With net neutrality gone, you will pay a lot more for your internet!!

[Lutherf]

It’s been explained to you many, many times what the end of net neutrality could mean regarding how you use the internet. At this point, I’m starting to think you’re simply incapable of comprehending it.

The internet EXPLODED without net neutrality. The number of providers and types of service they offered blew up. The quality of service continued to increase and high speed service reached more and more people. Prices increased but did so gradually and generally reflected standard trends in inflation. More and more services became available for those who used the internet and as the demand for those services grew the ISPs responded by upgrading their systems to handle that demand. They didn't have to be forced to upgrade their systems. They did it because if they didn't and their competitor did they'd be left in the dust. There is NO REASON to believe that the competitive model which we have seen for the past 30 years or so will disappear without net neutrality.

The growth of the internet was nearly perfect example of what a free market could produce but, per usual, those who fear freedom in damned near any form sought to limit and regulate the market. They got shot down today in an increasingly rare victory for liberty but I have no illusion that we'll see a renewed effort to stymie economic freedom in the next couple of weeks.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

This is all about making big bucks for internet providers and has nothing to do with anything else. And you can bet it will mean a lot more for the GOP campaign funds. And like usual the rest of us will pay the bill so the rich can get richer. Is there anything that the GOP will do for regular Americans and when will most Americans get it? BY the time middle Americans that believe in the GOP realize how they have been fooled it will be way, way to late.

They will be afraid to turn the screws for awhile. The attacks on this ruling need to simmer down and it needs to become set in stone. When it does, look out.

 

[ttwtt78640]

And the American people will continue to get ripped off.....just look at cable tv....many decades of paying far more than we should.

If the cable regulator (mostly state/local governments) AKA franchising autority gets (up to) 5% of gross revenue then what reason do they have to try to keep rates down or competition up?

Franchising authorities may charge the cable operator a fee for the right to operate a cable system in that franchise area; however, the franchise fee paid by the cable system can be no more than five percent of its annual gross revenue. A franchising authority may use the money collected from this fee for any purpose. A cable operator may list any applicable franchise fee as a separate item on the subscriber's bill.

https://www.fcc.gov/media/engineering/cable-television

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The FCC has handed the reigns over to unelected CEOs in a near-monopoly industry. We, the taxpayers, invested into what is now the internet, and the corporate few get to reap the profits.

The tax payers have invested relatively little into the internet. And shouldn’t have invested anything.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Finally, only the rich will be able to afford internet, no more minorities or liberals.

MAGA, baby, MAGA!

Yeah because if we can see one trend in internet usage between 1996 and 2015 it’s definitely decreased access and usage

 

[<alt>doxygen]

The internet EXPLODED without net neutrality. The number of providers and types of service they offered blew up. The quality of service continued to increase and high speed service reached more and more people. Prices increased but did so gradually and generally reflected standard trends in inflation. More and more services became available for those who used the internet and as the demand for those services grew the ISPs responded by upgrading their systems to handle that demand. They didn't have to be forced to upgrade their systems. They did it because if they didn't and their competitor did they'd be left in the dust. There is NO REASON to believe that the competitive model which we have seen for the past 30 years or so will disappear without net neutrality.

The growth of the internet was nearly perfect example of what a free market could produce but, per usual, those who fear freedom in damned near any form sought to limit and regulate the market. They got shot down today in an increasingly rare victory for liberty but I have no illusion that we'll see a renewed effort to stymie economic freedom in the next couple of weeks.

Actually, there is. The fact that the "ISP's" are all parts of corporate conglomerates with vested, profit focused interests in making you consume the products of other appendages of the conglomerate. You think they will serve you the competition? Oh, and if you jump to the competition, you'll pay more to get to the offerings of the "ISP" you just left. And not everyone even has 2 choices of ISP.

The "free market" only works when it's a level playing field. It means having rules and preventing monopolies.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I seem to remember paying for what I used way before this "net neutrality" stuff. Back in the day I got tired of my AOL dial up so I purchased DSL from the phone company. They charged me twice or more than AOL did. Then again, my web pages loaded in a second instead of a minute. When I was given the opportunity to purchase cable internet service it cost me more again but, suddenly, I was able to download gigabyte plus size files in minutes instead of hours or days. It never occurred to me that I was getting screwed until the anti-capitalist fear mongers explained it to me.

But you cheated and used your own money (made even greater by white privilege?) to get that higher speed "access to" the internet. The internet is now necessary to take full advantage of one's "Obamaphone" and to search for employment, educational, medical or candidate information so it becomes a right to have "access to" the internet. Once something becomes a right (see PPACA) then "access to" it must be federally subsidized so that those with "too much" money can pay full price and pay added taxation to help private (for profit) entities make extra money from those with "too little" money to afford the good/service on their own.

 

[Carjosse]

The internet EXPLODED without net neutrality. The number of providers and types of service they offered blew up. The quality of service continued to increase and high speed service reached more and more people. Prices increased but did so gradually and generally reflected standard trends in inflation. More and more services became available for those who used the internet and as the demand for those services grew the ISPs responded by upgrading their systems to handle that demand. They didn't have to be forced to upgrade their systems. They did it because if they didn't and their competitor did they'd be left in the dust. There is NO REASON to believe that the competitive model which we have seen for the past 30 years or so will disappear without net neutrality.

The growth of the internet was nearly perfect example of what a free market could produce but, per usual, those who fear freedom in damned near any form sought to limit and regulate the market. They got shot down today in an increasingly rare victory for liberty but I have no illusion that we'll see a renewed effort to stymie economic freedom in the next couple of weeks.

It exploded because of the concept of net neutrality which the ISPs have largely adhered except in the past several years have started to push the limits more and more of and fighting court cases to do things like censor things they do not like. At the same time American internet was quite quickly falling behind the rest of the world while prices still continue to increase. The US has poor speeds and even poorer access when you compare it to other first and even second world countries. It will inevitably effect America's ability to innovate. Title II was an attempt to try and fix that by allowing better regulation and competition in the market and seemed to work, investment increased and access was improving especially in rural areas. However there is now nothing standing in the way of the large ISPs from abusing their monopolistic positions in the market and driving out competition.

A completely free market without adequate regulation is horrible for consumers.

 

[DamnYankee]

This is all about making big bucks for internet providers and has nothing to do with anything else. And you can bet it will mean a lot more for the GOP campaign funds. And like usual the rest of us will pay the bill so the rich can get richer. Is there anything that the GOP will do for regular Americans and when will most Americans get it? BY the time middle Americans that believe in the GOP realize how they have been fooled it will be way, way to late.

Common sense will tell you, if you do not desire making the rich richer, don't buy their stuff.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Actually, there is. The fact that the "ISP's" are all parts of corporate conglomerates with vested, profit focused interests in making you consume the products of other appendages of the conglomerate. You think they will serve you the competition? Oh, and if you jump to the competition, you'll pay more to get to the offerings of the "ISP" you just left. And not everyone even has 2 choices of ISP.

The "free market" only works when it's a level playing field. It means having rules and preventing monopolies.

Hmm... is taking up to 5% of gross revenue apt to make that competition thrive or is that level of overhead more likely to favor keeping competition lower (limited to the big buck boys)? See post #28.

 

[Hawkeye10]

If the cable regulator (mostly state/local governments) AKA franchising autority gets (up to) 5% of gross revenue then what reason do they have to try to keep rates down or competition up?



https://www.fcc.gov/media/engineering/cable-television

Sure bad government...corrupt government.....has a lot to do with this but if we are going to be chumps then getting taken by our betters is the likely outcome.

 

[Lutherf]

Actually, there is. The fact that the "ISP's" are all parts of corporate conglomerates with vested, profit focused interests in making you consume the products of other appendages of the conglomerate. You think they will serve you the competition? Oh, and if you jump to the competition, you'll pay more to get to the offerings of the "ISP" you just left. And not everyone even has 2 choices of ISP.

The "free market" only works when it's a level playing field. It means having rules and preventing monopolies.

There are already rules about monopolies. Do you remember Ma Bell?

 

[Lutherf]

It exploded because of the concept of net neutrality which the ISPs have largely adhered except in the past several years have started to push the limits more and more of and fighting court cases to do things like censor things they do not like. At the same time American internet was quite quickly falling behind the rest of the world while prices still continue to increase. The US has poor speeds and even poorer access when you compare it to other first and even second world countries. It will inevitably effect America's ability to innovate. Title II was an attempt to try and fix that by allowing better regulation and competition in the market and seemed to work, investment increased and access was improving especially in rural areas. However there is now nothing standing in the way of the large ISPs from abusing their monopolistic positions in the market and driving out competition.

A completely free market without adequate regulation is horrible for consumers.

The idea that a lightly regulated market will, over time, totally screw the participants is absurd. While there may be instances of abuse the overall effect of free consumer choice and competition between producers clears those failures out of the equation in short order. The real danger to consumers comes from political force being used to manipulate the markets for political gain and that's EXACTLY what net neutrality would do.

 

[Carjosse]

The idea that a lightly regulated market will, over time, totally screw the participants is absurd. While there may be instances of abuse the overall effect of free consumer choice and competition between producers clears those failures out of the equation in short order. The real danger to consumers comes from political force being used to manipulate the markets for political gain and that's EXACTLY what net neutrality would do.

That does not work when there is only one choice or if there is they are a cartel which is currently the status of the larger ISPs and the only way to promote real competition is to protect smaller ISPs and ensure that the larger ISPs cannot exploit their size to detriment of consumers. Not only that many of them are trying to further merge reducing competition among larger ISPs even further.

Take the example I sued in another thread, Houston, huge city but has only one real ISP for fibre or cable. Your business needs fibre and AT&T decides to start throttling your content, too bad you are screwed, same with cable internet. Say you are a low income Houstonian and Comcast decides to start throttling and blocking content but you can't switch to fibre because that costs 5x as much and you cannot afford that so again you are ****ed. Because of Title II competition was starting to grow but now there is nothing protecting them form AT&T and Comcast.

Meanwhile in Canada where competition is essentially forced and net neutrality is enforced I have so many choices of ISPs to choose from I actually had the to weigh the pros and cons of each. And you can threaten to switch or cancel and they will give you a lot to stay. That is consumer choice.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Hmm... is taking up to 5% of gross revenue apt to make that competition thrive or is that level of overhead more likely to favor keeping competition lower (limited to the big buck boys)? See post #28.

If the fee does nothing positive and it's stifling competition, it should be eliminated. That fee will always get passed on to consumers, anyway.

I was in one of the first counties in my state to get wired for cable back in the early 80's. They put a fee like that in there (added piggyback) to cover the cost of their mandate that the cable company wire every home in the county. The rural homes with miles between each obviously needed subsidizing by the urban and suburban homeowners.

 

[Kushinator]

I would have thought it was about efficient allocation of limited resources.

That would require enough competition.

 

[Lutherf]

That does not work when there is only one choice or if there is they are a cartel which is currently the status of the larger ISPs and the only way to promote real competition is to protect smaller ISPs and ensure that the larger ISPs cannot exploit their size to detriment of consumers. Not only that many of them are trying to further merge reducing competition among larger ISPs even further.

Take the example I sued in another thread, Houston, huge city but has only one real ISP for fibre or cable. Your business needs fibre and AT&T decides to start throttling your content, too bad you are screwed, same with cable internet. Say you are a low income Houstonian and Comcast decides to start throttling and blocking content but you can't switch to fibre because that costs 5x as much and you cannot afford that so again you are ****ed. Because of Title II competition was starting to grow but now there is nothing protecting them form AT&T and Comcast.

Maybe I'm mistaken but a quick search gives me 11 high speed residential (14 for business) providers for Houston - https://www.highspeedinternet.com/tx/houston

While AT&T may be the only Gigabit provider in Houston, 7 of the 11 ISPs provide 50Mbps or higher service.

 

[Carjosse]

Maybe I'm mistaken but a quick search gives me 11 high speed residential (14 for business) providers for Houston - https://www.highspeedinternet.com/tx/houston

While AT&T may be the only Gigabit provider in Houston, 7 of the 11 ISPs provide 50Mbps or higher service.

I was looking at this one which includes the coverage which is a major factor. Notice the coverage of the smaller ones. Title II competition regulation is there for companies like enTouch.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If the fee does nothing positive and it's stifling competition, it should be eliminated. That fee will always get passed on to consumers, anyway.

I was in one of the first counties in my state to get wired for cable back in the early 80's. They put a fee like that in there (added piggyback) to cover the cost of their mandate that the cable company wire every home in the county. The rural homes with miles between each obviously needed subsidizing by the urban and suburban homeowners.

That regulation is easily accomplished without need for a fee. The cable companies must "phase in" the rural areas after being given access to the highly profitable urban and suburban areas which are then generating handsome profits.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Did I agree with the repeal? No. Do I like it being gone? No.

That said, I’m also someone who prefers to deal in facts and reality as opposed to propaganda, fear mongering, or what-ifs presented as facts.

Do I expect telecoms to try and enact the type of things people who cheered for NN suggest? In general, yes.

But they haven’t. And it’s not a guarantee that they will. Repealed or not, the public isn’t more aware of the principles of network neutrality today than they were evennwhen the FCC made the change in 2015. That can potential have an impact on how things happen.

So I’ll support measures that come up to fix the potential issue. And I’ll happily scream bloody murder when they show signs of taking actions that violate NN principles. But I’m not going to start acting like doomsday is literally happening at this moment when it’s not. For one, it’s dishonest. For two, it weakens the potential ability to garner support when such horrible actions ARE actually being done.

Net neutrality is dead and that’s the reality we function in. Fine. Now is the moment to see if the fear was rightfully placed, or if restraint will win out. I think it’ll be the latter, but I’m not going to act like that’s fact befor it actually does

Thats almost like saying repealing the second admit might not end with guns being banned; we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Comcast have already responded.

They no longer promise that they'll:

-Not throttle back the speed at which content comes to you
-Not prioritize Internet traffic or create paid fast lanes
-Make internet accessible to low income families

 

[trouble13]

The internet EXPLODED without net neutrality. The number of providers and types of service they offered blew up. The quality of service continued to increase and high speed service reached more and more people. Prices increased but did so gradually and generally reflected standard trends in inflation. More and more services became available for those who used the internet and as the demand for those services grew the ISPs responded by upgrading their systems to handle that demand. They didn't have to be forced to upgrade their systems. They did it because if they didn't and their competitor did they'd be left in the dust. There is NO REASON to believe that the competitive model which we have seen for the past 30 years or so will disappear without net neutrality.

The growth of the internet was nearly perfect example of what a free market could produce but, per usual, those who fear freedom in damned near any form sought to limit and regulate the market. They got shot down today in an increasingly rare victory for liberty but I have no illusion that we'll see a renewed effort to stymie economic freedom in the next couple of weeks.

That was well said my friend

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Actually, there is. The fact that the "ISP's" are all parts of corporate conglomerates with vested, profit focused interests in making you consume the products of other appendages of the conglomerate. You think they will serve you the competition? Oh, and if you jump to the competition, you'll pay more to get to the offerings of the "ISP" you just left. And not everyone even has 2 choices of ISP.

The "free market" only works when it's a level playing field. It means having rules and preventing monopolies.

I agree with the anti-monoply spirit of your post. That is one of the rare aspects that i do support gov intervention.

This is where anti trust law's come into play.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Lutherf]

I was looking at this one which includes the coverage which is a major factor. Notice the coverage of the smaller ones. Title II competition regulation is there for companies like enTouch.

That's still 4 providers that cover more than 90% of the city. I haven't been to Houston in over 20 years but if it's anything like Tucson it's grown like a weed and the outskirts of town keep moving out. That happens and it takes a while for cable or fiber providers to move with them. DSL, since it uses phone lines, tends to move quickly. What happens, as a rule, is that you'll have satellite and DSL in your area first then, in a few years you'll get cable and maybe fiber. Those last two are simply infrastructure intensive. Smaller providers will usually start with niche packages geared to business services but, as they expand, will break into residential as well. Furthermore, as technology changes it becomes less practical to invest in hard wired service.

 

[LunaRose]

The internet EXPLODED without net neutrality. The number of providers and types of service they offered blew up. The quality of service continued to increase and high speed service reached more and more people. Prices increased but did so gradually and generally reflected standard trends in inflation. More and more services became available for those who used the internet and as the demand for those services grew the ISPs responded by upgrading their systems to handle that demand. They didn't have to be forced to upgrade their systems. They did it because if they didn't and their competitor did they'd be left in the dust. There is NO REASON to believe that the competitive model which we have seen for the past 30 years or so will disappear without net neutrality.

The growth of the internet was nearly perfect example of what a free market could produce but, per usual, those who fear freedom in damned near any form sought to limit and regulate the market. They got shot down today in an increasingly rare victory for liberty but I have no illusion that we'll see a renewed effort to stymie economic freedom in the next couple of weeks.

YESSSS, the internet was not NOT broken in 2015….But the government was not trying to fix anything. You need understand that Net Neutrality was something the government was trying to protect. In order to protect net neutrality, which we had for 20 years prior, Obama ruled the internet to be a telecommunications service so that ISPs could not use pricing models, throttle connections, etc. How is this a bad thing????

There is nothing in place to keep the big ISP's from throttling or creating pricing models with out NN. NN is a preventive measure to keep our internet the way it is just like you described…How is this a bad thing??? But we should just be safe and believing big ISP’s will keep us common folk in mind at their next stock holders meeting?

And getting rid of NN will not create more competition. I mean look at Google; they tried entering the market with Google Fiber and they were met with constant law suits over existing infrastructure cornered by the current ISPs.

Getting rid of NN makes zero sense…….