F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

[iluvatar5150]

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.

I live in one of the nicer parts of Baltimore City and I have one option for wired broadband. FIOS doesn't extend into the city. DSL is possible but the POTS lines running into and through the house are in such sad shape I'd be amazed if they even worked. If I moved to a different neighborhood, I could potentially be in range of a wireless broadband system that's rolling out. I also have service on my phone, which is fine for what it is, but isn't a feasible source of access for my entire house.

 

[Almost there]

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.

I lived in Seattle until 6 years ago. I had a LOT more choices than I do here. Don't they have cellular data plans in your city?

 

[Almost there]

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?



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.

Regarding the Nordic Model, you and I are going to have to disagree on that one...
No, Bernie Sanders, Scandinavia is not a socialist utopia - The Boston Globe

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Regarding the Nordic Model, you and I are going to have to disagree on that one...
No, Bernie Sanders, Scandinavia is not a socialist utopia - The Boston Globe

I can't get to the link, it's trying to make me sign up for an account...but is there a particular data point or metric from the article you'd like to discuss, or is it more just of an Op Ed piece?

In terms of cost of living, standard of living, access to critical services, educational access, low crime rates, etc... they're outperforming us.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I lived in Seattle until 6 years ago. I had a LOT more choices than I do here. Don't they have cellular data plans in your city?

I can get a cellular plan, however, if you want to do tethering or use it as a hotspot, you're basically trading one devil for another as the price on an unlimited cellular plan (that allows tethering or internet connection sharing) through any of cellular providers is even more costly than the cable company.

A simple search for "cable provider regional monopoly" should return an abundant amount of results that can be researched to give you an idea of just how prevalent this scenario actually is.

 

[Almost there]

I can't get to the link, it's trying to make me sign up for an account...but is there a particular data point or metric from the article you'd like to discuss, or is it more just of an Op Ed piece?

There actually is an "x" on one of the left corners. I almost didn't see it myself.

One interesting and rather unique point in the article is how it discusses that their success, such that it is lately, is really based on their cultural values, rule of law, work ethic, etc., rather than their economic policies. It points out that when they move to countries like the US, they are successful here too, and usually more successful than their brethren still in country.

 

[Almost there]

I can get a cellular plan, however, if you want to do tethering or use it as a hotspot, you're basically trading one devil for another as the price on an unlimited cellular plan (that allows tethering or internet connection sharing) through any of cellular providers is even more costly than the cable company.

A simple search for "cable provider regional monopoly" should return an abundant amount of results that can be researched to give you an idea of just how prevalent this scenario actually is.

But the point is that the cell plans are there.

I use an AT&T cell plan for all our internet access at home. For three phone lines (one used as our mobile hotspot) it's $200 a month. That gives me a 22 gig plan that "might be" throttled when I hit that point. Except it never is. We watch a lot of free stuff on amazon prime, and I watch a lot of concerts and "car crash videos" on youtube. Everything works flawlessly, from a cell phone sitting on a window sill.

Not all plans are equal, and only one of them may be cable, but there ARE choices. There is not a monopoly except in areas where your ONLY choice is Satellite. And that is pretty rare. And even then you probably have at least two companies to choose from, Wild Blue and Hughs.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I have noticed something that probably has nothing to do with net neutrality but two weeks ago accessing this site from home or work was speedy, no difference what so ever. Since Friday, it is still speedy from work but is a lot slower at home. My work is a Global Multi-Billion Dollar European based Company and has one internet provider while my house two blocks away has another provider. Probably just a coincidence.

 

[iluvatar5150]

"car crash videos" on youtube.

lol, finally, something we have in common. I'm partial to the crazy rally racings ones.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Not all plans are equal, and only one of them may be cable, but there ARE choices. There is not a monopoly except in areas where your ONLY choice is Satellite. And that is pretty rare. And even then you probably have at least two companies to choose from, Wild Blue and Hughs.

...but again, if both choices are bad due to collusion, competition isn't solving the problem.

When every option is $100+ for unlimited internet at a respectable speed (when many other countries have ISP's offering double the speed for half the price), then you really don't have a choice in a true sense of competition, you only have the choice of "which company would I like to bend over the barrel for". When these companies collude, you don't have real competition, you have false choice.

If you're paying more than $40/month for speeds lower than 200Down/20Up, then the ISP is ripping you off big time and taking advantage of you...plain and simple.

I used to try to always rationalize and justify a position of "the free market will fix everything"...however the pragmatist in me looks at the data, and realizes that's simply not the case in certain critical markets. It does still work well in other markets, but in terms of information delivery systems (IE: internet), it's one of those things were we simply can't trust corporations to do the right thing.

 

[Almost there]

...but again, if both choices are bad due to collusion, competition isn't solving the problem.

That is a different subject. If laws are being broken, they need to be enforced. We don't need to pass more laws to make up for other laws not being enforced.

When every option is $100+ for unlimited internet at a respectable speed (when many other countries have ISP's offering double the speed for half the price), then you really don't have a choice in a true sense of competition, you only have the choice of "which company would I like to bend over the barrel for". When these companies collude, you don't have real competition, you have false choice.

Well, now you're just complaining about the price. I complained about the price of my brand new 1980 Buick because it cost $8,500, loaded. I'd love to pay that price for a loaded Buick now.

If you're paying more than $40/month for speeds lower than 200Down/20Up, then the ISP is ripping you off big time and taking advantage of you...plain and simple.

I would agree.

I used to try to always rationalize and justify a position of "the free market will fix everything"...however the pragmatist in me looks at the data, and realizes that's simply not the case in certain critical markets. It does still work well in other markets, but in terms of information delivery systems (IE: internet), it's one of those things were we simply can't trust corporations to do the right thing.

I'm really not seeing any problem with that, yet. And I say that as someone that is in one of those prime victim markets. I don't have all the choices people in metropolitan areas have.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm really not seeing any problem with that, yet. And I say that as someone that is in one of those prime victim markets. I don't have all the choices people in metropolitan areas have.

That's the myth of ISP choices...

People assume that internet choices, like most other markets, have more choices and more availability in metropolitan areas vs. rural areas. That's not necessarily the case.

Like I mentioned, I don't live in a rural area, I live in a city with 30k+ people and we still only have one option as there's a regional monopoly in place... the city where my brother lives is much smaller (about 30 mins from where I live), has a population of around 2,500 people, yet, they have 3 providers to choose from.

So, it's not like restaurants and stores where the options tend to increase with the population size. There's no real rhyme or reason to ISP availability for certain locales.

"Victim markets" have no correlation to population size in terms of ISPs.

Well, now you're just complaining about the price.

Sure, but since you agreed that anything over $40 for a connection slower than 200down/20up is a ripoff, then that's a reasonable complaint.

 

[Almost there]

That's the myth of ISP choices...

People assume that internet choices, like most other markets, have more choices and more availability in metropolitan areas vs. rural areas. That's not necessarily the case.

Like I mentioned, I don't live in a rural area, I live in a city with 30k+ people and we still only have one option as there's a regional monopoly in place... the city where my brother lives is much smaller (about 30 mins from where I live), has a population of around 2,500 people, yet, they have 3 providers to choose from.

So, it's not like restaurants and stores where the options tend to increase with the population size. There's no real rhyme or reason to ISP availability for certain locales.

"Victim markets" have no correlation to population size in terms of ISPs.





Sure, but since you agreed that anything over $40 for a connection slower than 200down/20up is a ripoff, then that's a reasonable complaint.

I lived in four different cities within the Seattle area in the last six years before I moved to KY. I had quite a bit of choice in all of them. And I never thought the price was too high, other than as a consumer I'd always like to pay less.

 

[FenderTL5]

..in terms of information delivery systems (IE: internet), it's one of those things were we simply can't trust corporations to do the right thing.

There are numerous reasons, imho, that information delivery should be classified as a utility under Title II. The lack of competitive markets being one.
Our society is as dependent on an email address now as a phone number in the 70s.
Getting a job for millennials, almost requires internet connectivity.
As example: Suppose one is unemployed and takes a walk into the local center of commerce and sees multiple storefronts with 'Now Hiring' signs hanging on the doors.. in all but rare instances, if you were to enter and inquire, you'd be directed to the URL where applications are taken (and not made available in person).
To be without connectivity, in some ways, is similar to being without an address.

 

[Belk]

I lived in four different cities within the Seattle area in the last six years before I moved to KY. I had quite a bit of choice in all of them. And I never thought the price was too high, other than as a consumer I'd always like to pay less.

Yes, amazingly enough if you live in one of the most wired cities in the country you will have more choices. Kind of hard to compare that to the rest of America though.

 

[Almost there]

Yes, amazingly enough if you live in one of the most wired cities in the country you will have more choices. Kind of hard to compare that to the rest of America though.

No. I don't. I work in Louisville. I drive 155 miles in my round trip commute every day. I live in the sticks. I have no cable, no DSL, and only a few cell companies are worth anything out here.

If you were to try to put a pushpin in what looks like the geographical center of Kentucky on a map, the pin would go right through my roof. So don't!

 

[Belk]

No. I don't. I work in Louisville. I drive 155 miles in my round trip commute every day. I live in the sticks. I have no cable, no DSL, and only a few cell companies are worth anything out here.

If you were to try to put a pushpin in what looks like the geographical center of Kentucky on a map, the pin would go right through my roof. So don't!

Oh, you were talking about Seattle Kentucky? That's a new one. Where is that located?

 

[Almost there]

Oh, you were talking about Seattle Kentucky? That's a new one. Where is that located?

Sorry. I lived in Seattle for 46 years before moving to KY six years ago. The post about Seattle was an answer to people suggesting that not all urban areas had good service. I was just using my experience as a refutation of that.

But maybe Fargo is different.

 

[Belk]

Sorry. I lived in Seattle for 46 years before moving to KY six years ago. The post about Seattle was an answer to people suggesting that not all urban areas had good service. I was just using my experience as a refutation of that.

But maybe Fargo is different.

Yes. And I was pointing out that Seattle is not a typical urban area as far as high speed internet is concerned. In point of fact it is one of the most atypical in the US.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Liberal Montana is the first state to make a law mandating net neutrality.