Beautiful Day wrote:
https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/933016966071234560/photo/1
Or I get to choose what I want and pay a lot less! If I only want video I am saving a lot of money.
Beautiful Day wrote:
https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/933016966071234560/photo/1
Or I get to choose what I want and pay a lot less! If I only want video I am saving a lot of money.
UsedToBeKnowItAll wrote:
What this law does is turn the internet into Spirit Airlines.
You pay for your ticket to get the minimum...a ticket to fly somewhere. Then your ISP can charge you to "check a bag," "carry on a bag," "upgrade your seat," etc, etc.
This works out for some people, but the large majority of passengers hate Spirit Airlines, and generally hate the way all airline carriers nickle and dime us.
In Europe, this is the Ryanair model. And many love/hate it.
Then again, there's always exaggeration as to what it actually affects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYspsgIjb4UThe only GOOD part about this, in light of Disney buying Fox, is that Foxnews is going to be left alone, unattached to anyone or anything.
Good luck getting any sort of traction there, boys.
Beautiful Day wrote:
Racket wrote:
That was before the days of Netflix and massive online streaming of games and movies. ISPs got the idea to hammer the customer over the head for these after it became a thing and the Obama administration stepped in to block it. On a more conspiratorial note, I can't help but think Netflix and Hulu and others are somewhat excited about this, as they now have the most convenient excuse ever to raise prices and deflect blame to the ISP
Ding, ding, ding. You win!
ISPs provide a dumb pipe. The end. All you Trumpsters, good luck telling your kid they can't binge watch Netflix shows any more.
It seems a lot of people on this board need a lesson in basic economics, so here goes;
If netfix raises prices above what you are willing to pay, drop the service. Either a lot of people drop service and Netflix realizes they need to drop their prices to retain customers, or people stick with Netflix at the higher price, resulting in Netflix having massive profits. Venture capitalist notice there are massive profits to be made in the online streaming industry, so new content providers enter the mix, and prices come back down.
The same hold true for ISP providers, widget makers, whatever. If people are not happy with the quality/price of something, their demand for it goes down. If they still demand that good or service at a profitable price for the producer, supply goes up because more producers of that good/service enter the market, causing prices to drop back down. On balance, people continue to get the goods and services at the price they are willing to pay.
A price driven system creates competition because profits are always being sought and losses are always being avoided. The only thing that prevents the normal equalization of prices is inhibition of entry into the market. This inhibition is usually in the form of government regulation (aka net neutrality).
Beautiful Day wrote:
Actual example wrote:
5G, the next generation of wireless technology, will allow significantly faster internet and spur further development of technological capabilities that turn former pipe dreams into tangible realities. But this will only occur if net neutrality rules are fully repealed as planned and broadband providers are permitted to expand and invest, including in remote, rural, low-income areas of the country
Of course, big city fat cats don't care about fly-over country with their weak wireless signals.
“In the long term, by lifting Title II and removing heavy-handed regulations that inject uncertainty into the market – such as a requirement to come to the FCC to ask permission to innovate – I expect to see more investment and innovation in the broadband industry.”"
Bullsh1t. There is not a single thing stopping Time Warner from building out rural America. This is not "innovate," this is called business. Cellular 5G has nothing do with this. This is 100% about ISPs wanting their slice of the streaming pie.
Huge cost to build out broadband to rural areas where you have fewer customers. Same reasons you do not get a Target in rural America--they cannot recoup the investment. But that is not innovation either.
Constitution parakeet cage liners wrote:
Beautiful Day wrote:
Yeah, I'm sure everyone wants Comcast Streaming Services instead of Netflix.
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/svn9iXO9bovU9VNWCu48yASkAO0=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4252153/what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.0.jpgI love how the Repubtards are always ranting about the Constitution. "Constitution" this, and "Constitution" that. The new edict on Net Neutrality includes a clause that the States cannot create their own standards. Where's your "Constitution" now Repubtards? Guess they forgot about the great importance placed on separation of power between the State and Federal governments. LOL!
STATES RIGHTS!! (oops ... only racists worry about that)
Celery: How has Net Neutrality kept ISPs from starting up?
Beautiful Day wrote:
Celery: How has Net Neutrality kept ISPs from starting up?
New and smaller ISPs report they have to pay significantly more to comply with the regulations.
zxvzxvzx wrote:
repealing net neutrality rules is a disaster for everyone except the isp's and the politicians they donated to. startups, for instance, may face impossible hurdles when the keys to the internet are now in comcast's hands.
^this
Its been a very good year for the donor class. You get what you pay for, and they paid and they got.
More BS from the right wing. Net Neutrality does not hurt small ISPs. In fact, removing Net Neutrality will hurt them more, because it will empower the larger ISPs.
You right wingers are really easy to push over.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/13/15949920/net-neutrality-killing-small-isps
Beautiful Day wrote:
Celery: How has Net Neutrality kept ISPs from starting up?
Net neutrality — the idea that all data should be treated the same as it zips over the Internet — sounds appealing in principle. Who wouldn’t want every competitor to have a fair shot, and for the best ideas to rise to the top? But in practice, rigid Net neutrality regulation could cripple the potential business arrangements that help launch new companies.
To justify its proposed rules, the Federal Communications Commission warns that ISPs may have an “economic incentive to block or disadvantage” websites, and to charge providers for “prioritized access” to end users. Of particular concern, the agency wrote, “are threats to American innovation.” President Obama and The New York Times recently echoed the FCC’s fears, proclaiming that Net neutrality is necessary to enable “the next Google or the next Facebook.”
Here's the bingo to your inquiry: basically, fear of heavy-handedness by current actors
But there is simply no benefit to startups for the FCC to scrutinize and regulate every deal made between every ISP and every content provider. Any complaint, no matter how frivolous, could spark a media frenzy, if not a formal investigation. And the threat of either could prevent the partnerships needed to drive innovative technologies.
The FCC would essentially control everything, by its fiat decisions.
Moreover, it’s never been the case that all bits at all times have been treated “neutrally” on the Internet. Distinguishing between acceptable non-neutrality and the undefined “commercially unreasonable” conduct proposed by the FCC will be extremely difficult. And it will be arbitrary: Whether a transaction will be deemed to offend some yet-to-be-articulated principle of the public interest has less to do with rigorous analysis or the particulars of the transaction than with who’s sitting in judgment.
And investors would obviously be scared (e.g., if you don't promote Obama-ism, you'd be dinged by his FCC).
“I can attest I have no idea how to judge the difference between IP transmission and IP services for the purposes of my next startup. I will not be able to explain it to investors, because the line exists entirely in the mind of whoever happens to be Chairman of the FCC.”
Established companies enjoy a host of advantages, ranging from name recognition to established revenue streams. Prioritization can be the difference between an unknown startup languishing in obscurity and a better product ousting an incumbent — banning prioritization in the name of protecting startup innovation is simply disingenuous.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2684174/net-neutralitys-hollow-promise-to-startups.htmlFCC data shows more than half of U.S. households only have one provider that offers services in their area.
Ruined your narrative wrote:
FCC data shows more than half of U.S. households only have one provider that offers services in their area.
How does that compare to similar exclusive providers with Obamacare insurance?
The Internet has search (currently) wrote:
Established companies enjoy a host of advantages, ranging from name recognition to established revenue streams. Prioritization can be the difference between an unknown startup languishing in obscurity and a better product ousting an incumbent — banning prioritization in the name of protecting startup innovation is simply disingenuous.
Stop applying common sense. Half of USA doesn't want to hear it.
I think I'd favour the Indian dude (Ajit?) over Commissioner Clyburn any day of the week for arguments.
Reading the two dissents is one of the most oatmeal-ish experiences I've had it some time (since various SCOTUS ramblings for instance). Bunches of stuff about process, nothing of content about the decision, and just wild speculation about its effects.
About the only thing either said, was that Congress should solve the dilemma FBOW.
(Strangely one remarks that the Obama FCC decision was upheld by courts - without noting the obvious similitude that the Trump FCC decision should thus also be merited to its authority, but instead thinking that because a court OK'd something, therefore it can't be changed?!)
The President was right: If this is winning, I'm getting really, really tired of it.
Runners defending big corporations... who would have thought?
Ruined your narrative wrote:
FCC data shows more than half of U.S. households only have one provider that offers services in their area.
This gets the argument exactly wrong, in that it's EXACTLY the "net neutrality" laws (or interpretations) from the FCC that have forced out smaller ISPs, and moreover made it prohibitive for them to be in lots of areas. Instead, the Obama govt got to choose their crony winners, and these are the only ones in many markets because of that.
I don't want to have to study all my internet packages to see which one is the best deal and who was a good deal but now is sneaking in changes and charges that I am not paying attention to.
This law is an anti-consumer and is foisted apon us by the republicans.
Hardloper wrote:
Beautiful Day wrote:
Celery: How has Net Neutrality kept ISPs from starting up?
New and smaller ISPs report they have to pay significantly more to comply with the regulations.
Heavy regulation always benefits the entrenched incumbents much more than the upstarts
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4252153/what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.0.jpg){kind=link}