BOP
Well-Known Member
Microcrap already does that. They treat you as though you were buying a service, not a product. You WILL download creator's edition of windows 10, whether you like it or not.
Net neutrality - a case to be made for both sides
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Microcrap already does that. They treat you as though you were buying a service, not a product. You WILL download creator's edition of windows 10, whether you like it or not.
What, very specifically and quantitatively, changed for the "better" after the 2015 rules were put in place?
This article nails it..
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/net-neutrality-regulations-overturned-ajit-pai/
Last edited:
awpitt
Main Streeter
It's not about 2015. It's about what possibilities have opened up now and moving forward. There's a growing movement now regarding "cutting the cord", folks who cancel CATV but keep Internet in favor of of streaming content like Sling TV, YouTube TV, HULU, etc. Well, with yesterday's decision, the CATV companies can now restrict those services so people will almost have to return to CATV.
And they will pay the consumer price for that, as it should be. Or they'll start offering better product to remain competitive. Or their competitors will have better deals to get you to switch.
awpitt
Main Streeter
Competitors? What competitors? That's the point. With the repeal of Net Neutrality, the CATV companies will be able to throttle back the throughput used by the competitors. I mean, for someone sitting in St. Mary's, if they could shop around for different CATV companies for the best product, that would be one thing but that's not the case. Yea, yea, yea, there's always Dish and DirecTV but they suck every time it rains. I should be able to buy a certain level of bandwidth and use it how I choose. Just like I buy electricity and use it how I choose. The repeal of Net Neutrality will give ISPs (the CATV companies) a way to make it difficult or more costly for me to use certain content that they deem not in their interests. So, I want to cancel my CATV service but keep Internet service so I can move to Sling TV? Great, except the CATV company decides to throttle back Sling TV content, making it unusable. Now, there's competition. NOT.
What, very specifically and quantitatively, changed for the "better" after the 2015 rules were put in place?
Bingo.
But the "mo' gummint is always better gummint" types will never be happy when overreach is rolled back.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Another possibility, outside of the "sky is falling" hypothetical that greedy providers will suddenly start restricting services, is that CATV companies partner with streaming services to offered bundled services. CATV companies know there are more people who subscribe to Netflix than those who subscribe to CATV. We're already seeing ventures similar to this (albeit with cell providers) with the FCC Net Neutrality regulations.
T-Mobile teamed with Netflix.
AT&T teamed with DirecTV and when they purchased Time Warner, they now offer HBO Now subscriptions.
Just as cell providers are battling each other, providing things like unlimited data, content streaming packages, and lower prices (all things that benefit consumers), you can expect internet providers to do the same as they have been.
Outside of the large providers, we're beginning to see local providers that offer different options outside of the Comcast or Metrocast monopolies as evidenced in Colorado. It's worth noting that the new providerin Fort Collins, CO is state-owned. It's not perfect (being state-owned, I disagree with it), but there's a movement for other providers out there.
awpitt
Main Streeter
But we can shop around for cell phone service. That's not the case with CATV.
if you lack choices, you should contact your local gov officials ...
Don’t Blame Big Cable. It’s Local Governments That Choke Broadband Competition
Deploying broadband infrastructure isn’t as simple as merely laying wires underground: that’s the easy part. The hard part — and the reason it often doesn’t happen — is the pre-deployment barriers, which local governments and public utilities make unnecessarily expensive and difficult.
Before building out new networks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must negotiate with local governments for access to publicly owned “rights of way” so they can place their wires above and below both public and private property. ISPs also need “pole attachment” contracts with public utilities so they can rent space on utility poles for above-ground wires, or in ducts and conduits for wires laid underground.
The problem? Local governments and their public utilities charge ISPs far more than these things actually cost. For example, rights of way and pole attachments fees can double the cost of network construction.
So the real bottleneck isn’t incumbent providers of broadband, but incumbent providers of rights-of-way. These incumbents — the real monopolists — also have the final say on whether an ISP can build a network. They determine what hoops an ISP must jump through to get approval.
You can switch to DirecTV, which offers more than cable anyway.
Why do you think it is that regions only offer one cable provider, anyway? I know the answer, but I'm curious if you do.
Lurk
Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
To carry forward your 'for-instance.' In order for the government to allow the electric company to know what brand of appliance I owned, the electric company would have to install a smart meter on the side of my home. Now, why would the government allow the electric company to put a..WAIT! What's that electric company guy doing on the side of my house?!
awpitt
Main Streeter
I know why. Which is why cable providers shouldn't be allowed to control which content one uses the bandwidth they purchase for.
DirecTV doesn't offer broadband Internet.
awpitt
Main Streeter
Do you honestly believe that's a realistic option? Get real. What dream world are you living in?
Well Net Neutrality would have NOT given you any more options when the problem is who controls the last mile, in your neighborhood
That. We have two choices where we live: Metrocrap or Verizon T1. The former is faster but not reliable. The latter, reliable but dirt slow.
We looked in a satellite solution but have too many very tall pine trees in the way.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
In some cases, sure, but that's not the case everywhere. It's also not only CATV companies providing internet service.
Governmental regulations have made the monopolies what they are, but on the flip side, it's these companies (Verizon, Comcast, etc.) that are installing infrastructure needed for increased internet speed, availability, and reasonable cost.
Judge rules against Metro Nashville, blocks Google Fiber-backed utility pole policy
A federal judge has ruled the Google Fiber-backed Metro Nashville ordinance meant to expedite above-ground internet installation is pre-empted by federal law in an order blocking the One Touch Make Ready policy on poles owned by AT&T.
Further, U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts determined Metro "supplanted" Nashville Electric Service's authority managing its utility poles, which violates the Metro charter.
"The Ordinance conflicts with the exclusive authority granted to NES under the (Metro) Charter," Roberts wrote in the ruling. "This exclusive authority prevails over Metro Nashville's power to regulate public rights-of-way."
The ruling is a victory for AT&T and Comcast, which filed lawsuits last year against Metro Nashville, claiming the city did not have jurisdiction over utility poles and that the policy change violates contract law. Instead, the companies said the authority belongs to the Federal Communications Commission.
A federal judge has ruled the Google Fiber-backed Metro Nashville ordinance meant to expedite above-ground internet installation is pre-empted by federal law in an order blocking the One Touch Make Ready policy on poles owned by AT&T.
Further, U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts determined Metro "supplanted" Nashville Electric Service's authority managing its utility poles, which violates the Metro charter.
"The Ordinance conflicts with the exclusive authority granted to NES under the (Metro) Charter," Roberts wrote in the ruling. "This exclusive authority prevails over Metro Nashville's power to regulate public rights-of-way."
The ruling is a victory for AT&T and Comcast, which filed lawsuits last year against Metro Nashville, claiming the city did not have jurisdiction over utility poles and that the policy change violates contract law. Instead, the companies said the authority belongs to the Federal Communications Commission.