It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This net neutrality move seems a good thing.

page: 25
25
<< 22  23  24   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

He did refer to driving prices up for the consumers.

As far as utilities go, even with no significant expansion needs as you stated, their prices started low and are now outrageous. Once they are utilities they become real monopolies. Damned if you do and damned if you don't....


edit on 18-12-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Sorry, using YouTube was a mistake and only an example I was trying to make. Policy, then, ISP policy, new or about to be revised would be a concern regarding net neutrality. Yes? Better stated?

The ignorance, at least mine, is as long as my rates don't go sky high, the damn corporations can fight amongst themselves. Besides....ignorance is bliss....


I had a bit of a long drive today and listened to both Limbaugh and Hannity (well, Hannity was a guest host), they were defending the NN repeal, but both made the same mistake in their arguments and it's an easy one to make, the distinction is very important though.

Their defense had to do with the fact that content providers can tier their services without NN. This is true, but it's true with NN as well. Net Neutrality doesn't in any way regulate what Youtube or Netflix can do, they have their product and they can distribute it as they see fit.

Net Neutrality has to do with contracts between content providers and service providers. The reason this area is getting so muddy, is because as I explained several pages ago, the service providers have in recent years been building their own competing content platforms. As a result, without NN, the service providers can work their way into the middle of every connection between a content provider and a customer and modify the user experience outside the scope of the contracts those parties signed and pay for. They can then do this, to promote their own competing service.

To use my road analogy again. Lets say I want to buy a car, I'm a big fan of Fords so I goto the Ford dealership and purchase something. Lets say the city doesn't like this though, because the mayor owns the local Nissan dealership, and wants to promote his car. So he gets some laws changed, and legislates my Ford off the road after I buy it, so that I have to goto his dealership instead. That's what the ISP's are trying to pull here.

It's anti competitive, and furthermore, telecom's are too big these days, they no longer operate in the public interest. Not only should NN come back (with or without Title 2, that part isn't super important), but these companies need to be broken up along content provider vs service provider lines.



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: nwtrucker

No. It did not give control of the internet to the UN. Where do you get your information? InfoWars?


There a number of links on the subject. Some deny the connection. It even went to court, apparently.

www.bbc.com...

And the court ruled it was not true.



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

What I don't see is any difference between NN and normal business practices. Dog eat dog and the market place will ultimately dictate the issue. If the Ford dealership is successful, he will place it just outside city limits and the customers will come to him.

You cite the mayor creating the law . NN is removal of law. Do you not think that law didn't benefit certain businesses at the expense of others freedoms?

If a YouTube, or the like, is that popular, some other ISP is going to merge or buy out YouTube rather than the effort to create their own with no guarantee of success. Perhaps another ISP merely offs a better deal.

In other words, normal shark-infested waters with a food chain.

The bottom line in your analogy is cars. In this case Fords-speed kills, buy a Ford and live longer
- I, for one, am not interested in laws that favor specific businesses from the vagaries of the real world. If 'Ford' goes broke as a result of some new law...or the lack of a protecting law, then they didn't have enough support from the consumer level and that's on them. Not the market place. If it IS a desirable product, then someone else will build one just like it under another name to supply that demand....which is what is happening now, competing similar products from the ISPs.

So what? Nestle supplies most of the chocolates, most of the ice cream and then buys out a weight loss company. Ironic...but reality. Likewise ISPs apparently.

Same applies to the Net. YouTube goes down? There'll be another to replace it. No more American Motors Co.? OK. Plenty of new ones.

As long as there's a demand the product, it will be there, in one form or another. Market demand assures it. There is a 'demand' for the net. The ISPs will be VERY aware of disaffecting the base customers. We will have a net. The prices will be tolerable, otherwise, I and others will turn it off. Simple.



edit on 19-12-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: nwtrucker

No. It did not give control of the internet to the UN. Where do you get your information? InfoWars?


There a number of links on the subject. Some deny the connection. It even went to court, apparently.

www.bbc.com...

And the court ruled it was not true.


Yep, I saw that.



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

In those examples you're citing content providers. Those providers all rely on access to the market. Due to the monopoly nature of ISP's, the ISP's can choose who does and doesn't get market access. Remember, supply and demand both go through the network. The one who controls the network gets to regulate who can supply, and where demand is pushed. That can only be challenged when there's a variety of marketplaces to go through.



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: nwtrucker

In those examples you're citing content providers. Those providers all rely on access to the market. Due to the monopoly nature of ISP's, the ISP's can choose who does and doesn't get market access. Remember, supply and demand both go through the network. The one who controls the network gets to regulate who can supply, and where demand is pushed. That can only be challenged when there's a variety of marketplaces to go through.


I can only rebut that the providers aren't monolithic. They are in competition with each other. Can they form a group and operate in unison? Sure.

OPEC comes to mind as an example. Guess what? Not everyone joined OPEC and we ended up with 'non-OPEC' oil producers that still competed in the oil industry.

The market place still trumps all consideration here. If any group prices themselves beyond the means or demand of the base consumer it will die.

This NN becomes critical only to the internal workings of the internet industry. Business.

None of my business, interest or concern beyond eventual product cost and the amount of that product I wish to purchase.

Look, I DO appreciate your knowledge, posts and interaction here. I have learned at least a bit of it from a lay perspective.

Let me give you a thought that may have escaped. Unless you have investments or a personal bias in this, watch out for myopic attitude.

A broader view suggests this industry suffers from basic principles as any other consumer driven field does. The market place. Supply and demand. If the ISPs ignore it, they will perish. Someone will push them out.

The U.S. auto industry is a perfect example. More basic to that example is whether they got pushed out or had remained the dominant players, there still was going to be cars....



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

The auto industry has competition though. That's not true for the telecoms. Access to the auto market is simple, anyone can start up a business and sell cars. Maybe a more apt description would be a restaurant... something we can both probably agree is an open market. Lets use an analogy that a restaurant is a website. Their necessary utility hookups are electric, water, and sewer. That could be analogous to the ISP.

In order for their business to function, they must have those hookups and for various reasons, these utilities all exist more or less as monopolies. Utilities need to have open access to everyone, they cannot discriminate... there's some very good regulations in place for utilities, because if there weren't the only alternative would be for a very wasteful duplication of infrastructure. Internet is no different, it's a vital component of many businesses and at this point data should be considered a utility.

There can be different plumbers businesses out there that handle piping water or data from the utility grid to the business, which is analogous to an ISP. The network itself should be treated as a utility at this point though.



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: nwtrucker

The auto industry has competition though. That's not true for the telecoms. Access to the auto market is simple, anyone can start up a business and sell cars. Maybe a more apt description would be a restaurant... something we can both probably agree is an open market. Lets use an analogy that a restaurant is a website. Their necessary utility hookups are electric, water, and sewer. That could be analogous to the ISP.

In order for their business to function, they must have those hookups and for various reasons, these utilities all exist more or less as monopolies. Utilities need to have open access to everyone, they cannot discriminate... there's some very good regulations in place for utilities, because if there weren't the only alternative would be for a very wasteful duplication of infrastructure. Internet is no different, it's a vital component of many businesses and at this point data should be considered a utility.

There can be different plumbers businesses out there that handle piping water or data from the utility grid to the business, which is analogous to an ISP. The network itself should be treated as a utility at this point though.


The alternative that you've suggested is create a utility out of it, in some form. Utilities are the most none competitive institutions ever devised by man.I see that as even worse than the worst case scenario posted yet.

We still have legislative power to address issues if this gets out of hand and while I can now see those scenarios, I don't believe that is will be as you say....at least not yet.




top topics



 
25
<< 22  23  24   >>

log in

join