Net Neutrality: How Open-Internet Activists Won Big

BipolarFuk · Feb 28, 2015

Consumers decide what products and services are successful because we adopt them. If an ISP blocks Netflix NFLX -1.68% because of the bandwidth it requires, consumers who want Netflix will take their business elsewhere. If enough people do so, the ISP will have to change policies or go out of business.

Hilarious, since the majority of the country doesn't have the option to take their business elsewhere.

Clay_Allison · Feb 28, 2015

BipolarFan said:
Hilarious, since the majority of the country doesn't have the option to take their business elsewhere.

61% of consumers only have one choice for high speed internet.

Smitty · Feb 28, 2015

Clay_Allison said:
Do you honestly think that propping up local monopolies and letting them continually lower speeds and regress to dialup capability because they don't want to upgrade or maintain their systems is going to make it better either?

Some federal regulation, like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, is pro capitalism and pro competition. It's necessary to keep segments of the economy (in this case the vital tech sector) from stagnating as lack of competition leads to monopolies becoming as lazy and unproductive as government agencies.

The tech sector is vital to the US economies and IT companies have already been caught colluding to fix wages for programmers. Let them function without competitors and they will collude to push prices up and speeds down until we have the worst and most expensive internet in the first world.

Yes, but is that what the net neutrality ruling has done? Not to my knowledge.

The better option would be to cease regulation but split up the companies to create options for consumers. I'd love to be able to pick from multiple high speed internet vendors.

Clay_Allison · Feb 28, 2015

mschmidt64 said:
Yes, but is that what the net neutrality ruling has done? Not to my knowledge.

The better option would be to cease regulation but split up the companies to create options for consumers. I'd love to be able to pick from multiple high speed internet vendors.

It would be nice. I'm kind of hoping this is a step in that direction. When they did that with electricity providers in West Texas, my bill went down despite buying the same juice flowing through the same wires. That's what I thought of when they said the internet would be regulated as a utility. I'm also really not against the government laying down fiber in a lot of areas where internet sucks. I'm not so libertarian that I'm against the government building infrastructure like roads, power lines, water pipes and sewage lines. I think the internet is a utility and that data lines are important on the same level.

VA Cowboy · Mar 2, 2015

How can anyone know the full ramifications when the FCC refuses to even reveal the rules they just passed and the head of the FCC refused to testify before Congress when called.

But yeah, this is somehow a big win for the people.... Doubtful.

Jiggyfly · Mar 2, 2015

VA Cowboy said:
How can anyone know the full ramifications when the FCC refuses to even reveal the rules they just passed and the head of the FCC refused to testify before Congress when called.

But yeah, this is somehow a big win for the people.... Doubtful.

I agree that there is some concern with how things might play out down the line. But it seems most republicans are automatically looking at worst case scenarious and in the interest of Telecoms.

Telecoms have been the biggest donators for Ted Cruz over the last 2 years yet we are supposed to believe he is looking out for the common man. :lol

The real shame is that this is a political issue when both sides should be working toward an actual solution.

Jiggyfly · Mar 2, 2015

mschmidt64 said:
Yes, but is that what the net neutrality ruling has done? Not to my knowledge.

The better option would be to cease regulation but split up the companies to create options for consumers. I'd love to be able to pick from multiple high speed internet vendors.

Isn't that the ultimate big government meddling?

I agree it would spur competition but that's a bit too invasive at this point even for me.

I think this is an ongoing thing and at some point Congress will have to get involved.

fortsbest · Mar 3, 2015

Jiggyfly said:
I agree that there is some concern with how things might play out down the line. But it seems most republicans are automatically looking at worst case scenarious and in the interest of Telecoms.

Telecoms have been the biggest donators for Ted Cruz over the last 2 years yet we are supposed to believe he is looking out for the common man.

The real shame is that this is a political issue when both sides should be working toward an actual solution.

If this is true, you think They aren't playing both sides of the fence? Qualcom was one of O's biggest supporters.

Jiggyfly · Mar 6, 2015

fortsbest said:
If this is true, you think They aren't playing both sides of the fence? Qualcom was one of O's biggest supporters.

Qualcom is a chip maker how do you think they benefit from net neutrality.

Man talk about a reach in logic. :lol

fortsbest · Mar 6, 2015

My mistake. Don't know why I mentioned that. I knew they made cel phone chips.

fortsbest · Mar 6, 2015

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375116/how-comcast-bought-democratic-party-matthew-continetti

This article is more appropriate regarding the president a telecoms. But it's really long.They are in everyone's business not just Rs.

Smitty · Mar 10, 2015

Jiggyfly said:
Isn't that the ultimate big government meddling?

I agree it would spur competition but that's a bit too invasive at this point even for me.

I think this is an ongoing thing and at some point Congress will have to get involved.

Yeah but monopolies are a legitimate threat to free trade and the only real scenario where the free market isn't superior to socialism or a managed economy. The free market solves everything better and more fairly except where a monopoly prevents it.

The whole argument for the government staying out of things is that consumers will punish companies who don't bend to their will, because competitors will spring up who will do so.

But as we've seen in some industries, that doesn't happen. Need to break the stranglehold sometimes.

Clay_Allison · Mar 11, 2015

mschmidt64 said:
Yeah but monopolies are a legitimate threat to free trade and the only real scenario where the free market isn't superior to socialism or a managed economy. The free market solves everything better and more fairly except where a monopoly prevents it.

The whole argument for the government staying out of things is that consumers will punish companies who don't bend to their will, because competitors will spring up who will do so.

But as we've seen in some industries, that doesn't happen. Need to break the stranglehold sometimes.

Especially in industries where existing regulation raises the cost of entry to untenable levels or prohibits it altogether (like a city having a certain amount of cable and phone line and not letting anyone else lay more).

L.T. Fan · Mar 11, 2015

mschmidt64 said:
Yeah but monopolies are a legitimate threat to free trade and the only real scenario where the free market isn't superior to socialism or a managed economy. The free market solves everything better and more fairly except where a monopoly prevents it.

The whole argument for the government staying out of things is that consumers will punish companies who don't bend to their will, because competitors will spring up who will do so.

But as we've seen in some industries, that doesn't happen. Need to break the stranglehold sometimes.

I agree completely with you say about the marketplace. The politicians however, think the public at large do not know enough to be able to care for themselves so they become their mind and conscience about everything. We all
know how that has worked for the best.

shane · Mar 11, 2015

Looks like another government power-grab to me. "If you like your internet, you can keep your internet." They suckered everyone again.

Jiggyfly · Mar 13, 2015

mschmidt64 said:
Yeah but monopolies are a legitimate threat to free trade and the only real scenario where the free market isn't superior to socialism or a managed economy. The free market solves everything better and more fairly except where a monopoly prevents it.

The whole argument for the government staying out of things is that consumers will punish companies who don't bend to their will, because competitors will spring up who will do so.

But as we've seen in some industries, that doesn't happen. Need to break the stranglehold sometimes.

I agree that monopolies are bad but you are forcing companies to give up infrastructure that they footed the bill for.

Unlike past monopolies who bought out everybody most of these companies financed and built the systems.

And the real fix is building better and more efficient systems like in Korea and Europe but who will do that if they are forced to share?

I understand there is no real easy solution.

Clay_Allison · Mar 13, 2015

Jiggyfly said:
I agree that monopolies are bad but you are forcing companies to give up infrastructure that they footed the bill for.

Unlike past monopolies who bought out everybody most of these companies financed and built the systems.

And the real fix is building better and more efficient systems like in Korea and Europe but who will do that if they are forced to share?

I understand there is no real easy solution.

If you want to see where a no-competition internet was going, check out the history of the American railroad. The railroad companies let their infrastructure degrade and colluded to keep prices high until the government was forced to decide to invest in highway infrastructure instead of rails.

Building the infrastructure in the first place doesn't guarantee you ownership of the market for all time no matter how badly you treat it. If US internet companies were continuing to develop and improve US internet to keep up with companies in Europe and Asia (instead of trying to drop connectivity to 3rd world levels) the push back that led us here wouldn't have happened.

Jiggyfly · Mar 14, 2015

Clay_Allison said:
If you want to see where a no-competition internet was going, check out the history of the American railroad. The railroad companies let their infrastructure degrade and colluded to keep prices high until the government was forced to decide to invest in highway infrastructure instead of rails.

Building the infrastructure in the first place doesn't guarantee you ownership of the market for all time no matter how badly you treat it. If US internet companies were continuing to develop and improve US internet to keep up with companies in Europe and Asia (instead of trying to drop connectivity to 3rd world levels) the push back that led us here wouldn't have happened.

I totally agree this is not headed in the right direction but who should develop the next telecom infrastructure and what rights should they hold?

The Government is going to have to be involved and we see how that can be twisted with people who believe everything they hear.

I like the idea that Google has to partner with local governments but that has had some issues as well.

Smitty · Mar 16, 2015

The government being involved in the central planning is something to be afraid of.

fortsbest · Apr 1, 2015

Mark Cuban says Net Neutrality is bad as well. This is a link to about a 2 minute vid. Worth the watch.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-cuban-net-rules-pander-133728864.html

Net Neutrality: How Open-Internet Activists Won Big

Demoted

Old Bastard

DCC 4Life

Old Bastard

Brand New Member

Banned

Banned

DCC 4Life

Banned

DCC 4Life

DCC 4Life

DCC 4Life

Old Bastard

I'm Easy If You Are

DCC 4Life

Banned

Old Bastard

Banned

DCC 4Life

DCC 4Life