Net neutrality, asking the government to regulate company client relationship

So I was pro net neutrality until today. Actually what net neutrality is doing is discouraging competition in the market artificially proping up prices.

By the government getting involved in the process they disincentives competition so service providers have no interests in offering better packages to keep their customer base happy.

If they deregulate the industry people will want to go to the provider who's offeringg faster speeds to the websites they specifically want encouraging diversity in the market.

See how clever they are?

a reply to: onequestion

By the government getting involved in the process

You are learning a hard, but valuable lesson.

When you get to be my age you realize that government involvement is almost always a negative. Just one more reason the Fed's can kiss my behind.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: onequestion

By the government getting involved in the process

You are learning a hard, but valuable lesson.

When you get to be my age you realize that government involvement is almost always a negative. Just one more reason the Fed's can kiss my behind.

I feel so dumb now. Good ego check.

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: onequestion

By the government getting involved in the process

You are learning a hard, but valuable lesson.

When you get to be my age you realize that government involvement is almost always a negative. Just one more reason the Fed's can kiss my behind.

I feel so dumb now. Good ego check.

You aren't dumb. You just haven't been kicked in the jelly beans as many times as me.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: onequestion

By the government getting involved in the process

You are learning a hard, but valuable lesson.

When you get to be my age you realize that government involvement is almost always a negative. Just one more reason the Fed's can kiss my behind.

I feel so dumb now. Good ego check.

You aren't dumb. You just haven't been kicked in the jelly beans as many times as me.

Haha.

a reply to: onequestion

Yes... if only someone, anyone had warned us this was going to happen before it was passed...

You're kind of missing the point of net neutrality...

If they deregulate the industry people will want to go to the provider who's offeringg faster speeds to the websites they specifically want encouraging diversity in the market.

What if those websites don't pay the fee's so that the customers can reach their website?
Netflix Agrees To Pay Comcast To End Slowdown

So you say, 'competition! Free market! I'll just choose another provider!'

Woe is ISP: 30% of Americans can’t choose their service provider

So I was pro net neutrality until today.

So what changed?

Government is too involved in everything, and there is nothing good to come from getting them more, or less, involved in anything.
It's all too far gone- why is Time Warner the only internet option where I live? Because they're rich enough to keep competition from happening via law.

Reform would have to come in the form of serious change- change that all of us work for.

a reply to: links234
And whose fault is it that the telecom industry is not subject to free market forces?

Federal, state, and local gub'ment, that's who. Like the OP said, unnecessary regulations have removed competition from the telecom industry.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: onequestion

Yes... if only someone, anyone had warned us this was going to happen before it was passed...

If only...

I must put a flag in the ground at this point only to strengthen the conclusion, not to simply say "I told you so" which could only serve to aggravate.

The "other shoe", a much more threatening one, is when the FEC asserts its newfound power over political speech on the internet.

a reply to: onequestion

Actually what net neutrality is doing is discouraging competition in the market artificially proping up prices.

We never had competition at the consumer level, we had the telecom Oligopoly (Verizon,Att,and Comcast) with a license to tyrant.

That is the reason year after year those 3 companies get listed as the most hated companies by its customer and they continue to make record profits. The only way that happens is when the customer has no choice and the provider has no competition.

See how clever they are?

Actually What I see was that the Telecom industry was so fat ,dumb and happy with their license to print money that they didn't even see another Oligopoly sneaking in to overpower them.

While competitions doesn't happen at the consumer level it is alive and kicking at the Oligopoly level. Today the tech Oligopoly (Google,netflix,amazon,ett) are a serious threat to the telecom industry. Google fiber has caused the telecom industry to sh1t their pants and they have been forced to provide better service with lower prices overnight where G fiber was implemented.

Here is the problem for the telecom: The ISP business model has been shifted from a license to print money and total control to having to work hard to make a profit. The reason for this business model shift is that the tech Oligopoly makes their money by having more people on line with better and faster service. So much so that the Tech Oligopolies can take a hit by providing free internet to everyone as google has been trying to do because they will get it in the backend anyways. The Telecom industry can't compete with that business model .

Their last hope of survival and keeping their license to print money was to get rid of net neutrality principles.

Hollywood is doing the same mistakes as well by fighting an uphill battle against the forced technology business model changes. They are dumb , fat, and happy forcing providers to pay what they demanded via extortion tactics if they want to use their content.

However, now they are heading to being only dumb and fat because the online content providers such as netflix and amazon are producing their own content now .

If they deregulate the industry people will want to go to the provider who's offeringg faster speeds to the websites they specifically want encouraging diversity in the market.

Well I tried just about every 6 months before the net neutrality changes went effect to change my ISP from CromCr@p but I couldn't . Llike 90% of the people out there their is only 1 high speed broadband provider within my area. This didn't occur after net neutrality changes were made this existed prior to any regulation .

As a matter of fact just a few months back after the net neutrality changes have been made Comcast almost doubled my bandwidth speeds at no charge.

Why? Likely not because the kindness of their hearts, likely because they are seeing that where G FIber is going thee incumbent provider is loosing customers left and right. I personally would switch to G FIber and even consider paying more just to give the middle finger to ComCr@p for years of B$ and overcharging and horrible service. So I'm assuming they are being forced to rethink their image since they now have a threat on the horizon.

Also reclassifying the internet can also allow Google Fiber to further expand their services.

BTW the net neutrality changes made were not ideal but it was the only viable option out of the two provided.
1. Reclassify the internet and enjoy your internet for a bit longer until the next attack.
or
2. Give the most hated companies full control of the internet so you can be nickeled and dimed to death.

a reply to: Metallicus

You are learning a hard, but valuable lesson. When you get to be my age you realize that government involvement is almost always a negative. Just one more reason the Fed's can kiss my behind.

Without a doubt gov't involvement is typically a bad thing. However, in this case its a little different .

1. The FCC was initially against net neutrality principles and were trying to secretly kill it or make it unenforceable despite what they were saying.

A while back the ISP had lobbied to remove it and they had properly stacked the cards by having the FCC administrators and the telecom industry SWAP roles. The FCC head (Michael Powell) went to the Telecom lobbying group and the Telecom lobbying group went to the FCC ()

More than a decade ago, Powell as FCC chairman ensured that broadband providers would not be regulated as common carriers
arstechnica.com...

2. The only reason that the FCC responded and enforced the net neutrality principles despite all the telecom lobbying efforts and properly stacking the FCC, was because another OLIGOPOLY had everything to lose if they got rid of net neutrality principles.

The Tech industry (Google,netflix,amazon,etc) would have been at the mercy of the ISP to make money had they removed net neutrality.

Hence the TECH oligopoly went full force to anti lobby what the ISP telecom industry did and they exposed the B$ and they put their pockets where there mouth was by spending a $hit load to make sure that the FCC did not squash net neutrality principles.

Summary:
The gov't doesn't just create regulation for fun or the betterment of the people, it creates regulation because the dream team of lobbyist lawyers provides them with the drafts.

This was no different with net neutrality. However, the only part that was different was that an Oligopoly by pure luck had a business model that was beneficial to the consumers as well.

The online Tech Oligopoly industries directly benefits by having more people online at faster, more reliable, and cheaper prices. They want you to get online to buy their products or use their services at the fastest, cheapest and most reliable way.


Bottom line: The only reason we have net neutrality principles today is because the Online tech industry and not the FCC.

No matter what benefits net neutrality supporters tought, the bottom line is politicians believe they are loosing the information war on the internet. Information is the biggest threat to boldfaced liars and bad actors. This legislation is a Trojan horse to net censorship. Its a grab on your information. Don't let those shiny baubles distract you.

a reply to: trifecta

This legislation is a Trojan horse to net censorship.

I agree that the internet is a huge threat to them because the capability for the masses to speak back on level grounds as the MSM and the big corporations.

However. how was the most hated telcom Oligopoly having control of what you can access , watch, or read not censorship?

Ofcourse they are going to continue to attack it. The part you are not seeing was that this change in legislation is buying us time in keeping the internet as it has been.

Had they crushed net neutrality principles, you would have already been censored and extorted by the ISP.

Its not an ideal solution, but it was the much much much better one of the two that were being pushed.


O