Important!!! Net Neutrality day in the U.S.

Not currently, it is still protected

 

So when Comcast (successfully) sues for years to keep AT&T from offering broadband in any particular city even though there is no co-opting of infrastructure, that's free market and not special interests? I also like how you pretend to know the future business plans of these corporations as a contractor working on infrastructure.

 

Depends on the nature of the suit. Was it about new competition, or did they have a contract with the governing entity spelling out specific terms relative to other vendors?

 

If a company is worried about that then they are in the wrong business, allowing companies to be charged for fast lane service is a slippery slope, back room deals with ISP's will be important for new and growing companies. If you are a small start up and you have a new idea but you cannot afford the fast lane you are dead. consumers will not visit your site and without that traffic your business is dead. Google has been laying line all over the place in the face of NN and the days of the younger crowd paying for traditional cable is dead, they want to watch only certain shows and only pay for those shows, traditional cable TV is dying, so the ISP need to find a new revenue model so they are going to charge PPV rates to consumers and then charge the content providers a fee for delivery.[/QUOTE]

So much incorrect information. Did you even realize that two elements of Title II were struck down by federal courts already? Before the "roll back"? Nope. Didn't think so. Did you realize that other countries are already WAY ahead of the US with respect to "cord cutting"? Nope. Didn't think so. Did you realize that the US is/was unique in trying to impose these regulations? Nope. Didn't think so.

More to the point. Can you point me to an example of this behavior you're speaking of? Better yet - please show me examples of this prior to NN being put in place (illegally, btw - as proven by federal court which struck down elements in 2014)?

And btw, are you completely socialist? If not, please explain to me how you feel it's right for government to come in without legislation, and under cover of nothing but executive order, impose pricing constraints on systems for which private enterprise invested billions upon billions of dollars? With published business plans and shareholders (who btw include people on this forum who happen to have 401k accounts)?

The concept of preventing improper behavior by the providers is valid. The solution that was put in place was not.[/QUOTE]

I think you need to call the discovery channel and have a chat with them and then maybe you will finally become educated. You might know the laws but you have not shown me anything about the BUSINESS of this. here is how the BUSINESS will shake out and I will take comcast as an example try to follow me here through the steps

1) Comcast charges discovery channel to have their TV shows on their cable lines --
2) delivered to everyone in the same HD thats what they are paying for
3) Comcast charges consumers for access to the discovery channel show
4) Comcast tried to jack the rates on discovery and messed with their tiers, they tried to bump up velocity to a higher tier
5) Now Discovery has to charge their advertisers more for the same eye balls
6) Their advertising cost per eyeball gets too high or is too high for a start up and then no good content
7) The advertisers pay more for adverts then charge the consumer more for their stuff
8) The rates get so high Discovery gets mad and then starts to stream their content online
9) Comcast gets mad and then fights to repeal NN so they can charge discovery the same high rates they would be charging them to stream
10) consumer still pays more

This is a REAL example, I know the guys that run the station, so tell me how does the consumer win? Where in this example is repealing this good for me? I am all about free market, except when that market is not free because there are no choices and commerce needs to happen.

 

I’m curious how that is any different from you pretending to know the future business plans of these companies as a consumer

 

Suggesting the types of things that could tighten corporate control or increase corporate profits - even ideas that may seem far fetched today - is just betting on the inevitable. I may be totally off in what comes to fruition, but I promise it will serve to both consolidate control and increase profits. It's why they exist and what they do. The players who just scored a victory yesterday consolidate, lobby and litigate better than about anyone else and its never in favor of competition or customer service.

 

How does the amount of data flowing to consumers today compare to what it was just two years ago? Everywhere I turn, someone is getting rid of cable and switching to Netflix or one of those.

 

The data amount is more for sure. That’s what I’m trying to understand about this whole thing, how is not allowing the ISPs charge Netflix in this case more for the amount of bandwidth they use a bad thing?

It seems they are going to be using it anyway, why shouldn’t they be able to charge more or to make sure that their service get priority?

It’s not like VZW or the like are going to sell 90% of what they have to one or two particular companies.

I’m still reading and learning but I can yet to find a good reason for the NN rules that were in place.

 

The point that is trying to be made is only poorly addressed by NN, but its an important one. The consumer is consuming data. Period. How much data and the rate at which it's being consumed is governed by the service contract between the ISP and the consumer. The ISP should have no concern or control over what that data is or where that data came from - its data, moving at a (slightly below) promised speed. Picking apart what data "is" and implementing rules/fees/premiums around the makeup of the data allows ISP's to essentially manipulate commerce on both sides by alternatively squeezing producers and consumers.

 

Antenna baby! why pay for the idiot box (well except motoGP and WSB)

 

I'm still Y2K compliant.

 

Okay, Kreskin.

 

Plus it allows ISPs a large say in what their consumers consume - "here's my liberal website pricing structure and here's my conservative website pricing structure".

How is Putin going to control the minds of the majority of Dungeon-ites if Verizon won't stream the Kremlin's facebook memes?

 

Actually big education is ahead, as is big government

 

How about a water faucet? I turn it on and internet is there. Is that a better analogy?

 

No one is getting rid of cable and "switching" to Netflix. If they are a cable customer the company that was supplying them TV is also supplying them with an internet connection. Cord Cutting is a bullshit term just like "the cloud".

 

For us true Troglodytes...My internet is via the phone line, not cable. We don't have "cable" in the sticks so TV is satellite for anything worth watching. So do you include internet via phone lines when you say "cable"?

 

I think cord cutting refers to any platform that serves a bunch of channels.

 

So much incorrect information. Did you even realize that two elements of Title II were struck down by federal courts already? Before the "roll back"? Nope. Didn't think so. Did you realize that other countries are already WAY ahead of the US with respect to "cord cutting"? Nope. Didn't think so. Did you realize that the US is/was unique in trying to impose these regulations? Nope. Didn't think so.

More to the point. Can you point me to an example of this behavior you're speaking of? Better yet - please show me examples of this prior to NN being put in place (illegally, btw - as proven by federal court which struck down elements in 2014)?

And btw, are you completely socialist? If not, please explain to me how you feel it's right for government to come in without legislation, and under cover of nothing but executive order, impose pricing constraints on systems for which private enterprise invested billions upon billions of dollars? With published business plans and shareholders (who btw include people on this forum who happen to have 401k accounts)?

The concept of preventing improper behavior by the providers is valid. The solution that was put in place was not.[/QUOTE]

I think you need to call the discovery channel and have a chat with them and then maybe you will finally become educated. You might know the laws but you have not shown me anything about the BUSINESS of this. here is how the BUSINESS will shake out and I will take comcast as an example try to follow me here through the steps

1) Comcast charges discovery channel to have their TV shows on their cable lines --
2) delivered to everyone in the same HD thats what they are paying for
3) Comcast charges consumers for access to the discovery channel show
4) Comcast tried to jack the rates on discovery and messed with their tiers, they tried to bump up velocity to a higher tier
5) Now Discovery has to charge their advertisers more for the same eye balls
6) Their advertising cost per eyeball gets too high or is too high for a start up and then no good content
7) The advertisers pay more for adverts then charge the consumer more for their stuff
8) The rates get so high Discovery gets mad and then starts to stream their content online
9) Comcast gets mad and then fights to repeal NN so they can charge discovery the same high rates they would be charging them to stream
10) consumer still pays more

This is a REAL example, I know the guys that run the station, so tell me how does the consumer win? Where in this example is repealing this good for me? I am all about free market, except when that market is not free because there are no choices and commerce needs to happen.[/QUOTE]

Do you know how to actually use quotes? I'm not reading through the disorganized mess.

 

Cord cutting is getting video content through means OTHER than cable/Fios type services. Period. If you get broadband via FiOS but do not get TV through them, you are a "cord cutter".