Hmm... ISP free speed increase from 100Mbps to 200Mbps?
- Thread starter Montoya
- Start date
Yeah, if you can call being blocked from being able to access a utility pole by AT&T and having to go through lawyers so you can just get access to a damn pole, then yes, financial decisions.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160314/09374733901/isps-are-blocking-google-fibers-access-to-utility-poles-california.shtml
That is incorrect. The article references the 'principle' of Net Neutrality but neatly ignores the actual content of the legislation behind it, in short it pushes the propaganda used to get public support but ignores the content and effect.
There was absolutely nothing in Net Neutrality that would prevent ISPs from doing any of those actions.
The actual text of Net Neutrality made it officially legal for State and local government entities to pick and choose winners and losers, which ISPs could have monopolies where, what types of services their constituencies may have, and exempted the largest communication companies in the country from certain antitrust laws giving us the horror show we have now where there are three communications companies that control over 90% of the market. This is NOT Capitalism, this is the very definition of Socialism but being marketed as Capitalism in order to push for more Socialism.
What are you talking about?
First of all, NN is not supposed to be a partisan debate about capitalism vs socialism. If anything, anybody that that boils it down to an argument about socialism has been a victim of the propaganda.
When was the last time you had a partisan debate about electricity to your house being charged at a different rate as electricity to your neighbors house?
When was the last time you had a partisan debate about water to your house being charged at a different rate then your neighbors house?
The power company does not charge you more for your electricity if you demand more, the rate is consistent across your entire city!
The water company does not charge you more for your water if you demand more, the rate is consistent!
Gas pipe lines.. you get the idea. All common carriers.
Internet under net neutrality
being a common carrier Title II simply means that all data is treated equally.
If I want to visit pornhub, my ISP can not charge me extra.
If I want to use Facetime, AT&T can not block me (as they did in the past).
So therefor, with net neutrality gone, states are free to go full on capitalism and... oh, want net neutrality back?
If you are a proponent of State's Rights, then you should love that:
"After the FCC vote, lawmakers in more than half of US states introduced bills to protect net neutrality in their states. The governors of five states have signed executive orders to protect net neutrality."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/why-ajit-pai-might-fail-in-quest-to-block-state-net-neutrality-laws/
That isn't the way it is here.
For gas there are multiple competing companies, if you want one of them you get a gas tank installed on your property then setup a contract with the one you want to use. If you don't like their prices or service you cancel the contract then use electricity or a different provider. I actually did that a few years ago as the one that serviced my house before I bought it also had most of the contracts I the area due to the local government previously giving them a monopoly that they'd reversed a few years ago, so they kept jacking up prices, reduced service quality, lied, etc. Their competitor gave me a great deal and have treated me well ever since.
Electricity was another State and local government sanctioned monopoly until that provider decided to jack up the rate to over the national average in order to pay for them to move into a neighboring State that had removed their electricity monopoly. Fearing backlash from their constituencies the government entities here lifted the monopoly here, once competitors started moving in the rates of the majority company dropped back below the national average.
For water here, like the internet, we still have a government sanctioned monopoly. In both cases our rates are 10-20% higher than the neighboring counties that do not have monopolies, we have more unscheduled outages, and have no recourse for our grievances.
The ISP monopoly by Comcast was on the docket to be challenged in court before NN was implemented, but was promptly thrown out as NN made it officially legal. Hopefully with the end of NN the rates will continue to drop and competitors will finally be permitted.
To further expand on that, back when I was in the Army the government had given Sprint a monopoly on on-post telephone, cell phone, and internet infrastructure and service.
Before I got out the Army decided to end that monopoly, allowing competitors on-post as well, as Sprint charged higher rates for worse service than that seen off-post. Afterwards rates and service improved dramatically while I was ETSing due to so many competitors rapidly moving into the market.
Before I got out the Army decided to end that monopoly, allowing competitors on-post as well, as Sprint charged higher rates for worse service than that seen off-post. Afterwards rates and service improved dramatically while I was ETSing due to so many competitors rapidly moving into the market.
Can you point out how Net Nutrality makes (or even says anything about) monopolies?
Net Nutrality simply says that all data is equal..
Things you and I agree on: competition is good.
No argument there.
But do you get charged more per unit of gas if you have a gas fireplace, or is your gas rate the same regardless of what you use it for?
Your argument is that NN prevented competition, and with NN gone, companies now have the freedom to compete which will benefit everybody.
I am very familiar with that talking point that the ISP's and media companies push, but its simply not true!
When AT&T says that net neutrality being lifted gives them the freedom and flexibility to compete and expand, its not what you think it means.
AT&T: "NN being removed means we can provide better service and expand our networks!"
Translation: "We are free to slow down access to Netflix, then blackmail* Netflix to pay us money to un-throttle them. More profits for us means our shareholders are happy. You may think that greater profits means we can invest more in fiber networks, but there is really no reason to spend that kind of money on infrastructure because we are the monopoly and nobody is challenging us."
* https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/
Netflix Agrees To Pay Comcast To End Slowdown
(This is before net neutrality)
The only areas where ISPs were able to restrict access and throttle speeds were areas where they had a government sanctioned monopoly.
The reason the FCC wanted NN ended is when they saw the now big the communications companies growing so rapidly under NN they realized they were about to have another Ma Bell fiasco sitting in their lap. Instead they'd rather let State and local governments deal with those messes instead of taking the very expensive beatings they were headed for. (example: Verizon v. FCC 2014, DC.)
In areas in which ISPs must compete whenever they try this their customers move to their competitors. If they made an agreement with their competitors to implement the same policies that'd be a violation of existing antitrust laws.
The policies from the FCC on NN are vague and generalized, and the FCC is incapable of enforcing them without an extreme increase in budget and size. Due to this they passed off the implementation to State and local governments. State and local governments are not known for being technically proficient, but are known for being exceptionally lazy, going with whatever they think will be most expedient...hence the growth and protection of communications monopolies.
The reason the FCC wanted NN ended is when they saw the now big the communications companies growing so rapidly under NN they realized they were about to have another Ma Bell fiasco sitting in their lap. Instead they'd rather let State and local governments deal with those messes instead of taking the very expensive beatings they were headed for. (example: Verizon v. FCC 2014, DC.)
In areas in which ISPs must compete whenever they try this their customers move to their competitors. If they made an agreement with their competitors to implement the same policies that'd be a violation of existing antitrust laws.
The policies from the FCC on NN are vague and generalized, and the FCC is incapable of enforcing them without an extreme increase in budget and size. Due to this they passed off the implementation to State and local governments. State and local governments are not known for being technically proficient, but are known for being exceptionally lazy, going with whatever they think will be most expedient...hence the growth and protection of communications monopolies.
Im trying to understand your argument, so correct me if Im wrong:
Net neutrality encouraged monopolies to form?
Therefor, removing net neutrality allows for free market competition to take place so monopolies can not take hold?
Is that correct?
If so, then that premise is factually incorrect. Monopolistic trends and lack of competition were firmly entrenched way before net neutrality came along.
While you are absolutely correct, this doesn't disprove the assumption of NN encouraging monopolies to form, and hence I'm still very interested in what exactly Deroth is assuming and why.
Okay, i've done some looking into this in regard to getting phat phibre interwebz...
The rounter seems to be the choke point - Wifi routers can go over 100mbps but the majority of my laptops/pc/tablets/mobiles don't... So is 100mbs+ worth the monet if I have this choke point?
P.S. If I were to use an Ethernet cable it'd be 20ft long and the cat would eat it.
The rounter seems to be the choke point - Wifi routers can go over 100mbps but the majority of my laptops/pc/tablets/mobiles don't... So is 100mbs+ worth the monet if I have this choke point?
P.S. If I were to use an Ethernet cable it'd be 20ft long and the cat would eat it.
There was a very powerful and coordinated effort by conservative media to push the narrative that net neutrality is evil socialism and loved by soy drinking liberals.
Net neutrality was an Obama era government overreach that stifled innovation and investment in expanding and improving the network infrastructure.
The argument was that removing big government restrictions (NN) will allow ATT, Verizon, Comcast and TWC to compete and bring you a better product.
The counter argument is that is complete BS. Those companies do not invest in expanding and upgrading their networks because they are already monopolies and have no need to expand or improve.
I've gotten a free upgrade 3 or 4 times with Cox. It's usually automatic and they usually don't market it like that email you got from your ISP, as it's an all customer upgrade to their respective account tiers.
Nice!
Im not complaining either.
I was paying the same amount for 300mbps until they raised the price on me, giving me no option but to drop back to 100mbps if I wanted to keep the same pricing.
This increase is most welcomed.
Radegast74
Space Marshal
Well, I have Charter too...and no Google fiber or any other competition. I haven't gotten any upgrade notice, and I'm not holding my breath, either.