Democrats Propose "Internet Affordability Protections"

[iluvatar5150]

All accomplished without government intervention.

Not quite. Some of the bandwidth used by those new cellular devices was freed up by kicking out the previous users. I’ve know tons of people who had to trash lots of perfectly good (and often very expensive) wireless audio equipment that operated in the 700MHz band between the old analog tv stations that the FCC sold off to cellular providers when broadcast tv went digital. Without government intervention, those devices wouldn’t have worked.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Thanks for the link, It was indeed quite easy to read. I have a couple of follow on questions:

If, as you claim

Why hasn't it happened in the 84 years since the act was enabled? Is this the Obama time portal in action again?

Why would you think it hasn't happened? Price controls have been imposed on broadcasters, telephone service and cable TV service. Censorship has been imposed on broadcasters and telephone service.

Second question, title 2 says the exact opposite of what you claim.

What do you think the phrase "It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges ..." means?

 

[Aldebaran]

Looks like pretty good pricing to me. How much do you pay?

Here's what I pay:
Cable internet: $55/mo with 250 Gbyte monthly data cap
Wireless mobile+unlimited hotspot: 4 lines for $160/mo, no data cap

Well, I actually don't pay anything because I just use public Wi-fi. But at home, it would cost $30 for internet IF "bundled" with other services of Cable and phone. But who uses wired phone service anymore? If I got internet through the cable company alone, it would be $40.

I don't have wired phone service. I have cellular prepaid, and my TV service is antenna--although the tuner on my 3 week old TV just expired last night, but that's another story.

 

[Sketcher]

Getting rid of barriers to competition will drive prices down. When the choices go away, the prices go up. In my case, to the tune of about $30 a month.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Well, I actually don't pay anything because I just use public Wi-fi.

Well that's a good deal if it provides you enough access.

But at home, it would cost $30 for internet IF "bundled" with other services of Cable and phone. But who uses wired phone service anymore?

That's the thing, bundled prices are phony. Great "landline" phone service is available essentially for free and streaming TV service from $10 to $40 per month, depending on the exact channels one wants. Satellite and cable TV companies are quickly losing customers to the competitive streaming providers which are much cheaper for the same channels and most include DVR and connection to multiple TVs at no added cost.

If I got internet through the cable company alone, it would be $40.

That's a pretty good price for wired internet service of any kind.

I don't have wired phone service. I have cellular prepaid, and my TV service is antenna--although the tuner on my 3 week old TV just expired last night, but that's another story.

Over-the-Air TV is the best kind. Free!

 

[super animator]

What do you think the phrase "It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges ..." means?

It means that it can not discriminate data.

 

[NightHawkeye]

It means that it can not discriminate data.

What do you think the phrase "UNJUST ... CHARGES" means here?

 

[super animator]

What do you think the phrase "UNJUST ... CHARGES" means here?

It not what you think means, if you think that every civil rights organization made a mistake and somehow you know it.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Not what you think obviously.

You don't know what it means ... or how it has been legally applied?

Noting that Title 2 was justification for regulating both telephone and cable TV rates.

 

[super animator]

You don't know what it means

I know that doesn't mean what you want to mean, that good enough for me.
If you want actual legal advice contact @NotreDame not me.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I know that doesn't mean what you want to mean, that good enough for me.
If you want actual legal advice contact @NotreDame not me.

LOL, I wasn't seeking legal advice. I know the history of Title 2's application.

I was merely attempting to get you to think about what you were posting in attempting a rebuttal here.

 

[super animator]

LOL, I wasn't seeking legal advice. I know the history of Title 2's application.

In other words you ask in bad faith. Got it.

I was merely attempting to get you to think about what you were posting in attempting a rebuttal here.

I have done my research on this long time ago.

 

[NightHawkeye]

In other words you ask in bad faith. Got it.


I have done my research on this long time ago.

... and yet were unable to answer simple direct questions.

Have you considered doing additional research?

 

[super animator]

... and yet were unable to answer simple direct questions.

In other words you ask in bad faith. Got it.

Read.

 

[Go Braves]

Good for the Dems.

 

[Tanj]

Why would you think it hasn't happened? Price controls have been imposed on broadcasters, telephone service and cable TV service. Censorship has been imposed on broadcasters and telephone service.

I'd think post hoc ergo proptor hoc myself.

What do you think the phrase "It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges ..." means?

It means net neutrality.

 

[NightHawkeye]

It means net neutrality.

Yeah ... not so much.

History has proven though that it does also mean monopoly. The Communications Act of 1934 gave us the Bell monopoly which eventually had to be broken up forcefully.

Ya know, technology legislation written nearly a century ago when broadcasting was less than ten years old ... might not be the best legislation for ensuring net neutrality. Jus' sayin ...