Is that before or after you have to start paying an extra $10 to be in the top tier? ;)
Doesn't matter how much bandwidth there is if it's throttled.
Video: Net Neutrality is gone, where do we go from here?
- Thread starter Montoya
- Start date
Doesn't matter how much bandwidth there is if it's throttled.
Indeed greed knows no bounds. After all why limit ones revenue stream to only being a service provider when you can leverage your captive audience to also provide them content while throttling content from any competitor even if they have a superior product.
Radegast74
Space Marshal
Enjoy it while it lasts!
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/28/15404/how-big-telecom-smothers-city-run-broadband
Every company wants to shoot down municipal ISP's, and current govt. politicians support them (and are smothering any new attempts at creating municipal ISPs).
Don't be sad, bucko.
We can become Pen Friends and send each other letters in the post instead.
Seems time consuming. We just might have to do that. lol
Takeiteasy
Space Marshal
Got side tracked... equal does not mean "equal", it never was and never has. For example, the company management has determines what engineering projects need to be worked on based on the market. If there is not a need for a specific feature they will typically not invest in it. However, if there is a need then they will choose to throw money at it and invest in R&D. So to answer your question, the lawyers locked the innovation down, so companies decided to invest in other areas. This is what happens with over regulation. A whole book could be written on this subject, for or against regulation.
Indeed I believe sever have been written. Both have their merits and both have their drawbacks. The key is like most things just enough regulation to keep the fridges from harming their fellow humans while not getting in the way of most innovation. (Robots need not apply)
That is a separate issue called "capitalism": Market forces stifle innovation even in places where Net Neutrality is not an issue like industry, entertainment, technology development etc. Companies will still refuse to develop the Chocolate Fireguard if they can see no return in the investment, but if we are talking Market Forces consider this: if it costs $100 million to develop a more efficient and faster video streaming technology at 4K and then 16K comes along in 5 years, you have basically wasted $75 million, compared to spending $5 million extra a year to get the same results from buying additional bandwidth, with the added benefit of removing the risk of investing in technologies which in the modern era become redundant fast. Those who do innovate and create efficiencies can now no longer benefit from those efficiencies due to Data Packet Delivery throttling...
What you are suggesting - that development of things will be given the green-light because of a common wish to innovate not stagnate, is called "socialism", where the many work for the eventual benefit of all.
Nothing wrong with that, but I still don't see what it has to do with repealing Net Neutrality.
So if the answer to the question "What will it do" is "Remove regulation that stopped innovation due to lawyers suing"... and then when previously asked "What will stop Lawyers from suing now Neutrality is gone" the response was "Nothing".... So that has not actually answered the original question of "What will it do?" because doing nothing is not doing anything, and it will definitely do something, just not innovation. Spend on broadband may go up 5.6% but it won't be on innovation it'll be on Bandwidth or Data Packet Priority or Anti-Throttling whatever it's eventually going to be called.
So far we have worked out nothing really stopped innovators from innovating previously apart from the fear of being sued, and nothing will stop lawyers from suing innovators now, so what will repealing Neutrality actually do?
It also raises a following question - and I'm sure you can see where this is going:
As we have found some of the things it will do is throttling Data Package Delivery and allow ISP's to censor the Internet from you, how will these two specific features help green-light projects that previously were not due to Market Forces which will still exist in exactly the same way now as they did then?
Last edited:
To those of you claiming that ISPs aren't operating as local monopolies:
Twin Cities:
Los Angeles:
Boston:
New York
This is true for all major cities just google "[City Name] local ISP provider map". EVEN WORSE >100mbit speeds are even more segmented so that fiber services don't compete with each other. Lets not even get started on the less populated areas of U.S. where people are lucky to get >20 mbit speeds and a single ISP to choose from.
Twin Cities:
Los Angeles:
Boston:
New York
This is true for all major cities just google "[City Name] local ISP provider map". EVEN WORSE >100mbit speeds are even more segmented so that fiber services don't compete with each other. Lets not even get started on the less populated areas of U.S. where people are lucky to get >20 mbit speeds and a single ISP to choose from.
The proponents of absolute free market assume that supply = demand as infinite number of firms compete with one another (thus eliminating any inefficiency loss). Sadly there are reasons why the ISP market cannot operate as an absolute free market:
1) High physical barriers of entry.
- Fiber cables are expensive to install.
- First mover advatanges have already gone to big ISP (Comcast, Time Warner, etc.)
This means that we don't have effective competition already due to firms not being able to enter the market to satisfy demand.
2) The big ISPs have already been largely funded by tax payers.
- Depending on sources ISPs have already received 200 - 400 billion USD from the U.S. government to provide broadband services (never mind they massively undelivered.
How do new ISPs (who already suffer from high barriers of entry) effectively compete against this?
3) Legal Barriers
- Legal contracts between ISPs and local municipalities prevent newcomers from joining (ie Google Fiber was discontinued due to way too much legal pushback from ISPs, lots of other examples too).
Once again ISPs flexing their first mover advantages to prevent competition.
4) Anti-Competitive Practices by Market Leaders
- ISPs don't compete over other's turfs (see maps above). This is worse for high speed internet.
- That means access to internet (which UN now defines as an universal right) is controlled by single entity.
- This is equivalent to fixing demand and making it unresponsive to prices (NOT FREE MARKET AT ALL)
Hopefully you see how competition is not taking place in the current U.S.
Net neutrality doesn't address the issue of busting these local monopolies. But it does protect both content consumers and creators from being taken advantage of by the middleman.
1) High physical barriers of entry.
- Fiber cables are expensive to install.
- First mover advatanges have already gone to big ISP (Comcast, Time Warner, etc.)
This means that we don't have effective competition already due to firms not being able to enter the market to satisfy demand.
2) The big ISPs have already been largely funded by tax payers.
- Depending on sources ISPs have already received 200 - 400 billion USD from the U.S. government to provide broadband services (never mind they massively undelivered.
How do new ISPs (who already suffer from high barriers of entry) effectively compete against this?
3) Legal Barriers
- Legal contracts between ISPs and local municipalities prevent newcomers from joining (ie Google Fiber was discontinued due to way too much legal pushback from ISPs, lots of other examples too).
Once again ISPs flexing their first mover advantages to prevent competition.
4) Anti-Competitive Practices by Market Leaders
- ISPs don't compete over other's turfs (see maps above). This is worse for high speed internet.
- That means access to internet (which UN now defines as an universal right) is controlled by single entity.
- This is equivalent to fixing demand and making it unresponsive to prices (NOT FREE MARKET AT ALL)
Hopefully you see how competition is not taking place in the current U.S.
Net neutrality doesn't address the issue of busting these local monopolies. But it does protect both content consumers and creators from being taken advantage of by the middleman.
HeadClot
Grand Admiral
Frisbeerocker
Commissar
What we need to be really [concerned] with is how this is going to effect TEST Squadron and TEST Gaming as time goes on.
Are we going to be extorted as content creators? Is our growth and innovation going to be stifled because of artificial restrictions by our various ISP's?
These are the questions that keep me up at night. Because if some business guy somewhere realizes that he can make a buck throttling TEST, then he'll do it. Guaranteed.
Are we going to be extorted as content creators? Is our growth and innovation going to be stifled because of artificial restrictions by our various ISP's?
These are the questions that keep me up at night. Because if some business guy somewhere realizes that he can make a buck throttling TEST, then he'll do it. Guaranteed.
I have found the perfect solution to this issue!... check out..
I had to go on the mobile version of that site to get round the bandwidth restriction, but as most of the pictures were low rez I couldn't really work out what was going on. Like what was with the turtle stacking?
HeadClot
Grand Admiral
Mind-numbing topic. Interesting video. For the avg home consumer like myself, who doesn't use his telephony land line but who also doesn't use an expensive smart phone (iPhone/Samsung) with its expensive monthly plan, who doesn't upload videos regularly, who uses only one device at a time (TV or PC or PS4) , who rents video games from Red Box (since Blockbuster has gone away), who would also like to create & own his own automobile company, but can't hurdle the barriers of entry that Ford and GM hurdled a century ago, what will this mean for me, avg guy (who already pays for fast internet) being able to play Star Citizen? For the Star Citizen gamer, this is probably the main question. I already paid the Al Gore tax, which subsidizes internet for schools & libraries. While I won't give Al credit for inventing the internet, I do give Clinton administration credit for taxing it. You may recall Clinton-appointed FCC chairman, William Kennard, did NOT want this pass-thru tax to be shown on the invoice you rec'd fm your long-distance carrier. It was a Federally-mandated pass-thru, but it was supposed to be a hidden one so that you blamed your greedy provider instead of big govt. My internet has gotten worse in the last couple years, after Net Neutrality, yet I'm paying for a premium pkg. So how has NN made life better for me - I really don't know. I think letting Comcast/AT&T and all these other mega-companies merge was the first mistake. Mega-companies are just as bad as mega-GOVT. In my state, power/energy has been de-regulated. While there's still a pass-thru charge, the retail arm was separated fm the producer(s), so now we can pick fm literally many dozens of retail providers who can offer us a better deal based on our usage needs/wants. The monopoly on the retail side is gone. The net result is that while I do choose a new provider every 12 mos, which is easy, fast & seamless, choice has absolutely lowered my energy bills since deregulation passed. Because I've seen how deregulation worked here, I tend to believe in it. Because I did get the fast internet that I paid for prior to NN, I tend to be skeptical about a system which seems to have resulted in slower internet. Some say my internet issue may not be related to NN. Okay, for the sake of argument, I'll bite. But has NN made my internet faster? Did I get more for my money the last couple years? How has NN helped me? I don't know. If you tell me that I'm helping underwrite internet for everyone - I already do that - I pay the Al Gore tax. I'm also one of the 48% who pays income tax who subsidizes the 52% who don't pay any income taxes. Is my premium internet pkg somehow helping others paying next to nothing to get the same bandwidth? Or do we all share the same unimpressive bandwidth now? Deregulation almost always seems to result in lower prices, provided there's no monopoly (Comcast), or the govt doesn't get involved (Drugs). I kinda see the problem as mega-companies who have been allowed to merge, creating these monopolies, stiffling competition. Would it be possible to de-regulate these mega-ISPs in the same fashion as the energy sector? Separate the retail arm. Then allow ISP retailers to compete as they do with energy?
Last edited:
No doubt, I think the point we can all agree on is the need for additional ISPs. The status quo with net neutrality does not allow for it. I "think" the market will move to spin up additional ISPs without net neutrality. That said, I am for market solutions even if it leads to utilities, on the other hand over regulation has its winners and losers to. I do believe there is a difference between regulating the environment vs the internet. People can live with out the internet, but people cannot live with out a clean environment. So, I remain independent on the subject. I like support some aspects of the market and I support some aspects of regulation.
After years of Comcast and Qwest... I could not run to my internet provider fast enough, so I do understand your frustrations and pains. I even turned off DirectTV and now we just stream channels from DirectTV now. My bill went from 150.00 to 60.00 a month with all the channels I had before.
But the discussion is about content throttling... which could affect me too. An ISP is an ISP... and there is nothing to say that I will not be throttled in the future. I guess, the root of the issue is stewardship, do you trust the government or companies. It is like choosing between cancer and the black plague. Both choices suck.