArtist said:
Quote Originally Posted by LostArtist View Post
what, am I not allowed to learn as I go? or do I have to stagnant in my beliefs regardless of what I find,

in the end, local government giving first dibs to whoever [SHOWS UP FIRST], and therefor giving them a solid customer base first, still has the effect of limiting competition and creating a virtual monopoly in local areas, so now not only do new competitors have to invest in whatever right of way fee the government wants [THE FIRST COMPANY HAD TO PAY THOSE FEES TOO] <but they were also in the most powerful position to negotiate those fees, everyone afterwards has to settle for what they negotiated, probably> , and pay for the infrastructure [AGAIN, FIRST COMPANY HAD TO PAY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLATION], but they have to pay for advertising and a plan to break into an already served market adding yet another barrier to entry to competition. [SO DID THE FIRST COMPANY THAT CAME IN] <not really, word of mouth probably did a bunch of work for them, and they didnt' have to advertise in a competitive way, they were all there was, so a lot less heavy lifting on their budget for that> I wouldn't say that's a far cry, the original ISP still has an innate advantage. [BUT THAT ADVANTAGE WASN'T PROVIDED BY THE LOCAL GOV'T]








made a few additional explanations. and a local government can say NO to any and all companies trying to get in, and if they are corrupt and or just happy with how things are, they can deny future companies coming in. wanting to avoid a new negotiation or whatever, so yeah, it's complicated, all kinds of things can happen, so now add content providers into that mix, which may or may not happen, I'm aware,
Click to expand...
I don't think this works the way you think it works.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
independentusa said:
This is all about making big bucks for internet providers and has nothing to do with anything else. And you can bet it will mean a lot more for the GOP campaign funds. And like usual the rest of us will pay the bill so the rich can get richer. Is there anything that the GOP will do for regular Americans and when will most Americans get it? BY the time middle Americans that believe in the GOP realize how they have been fooled it will be way, way to late.
Click to expand...

I get tired of alarmism. Where are the facts? Same scares year after year.

Well guess what. I pay for a specific data package. Netflix pays for specific server capacity. If Comcast starts throttling Netflix, do you really think Comcast wants those legal battles?

Have any facts, or is this all just more silly fear-mongering?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I get tired of alarmism. Where are the facts? Same scares year after year.

Well guess what. I pay for a specific data package. Netflix pays for specific server capacity. If Comcast starts throttling Netflix, do you really think Comcast wants those legal battles?

Have any facts, or is this all just more silly fear-mongering?
Click to expand...

Can you find in your agreement with Comcast where it says that they cannot throttle Netflix, and on what grounds could Comcast have a legal battle if the law says they are permitted to throttle Netflix?
 
Mustachio said:
Can you find in your agreement with Comcast where it says that they cannot throttle Netflix, and on what grounds could Comcast have a legal battle if the law says they are permitted to throttle Netflix?
Click to expand...

LOL...

Whatever...

You guys are something else, and only complaining about the tier 3 networks. Everybody I see here is ignorant.

Guess what guys... there are tier 1 and tier 2 networks that the tier 3 networks send and receive most the data we use through.

Complaining only about the ISP's (tier 3) out of such ignorance...

Complaining about them with only the fear of what technology can do, but haven't.

Don't we have bigger things in life to worry about?
 
I think the phone company is going to be making $ again.

Cuz if they start raising rates on Internet phone, (I have Vonage), I'm going back to regular phone service.

Probably. Or getting rid of a house phone completely.
 
Diving Mullah said:
I think you are confused.

Tom Wheeler was appointed by Obama as a chairman. Ajit served in the commission and recommended by Obama and Mitch but not as a chairman. He was appointed and confirmed to Chairmen position in Jan 2017


Diving Mullah
Click to expand...

Wikipedia begs to differ:

Ajit Varadaraj Pai (born January 10, 1973) is an American attorney who serves as the Chairman of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC). He is the first Indian American to hold the office. He has served in various positions at the FCC since being appointed to the commission by President Barack Obama in May 2012, at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell. He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012,[1] and was sworn in on May 14, 2012, for a five-year term.[2]
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
I think the phone company is going to be making $ again.

Cuz if they start raising rates on Internet phone, (I have Vonage), I'm going back to regular phone service.

Probably. Or getting rid of a house phone completely.
Click to expand...

If Net Neutrality prevails, I think voice over internet would be in jeopardy, and all packets would have to be delayed equally during peak traffic.

Isn't that the concept? All data types are to be treated equally?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I get tired of alarmism. Where are the facts? Same scares year after year.

Well guess what. I pay for a specific data package. Netflix pays for specific server capacity. If Comcast starts throttling Netflix, do you really think Comcast wants those legal battles?

Have any facts, or is this all just more silly fear-mongering?
Click to expand...

What will they cry about next after they find out that the costs of a IP address, and the web search functions prove not to be any different than in 2014.
 
RetiredUSN said:
What will they cry about next after they find out that the costs of a IP address, and the web search functions prove not to be any different than in 2014.
Click to expand...

They will always find something to cry about.

Damn snowflakes.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Lmao...oh they absolutely do. It is called a tiered rate.
Click to expand...
You can laugh all you want it is out of ignorance. Tiered rate is not based on the type of use but quantity. The utility has no clue whether you charge batteries, holding a light show or heating a greenhouse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom