Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining

Its a good thing that congress is looking out for the consumers, right? And republicans only want regulations when Oligopolies get negatively effected. However, Democrats aren't any less innocent on this.

It turns out that customers have been consistently unhappy with there ISP specifically comcast and after years of complaining to comcast nothing has come.

However, after the net neutrality rules where reinstated by the FCC people were able to complain to the FCC in regards to the monopolistic industry and unfair charges despite consumer outcry against the ISP. Once the FCC got the complaints it was harder for the ISP to B$ there responses and to hide the issues with customer dissatisfaction. Hence what do they do , they create regulation to further protect the already hated Oligopolies versus addressing the consumer complaints.

Thanks congress and thanks Republicans in particular for leading the charge against net neutrality principles and taking away the consumers voice in an already hated Oligopoly industry.

No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act:
A new bill would strip the FCC of authority to investigate complaints about broadband providers and effectively gut Net neutrality

www.infoworld.com...


U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee's subcommittee on communications and technology, made it clear in a hearing this week that he wants to forbid the FCC from acting upon customer complaints about broadband rates, billing errors, or data usage caps -- though complaints to the FCC have produced results where calls to customer service fell on deaf ears.

a reply to: interupt42

The Republicans were against net neutrality from the start. They caved to Obama and the Democrats on the issue. Multiple threads here on it.

Why do you think most of us are PISSED at them? Saying the Democrats aren't innocent on this issue is mindnumbingly ignorant. They proposed it and the damn RINO'S caved in to it.

a reply to: interupt42

Doesn't net neutrality eliminate the consumers voice to begin with?

Wouldn't Comcasy acting the way they typically do be reason enough for a competitor company to manifest and offer a better service?

Instead we have big government dictating the market as normal.

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: interupt42

The Republicans were against net neutrality from the start. They caved to Obama and the Democrats on the issue. Multiple threads here on it.

Why do you think most of us are PISSED at them? Saying the Democrats aren't innocent on this issue is mindnumbingly ignorant. They proposed it and the damn RINO'S caved in to it.

Actually no, the only real reason that net neutrality laws were reenacted was because the Online tech companies (Google,Amazon ,Netflix, etc) would have been at the mercy of the ISP . Hence they counter lobbied the Telecom lobbying group to keep net neutrality principles alive. The democrats were acting like they were for net neutrality but their actions indicated otherwise, until the Online Tech companies got involved.


Also it appears that you really don't understand what the internet is, if you can't see how un-republican it is for the GOP to go against net neutrality principles.

The internet is not a commodity its a market place and for the GOP to suggest that a ISP Oligopoly should control the market is anti American and anti free market and anti what made the internet a success.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: interupt42

Doesn't net neutrality eliminate the consumers voice to begin with?

Wouldn't Comcasy acting the way they typically do be reason enough for a competitor company to manifest and offer a better service?

Instead we have big government dictating the market as normal.

Because of the innovative nature of the tech, competition alone isn't enough to drive those kinds services. Between Comcast, Dish, and Direct TV they almost all have some forms of exclusive services only available through them. It's not as simple as having better customer service because the products aren't similar enough to be compared that way.

That being said, more or less the government sees it as, if them working together is a monopoly, then keep them seperate but force them to work together. This keeps the money from being as abused by single individuals, and keeps it circulating instead also.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: interupt42

Doesn't net neutrality eliminate the consumers voice to begin with?

Wouldn't Comcasy acting the way they typically do be reason enough for a competitor company to manifest and offer a better service?

Instead we have big government dictating the market as normal.

That would be true if we had competition. However the ISP industry is an Oligopoly where there is little to no competition for the consumers to be heard.

That is why year after year the ISP industry gets awarded the top spots for the most hated companies by its customers.

Not only do their customers hate them but they continue to survive and they actually continue to grow. The only way that can happens is when you have no competition.

I don't like gov't intervention but in an Oligopoly industry its the only hope that the customer can be heard.

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: interupt42

Doesn't net neutrality eliminate the consumers voice to begin with?

Wouldn't Comcasy acting the way they typically do be reason enough for a competitor company to manifest and offer a better service?

Instead we have big government dictating the market as normal.

Because of the innovative nature of the tech, competition alone isn't enough to drive those kinds services. Between Comcast, Dish, and Direct TV they almost all have some forms of exclusive services only available through them. It's not as simple as having better customer service because the products aren't similar enough to be compared that way.

That being said, more or less the government sees it as, if them working together is a monopoly, then keep them seperate but force them to work together. This keeps the money from being as abused by single individuals, and keeps it circulating instead also.

There are also exsclusive long term agreements made (comcast being the one I've run into) that allow you to only have one choice of provider. In one particular case a home owner/condo association Im familiar with has a 20 year agreement and as part of the agreement they banned satelite dishes as well. Also when I was in college at a Big Ten school, my apartment complex was the same. Comcast had a rights deal with the 2 major real estate companies leasing the student apartment complexes and you could only go with comcast.

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: interupt42

Doesn't net neutrality eliminate the consumers voice to begin with?

Wouldn't Comcasy acting the way they typically do be reason enough for a competitor company to manifest and offer a better service?

Instead we have big government dictating the market as normal.

Because of the innovative nature of the tech, competition alone isn't enough to drive those kinds services. Between Comcast, Dish, and Direct TV they almost all have some forms of exclusive services only available through them. It's not as simple as having better customer service because the products aren't similar enough to be compared that way.

That being said, more or less the government sees it as, if them working together is a monopoly, then keep them seperate but force them to work together. This keeps the money from being as abused by single individuals, and keeps it circulating instead also.

There are also exsclusive long term agreements made (comcast being the one I've run into) that allow you to only have one choice of provider. In one particular case a home owner/condo association Im familiar with has a 20 year agreement and as part of the agreement they banned satelite dishes as well. Also when I was in college at a Big Ten school, my apartment complex was the same. Comcast had a rights deal with the 2 major real estate companies leasing the student apartment complexes and you could only go with comcast.

It's still the consumers choice to live there though and Comcasts special choice to service it that way.

As long as the infrastructure supports internet, competition would be redundant. They're already forced to cooperate with Telco who makes money no matter what ISP services you.

but net neutrality will protect consumers from anything "undue or unreasonable" whatever that means

a reply to: imjack

It's still the consumers choice to live there though and Comcasts special choice to service it that way.

I hate comcast and I have been trying to get rid of them for over a decade. However, every where I have lived in Florida despite what city or neighbourhood I have lived in, their is only one choice when it comes to fast broadband internet. That choice is comcast.

Despite hating them I have to purchase their service because of the type of work I do requires fast internet.

So its not that simple to just pick another provider for the majority of the people. Hence that is why comcast has been pushing their Datacaps on people despite customer complaints and dissatisfaction for such a plan. Which have led to numerous FCC complaints and hence they are wanting to prevent the FCC from getting involved with such complaints.

In the end they have an Oligopoly and they have silenced the consumers voice with ensuring lack of competition in the fast broadband spectrum.

a reply to: interupt42

So we've gone from hating monopoly to oligopoly?

If we truly did, then no one would like Obamacare which forces oligopoly on the insurance industry and everyone would hate the idea of single payer which creates and state monopoly in the same.

The real reason behind the suspicion of net neutrality was its potential to use the regulatory body to pick winners and losers in the online information wars and free press.

I'm a liberal and I was against net neutrality for numerous reasons

This being one of them

And now look at what's happening " shut up and take it"

This is just the beginning.

How could people not see this is where this would head

Love love
Aliensupernova

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: imjack

It's still the consumers choice to live there though and Comcasts special choice to service it that way.

I hate comcast and I have been trying to get rid of them for over a decade. However, every where I have lived in Florida despite what city or neighbourhood I have lived in, their is only one choice when it comes to fast broadband internet. That choice is comcast.

Despite hating them I have to purchase their service because of the type of work I do requires fast internet.

So its not that simple to just pick another provider for the majority of the people. Hence that is why comcast has been pushing their Datacaps on people despite customer complaints and dissatisfaction for such a plan. Which have led to numerous FCC complaints and hence they are wanting to prevent the FCC from getting involved with such complaints.

In the end they have an Oligopoly and they have silenced the consumers voice with ensuring lack of competition in the fast broadband spectrum.

As long as you understand the cable in the wall wasn't paid for by comcast, the satellites and towers aren't paid for by comcast, and if comcast didn't exist it would just be a different faceless company. Then ya I more or less agree.

a reply to: ketsuko

So we've gone from hating monopoly to oligopoly?

? Majority of the corporations work as Oligopolies not monopolies because it easier to prosecute and identify monopolies.
I don't understand the point of the question to be honest? Neither one is beneficial to the consumer.

If we truly did, then no one would like Obamacare which forces oligopoly on the insurance industry and everyone would hate the idea of single payer which creates and state monopoly in the same.

Obamacare is crap and look at what happened to the Insurance Oligopoly after Obamacare was implemented. Notice the trend in the graphs below. I wonder how that could have happened since they were involved in the drafting of Obamacare. Pure coincidence I'm sure. However, not sure how this related to my post?

3 largest healthcare insurance provider:

Earnings In Billions after Obamacare

The real reason behind the suspicion of net neutrality was its potential to use the regulatory body to pick winners and losers in the online information wars and free press.

Actually you have it backwards , net neutrality principles existed since the start of the internet. The intent of undoing net neutrality was so the ISP Oligopolies could pick the winners and the losers in the online market.

For the record having the FCC involved to implement net neutrality principles was not ideal but was better than the immediate death of the internet ,had the ISP been able to control the world market known as the internet.

a reply to: imjack

Agreed, oligopolies are like drug dealers take one down three more pop up until one takes dominance.

Comcast just happens to be the biggest one out of the three.

a reply to: AlienSupernova

This being one of them

Which reason would that be?

And now look at what's happening " shut up and take it"

That is what the same people that wanted to stop net neutrality principles are trying to do with congress.

How could people not see this is where this would head

Everybody knows where its headed. Neither the gov't or the Oligopoly that the government works for want the consumer to get information that goes against the master plan or that allow for educated decisions to be made. Having the consumers interact in bidirectional communication is dangerous when it comes to propaganda.

however, had they stopped Net neutrality principles that is exactly what would have happened. The internet would have been killed overnight and soley controlled by the ISP oligopoly. Giving the FCC power was the only way to STALL those actions and keep the internet alive that we have had for a few more years.

Additionally we the consumers got lucky that another Oligopoly business models coincides for the most part with what is best for the consumers. Google , Amazon,Netflix are part of the online Tech oligopoly and net neutrality principles are crucial for their survival. That is the only reason the Gov't and the ISP didn't get what they wanted.

Note the FCC was in line to kill net neutrality principles along with the ISP. it wasn't till the online Tech oligopoly stepped in that they didn't . Without a doubt they will continue to attack net neutrality principles. Lets hope that those net neutrality principles continue to be part of the Online tech industries business processes.

Am I reading something wrong here? The OP appears to be in favor of net neutrality and everyone is coming into the thread agreeing with him, then going on to complain about net neutrality.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Am I reading something wrong here? The OP appears to be in favor of net neutrality and everyone is coming into the thread agreeing with him, then going on to complain about net neutrality.

LOL, I must admit I had to read some of the post a couple of times.

I think the issue is that most don't really understand net neutrality or what the internet is .

Or probably its their defence mechanism for showing the hypocrisy of the republicans even though I pointed it out on the Democrats as well?

a reply to: interupt42

Well just for the record, I'M with you. I support net neutrality and I actually read your OP thoroughly enough to know what you were talking about. Comcast is literally my least favorite ISP/cable provider of all time. I remember back in the 2000's when directv was starting to get big and Comcast couldn't get customers to save its life because of their #ty services. Just shows how desperately Comcast customers want something better than they are getting.

Why shouldn't your ISP limit your bandwidth or block you from visiting a site that is competitive to their business interests?

It's America and we are free! Yeah!