FCC plans total repeal of net neutrality rules

[crazed_hoosier2]

Do you realize who owns/created Hulu?

Yes. So? Are you saying Hulu never worked well with service providers that had no interest in it?

Who owns Netflix? And why did it, likewise, predate the rule change?

My point is that people are suggesting that OTT only took off because of a rule change in 2015. And that's not true. It took off before that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

My point is that people are suggesting that OTT only took off because of a rule change in 2015.

No one is suggesting that.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

No one is suggesting that.

Really? I'd say a couple of posters have implied as much....starting with Uncle Mark when he pointed out that OTT streams traverse Internet pipes that, since 2015, have been subjected to the net neutrality rules (flying right by my point that the OTT video signals themselves are, unlike cable and satellite video signals, unregulated...but I digress).

Unbundled OTT services began to flourish in the pre-NN world and they'll continue to flourish in the post-NN world.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Really? I'd say a couple of posters have implied as much....starting with Uncle Mark when he pointed out that OTT streams traverse Internet pipes that, since 2015, have been subjected to the net neutrality rules (flying right by my point that the OTT video signals themselves are, unlike cable and satellite video signals, unregulated...but I digress).

Unbundled OTT services began to flourish in the pre-NN world and they'll continue to flourish in the post-NN world.

I read Mark's posts when he posted them, and I just read them again, and neither time did it even remotely seem to me that he was suggesting or even implying that these services took off because of the 2015 rule change.

 

[sglowrider]

EDIT: Lots of poor grammar and other mistakes.

Thats my thingy. I will trademark it.

I am used to writing on spreadsheets or PPTs... I cant write full sentences nowadays without getting someone to vet it first! My other excuses are that I am too lazy to correct most of the time plus I am tri-lingual.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I read Mark's posts when he posted them, and I just read them again, and neither time did it even remotely seem to me that he was suggesting or even implying that these services took off because of the 2015 rule change.

Why, then, point out that these services traverse channels that, only since 2015, have been regulated?

He's right, in a sense. Today, in 2017, the OTT services do run through regulated Internet links. But (a) those services predate the regulation, and (b) the OTT video signals themselves are unregulated (which was my point he was addressing, anyway).

So let's him address the significance of that declaration.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Why, then, point out that these services traverse channels that, only since 2015, have been regulated?

He's right, in a sense. Today, in 2017, the OTT services do run through regulated Internet links. But (a) those services predate the regulation, and (b) the OTT video signals themselves are unregulated (which was my point he was addressing, anyway).

So let's him address the significance of that declaration.

In both cases, he was responding to your use of the phrase "heretofore unregulated." Although it was clear to me what you meant, the literal meaning of that phrase is "unregulated before now." Maybe he was taking you literally and thought you were woefully uninformed.

 

[sglowrider]

In both cases, he was responding to your use of the phrase "heretofore unregulated." Although it was clear to me what you meant, the literal meaning of that phrase is "unregulated before now." Maybe he was taking you literally and thought you were woefully uninformed.

GOAT, you need to switch off the lawyer hat off at night. Not good for your sleeping patterns.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

You don't want a tax cut, but all the politicians you vote for promise to cut your taxes.You want the outcomes produced by net neutrality, but you oppose net neutrality rules. Maybe you want what your revealed preferences say you want.

He’s bought the republican argument against regulations hook, line, and sinker. You know your propaganda machine is badass when you can get consumers to vehemently argue against consumer protections. I bet they could get him to come on here and argue against seatbelts. “Just think of all the safety hardware we’d have now had the car manufacturers not had to install seatbelts. That damn Ralph Nader”.

Side note: I know you’re not Nader’s biggest fan, but the guy is one of truest bluest consumer advocates we’ve ever had in government.

 

[toastedbread]

The best way to keep service providers from limiting their customers' content options is for consumers to favor open options and disfavor closed ones. Markets respond way better and faster than regulators do.

What happens when the market only provides 1 or possible 2 crappy options? ISPs are monopolies and oligopolies. There is no choice.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

What happens when the market only provides 1 or possible 2 crappy options? ISPs are monopolies and oligopolies. There is no choice.

And these companies only got that big because they have been allowed to buy up all the other companies. These companies don’t grow to their current sizes because they are great companies and consumers flock to them. You just wake up one day and find out you’re a customer of another company.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

What happens when the market only provides 1 or possible 2 crappy options? ISPs are monopolies and oligopolies. There is no choice.

Well, for one thing, for most Americans this isn't the case. Granted, that's because of our concentration in urban and surrounding areas. But, still, most people do have options.

But, more than that, I don't think this is how that market, if left unregulated as I think it should be, is likely to develop -- where consumers are stuck with one or two crappy HSIA options and both of them are clamped down such that you can buy their bundle or just pay through the nose to go "out of network."

Rather, I think you'll see things like what's happening with the cellular market right now -- which is more of an oligopoly than wired premise-based services ever has been or will be. These companies are starting to bundle (and, if I had to guess, prioritized) OTT subscriptions with their packages. That's not a bad thing for wireless consumers -- it's a good thing.

The thing is: everybody's worried about the same thing....stifling innovation from startups that can't match the big boys' dough. Well, my contention is that there's no better way to bring that about than creating a universal service template that everybody must follow (and was heavily influenced by those very same big boys -- who, naturally, are going to protect their own investment).

Go see if you can discussion from Mark Cuban -- who, after all, was one of these innovative techies -- about net neutrality and why he opposes it. He gets it exactly right, IMO.

 

[Zizkov]

I don't not support this rule. I just think it'll set in motion a series of new ones that we aren't going to like. And we'll be better off without that.

How many times do I have to repeat that I don't oppose the general concept of neutral traffic shaping policies? But I know where this sort of thing leads -- and the way to avoid that is to not start down the path...even with the best intentions.

We'll get a real-life chance to see where this goes. And, if I'm wrong, not only can you tell me I was wrong....we can always go down that path if it's actually necessary. I don't think we'll have to, though.

But once you start that ball rolling, it's hard to keep it from picking up speed in unintended directions.

lol

You just confirmed everything goat has written in his last 10 posts on this topic.

 

[sglowrider]

Well, for one thing, for most Americans this isn't the case. Granted, that's because of our concentration in urban and surrounding areas. But, still, most people do have options.

But, more than that, I don't think this is how that market, if left unregulated as I think it should be, is likely to develop -- where consumers are stuck with one or two crappy HSIA options and both of them are clamped down such that you can buy their bundle or just pay through the nose to go "out of network."

Rather, I think you'll see things like what's happening with the cellular market right now -- which is more of an oligopoly than wired premise-based services ever has been or will be. These companies are starting to bundle (and, if I had to guess, prioritized) OTT subscriptions with their packages. That's not a bad thing for wireless consumers -- it's a good thing.

The thing is: everybody's worried about the same thing....stifling innovation from startups that can't match the big boys' dough. Well, my contention is that there's no better way to bring that about than creating a universal service template that everybody must follow (and was heavily influenced by those very same big boys -- who, naturally, are going to protect their own investment).

Go see if you can discussion from Mark Cuban -- who, after all, was one of these innovative techies -- about net neutrality and why he opposes it. He gets it exactly right, IMO.

Startups dont have the cashflow capabilities that the large companies have. The incumbents can outlast the startups too easily by lowering their service offering prices.

Plus when you stratify the bandwidth, you will have fewer customers who will be able to afford the more premium requirements like streaming. Thus forcing as an example, OTT services like Netflix to jack up their prices and then push customers who cut the cord to go back to the incumbents who could lower prices till startups or even Netflix wane.

It happened in the airline industry a few decades ago when the incumbent airlines would lower their prices (at a loss) to compete against the startup budget airlines. Eventually, the budget airlines were killed off. (My own experience was with British Airways and a bunch of startup airlines back in the day.)

Net Neutrality could possibly only work if you level the playing field by breaking up the infra/media companies. I used to have an OTT media company and I bought a lot of bandwidth from the incumbents -- local loop not being the issue but the international bandwidth component was heavy financial and business model lifting. I had to compete eventually against the incumbents who would have mutiple natural advantages.

You lift net neutrality, I would have been out of business within 12 months.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Startups dont have the cashflow capabilities that the large companies have. The incumbents can outlast the startups too easily by lowering their service offering prices.

Plus when you stratify the bandwidth, you will have fewer customers who will be able to afford the more premium requirements like streaming. Thus forcing as an example, OTT services like Netflix to jack up their prices and then push customers who cut the cord to go back to the incumbents who could lower prices till startups or even Netflix wane.

It happened in the airline industry a few decades ago when the incumbent airlines would lower their prices (at a loss) to compete against the startup budget airlines. Eventually, the budget airlines were killed off. (My own experience was with British Airways and a bunch of startup airlines back in the day.)

Net Neutrality could possibly only work if you level the playing field by breaking up the infra/media companies. I used to have an OTT media company and I bought a lot of bandwidth from the incumbents -- local loop not being the issue but the international bandwidth component was heavy financial and business model lifting. I had to compete eventually against the incumbents who would have mutiple natural advantages.

You lift net neutrality, I would have been out of business within 12 months.

You have to be joking about the effects of airline deregulation. Most of the hub/spoke airlines have merged into 3 carriers (United, Delta, and American) while the Southwests and JetBlues of the world have established their own significant niches. And there is absolutely no question that this was a great thing for travelers.

Prior to airline deregulation, most average people could simply not afford to fly. Today, a family of four from my town can fly non-stop to Orlando on a pretty nice 737 for less than the cost of one day's ticket at WDW.

Deregulation was a godsend for air travel consumers. Were there some downsides to it? Yeah, I'm sure there were. But, on balance, there's a reason nobody's clamoring to go back to the status quo ante.

As to your personal experience, I can relate from my past experiences in the CLEC world....which was anything but deregulated, and anything but stacked in favor of the startups.

There will always be capital requirements to get into any business, and some are more capital intensive than others. Bandwidth is a scarce resource and something that video streaming requires a lot of. Frankly -- regulated or unregulated -- I think it's unreasonable to expect that entities which invest the big money to haul the bits aren't going to (and shouldn't) enjoy some advantages from having done so.

But, really, that's not why I oppose the regulation. I oppose it because I think it will set in motion a series of back-and-forths between the major interested parties here who will both end up with increasing amounts of what they want written into the regulatory code. And those things would naturally tend to favor them and disfavor startups and, thus, both disruptive innovation and consumer-friendliness.

I've never understood -- what with regulated gas/electric utilities, cable/satellite, etc. -- why so many people think regulation is a boon for consumers.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You have to be joking about the effects of airline deregulation. Most of the hub/spoke airlines have merged into 3 carriers (United, Delta, and American) while the Southwests and JetBlues of the world have established their own significant niches. And there is absolutely no question that this was a great thing for travelers.

Prior to airline deregulation, most average people could simply not afford to fly. Today, a family of four from my town can fly non-stop to Orlando on a pretty nice 737 for less than the cost of one day's ticket at WDW.

Deregulation was a godsend for air travel consumers. Were there some downsides to it? Yeah, I'm sure there were. But, on balance, there's a reason nobody's clamoring to go back to the status quo ante.

As to your personal experience, I can relate from my past experiences in the CLEC world....which was anything but deregulated, and anything but stacked in favor of the startups.

There will always be capital requirements to get into any business, and some are more capital intensive than others. Bandwidth is a scarce resource and something that video streaming requires a lot of. Frankly -- regulated or unregulated -- I think it's unreasonable to expect that entities which invest the big money to haul the bits aren't going to (and shouldn't) enjoy some advantages from having done so.

But, really, that's not why I oppose the regulation. I oppose it because I think it will set in motion a series of back-and-forths between the major interested parties here who will both end up with increasing amounts of what they want written into the regulatory code. And those things would naturally tend to favor them and disfavor startups and, thus, both disruptive innovation and consumer-friendliness.

I've never understood -- what with regulated gas/electric utilities, cable/satellite, etc. -- why so many people think regulation is a boon for consumers.

We know ISPs have lobbied hard (read spent lots of campaign contributions) for this. If they don't think this is going to make them far more money, are they just idiots?

 

[T.M.P.]

It's fairly high among the reasons I voted for Trump.

Other than being a well trained Russian parrot?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

We know ISPs have lobbied hard (read spent lots of campaign contributions) for this. If they don't think this is going to make them far more money, are they just idiots?

It's better described as preventing them from losing a lot of money.

They've made very large long-term investments based on a business model that is changing radically on them.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It's better described as preventing them from losing a lot of money.

They've made very large long-term investments based on a business model that is changing radically on them.

But if deregulation is going to bring in all these new players making everything so much better for me, how are they going to stop loosing money?

I am planning on cutting the cord when my contract expires in Jan. I'll by internet and probably Hulu TV. That will, right now, save me over 100. But I am buying internet from some combination of XFinity or AT&T. I'm not particularly amused that both can now say "hey dude, you don't like our cable TV, cool, it's $100 more to stream Hulu". Perfectly legal today, wasn't last week.

 

[UncleMark]

My brother was a general manager for a large Frontier territory. He hated net neutrality. Why? Because it prevented them from gigging services like Netflix for more money. Period. Sure, he couched it terms of free market and all that crap, but it all boiled down to a revenue opportunity they were prevented from taking advantage of.

Comcast/Universal/NBC would also use tiered services to advantage their own offerings against those outside their silo.

As for the crazed's question regarding Netflix et al before the rules went in place, the rules were put in place to prevent tiered service before the Comcasts and Frontiers were able to implement it. They've been butthurt ever since, and now they have their chance.

It all depends on whether you want to look at the Internet infrastructure as a private toll road or a public utility.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It all depends on whether you want to look at the Internet infrastructure as a private toll road or a public utility.

Quite frankly, it's both.

But this isn't Venezuela -- we don't expropriate private assets. And last-mile networks are (mostly, not exclusively) private.

You can't liken these things to leased radio spectrum.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

My brother was a general manager for a large Frontier territory. He hated net neutrality. Why? Because it prevented them from gigging services like Netflix for more money. Period. Sure, he couched it terms of free market and all that crap, but it all boiled down to a revenue opportunity they were prevented from taking advantage of.

Comcast/Universal/NBC would also use tiered services to advantage their own offerings against those outside their silo.

As for the crazed's question regarding Netflix et al before the rules went in place, the rules were put in place to prevent tiered service before the Comcasts and Frontiers were able to implement it. They've been butthurt ever since, and now they have their chance.

It all depends on whether you want to look at the Internet infrastructure as a private toll road or a public utility.

More so than my scenario, this is the likely one. Hulu (or Sling, or any of the others) will have to pay big bucks to come across AT&T or Xfinity's wires. But for me, the end user, it is the same, I pay one of the giants. I want to save money by leaving Ma Bell, but Ma Bell will find a way to get it back one way or the other.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

But if deregulation is going to bring in all these new players making everything so much better for me, how are they going to stop loosing money?

I am planning on cutting the cord when my contract expires in Jan. I'll by internet and probably Hulu TV. That will, right now, save me over 100. But I am buying internet from some combination of XFinity or AT&T. I'm not particularly amused that both can now say "hey dude, you don't like our cable TV, cool, it's $100 more to stream Hulu". Perfectly legal today, wasn't last week.

Well, if it costs them more to deliver you the service than they are able to get in revenue, what would you have them do? Or, put another way, what would you do in that situation? Let's say that you were the one absorbing the loss. And there's no question but that cord-cutting is presenting that very scenario to these firms.

I'm confident things will work out just fine. And it may well involve some insolvencies and firesales -- there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. Failure is just an integral part of free enterprise as success is.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that even the healthiest of markets can deliver consumers precisely what they want for as little as they want to pay. I mean...I think the automobile market is a pretty healthy market overall, despite the fact that nobody's figured out how to get me a new Aventador for $75K. That, after all, is what I as the consumer want. So why isn't Lamborghini responsive to my wants, dammit? I demand some regulation!!

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

More so than my scenario, this is the likely one. Hulu (or Sling, or any of the others) will have to pay big bucks to come across AT&T or Xfinity's wires. But for me, the end user, it is the same, I pay one of the giants. I want to save money by leaving Ma Bell, but Ma Bell will find a way to get it back one way or the other.

That's probably closer to right. But, as I pointed out last night, understand that this practice has gone on in the regulated landline world for eons.

The end user never really knew it. But if you remember the days of, say, $0.10/minute long distance (which was a helluva bargain compared to what it had been in the pre-divestiture world), well part of that charge went to your local telephone company and part of it went to the local telephone company of the guy you called.

Is there really anything unfair or untoward about that? Or do you think the MCIs of the world should be able to freely use (and profit from) the BellSouths of the worlds local phone lines without compensating them?

I suspect that eventually, even if net neutrality stays in place, these back-end charges would become a reality.

Those last mile networks we all rely on for service aren't free. In fact, they're expensive as hell to maintain -- which means they have to be paid for one way or another.

 

[UncleMark]

But this isn't Venezuela -- we don't expropriate private assets. And last-mile networks are (mostly, not exclusively) private.

Why do you have pull out this kind of nonsense? You're seriously equating net neutrality regulation with expropriation? Gimme a break.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

That's probably closer to right. But, as I pointed out last night, understand that this practice has gone on in the regulated landline world for eons.

The end user never really knew it. But if you remember the days of, say, $0.10/minute long distance (which was a helluva bargain compared to what it had been in the pre-divestiture world), well part of that charge went to your local telephone company and part of it went to the local telephone company of the guy you called.

Is there really anything unfair or untoward about that? Or do you think the MCIs of the world should be able to freely use (and profit from) the BellSouths of the worlds local phone lines without compensating them?

I suspect that eventually, even if net neutrality stays in place, these back-end charges would become a reality.

Those last mile networks we all rely on for service aren't free. In fact, they're expensive as hell to maintain -- which means they have to be paid for one way or another.

But there is a different dynamic now, AT&T, Comcast, and Time-Warner are direct competitors of content with Sling, Hulu, YouTube, etc. Especially AT&T since they now have a streaming Direct TV service. These companies have incentive to actually punish the streaming services. Not just get fair value, punish.

Imagine if Ford owned all the gas stations in America and could price gas based on the car you drove in. How long would other car companies survive?

 

[iuwclurker1]

the reasons I voted for Trump.

I think the main reason is you can't tell heaven from hell.

 

[sglowrider]

You have to be joking about the effects of airline deregulation. Most of the hub/spoke airlines have merged into 3 carriers (United, Delta, and American) while the Southwests and JetBlues of the world have established their own significant niches. And there is absolutely no question that this was a great thing for travelers.

Prior to airline deregulation, most average people could simply not afford to fly. Today, a family of four from my town can fly non-stop to Orlando on a pretty nice 737 for less than the cost of one day's ticket at WDW.

Deregulation was a godsend for air travel consumers. Were there some downsides to it? Yeah, I'm sure there were. But, on balance, there's a reason nobody's clamoring to go back to the status quo ante.

As to your personal experience, I can relate from my past experiences in the CLEC world....which was anything but deregulated, and anything but stacked in favor of the startups.

There will always be capital requirements to get into any business, and some are more capital intensive than others. Bandwidth is a scarce resource and something that video streaming requires a lot of. Frankly -- regulated or unregulated -- I think it's unreasonable to expect that entities which invest the big money to haul the bits aren't going to (and shouldn't) enjoy some advantages from having done so.

But, really, that's not why I oppose the regulation. I oppose it because I think it will set in motion a series of back-and-forths between the major interested parties here who will both end up with increasing amounts of what they want written into the regulatory code. And those things would naturally tend to favor them and disfavor startups and, thus, both disruptive innovation and consumer-friendliness.

I've never understood -- what with regulated gas/electric utilities, cable/satellite, etc. -- why so many people think regulation is a boon for consumers.

I founded three OTT based startups. It would have difficult to compete if there wasnt net neutrality back then. I couldnt have afforded the priority traffic and fight against the big boys.
If this Trump initiative is to go through as I mentioned before, Netflix will struggle -- Amazon less so since their already own their own backbone.
The infra-media conglomerates can compete with the Netflixs of the world by raising their bandwidth costs to Netflix or it gets passed down to the consumer -- who will then get fed up and move back to the cable companies.

Packet traffic has always been prioritised. Streaming media packets get higher priority than say an email packet. Net neutrality isnt so much a regulation as much as a business model.

Now it is another way for the infra-media companies to squeeze more out of their customers -- the internet customers/companies or consumers.
Another win for Wall Street.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I'm saying the regulated industry never delivered that market desire -- the unregulated one did, and quickly.

That's just a simple and irrefutable fact.

LMAO, the cable industry was essentially deregulated in 1996.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The infra-media conglomerates

This is the key that people want to overlook. It's the conglomeration that causes the problem. Comcast can make a profit on their ISP business, and yet still have an incentive to strangle NBCU's competitors in order to make more profit in the content end, as well. Before massive media deregulation began, we'd have considered this an anti-competitive practice, without a second thought. Now we have people defending it as free market capitalism.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

This is the key that people want to overlook. It's the conglomeration that causes the problem. Comcast can make a profit on their ISP business, and yet still have an incentive to strangle NBCU's competitors in order to make more profit in the content end, as well. Before massive media deregulation began, we'd have considered this an anti-competitive practice, without a second thought. Now we have people defending it as free market capitalism.

Addendum: In other words, if we pulled a Ma Bell type thing, and forced all the Tier 1, Tier 2, and content creators to split up, we wouldn't need to use regulations to force net neutrality, because the incentive for a non-neutral net would disappear.

 

[Cortez88]

Crazed’s argument misses the point. This isn’t the big companies protecting their infrastructure. Consumers like me send a monthly payment to Comcast to use its infrastructure every month. Because of the Comcast infrastructure monopoly, I pay this even though I hate Comcast and its awful service.

Even with net neutrality the hijinks are obvious. All the cord cutters in the area notice speeds being throttled when you actually want to watch TV. What will happen now when you choose to watch Netflix or Amazon?

 

[sglowrider]

Crazed’s argument misses the point. This isn’t the big companies protecting their infrastructure. Consumers like me send a monthly payment to Comcast to use its infrastructure every month. Because of the Comcast infrastructure monopoly, I pay this even though I hate Comcast and its awful service.

Even with net neutrality the hijinks are obvious. All the cord cutters in the area notice speeds being throttled when you actually want to watch TV. What will happen now when you choose to watch Netflix or Amazon?

You pay more. Amazon is better off

 

[i'vegotwinners]

One has pretty much nothing to do with the other.

I don't -- at all -- disagree with the stated intent of net neutrality. I just don't think it's in anybody's best interest to start an ongoing regulatory tug-of-war over the Internet. It has always been very lightly regulated and it's best for all of us if it remains that way.

it was unregulated, because there wasn't a need, and it was considered an emerging industry.

the instant a competitor to cable video services, (Netflix), popped up on the net, the cable company/isp instantly extorted said competitor by corrupting the signal absent extortion ransom being paid.

to think they would stop doing this voluntarily just to be nice guys, and in the interest of fair competition, is beyond absurd.

as for your and everyone else's b*tch about no ala carte option, that option does not exist precisely because of regulatory failure and absence, not because of regulation.

regulation would be the ONLY, i repeat ONLY, cure, as cable isn't going to quit forcing you to buy everything, as opposed to just what you want, if they don't have to.

nor would the programmers want to have to stand on their own value either, if they can force you to either have to buy them as well, or have nothing at all.

one needs to look at the cable/internet provider just as one would the electric or gas company, except that they are delivering their product digitally in a manner in which they can decide at their own whim what appliances, furnaces, air conditioners, and anything else powered by their product, will or won't work, or how well it will or won't work, on their service..

in such a universe, and absent regulation forbidding such a practice, anyone who makes anything powered by electricity or gas could, therefore would, be extorted to pay ransom to said electric or gas company, or have said device rendered effectively inoperable to the consumer by the electric or gas company.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

LMAO, the cable industry was essentially deregulated in 1996.

Pfft, the issue of a la carte pricing has been brought before the FCC numerous times by consumer advocates since then. And, curiously, they'd never bless it.

Here's a story about one such instance from 2004 -- which, according to my calendar, is 8 years after 1996. It was the second link on Google.

Gee, why would the FCC be holding symposiums on deregulated industries? You're not very good at this.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Well, let's start with historically.

You seem to be suggesting to me that regulation will prevent oligopolies -- and lack of regulation will lead to them.

How do you explain how a regulated industry came to be an oligopoly -- and, not only that, but one where consumers could never get the one thing they most begged for?

So what's breaking up their historical stranglehold? Something that is outside the purview of the regulators -- namely, OTT. Do you think they like that...or would prefer things stayed as they were?

cable/wired internet is a monopoly/duopoly/oligopoly, because it requires a vast infrastructure be built out to every home and business receiving it's service, and any competing company would require a duplicate infrastructure to be built and maintained.

anyone can build a competing service, and many have tried.

virtually none, if any, have been successful long term, because with every additional infrastructure built, you're now having to build out and maintain one more infrastructure all over the area, without any additional households to serve, so less and less homes are served by each additional infrastructure. (why we only have 1 electric, gas, and water, company).

anything that requires an elaborate infrastructure to be built and maintained all over it's service area, when you can't grow the number of households and businesses it serves by even one, will never react well to competition overbuilds that on average drastically cuts the number of homes and businesses served by each set of infrastructures.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Pfft, the issue of a la carte pricing has been brought before the FCC numerous times by consumer advocates since then. And, curiously, they'd never bless it.

Here's a story about one such instance from 2004 -- which, according to my calendar, is 8 years after 1996. It was the second link on Google.

Gee, why would the FCC be holding symposiums on deregulated industries? You're not very good at this.

Pfft, the issue of a la carte pricing has been brought before the FCC numerous times by consumer advocates since then. And, curiously, they'd never bless it.

Here's a story about one such instance from 2004 -- which, according to my calendar, is 8 years after 1996. It was the second link on Google.

Gee, why would the FCC be holding symposiums on deregulated industries? You're not very good at this.

in 2004, Michael Powell, (son of Colin), was Chairman of the FCC.

Michael Powell now makes many millions a yr as big cable's number 1 lobbyist.

BIG CABLE'S NUMBER 1 LOBBYIST, TOP DOG! the very Chairman of the FCC that killed the ala carte you want.

you're obviously not very good at this, but that should answer your question as to why it didn't happen in 2004. it was because big cable bribed the FCC commissioners not to do it, just have they have since.

now they are bribing Pai and the other GOP commissioners to kill net neutrality, just as they paid off FCC commissioners to kill ala carte.

you didn't think Pai and the GOP were doing this because they think it is good policy did you???

on a side note, last yr the previous FCC tried to unlock the box, so everyone didn't have to rent a box and dvr from their cable/satellite provider. (as we could back in the "cable ready" days).

the GOP flat killed it.

they didn't kill it because it was bad policy, they did it because they were bribed by big cable to not do it.

want ala carte? while the FCC and regulation is deeply flawed by corruption, it's still your only, i repeat ONLY, chance of getting it, and you'll flat out never get it with a GOP FCC.

if you think cable will go ala carte out of the goodness of their heart, what in the world would make you think that???

only force will make them break up the bundle, and since all cable and satellite companies, even competing ones, and the programmers, all benefit from the forced bundle, absent a legislative remedy which won't happen, the only force capable of doing so is regulation and the FCC.

on a side note, in 2004 there actually were tech logistical problems with going ala carte.

those issues all became moot when cable went all digital, and bribery is all that stops ala carte today.

 

[IUclover]

What happens when I want to visit my favorite fake site "comcastsucks.com" and Comcast flips the off switch on the site so I can't visit it or they charge me more to access this site? I believe these types of problems are a reason for net neutrality.

What if I'm a gamer but now I'll have to pay more to play even though I use the same amount of bandwidth because I play on X site?

Why should the internet be different than my energy bill? I use X amount of energy using Y devices. Should I be charged more for using a certain device? I pay for the amount of energy I use and not how it is used.

Just some thoughts for the thread. Not sure how net neutrality is a bad thing.

 

[sglowrider]

What happens when I want to visit my favorite fake site "comcastsucks.com" and Comcast flips the off switch on the site so I can't visit it or they charge me more to access this site? I believe these types of problems are a reason for net neutrality.

What if I'm a gamer but now I'll have to pay more to play even though I use the same amount of bandwidth because I play on X site?

Why should the internet be different than my energy bill? I use X amount of energy using Y devices. Should I be charged more for using a certain device? I pay for the amount of energy I use and not how it is used.

Just some thoughts for the thread. Not sure how net neutrality is a bad thing.

Thats not what net neutrality means.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Thats not what net neutrality means.

You might be misreading his post. I think he has a pretty good grasp on it, at least from the consumer POV.