FCC Announces Plans To Repeal Net Neutrality

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, AU64 said:

My very point.....defend the status quo....and deter innovation.   What would the net look like today if those rules were passed in 1998 or 2005?    Internet is a moving target and who is to say that it's has peaked out now?  

What innovations have ISPs brought to the table recently when compared to websites and services utilizing the ISP?

I'll hang up and listen.

[HVAU 673]

26 minutes ago, AU64 said:

  Every time a regulation is killed off there are cries of despair.....deregulated natural gas which was going to make prices go through the roof for example....and now everyone is worried that prices are too low

BB and Titan are much more knowledgeable in this matter than I, but I wanted to shine a quick light on this comment.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the situation with natural gas has less to do with regulation adjustment and more to do with changes in the petroleum market.  Therefore, the example of natural gas lacks relevance in this discussion.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

7 minutes ago, AU64 said:

My very point.....defend the status quo....and deter innovation.  

You are still operating in the realm of buzzwords and generalities and taking that as the all-explaining way to see everything.

The status quo was simply to let consumers decide who the winners and losers online would be, not a handful of powerful internet providers.  In this case, innovation WAS the status quo.  Winners were determined not by who the ISPs favored, which entrenched entities had the money to pay for better access  but by who had the better selection of content, who invested in their own delivery infrastructure, who devoted more time to improving their user experience and apps, who provided the best customer service.  The power was with the end user, voting with their dollars.  If Hulu was better than Netflix, or if both were better than anything your cable provider had to offer, then you could choose them instead and no that no artificial barriers would be in place to diminish that choice.  Now we've handed that power to Verizon, Comcast, Charter, and Time Warner.  

 

Quote

What would the net look like today if those rules were passed in 1998 or 2005?    Internet is a moving target and who is to say that it's has peaked out now?  

It wouldn't look any different because net neutrality is how everyone operated, voluntarily, in 1998 and 2005.  It's only in the last two years that the ISPs (who by the way have merged and consolidated since 1998 and 2005 significantly so there are far fewer players) tipped their hands and tried to alter the playing field.

[AU64 10,122]

2 minutes ago, HVAU said:

BB and Titan are much more knowledgeable in this matter than I, but I wanted to shine a quick light on this comment.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the situation with natural gas has less to do with regulation adjustment and more to do with changes in the petroleum market.  Therefore, the example of natural gas lacks relevance in this discussion.

Not directly but was cited as an instance where regulations were in place to "protect the consumer" and in fact were harming the consumer.    My philosophy and experience is that many regulations of the marketplace intended to protect the consumer do the opposite....until those being regulated figure out how to get around them. ...but in the meantime waste time and effort trying to do that.  JMO

[AU64 10,122]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It's only in the last two years that the ISPs (who by the way have merged and consolidated since 1998 and 2005 significantly so there are far fewer players) tipped their hands and tried to alter the playing field.

Guess I don't understand this.....the regulations being reversed were put in place in 2015 as I understand ......so are you saying that those regulations created the conditions you describe....more consolidation   If there is too much consolidation it's possible to address that issue specifically.....anti-trust laws or whatever can be applied. 

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, AU64 said:

Guess I don't understand this.....the regulations being reversed were put in place in 2015 as I understand ......so are you saying that those regulations created the conditions you describe....more consolidation   If there is too much consolidation it's possible to address that issue specifically.....anti-trust laws or whatever can be applied. 

No, I'm saying, the ISPs a couple of years or so ago started down this road of picking winners and losers, throttling traffic from certain content providers (such as Comcast extorting money from Netflix), blocking features (such as AT&T blocking Apple's FaceTime feature unless consumers paid a premium to use it), thus ending the voluntary practice of net neutrality and prompting the FCC to codify the practice as a binding rule.

[AU64 10,122]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

No, I'm saying, the ISPs a couple of years or so ago started down this road of picking winners and losers, throttling traffic from certain content providers (such as Comcast extorting money from Netflix), blocking features (such as AT&T blocking Apple's FaceTime feature unless consumers paid a premium to use it), thus ending the voluntary practice of net neutrality and prompting the FCC to codify the practice as a binding rule.

Yeah....that's not nice but at this point it is a business isn't it? ...not a public utility.  And if the ISPs do a lot of customer unfriendly stuff, they will be penalized in the market.....people cutting the cord and sat communications, etc. .  

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Just now, AU64 said:

Yeah....that's not nice but at this point it is a business isn't it? ...not a public utility.  And if the ISPs do a lot of customer unfriendly stuff, they will be penalized in the market.....people cutting the cord and sat communications, etc. .  

But that brings us back to the effective monopoly position many of them hold over half the country's consumers.  If they are the only real broadband provider in your area, they have you by the short hairs.  Cut the cord and try to use just Netflix or SlingTV and they can throttle the traffic unless you (or Netflix/Hulu/Sling/etc - or both of sides) pay a premium.  You can go to satellite for TV but that doesn't fix your internet problem because sat communications and DSL aren't any real competition.

The problem here is that you keep wanting to impose a "free market' paradigm on to something that simply isn't a free market.  It's a series of community monopolies.

[Strychnine 1,802]

33 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But that brings us back to the effective monopoly position many of them hold over half the country's consumers.  If they are the only real broadband provider in your area, they have you by the short hairs.  Cut the cord and try to use just Netflix or SlingTV and they can throttle the traffic unless you (or Netflix/Hulu/Sling/etc - or both of sides) pay a premium.  You can go to satellite for TV but that doesn't fix your internet problem because sat communications and DSL aren't any real competition.

The problem here is that you keep wanting to impose a "free market' paradigm on to something that simply isn't a free market.  It's a series of community monopolies.

 

More importantly, the sole purpose of Net Neutrality (in every form it has taken), was to ensure that the internet itself remain a free market, free from artificial interference and manipulation by ISP's.

[Howard Roark 195]

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

It's not that simple.  In most cities, there are limitations to how many cable providers are allowed to use the current infrastructure.  If I remember correctly, just a few years ago in Auburn there was a massive to-do so that a second option was finally available to customers.

Also, the T-Mobile thing is very different as it's more about data usage and not an ISP carrier.  Two different things.

That is the problem, typically local governments have created a protected monopoly.  The solution to problems caused by government is not more government.  

My point about T-Mobile, is once you open the tent door it is just a matter of time before you have a tent full of camel.  It proved competitors would try and use the power of government to prevent other companies from innovating.  

"The best government is that which governs least."

[Howard Roark 195]

1 hour ago, Strychnine said:

 

More importantly, the sole purpose of Net Neutrality (in every form it has taken), was to ensure that the internet itself remain a free market, free from artificial interference and manipulation by ISP's.

How about artificial interference and manipulation by the government? Who will prevent that?

ISP power comes from barriers to entry setup by local governments.  That is not a "free market".  

[Howard Roark 195]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

But that brings us back to the effective monopoly position many of them hold over half the country's consumers.  If they are the only real broadband provider in your area, they have you by the short hairs.  Cut the cord and try to use just Netflix or SlingTV and they can throttle the traffic unless you (or Netflix/Hulu/Sling/etc - or both of sides) pay a premium.  You can go to satellite for TV but that doesn't fix your internet problem because sat communications and DSL aren't any real competition.

The problem here is that you keep wanting to impose a "free market' paradigm on to something that simply isn't a free market.  It's a series of community monopolies.

Attack the monopolies.  You will have my full support.  I remember when I was at Auburn in the 80s, the word was we only had one cable provider because the entire city council got free cable from that provider.  

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Just now, Howard Roark said:

Attack the monopolies.  You will have my full support.  I remember when I was at Auburn in the 80s, the word was we only had one cable provider because the entire city council got free cable from that provider.  

People have been trying for 20 years and the only thing that has been happening is a toothless Federal Trade Commission allowing merger after merger and now a toothless FCC allowing them the reap even more rewards from the fruit of their monopolies.

[HVAU 673]

8 minutes ago, Howard Roark said:

How about artificial interference and manipulation by the government? Who will prevent that?

In this particular instance, NN, is there evidence of either manipulation by monopolistic corporations or by corrupt government regulators?

[Howard Roark 195]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

No, I'm saying, the ISPs a couple of years or so ago started down this road of picking winners and losers, throttling traffic from certain content providers (such as Comcast extorting money from Netflix), blocking features (such as AT&T blocking Apple's FaceTime feature unless consumers paid a premium to use it), thus ending the voluntary practice of net neutrality and prompting the FCC to codify the practice as a binding rule.

It is business decisions like this that are the reason people are flocking to T-Mobile.  If I were Netflix I would charge my Comcast subscribers more and tell them why.  What do you think they would do?  We need more open markets, not less. 

[Howard Roark 195]

1 minute ago, HVAU said:

In this particular instance, NN, is there evidence of either manipulation by monopolistic corporations or by corrupt government regulators?

Trick question.  Monopolies are illegal. You can't have a monopoly unless the government allows it.  By definition that is interference. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, Howard Roark said:

Trick question.  Monopolies are illegal. You can't have a monopoly unless the government allows it.  By definition that is interference. 

If the government doesn't consider it an illegal monopoly then it doesn't do much good to insist otherwise.  You and I don't get to enforce what the FTC should.

[HVAU 673]

1 minute ago, Howard Roark said:

Trick question.  Monopolies are illegal. You can't have a monopoly unless the government allows it.  By definition that is interference. 

An entity can be monopolistic without actually being a monopoly.  The adjective can be reflective of business practices that, barring laws against monopolies, i.e. government regulations, would result in a monopoly.

[Howard Roark 195]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

If the government doesn't consider it an illegal monopoly then it doesn't do much good to insist otherwise.  You and I don't get to enforce what the FTC should.

Like I said in another post, the quickest way to get the ISP to change is for popular services like Netflix to expose them.  Put a Comcast fee on the consumer bill along with Comcast customer service number.  T-Mobile seems to be doing just fine showing consumers just how bad AT&T is.  AT&T only holds its position because Apple let them be the sole provider of iPhones for a few years.  

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/04/25/at-t-continues-to-lose-phone-subscribers.html 

"AT&T's wireless business, its main moneymaker, lost 348,000 mainstream wireless phone customers, marking a return to the large losses characteristic of the past two years after an easing in the previous period. Phone additions are considered important because they are the most lucrative mobility accounts, and customers with postpaid phone accounts tend to stay longer.

AT&T, like its telecommunications rival Verizon Communications Inc., faced heightened competition from unlimited-data plans offered by T-Mobile US Inc. and Sprint Corp. Both of the larger companies rolled out their own unlimited offers, though AT&T Chief Executive Randall Stephenson said during a call with analysts that "this has made an already competitive market even more so, and our response to the unlimited data plans was probably a little slow."

[Howard Roark 195]

1 minute ago, HVAU said:

An entity can be monopolistic without actually being a monopoly.  The adjective can be reflective of business practices that, barring laws against monopolies, i.e. government regulations, would result in a monopoly.

By that definition ALL companies are monopolistic.  Every company seeks to grow market share.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Just now, Howard Roark said:

Like I said in another post, the quickest way to get the ISP to change is for popular services like Netflix to expose them.  Put a Comcast fee on the consumer bill along with Comcast customer service number.

It's questionable whether such a move would actually work the way it was intended though.  The streaming content segment is extremely competitive right now and even a slight increase of a dollar or two can send customers off to a competitor like Hulu or Amazon Prime video.  Netflix publicized the hell out of the move trying to get pressure Comcast, but ultimately they can't deliver their product to the end user except through whatever internet pipe the people have.  Comcast is massive compared to Netflix.  They had all the leverage (customers who mostly have no where else to go).  Netflix had very little.

 

Just now, Howard Roark said:

T-Mobile seems to be doing just fine showing consumers just how bad AT&T is.  AT&T only holds its position because Apple let them be the sole provider of iPhones for a few years.  

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/04/25/at-t-continues-to-lose-phone-subscribers.html 

AT&T eventually gave in.  But it was a sign of what providers will attempt to do if given the chance.  The cellular service market is a whole lot more competitive and free than the cable and broadband internet market is.  97% of the country can easily switch to another provider with little friction.  My iPhone can literally work on any of the four major carriers without having to get a new one from that provider.  If everyone had four major cable/broadband companies to choose from where they live, maybe this would be a moot point.

But they don't, so it isn't.

 

[Howard Roark 195]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

If the government doesn't consider it an illegal monopoly then it doesn't do much good to insist otherwise.  You and I don't get to enforce what the FTC should.

What is and what should be are very different things.  I argue what should be a great deal fully knowing it will never see the light of day.  Government influence will continue to grow.  That is a fact that (apparently) not matter what politicians say during campaigns will never change. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

5 minutes ago, Howard Roark said:

By that definition ALL companies are monopolistic.  Every company seeks to grow market share.

Growing market share is not the same thing is monopolistic.  It's one thing if most people choose your company because it's the best one of all the available options.  It's entirely another when they basically have to choose yours because there are no other options.

[Howard Roark 195]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

Growing market share is not the same thing is monopolistic.  It's one thing if most people choose your company because it's the best one of all the available options.  It's entirely another when they basically have to choose yours because there are no other options.

If you have no other choice, that is a monopoly not monopolistic. ISP have this position because they were given it by government entities, not because they dominated their competition. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

33 minutes ago, Howard Roark said:

That is the problem, typically local governments have created a protected monopoly.  The solution to problems caused by government is not more government.  

My point about T-Mobile, is once you open the tent door it is just a matter of time before you have a tent full of camel.  It proved competitors would try and use the power of government to prevent other companies from innovating.  

"The best government is that which governs least."

In this case, seeing as how local governments aren't in a hurry to break up that protected monopoly, the correct solution may very well be more government via net neutrality regulations.  If it were truly a free market in every municipality for cable companies and consumers to have choices, I would 100% agree with you as the customer would then dictate winners and losers.