F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

[Belk]

It's a list of what the Fed can do, and specifically says everything else is reserved to the states.

So why is it that the courts have not ruled this as unconstitutional?

 

[Almost there]

That only happens in sectors where there is adequate competition. I would argue that in terms of telecomm/internet, there is not. There is faux-competition.

This is where we disagree. I live in the sticks, have no cable or DSL, yet have at least six different options. So it seems to be a difference of opinion thing in this case.

 

[Almost there]

...but much like the competitors in the healthcare industry aren't truly competing with each other, neither are the phone/tv/internet providers.

When all of the "competitors" meet up at strategy conferences and all make an agreement not to undercut each other on prices (IE: "If we all agree not to charge less than $40, all of our profits will stay high"), the real competition isn't Verizon vs. AT&T, the real competition is between AT&T & Verizon vs. The Consumer Market.

Does that not violate anti trust laws? I know the gas stations are not allowed to agree on a gas price. Maybe we need to force them to compete in a free market rather than act like OPEC.

i.e. the problem is that the market is not really free.

BTW, you can now get "full service" MRI's for $399. That's less than a half of a month's bronze health insurance premium for me - if I had one.

 

[Almost there]

I've touched on this in healthcare conversations...but 100% unrestricted free markets only work in non-essential markets where providers are actually competing against each other and not working with each other to artificially keep prices high. As soon as you have a scenario in which the customer urgently needs your product/service (like healthcare), or where providers collaborate with each other to figure how they can avoid the effects of true competition...might as well stick a fork in it...it'd done. Nothing other than sensible regulation solves that issue.

I've found that even urgently needed product/services, in a free market, have quite competitive pricing when they are not being paid for by insurance.

I think it might be cool to get "ambulance" insurance (since that IS urgently needed). Imagine just entering into an agreement with an ambulance company that if you ever needed their service, you could just call and they'd show up. And you could pick the company. It could be just a few dollars a month, and even include a deductible. Of course, it would also be based on things like general health and age. But the health services you don't need "right now", are easily price shopped (like MRI's I mentioned).

 

[Almost there]

Are you being obtuse? Do you think your healthcare was affordable when it was completely in private hands? You were in agreement with insurance companies accepting payments for coverage, then denying coverage based on "pre-existing conditions" when the customer was sick?

Back at you. Do you think the Affordable Health Care Act made health care more affordable? That's the point of the joke.

And as far as pre-existing conditions are concerned, I compare them to getting into an auto accident and then running out and getting car insurance afterwards and expecting the car insurance to cover your damages.

Pre-existing conditions come in all flavors. I don't understand your mentioning it. The contract states what is covered and what is not. In a sane world, a health insurance company will sell you a policy that covers everything but any long term illnesses you already have. That only makes sense. Now, if you want them to cover an expensive existing condition, they'll do it, if you're willing to pay a premium of $20,000 a month (or more). Insurance is about mitigating risk, and basing the premium on the risk involved.

 

[Almost there]

Yes. Yet, it is the Federal Trade Commission has broad authority to police unfair, deceptive, and anti-competitive practices online. They can reported, fined, etc.

It isn't the FCC - the department we are discussing that handles that. They do NOT have the authority, and never regulated the aspects of this thread. This is part that has been confusing me all along!

They aren't the department you go to for throttling, blocking of sites, etc. You would go to the FCC, and you don't need NN for them to jump on that. It's called unfair, deceptive, etc. They have taken complaints prior to NN, during it, and will continue to now.

The big change that came with NN (and has now gone away) is simply how they defined the service you get from your ISP in "the last mile". And now that the definition has reverted back to one over which the FCC has no authority, we are back to where we were before NN.

Now, if this turns out to be some sort of problem, we can come up with a new NN. But the last thing you want to do is call the cops before you really need them.

 

[FenderTL5]

The big change that came with NN (and has now gone away) is simply how they defined the service you get from your ISP in "the last mile". And now that the definition has reverted back to one over which the FCC has no authority, we are back to where we were before NN.

Now, if this turns out to be some sort of problem, we can come up with a new NN. But the last thing you want to do is call the cops before you really need them.

Agree to the first paragraph.

The last is where I disagree.
(trying to keep with your cop analogy) The ISPs were already caught breaking and entering, red-handed. When called, the cops came.
The ISPs then sued on the grounds that the cops lacked jurisdiction. The ISPs won.
That was the reason for reclassification to begin with.

 

[Almost there]

Agree to the first paragraph.

The last is where I disagree.
(trying to keep with your cop analogy) The ISPs were already caught breaking and entering, red-handed. When called, the cops came.
The ISPs then sued on the grounds that the cops lacked jurisdiction. The ISPs won.
That was the reason for reclassification to begin with.

I didn't see anything wrong with what the ISP's were doing.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Back at you. Do you think the Affordable Health Care Act made health care more affordable? That's the point of the joke.

Before Affordable Care Act you could get no coverage for your payments because of pre-existing conditions. So yes, affordable care act made healthcare much more affordable as you got treatment for your payments.

And as far as pre-existing conditions are concerned, I compare them to getting into an auto accident and then running out and getting car insurance afterwards and expecting the car insurance to cover your damages.

Yes, this is what you are supposed to believe. I can see the insurance companies spent their advertising dollars effectively.

 

[Almost there]

Before Affordable Care Act you could get no coverage for your payments because of pre-existing conditions. So yes, affordable care act made healthcare much more affordable as you got treatment for your payments.


Yes, this is what you are supposed to believe. I can see the insurance companies spent their advertising dollars effectively.

I used to be in the insurance business.

You really need to see this from both sides. If you force companies to cover pre-existing conditions, you jack up EVERYBODY's rates - a lot.

And here we are...

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

I used to be in the insurance business.

You really need to see this from both sides. If you force companies to cover pre-existing conditions, you jack up EVERYBODY's rates - a lot.

And here we are...

Actually if your country had used facts to base decision on and had gone with what Obama originally wanted everybody rate would have gone down - a lot. Government run single payer is far superior. Of those countries costs are near 1/2 of USA, outcomes are better than USA.

Insurance company propaganda and Republican propaganda fooled a lot of Americans and you are still forced to pay double for worse outcomes. Sad.

Probably best for us to get back to topic of NN. Point was trusting large corporations is foolish. Government oversight is required.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

I used to be in the insurance business.

You really need to see this from both sides. If you force companies to cover pre-existing conditions, you jack up EVERYBODY's rates - a lot.

And here we are...

Yes, laughing at facts is always easier than learning. Unfortunately it makes it much easier to keep fooling Americans.

 

[Almost there]

Yes, laughing at facts is always easier than learning. Unfortunately it makes it much easier to keep fooling Americans.

I agree. Those that understand how insurance (and health care) actually work do see this whole thing as an exercise in fooling a lot of americans ignorant of how it works.

I love that old phrase, "You think it's expensive now?! Just wait until it's "free"!

 

[GoldenBoy89]

This really gets to the core, and may explain that it is where someone falls on the politcal scale that determines their attitude about the recent Net Neutrality death:

On Net Neutrality: Do You Trust Government or the Private Sector? -

Trust is probably not the word I would use but governments exist for their people. Corporations exist for their shareholders. One is here to regulate society and the other exists only to make money for its owners.

You decide who you want to trust here.

 

[Almost there]

Trust is probably not the word I would use but governments exist for their people. Corporations exist for their shareholders. One is here to regulate society and the other exists only to make money for its owners.

You decide who you want to trust here.

I've worked for a lot of businesses. Every single one had the mantra that the better they serve their customers, the better they will do financially. I don't know of any government that said that.

And all you have to do is look at the track record of government and various businesses. Competition keeps business honest. The same concept keeps state governments relatively fair. But what of the federal government. Who really packs up and moves to another country because they don't like the way things are going?

 

[iluvatar5150]

No it wasn't. It was another attempt to impose the Fairness Doctrine, only this time to the internet.

Do you even know what the Fairness Doctrine was?

If anything, NN would prevent ISP's from imposing their own versions of the fairness doctrine.

I don't find any of that in the Constitution.

The Commerce Clause explicitly gives the federal government authority to regulate interstate commerce.
Commerce Clause - Wikipedia


It's comments like these that make me feel a little sad for coming into a thread late and having others beat me to pointing out how ridiculous they are.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I've worked for a lot of businesses. Every single one had the mantra that the better they serve their customers, the better they will do financially. I don't know of any government that said that.

Probably a good thing since I don't think government should seek to turn a profit off its citizens.

And all you have to do is look at the track record of government and various businesses. Competition keeps business honest. The same concept keeps state governments relatively fair. But what of the federal government. Who really packs up and moves to another country because they don't like the way things are going?

These businesses have been shown in the past to not be acting honestly or in the best interest of their customers. That is why the federal government had to step in to regulate and hold these corporations accountable to the people they serve -- their customers.

One thing governments do better than corporations is enforce laws.

 

[Almost there]

These businesses have been shown in the past to not be acting honestly or in the best interest of their customers. That is why the federal government had to step in to regulate and hold these corporations accountable to the people they serve -- their customers.

One thing governments do better than corporations is enforce laws.

What do you mean by "these businesses"? Businesses come in varying shapes and sizes - and honesty. If they are breaking the law, they need to be held accountable. This is what our government is charged with doing - upholding the law. If what they are doing is legal, but harmful, laws need to be passed. But the reason needs to be compelling. It needs to reach a "negative impact threshold" before getting the dumb brute force government involved.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Does that not violate anti trust laws? I know the gas stations are not allowed to agree on a gas price. Maybe we need to force them to compete in a free market rather than act like OPEC.

It wouldn't matter even if it did...when they're spending tons of money on lawyers (telling them what they technically can and can't say) and lobbyists to make sure that the government stays out of their hair. Do you think pesky things like business regulations stand in their way?

i.e. the problem is that the market is not really free.

Sure it is...it's just that the end result of any truly free, 100% unrestricted market, is a direct monopoly or a colluded monopoly between a handful of providers.

While free market aspects are important for driving innovation and keeping prices low along the way, like any other unrestricted competition, there ends up being a "winner" if the competition is left unchecked, and that winner eventually gets so powerful that they can squash any would-be future competitors for their throne before they even get out of the gate.

That's why the models that have worked best for both reaping the rewards of market competition, but still keeping the larger companies in check so they can't squash all new competition (not at least without a fair fight), is a hybrid model employing large aspects of free-market, with a splash of public sector principles in a few key markets.

That's why the Nordic Model has worked so well in the Scandinavian countries and has fostered an environment that's still highly competitive, but that doesn't allow the titans in the critical industries (healthcare, energy, etc..) to completely steamroll consumers via their tremendous market leverage.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is where we disagree. I live in the sticks, have no cable or DSL, yet have at least six different options. So it seems to be a difference of opinion thing in this case.

It's not a difference of opinion, it's a difference of exposure.

You're basically saying that "because I have at least six different options and I live in the sticks, everyone else must have the same situation".

I don't live in the sticks, I live in a city of 35,000 people... yet I only have one option...and prior to some of the neutrality laws getting put in place, I was getting raked over the coals.