FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Net Neutrality is about delivering things equally for all people who have paid. Both parties, the sender and receiver, have paid for a service. But one doesn't know that they don't receive what they paid for.
See Comcast disagrees with you. In small print they tell you what you’re paying for is a curated internet, curated by them. At least that’s he case after the change.
Just because you don’t read the small print doesn’t mean they didn’t tell you.
Except if they told you that during Net Neutrality, they didn't actually tell you.
Well they fix that by sending you an email with an update TOS
Then it's not what you paid for
Notice the past tense there - because, yes it is what they Paid for, now they are paying for something new - new TOS, new agreement. You keep paying, you've chosen to accept it.
No choices, that's the reality. No one chooses in America.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Fundamentally repealing Net Neutrality is the right thing to do...if ISPs were not monopolies or duopolies in the majority of the country. If freedom to compete actually existed in the market, then removing regulations would spur growth. Unfortunately competition does not exist currently, and won't exist after repeal. The FCC is addressing the wrong problem with this.
I'm not sure that I agree - even in an open market, do you want infrastructure suppliers choosing what you RECEIVE?
For example, UPS and FedEx don't choose to deliver some types of products or from different companies - everything costs the same and comes at the same speed. They don't choose to make certain vendors unable to deliver to you or make some packages slow to discredit those vendors and it would be good for no one if they did.
Well, someone does have to pay to get their packages to their destination faster. Because there is competition in the market those prices are pretty reasonable and there are alternatives. If internet service was truly competitive then you could have a scenario where a Comcast charged for everything under the sun and smaller ISPs could come in and offer open internet for less and take customers forcing Comcast to change their offerings or lose customers. But it isn't truly competitive. Thus why I think the FCC is addressing the wrong thing.
One of the many reasons I'm for local loop unbundling. Let the municipalities manage the last mile and allow ISPs to competitively access the consumer.
If our roads are any sort of indicator of quality I might pass on this option.
You state this as if a Comcast road would be better? NO way.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Fundamentally repealing Net Neutrality is the right thing to do...if ISPs were not monopolies or duopolies in the majority of the country. If freedom to compete actually existed in the market, then removing regulations would spur growth. Unfortunately competition does not exist currently, and won't exist after repeal. The FCC is addressing the wrong problem with this.
I'm not sure that I agree - even in an open market, do you want infrastructure suppliers choosing what you RECEIVE?
For example, UPS and FedEx don't choose to deliver some types of products or from different companies - everything costs the same and comes at the same speed. They don't choose to make certain vendors unable to deliver to you or make some packages slow to discredit those vendors and it would be good for no one if they did.
Well, someone does have to pay to get their packages to their destination faster. Because there is competition in the market those prices are pretty reasonable and there are alternatives. If internet service was truly competitive then you could have a scenario where a Comcast charged for everything under the sun and smaller ISPs could come in and offer open internet for less and take customers forcing Comcast to change their offerings or lose customers. But it isn't truly competitive. Thus why I think the FCC is addressing the wrong thing.
One of the many reasons I'm for local loop unbundling. Let the municipalities manage the last mile and allow ISPs to competitively access the consumer.
If our roads are any sort of indicator of quality I might pass on this option.
You state this as if a Comcast road would be better? NO way.
Eh... there is a point in there somewhere.
My point in municipalities very often aren't better than businesses like ComCast.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Fundamentally repealing Net Neutrality is the right thing to do...if ISPs were not monopolies or duopolies in the majority of the country. If freedom to compete actually existed in the market, then removing regulations would spur growth. Unfortunately competition does not exist currently, and won't exist after repeal. The FCC is addressing the wrong problem with this.
I'm not sure that I agree - even in an open market, do you want infrastructure suppliers choosing what you RECEIVE?
For example, UPS and FedEx don't choose to deliver some types of products or from different companies - everything costs the same and comes at the same speed. They don't choose to make certain vendors unable to deliver to you or make some packages slow to discredit those vendors and it would be good for no one if they did.
Well, someone does have to pay to get their packages to their destination faster. Because there is competition in the market those prices are pretty reasonable and there are alternatives. If internet service was truly competitive then you could have a scenario where a Comcast charged for everything under the sun and smaller ISPs could come in and offer open internet for less and take customers forcing Comcast to change their offerings or lose customers. But it isn't truly competitive. Thus why I think the FCC is addressing the wrong thing.
One of the many reasons I'm for local loop unbundling. Let the municipalities manage the last mile and allow ISPs to competitively access the consumer.
If our roads are any sort of indicator of quality I might pass on this option.
You state this as if a Comcast road would be better? NO way.
Yeah, has anyone else seen the condition of the privatized toll routes? Forget tire-eating potholes, those are just the starting point!
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Net Neutrality is about delivering things equally for all people who have paid. Both parties, the sender and receiver, have paid for a service. But one doesn't know that they don't receive what they paid for.
See Comcast disagrees with you. In small print they tell you what you’re paying for is a curated internet, curated by them. At least that’s he case after the change.
Just because you don’t read the small print doesn’t mean they didn’t tell you.
Except if they told you that during Net Neutrality, they didn't actually tell you.
Well they fix that by sending you an email with an update TOS
Then it's not what you paid for
Notice the past tense there - because, yes it is what they Paid for, now they are paying for something new - new TOS, new agreement. You keep paying, you've chosen to accept it.
No choices, that's the reality. No one chooses in America.
Well that's nothing new - and plays to exactly what I and @coliver are saying.
-
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Fundamentally repealing Net Neutrality is the right thing to do...if ISPs were not monopolies or duopolies in the majority of the country. If freedom to compete actually existed in the market, then removing regulations would spur growth. Unfortunately competition does not exist currently, and won't exist after repeal. The FCC is addressing the wrong problem with this.
I'm not sure that I agree - even in an open market, do you want infrastructure suppliers choosing what you RECEIVE?
For example, UPS and FedEx don't choose to deliver some types of products or from different companies - everything costs the same and comes at the same speed. They don't choose to make certain vendors unable to deliver to you or make some packages slow to discredit those vendors and it would be good for no one if they did.
Well, someone does have to pay to get their packages to their destination faster. Because there is competition in the market those prices are pretty reasonable and there are alternatives. If internet service was truly competitive then you could have a scenario where a Comcast charged for everything under the sun and smaller ISPs could come in and offer open internet for less and take customers forcing Comcast to change their offerings or lose customers. But it isn't truly competitive. Thus why I think the FCC is addressing the wrong thing.
One of the many reasons I'm for local loop unbundling. Let the municipalities manage the last mile and allow ISPs to competitively access the consumer.
If our roads are any sort of indicator of quality I might pass on this option.
You state this as if a Comcast road would be better? NO way.
Yeah, has anyone else seen the condition of the privatized toll routes? Forget tire-eating potholes, those are just the starting point!
If those were that bad, why are drivers still using them? I take it the cost of replacing stuff hasn't out weighted the cost of driving alternative routes.
-
@dustinb3403 Not comparable situ. Unbundling would let municipalities lease the lines to companies who would maintain them. The local maintenance companies would compete for access, and shitty service would be disincentivezed
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Net Neutrality is about delivering things equally for all people who have paid. Both parties, the sender and receiver, have paid for a service. But one doesn't know that they don't receive what they paid for.
See Comcast disagrees with you. In small print they tell you what you’re paying for is a curated internet, curated by them. At least that’s he case after the change.
Just because you don’t read the small print doesn’t mean they didn’t tell you.
Except if they told you that during Net Neutrality, they didn't actually tell you.
Well they fix that by sending you an email with an update TOS
Then it's not what you paid for
Notice the past tense there - because, yes it is what they Paid for, now they are paying for something new - new TOS, new agreement. You keep paying, you've chosen to accept it.
No choices, that's the reality. No one chooses in America.
Well that's nothing new - and plays to exactly what I and @coliver are saying.
Then you can't say that people chose.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Net Neutrality is about delivering things equally for all people who have paid. Both parties, the sender and receiver, have paid for a service. But one doesn't know that they don't receive what they paid for.
See Comcast disagrees with you. In small print they tell you what you’re paying for is a curated internet, curated by them. At least that’s he case after the change.
Just because you don’t read the small print doesn’t mean they didn’t tell you.
Except if they told you that during Net Neutrality, they didn't actually tell you.
Well they fix that by sending you an email with an update TOS
Then it's not what you paid for
Notice the past tense there - because, yes it is what they Paid for, now they are paying for something new - new TOS, new agreement. You keep paying, you've chosen to accept it.
No choices, that's the reality. No one chooses in America.
Well that's nothing new - and plays to exactly what I and @coliver are saying.
Then you can't say that people chose.
This is true, but they didn't really chose before either. Comcast was limiting things like torrents before the current Net Neutrality laws and yet people used them. So all that's happened is we've rolled the clock back 4 years.
I'm not saying this is a good thing - just that it's a thing.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Fundamentally repealing Net Neutrality is the right thing to do...if ISPs were not monopolies or duopolies in the majority of the country. If freedom to compete actually existed in the market, then removing regulations would spur growth. Unfortunately competition does not exist currently, and won't exist after repeal. The FCC is addressing the wrong problem with this.
I'm not sure that I agree - even in an open market, do you want infrastructure suppliers choosing what you RECEIVE?
For example, UPS and FedEx don't choose to deliver some types of products or from different companies - everything costs the same and comes at the same speed. They don't choose to make certain vendors unable to deliver to you or make some packages slow to discredit those vendors and it would be good for no one if they did.
Well, someone does have to pay to get their packages to their destination faster. Because there is competition in the market those prices are pretty reasonable and there are alternatives. If internet service was truly competitive then you could have a scenario where a Comcast charged for everything under the sun and smaller ISPs could come in and offer open internet for less and take customers forcing Comcast to change their offerings or lose customers. But it isn't truly competitive. Thus why I think the FCC is addressing the wrong thing.
One of the many reasons I'm for local loop unbundling. Let the municipalities manage the last mile and allow ISPs to competitively access the consumer.
If our roads are any sort of indicator of quality I might pass on this option.
You state this as if a Comcast road would be better? NO way.
Yeah, has anyone else seen the condition of the privatized toll routes? Forget tire-eating potholes, those are just the starting point!
If those were that bad, why are drivers still using them? I take it the cost of replacing stuff hasn't out weighted the cost of driving alternative routes.
There may just not be able alternative routes at all allowed in the area.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Fundamentally repealing Net Neutrality is the right thing to do...if ISPs were not monopolies or duopolies in the majority of the country. If freedom to compete actually existed in the market, then removing regulations would spur growth. Unfortunately competition does not exist currently, and won't exist after repeal. The FCC is addressing the wrong problem with this.
I'm not sure that I agree - even in an open market, do you want infrastructure suppliers choosing what you RECEIVE?
For example, UPS and FedEx don't choose to deliver some types of products or from different companies - everything costs the same and comes at the same speed. They don't choose to make certain vendors unable to deliver to you or make some packages slow to discredit those vendors and it would be good for no one if they did.
Well, someone does have to pay to get their packages to their destination faster. Because there is competition in the market those prices are pretty reasonable and there are alternatives. If internet service was truly competitive then you could have a scenario where a Comcast charged for everything under the sun and smaller ISPs could come in and offer open internet for less and take customers forcing Comcast to change their offerings or lose customers. But it isn't truly competitive. Thus why I think the FCC is addressing the wrong thing.
One of the many reasons I'm for local loop unbundling. Let the municipalities manage the last mile and allow ISPs to competitively access the consumer.
If our roads are any sort of indicator of quality I might pass on this option.
You state this as if a Comcast road would be better? NO way.
Yeah, has anyone else seen the condition of the privatized toll routes? Forget tire-eating potholes, those are just the starting point!
If those were that bad, why are drivers still using them? I take it the cost of replacing stuff hasn't out weighted the cost of driving alternative routes.
There may just not be able alternative routes at all allowed in the area.
Is this a real problem on the east coast? It's not in Nebraska - I'm not sure it is in Chicago either.. but I know next to nothing about east coast cities.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Fundamentally repealing Net Neutrality is the right thing to do...if ISPs were not monopolies or duopolies in the majority of the country. If freedom to compete actually existed in the market, then removing regulations would spur growth. Unfortunately competition does not exist currently, and won't exist after repeal. The FCC is addressing the wrong problem with this.
I'm not sure that I agree - even in an open market, do you want infrastructure suppliers choosing what you RECEIVE?
For example, UPS and FedEx don't choose to deliver some types of products or from different companies - everything costs the same and comes at the same speed. They don't choose to make certain vendors unable to deliver to you or make some packages slow to discredit those vendors and it would be good for no one if they did.
Well, someone does have to pay to get their packages to their destination faster.
That's open and equal to all. Nothing related to what we are discussing with is refusing to deliver things that have been paid for already.
But fundamentally that is a problem with the market and the lack of competition in internet service. If FedEx were to start to refuse packages to or from white jews whose names started with an F then the competitors would step in and service would continue. If there were not monopolistic market conditions then Net Neutrality would not be required.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Fundamentally repealing Net Neutrality is the right thing to do...if ISPs were not monopolies or duopolies in the majority of the country. If freedom to compete actually existed in the market, then removing regulations would spur growth. Unfortunately competition does not exist currently, and won't exist after repeal. The FCC is addressing the wrong problem with this.
I'm not sure that I agree - even in an open market, do you want infrastructure suppliers choosing what you RECEIVE?
For example, UPS and FedEx don't choose to deliver some types of products or from different companies - everything costs the same and comes at the same speed. They don't choose to make certain vendors unable to deliver to you or make some packages slow to discredit those vendors and it would be good for no one if they did.
Well, someone does have to pay to get their packages to their destination faster. Because there is competition in the market those prices are pretty reasonable and there are alternatives. If internet service was truly competitive then you could have a scenario where a Comcast charged for everything under the sun and smaller ISPs could come in and offer open internet for less and take customers forcing Comcast to change their offerings or lose customers. But it isn't truly competitive. Thus why I think the FCC is addressing the wrong thing.
One of the many reasons I'm for local loop unbundling. Let the municipalities manage the last mile and allow ISPs to competitively access the consumer.
If our roads are any sort of indicator of quality I might pass on this option.
You state this as if a Comcast road would be better? NO way.
Yeah, has anyone else seen the condition of the privatized toll routes? Forget tire-eating potholes, those are just the starting point!
If those were that bad, why are drivers still using them? I take it the cost of replacing stuff hasn't out weighted the cost of driving alternative routes.
There may just not be able alternative routes at all allowed in the area.
Is this a real problem on the east coast? It's not in Nebraska - I'm not sure it is in Chicago either.. but I know next to nothing about east coast cities.
My point is that just because you can see a road, doesn't mean you're allowed to use it.
Just like just because you know there are other internet providers, doesn't mean that you are able to use them for your service.
-
Were ISP services truly competitive, @Kelly is correct that there would never be a need for net Neutrality laws. People would simply select the carrier with the feature set they desired.
Most people do not give a shit about this one way or the other and will simply pick the product that costs them the least. Whether that carrier is neutral or not.
But the entire ISP industry is nothing but semi regulated monopolies. More monopoly in some places than others, and more regulated in some places than others.
There is no true choice and there is no true competition. So there is certainly a need for laws of this type as has been proven by the existing ISPs over time as they have restricted user access to services.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Fundamentally repealing Net Neutrality is the right thing to do...if ISPs were not monopolies or duopolies in the majority of the country. If freedom to compete actually existed in the market, then removing regulations would spur growth. Unfortunately competition does not exist currently, and won't exist after repeal. The FCC is addressing the wrong problem with this.
I'm not sure that I agree - even in an open market, do you want infrastructure suppliers choosing what you RECEIVE?
For example, UPS and FedEx don't choose to deliver some types of products or from different companies - everything costs the same and comes at the same speed. They don't choose to make certain vendors unable to deliver to you or make some packages slow to discredit those vendors and it would be good for no one if they did.
Well, someone does have to pay to get their packages to their destination faster.
That's open and equal to all. Nothing related to what we are discussing with is refusing to deliver things that have been paid for already.
Not exactly.
You are paying an ISP for access to their network. Nothing more and nothing less.
Their network allows you to then connect to other networks.
Nothing in a competitive market would stop you from choosing an ISP that provides neutral services versus you choosing an ISP that does not.
-
Im not sure why this is even a debate. The argument for NN was won a century ago. It is the same argument that existed for water and electric service. The same types of pro-monopoly-fuck-everybody-else people exist today; they also existed 100 years ago. Doesnt make their ideas any more valid now.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Fundamentally repealing Net Neutrality is the right thing to do...if ISPs were not monopolies or duopolies in the majority of the country. If freedom to compete actually existed in the market, then removing regulations would spur growth. Unfortunately competition does not exist currently, and won't exist after repeal. The FCC is addressing the wrong problem with this.
I'm not sure that I agree - even in an open market, do you want infrastructure suppliers choosing what you RECEIVE?
For example, UPS and FedEx don't choose to deliver some types of products or from different companies - everything costs the same and comes at the same speed. They don't choose to make certain vendors unable to deliver to you or make some packages slow to discredit those vendors and it would be good for no one if they did.
Well, someone does have to pay to get their packages to their destination faster. Because there is competition in the market those prices are pretty reasonable and there are alternatives. If internet service was truly competitive then you could have a scenario where a Comcast charged for everything under the sun and smaller ISPs could come in and offer open internet for less and take customers forcing Comcast to change their offerings or lose customers. But it isn't truly competitive. Thus why I think the FCC is addressing the wrong thing.
One of the many reasons I'm for local loop unbundling. Let the municipalities manage the last mile and allow ISPs to competitively access the consumer.
If our roads are any sort of indicator of quality I might pass on this option.
You state this as if a Comcast road would be better? NO way.
Yeah, has anyone else seen the condition of the privatized toll routes? Forget tire-eating potholes, those are just the starting point!
If those were that bad, why are drivers still using them? I take it the cost of replacing stuff hasn't out weighted the cost of driving alternative routes.
Toll roads in NY, PA, and Florida (the only places I've driven on them) are not as good but definitely not as bad as the publicly maintained roads. Seems hit and miss depending on what municipality you're in.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Fundamentally repealing Net Neutrality is the right thing to do...if ISPs were not monopolies or duopolies in the majority of the country. If freedom to compete actually existed in the market, then removing regulations would spur growth. Unfortunately competition does not exist currently, and won't exist after repeal. The FCC is addressing the wrong problem with this.
I'm not sure that I agree - even in an open market, do you want infrastructure suppliers choosing what you RECEIVE?
For example, UPS and FedEx don't choose to deliver some types of products or from different companies - everything costs the same and comes at the same speed. They don't choose to make certain vendors unable to deliver to you or make some packages slow to discredit those vendors and it would be good for no one if they did.
Well, someone does have to pay to get their packages to their destination faster. Because there is competition in the market those prices are pretty reasonable and there are alternatives. If internet service was truly competitive then you could have a scenario where a Comcast charged for everything under the sun and smaller ISPs could come in and offer open internet for less and take customers forcing Comcast to change their offerings or lose customers. But it isn't truly competitive. Thus why I think the FCC is addressing the wrong thing.
One of the many reasons I'm for local loop unbundling. Let the municipalities manage the last mile and allow ISPs to competitively access the consumer.
If our roads are any sort of indicator of quality I might pass on this option.
You state this as if a Comcast road would be better? NO way.
Yeah, has anyone else seen the condition of the privatized toll routes? Forget tire-eating potholes, those are just the starting point!
If those were that bad, why are drivers still using them? I take it the cost of replacing stuff hasn't out weighted the cost of driving alternative routes.
Toll roads in NY, PA, and Florida (the only places I've driven on them) are not as good but definitely not as worse as the publicly maintained roads. Seems hit and miss depending on what municipality you're in.
NY Toll Roads are State maintained.
-
@momurda said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Im not sure why this is even a debate. The argument for NN was won a century ago. It is the same argument that existed for water and electric service. The same types of pro-monopoly-fuck-everybody-else people exist today; they also existed 100 years ago. Doesnt make their ideas any more valid now.
The people who are taking a principled stand against it are ones who want less government control of anything. They're not wrong, but they are wrong about what we need right now. We need net neutrality to stay in place until the day when there aren't monopolistic controls (assuming it should ever come).
-
@momurda said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Im not sure why this is even a debate. The argument for NN was won a century ago. It is the same argument that existed for water and electric service. The same types of pro-monopoly-fuck-everybody-else people exist today; they also existed 100 years ago. Doesnt make their ideas any more valid now.
Because those people's companies are now considered people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
