RIP Net Neutrality
- Thread starter begreen
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
Because those competitors found the magic formula how to pay their employees less and get better work out of them?
Competitors (especially when charging less) will face a lower rate of return and market share than the original ISP. To make the investment worthwhile the original ISP will need to charge a very high rate to make the capital investment worthwhile. The ISPs know that. They will extract just enough to keep their markets unattractive to competitors while starting to deliver content for which they hold the competitive advantage by controlling the infrastructure. And i don't kid myself believing that the higher revenues will be used to bring broadband to more rural places. The investment will go where the money is or being paid out as dividends.
Quantity yes, speed no. Was that easy enough?
You assume that they use the same business model for distribution which is not always the case.
So in other words you agree that market forces do in fact work to control costs.
And you don't think that the government will not do the same thing only in a more insidious manner? At least when an ISP does it they'll get called on it immediately and publicly shamed for it. In fact this has already happened with Comcast and others throttling certain services on their networks casing massive protests online.
The fact is the problem is largely an imagined one.
The precedent for market forces punishing competitors for missteps is huge. Sony PS4's gaining a large share of the market over xbox one because of game sharing and overall price is a prime example of this.
Oh fer cripes sake.
"some supposed harm that could happen"????
No, T. I am basing it off of what the providers say WILL happen. And now they have the blessings to do so.
So we're supposed to listen to corporate interests now? You know the same type corporations that have use regulatory capture to beat out their competitors in other markets.
We'll the gubment hasn't done it yet and they have had many years of chances.
This isn't a game console it is building infrastructure
The whole idea is to keep the corps from making the calls on traffic. You are arguing the right points you just don't realize that it is for the wrong side.
This isn't a game console it is building infrastructure
The whole idea is to keep the corps from making the calls on traffic. You are arguing the right points you just don't realize that it is for the wrong side.
We'll the gubment hasn't done it yet and they have had many years of chances.
This isn't a game console it is building infrastructure
The whole idea is to keep the corps from making the calls on traffic. You are arguing the right points you just don't realize that it is for the wrong side.
The fact is we don't need more regulation of internet. Innovation is high, access is improving, and delivery of content has been increasing. I see people here complaining that rural areas don't have access and we have less accessibility that Europe without considering the logistical problems of distribution.
The principles are the same Jags, whether it's a game console or not.
I'm not the one on the wrong side of the argument here. There is not a single industry where government regulation has not resulted in some sort of regulatory capture and innovation reduction from power production to telephones and television.
The reality is that like I said your complaints are pretty much an imagined problem because market forces do prevent the companies from making major missteps by limiting access. As I pointed out several companies have tried in the past and experienced huge blow-back from doing so.
When they all do it (and they will), it will become the new norm and you will have no option but to accept it. The fact is, the minimal regulations that the FCC were doing for the net was helping us (the little people). Your unregulated version is gonna suck in the long term and be a detriment to innovation and the new guy on the block.
Short term you probably won't see much going on. This will be a slow methodical power grab. Everything that you always rail against.
I know the three little letters of FCC gives you hives, but they were wearing the white hat in this situation.
Short term you probably won't see much going on. This will be a slow methodical power grab. Everything that you always rail against.
I know the three little letters of FCC gives you hives, but they were wearing the white hat in this situation.
Net neutrality is not "more" regulation. It is maintaining the same regulation we had all along and made the internet such a growth machine over the last two decades. ISPs charging businesses for faster speeds will increase costs for consumers, and offer no incentive for more broadband access in rural areas. It will make it harder for small businesses and internet startups to compete and therefore reduce innovation.
Oh, how I wish that government regulation would have prevented banks from "innovating".
So people want net neutrality but you say we should get away with it? That argument makes not much sense, does it?
My concern is that longer term, as the internet becomes more and more the primary conduit for information, news, commerce, opinion, entertainment, political choice, etc., the opportunity to control the flow and the message by a select few will become a reality. This parallels what happened with the deregulation of television and newspapers. As a result we now have large segments of our population that have only one broadcaster owning major segments of the media. And it got very political. This was not the broadcast landscape 30 years ago.
A toll based internet can and will get political, eventually increasing the rift between the haves and the have nots. With just a few owning the pipes and bridges into our homes, what is eventually allowed through those pipes will be just as controlled. It is the inherent nature of capitalism to monopolize. And we are witnessing this now in the communications industry. With the ATT&DirectTV and Comcast TimeWarner mergers. Two companies will own 60% of the subscriber base. Think about that.
A toll based internet can and will get political, eventually increasing the rift between the haves and the have nots. With just a few owning the pipes and bridges into our homes, what is eventually allowed through those pipes will be just as controlled. It is the inherent nature of capitalism to monopolize. And we are witnessing this now in the communications industry. With the ATT&DirectTV and Comcast TimeWarner mergers. Two companies will own 60% of the subscriber base. Think about that.
Last edited:
Net Neutrality IS more regulation, no matter which way you want to try and spin it. Again you are making a jump to what might happen, not what does happen.
Actually higher prices always draw more competitors, that is simple economics.
Except for the fact that government regulations caused the banking crisis in the first place of course.
If there is a demand, eventually someone steps in with a new business model and fills that demand or public opinion forces the change due to the backlash. The entire point is that more regulation and more government meddling is not needed.
Not quite right. Net Neutrality is the SAME regulation that we have had over the last 20 years. Show me where this regulation has been a bad thing.
Not sure what there is to discuss. Simple fact: Net neutrality has been in effect for all those years the internet has seen huge growth. The public wants net neutrality and that is the reason we had the government implement it.
And the higher prices will be paid by the businesses, not by the rural customers who are still waiting for broadband. Hence, ISPs will be eager to serve whichever business can pay more but not expand there network to underserved places. Plus, those "textbook" slogans do not hold in reality: http://www.fiercecable.com/story/ca...-faster-inflation-even-competition/2014-05-19
> Average cable TV prices continue to go up faster than the rate of inflation, the FCC said in its latest sampling of rates operators charge for basic cable television service. More surprising, the report found for the third straight year that areas with competition actually saw higher price increases than those without competition. <
Little correction:
Demand is irrelevant. We have more than 600,000 citizens being homeless and at least 10 times as many empty houses and apartments. Thus, there is demand and there is supply. What's the problem then?
We have had net neutrality without government regulation Grisu.
What the public wants is immaterial, that is a classic case of the appeal to popularity fallacy and is not an argument. "the Public" once wanted slavery, does that mean we should go back to slavery?
You're confusing want with economic demand Grisu. Economic demand can only take place if you have productive capacity. Because the homeless don't produce anything they in effect create no demand in economic terms.
If Net Neutrality is the same regulation then why does it need new rules? There seems to be a serious flaw with your logic
No the flaw is yours T. What is proposed is not new rules but a relaxation of the existing rules.
So people can vote with their money but not through electing a representative who implements their choices? It just shows how you see money and wealth as the dominant (only) organizing principles of a society. And for someone who openly defended the South's right to slavery here, I would be cautious with that comparison. ("false dilemma" fallacy btw.)
Nope, you are confusing having wealth with being productive. (broken link removed to http://www.amny.com/the-new-homeless-working-but-without-housing-1.7052036)
"More working people, about 44 percent of the homeless nationally have jobs."
Market prices (including wages) are determined by the relative bargaining power of buyer and seller, not by productivity. Again, you are determining someone's importance simply by their monetary wealth.
I didn't defend the south's right to slavery, that is a gross misrepresentation of my viewpoint Grisu, nice try.
No. Economically speaking someone's importance is driven by their productivity, which in turn produces their bargaining power. One cannot have bargaining power if one can not produce anything, at least not in a voluntary transaction.
Additionally your article is about specifically New York, not the rest of the country. Years of ridiculous regulations have turned New York into an economic mess.
No the current rules were not challenged, the FCC overreached outside of their authority and were slapped down.
YES - The standing rules that have been in effect for many years were challenged. That is the genesis of this. If you wish to twist words, then say it like it is. Nobody claimed overreach until the greedy corps got involved. The corps found a loophole and are now trying to exploit it for their (and only their) gain. Period.
You defended the right of the South to secede because they did not agree with the legislation that abolished slavery. Comes up to the same point.
The guys who pick food from the field and bring it to the grocery store produce something truly valuable to my and your livelihood. Still does not mean they have bargaining power and are therefore paid accordingly.
Your "voluntary" free market always assumes equal bargaining power. Since that is almost never the case, you are holding up a theoretical ideal, not something that is based on reality.
Albeit old data but certainly not just true for NY: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ok-post-says-44-percent-homeless-people-are-/
We have a homeless shelter nearby and I see the men and women entering the bus in the morning on their way to work. And yes, from their chats and regularity I know they are going to work.
Last edited:
jatoxico
Minister of Fire
How exactly will a change in the law that allows a company to pay a provider for preferential service stimulate innovation? In addition any market forces that previously "regulated" or prevented the choking of service were based on the notion of the ethics of equal service which will now no longer be in effect.
I count myself as generally conservative but gov't regulation isn't always bad. Market forces are hardly a guarantee of a positive outcome. Unregulated market forces once did great harm to this country (see 1929) and monopolies of the past did little for innovation or the welfare of Americans who in many cases were sending their kids to work due to the low wages at the time. My mother did not have to work, for most of my adult life my wife did; where are we headed right now?
I count myself as generally conservative but gov't regulation isn't always bad. Market forces are hardly a guarantee of a positive outcome. Unregulated market forces once did great harm to this country (see 1929) and monopolies of the past did little for innovation or the welfare of Americans who in many cases were sending their kids to work due to the low wages at the time. My mother did not have to work, for most of my adult life my wife did; where are we headed right now?
No, Grisu and that is not why the South Seceded. Nice try. I guess when you can't beat someone's argument the next best thing is to try and classify them as a racist.
No it does not assume equal bargaining power, again you are making incorrect assumptions. Bargaining power only exists of these is a shortage of labor which in the case of field pickers there really isn't.
And? It seems to me that almost all of these cases are in densely populated areas with high costs of living and heavy regulation. There seems to be a huge number of holes to your claim even according to your own link.
Market forces didn't cause the 1929 crash. perhaps you should recheck your assumptions. Also the "monopolies" of the past drove down the costs of goods and services and greatly increased the standard of living around the world.
- Status