MSM No Longer Useful So...

[What a Tuel]

If you live in nearly any major metro area, then you have competing broadband providers. If you live in a less populous area, then likely you don't. You will in a few years, though - it's all going to be wireless before you know it.

 

Net Neutrality is about a hell of a lot more than settling a squabble between Netflix and Comcast. Do some research - do not politicize the issue, but instead do a little digging. The information is out there. Remember Senator Stevens referring to the web as "tubes"? Remember when Senator McCain suggested we combat free music downloads by coming up with a way to "blow up" the end-user's computer?

 

How do I feel about data caps? If you mean, offering different pricing levels for different levels of ethernet bandwidth, then I'm all for it. It's no different than offering different pricing per pound on meat at the grocery store when purchasing a large quantity vs a smaller one.

 

Tell me what net neutrality does if it is so bad. It's out there right now. What is it doing that is wrong besides preventing what I outlined?

 

The comparison of internet to buying per pound meat at a grocery story is insane, mainly because as I have said before there is no competition within areas to keep prices down. Down the street FIOS might be available, but it isn't right here. People do not and likely cannot move for the sake of internet. There is no protection from the insanely high markup. You are paying through the nose for high priced internet, and then they cap you. I am not sure you realize that the data under the caps that companies like Comcast put forward a just a tiny fraction of the bill you are paying.

 

So they are effectively saying "Hey, pay for this internet $60 a month. But make sure you stay under the 300gb cap that costs us much less than $3 to provide. If you want more data, you can pay another $10 for 50 more gbs (<$0.50 cost to them)". You are paying $60 a month for a $3 service. Before you invoke infrastructure costs remember the quote I posted in which a smaller company's infrastructure costs fell to 2% of revenue. So including infrastructure, you are paying $60 a month for a $5 service.

 

Now I get free market and all that. I would love it too if there was actual competition. ComCast's CEO Cohen says as much when trying to get the FCC to approve the merger with TWC.

 

Cohen: South Carolina is one of the states where Time Warner Cable and Comcast both have a presence. It is a state that actually demonstrates the lack of competitive overlap between the two.

 

Graham: “So, generally speaking, cable companies don’t compete with each other, is that what we’re saying?”

Cohen: "That is correct."

 

Edited September 8, 2016 by What a Tuel

[GG]

You continue to show a complete ignorance of the broadband economy. Of course Time Warner and Comcast aren't going to compete against one another because it would be idiotic for another wireline broadband company to enter into a market that has an incumbent cable and telephone operator battling for broadband, and DTV and DISH owning 20% of the video market. That's why these discussions about cable companies not competing with each other are good for foolish soundbites.

 

The Internet industry did just fine before Google started scaring the morons about net neutrality. Here's a question for you. What services were you denied because the net neutrality concept didn't exist until 5 years ago? Do you realize that if net neutrality stands up in court as currently planned, that will freeze the incentive for the broadband guys to improve the network?

 

Google and Facebook unleashed the net neutrality hysteria to protect their own cost structures, not because they were worried about their content being downgraded to a slow lane.

 

There are many cases of broadband providers trying to prioritize its content over what the public wanted and all those failed miserably.

[Azalin]

 

1) Tell me what net neutrality does if it is so bad. It's out there right now. What is it doing that is wrong besides preventing what I outlined?

 

2) The comparison of internet to buying per pound meat at a grocery story is insane, mainly because as I have said before there is no competition within areas to keep prices down. Down the street FIOS might be available, but it isn't right here. People do not and likely cannot move for the sake of internet. There is no protection from the insanely high markup. You are paying through the nose for high priced internet, and then they cap you. I am not sure you realize that the data under the caps that companies like Comcast put forward a just a tiny fraction of the bill you are paying.

 

3) So they are effectively saying "Hey, pay for this internet $60 a month. But make sure you stay under the 300gb cap that costs us much less than $3 to provide. If you want more data, you can pay another $10 for 50 more gbs (<$0.50 cost to them)". You are paying $60 a month for a $3 service. Before you invoke infrastructure costs remember the quote I posted in which a smaller company's infrastructure costs fell to 2% of revenue. So including infrastructure, you are paying $60 a month for a $5 service.

 

Now I get free market and all that. I would love it too if there was actual competition. ComCast's CEO Cohen says as much when trying to get the FCC to approve the merger with TWC.

 

 

1) What's bad about Net Neutrality is that it puts regulatory control into the hands of the federal government, giving them the power to decide what companies may or may not (depending on who lobbies hardest) enter into new market areas, stifling competition and making it all but impossible for start-ups and smaller ISPs to either operate or even continue to exist. Remember that all of the existing infrastructure that utilizes copper as a transmission medium is already regulated by both the FCC and each of the 50 Public Utility Commissions, all of which operate under price structures for their services according to mandates from each regulatory entity. In other words, a large portion of the network is already under FCC control. They have wrested control of the extended network - which was brought about as much by competition between various telecom and cable companies as each company's desire to meet growing customer needs.

 

And we've all seen how well the feds are at managing expense while providing excellent service.

 

2) You need to understand that not all markets are as pathetically empty of telecom as yours apparently is. Rural areas will get their blistering speed when, as I've already said, the last mile delivery becomes wireless instead of wireline. It's already happening - do you get 4GLTE on your mobile device? Granted, I live in an area that's arguably the most booming with regard to IT and tech, but look at how many markets Google is bringing their 1G Google Fiber service to. Remember, it's to the telecom company's benefit to increase their customer base - already in my local market AT&T has answered Google's 1G service with their own GigaPower. As far as caps on monthly data are concerned, nobody in my area even does that anymore except some wireless plans, and they all offer optional plans that do provide unlimited data. Those plans cost more, but that's because you're increasing the load on the network. Home internet is offered by varying degrees of bandwidth, not data caps. If you have a cap on your home internet service, it's likely either on a shared last-mile portion of the network (apartment buildings and complexes) or it's provided by a very small ISP. In the case of the latter, Net Neutrality will soon put them out of business.

 

3) I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but I can guarantee you that it costs a hell of a lot more than $3 to provide each customer service and to maintain the network, let alone all the upgrades to meet the demands of the market. That's just flat out wrong.

 

You continue to show a complete ignorance of the broadband economy. Of course Time Warner and Comcast aren't going to compete against one another because it would be idiotic for another wireline broadband company to enter into a market that has an incumbent cable and telephone operator battling for broadband, and DTV and DISH owning 20% of the video market. That's why these discussions about cable companies not competing with each other are good for foolish soundbites.

 

The Internet industry did just fine before Google started scaring the morons about net neutrality. Here's a question for you. What services were you denied because the net neutrality concept didn't exist until 5 years ago? Do you realize that if net neutrality stands up in court as currently planned, that will freeze the incentive for the broadband guys to improve the network?

 

Google and Facebook unleashed the net neutrality hysteria to protect their own cost structures, not because they were worried about their content being downgraded to a slow lane.

 

There are many cases of broadband providers trying to prioritize its content over what the public wanted and all those failed miserably.

 

Thank you. I really wish more people understood this.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Azalin

[What a Tuel]

You continue to show a complete ignorance of the broadband economy. Of course Time Warner and Comcast aren't going to compete against one another because it would be idiotic for another wireline broadband company to enter into a market that has an incumbent cable and telephone operator battling for broadband, and DTV and DISH owning 20% of the video market. That's why these discussions about cable companies not competing with each other are good for foolish soundbites.

 

The Internet industry did just fine before Google started scaring the morons about net neutrality. Here's a question for you. What services were you denied because the net neutrality concept didn't exist until 5 years ago? Do you realize that if net neutrality stands up in court as currently planned, that will freeze the incentive for the broadband guys to improve the network?

 

Google and Facebook unleashed the net neutrality hysteria to protect their own cost structures, not because they were worried about their content being downgraded to a slow lane.

 

There are many cases of broadband providers trying to prioritize its content over what the public wanted and all those failed miserably.

 

Sorry, but you are the one lacking an understanding of broadband. Now we are saying competition is impossible and the lack of it is good for the consumer? Are you kidding me?

 

Not only is there ample evidence to show ISPs throttling different kinds of traffic, but Netflix has been forced to pay untold millions to ISPs to keep their content running at even speeds to their customers.

 

The internet industry is not doing fine. You are paying through the nose at prices that are only increasing as costs are dropping. They are feeding you a line of BS that the infrastructure is making them raise prices except the data shows those costs are dropping. Throw in data caps, and if we keep acquiescing to these monopolies and the internet will be pretty much hell like Mobile internet is right now. Imagine that, Verizon offers free data through its "partners", wonder how they accomplish that. Same thing will happen with the cable giants. But you wait and see and defend an abomination of a monopoly and pretend it is free market capitalism.

 

So here's a question for you. What services were you denied as a result of net neutrality? What evidence do you have that they raised prices? Stopped developing their networks? These company's are making money hand over fist, and any money they don't get from content providers they hold hostage is a drop in the revenue bucket.

 

You are accepting getting screwed over because a company won't make as much money. Trust me, if comcast doesn't want to develop their network because Netflix won't pay their extortion fees then someone else will take up the torch. There is too much money on the table not to.

 

You have a choice here (as do content providers):

Allow your ISP to dictate what speeds your content can be streamed at

Tell your ISP to off and provide you the speeds you pay for, for whatever content you damn well see fit to stream

 

As for your hatred of Google "stirring" things up. Well they do have a vested interest in people browsing content on the internet without the gatekeeper ISP's getting in the way, and maybe someday they will turn into the monstrosities that are the current ISP's. But for now they are offering the greatest internet experience of all ISP's. Who woulda thunk it could be done with such slim profit margins.

 

 

 

1) What's bad about Net Neutrality is that it puts regulatory control into the hands of the federal government, giving them the power to decide what companies may or may not (depending on who lobbies hardest) enter into new market areas, stifling competition and making it all but impossible for start-ups and smaller ISPs to either operate or even continue to exist. Remember that all of the existing infrastructure that utilizes copper as a transmission medium is already regulated by both the FCC and each of the 50 Public Utility Commissions, all of which operate under price structures for their services according to mandates from each regulatory entity. In other words, a large portion of the network is already under FCC control. They have wrested control of the extended network - which was brought about as much by competition between various telecom and cable companies as each company's desire to meet growing customer needs.

 

And we've all seen how well the feds are at managing expense while providing excellent service.

 

2) You need to understand that not all markets are as pathetically empty of telecom as yours apparently is. Rural areas will get their blistering speed when, as I've already said, the last mile delivery becomes wireless instead of wireline. It's already happening - do you get 4GLTE on your mobile device? Granted, I live in an area that's arguably the most booming with regard to IT and tech, but look at how many markets Google is bringing their 1G Google Fiber service to. Remember, it's to the telecom company's benefit to increase their customer base - already in my local market AT&T has answered Google's 1G service with their own GigaPower. As far as caps on monthly data are concerned, nobody in my area even does that anymore except some wireless plans, and they all offer optional plans that do provide unlimited data. Those plans cost more, but that's because you're increasing the load on the network. Home internet is offered by varying degrees of bandwidth, not data caps. If you have a cap on your home internet service, it's likely either on a shared last-mile portion of the network (apartment buildings and complexes) or it's provided by a very small ISP. In the case of the latter, Net Neutrality will soon put them out of business.

 

3) I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but I can guarantee you that it costs a hell of a lot more than $3 to provide each customer service and to maintain the network, let alone all the upgrades to meet the demands of the market. That's just flat out wrong.

 

1. This is flat out wrong and part of the ridiculous fear mongering. Prove it or knock it off.

 

2. I live in North Tonawanda. It is pathetically empty and not rural at all. Time Warner is the sole reasonable option for broadband internet. There are more places like this than not. Yes, Google is pushing the ISP's to improve their networks. It is a fresh breath of competition. I don't think we are in disagreement here. Competition is good for the industry.

 

As for caps, Comcast does them consistently. They recently just raised them from 300gb to 1TB per month which is good, but there shouldn't be any cap. If they cannot afford to provide customers the level of service they promise, then they need to let those customers go. You allow caps in the door, and your internet turns into the mobile hell hole that we are in now. Monetizing data is not the route we want to go with the internet. It doesn't make any sense outside of increased profits for these companies. It is an awful idea for consumers and content providers alike. If a company cannot take the load on their networks, they need to invest the money or shed the customers. That is the service they provide.

 

3. The numbers are out there. Estimates range anywhere from <$0.01 to $0.15 per gb but of course it varies depending on location, existing infrastructure, time of day, etc so it is difficult to pin down. Don't think this ever includes the government investment into the ISP's infrastructure through tax breaks or credits (something they don't mind taking)

Edited September 9, 2016 by What a Tuel

[GG]

Funny how you call out people who have worked in and around the industry as not understanding its economics.

 

Do some real research.

[Azalin]

Funny how you call out people who have worked in and around the industry as not understanding its economics.

 

Do some real research.

 

I've been in the industry for 23 years. Thanks to all the politicizing of net neutrality, lots of people think like this. Nothing will screw up an issue like injecting politics into it.

 

Sorry, but you are the one lacking an understanding of broadband. Now we are saying competition is impossible and the lack of it is good for the consumer? Are you kidding me?

 

Not only is there ample evidence to show ISPs throttling different kinds of traffic, but Netflix has been forced to pay untold millions to ISPs to keep their content running at even speeds to their customers.

 

The internet industry is not doing fine. You are paying through the nose at prices that are only increasing as costs are dropping. They are feeding you a line of BS that the infrastructure is making them raise prices except the data shows those costs are dropping. Throw in data caps, and if we keep acquiescing to these monopolies and the internet will be pretty much hell like Mobile internet is right now. Imagine that, Verizon offers free data through its "partners", wonder how they accomplish that. Same thing will happen with the cable giants. But you wait and see and defend an abomination of a monopoly and pretend it is free market capitalism.

 

So here's a question for you. What services were you denied as a result of net neutrality? What evidence do you have that they raised prices? Stopped developing their networks? These company's are making money hand over fist, and any money they don't get from content providers they hold hostage is a drop in the revenue bucket.

 

You are accepting getting screwed over because a company won't make as much money. Trust me, if comcast doesn't want to develop their network because Netflix won't pay their extortion fees then someone else will take up the torch. There is too much money on the table not to.

 

You have a choice here (as do content providers):

Allow your ISP to dictate what speeds your content can be streamed at

Tell your ISP to off and provide you the speeds you pay for, for whatever content you damn well see fit to stream

 

As for your hatred of Google "stirring" things up. Well they do have a vested interest in people browsing content on the internet without the gatekeeper ISP's getting in the way, and maybe someday they will turn into the monstrosities that are the current ISP's. But for now they are offering the greatest internet experience of all ISP's. Who woulda thunk it could be done with such slim profit margins.

 

 

 

1. This is flat out wrong and part of the ridiculous fear mongering. Prove it or knock it off.

 

2. I live in North Tonawanda. It is pathetically empty and not rural at all. Time Warner is the sole reasonable option for broadband internet. There are more places like this than not. Yes, Google is pushing the ISP's to improve their networks. It is a fresh breath of competition. I don't think we are in disagreement here. Competition is good for the industry.

 

As for caps, Comcast does them consistently. They recently just raised them from 300gb to 1TB per month which is good, but there shouldn't be any cap. If they cannot afford to provide customers the level of service they promise, then they need to let those customers go. You allow caps in the door, and your internet turns into the mobile hell hole that we are in now. Monetizing data is not the route we want to go with the internet. It doesn't make any sense outside of increased profits for these companies. It is an awful idea for consumers and content providers alike. If a company cannot take the load on their networks, they need to invest the money or shed the customers. That is the service they provide.

 

3. The numbers are out there. Estimates range anywhere from <$0.01 to $0.15 per gb but of course it varies depending on location, existing infrastructure, time of day, etc so it is difficult to pin down. Don't think this ever includes the government investment into the ISP's infrastructure through tax breaks or credits (something they don't mind taking)

 

You're perfectly entitled to think whatever you want, but as has already been suggested, you could study up on the issue a bit more.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Azalin

[What a Tuel]

Classic retort - I know more than you so you are wrong.

[Joe Miner]

Classic retort - I know more than you so you are wrong.

You've consistently demonstrated here that you are ignorant concerning this topic.

 

You mostly just come across as whiny about not having fast internet, and have twisted logic around until you're convinced that net neutrality will help you out.

[DC Tom]

Classic retort - I know more than you so you are wrong.

 

 

Generally, when you argue a point with something who knows far more about the subject than you do, you are wrong. It's less a classic retort than it is reality.

[What a Tuel]

Whatever you guys say. I am comfortable in my knowledge of the subject.

[Azalin]

Classic retort - I know more than you so you are wrong.

 

No offense meant - you can take my reply any way you want. It isn't even an argument from my perspective, it's just the truth. The argument for net neutrality goes back years, and its proponents have tried various approaches over time to win over sympathetic support, even going so far as to argue the unfairness of telecom companies offering customers a multi-tiered pricing/bandwidth option (oh, Joe Blow can afford to spend more, so that should entitle him to purchase better service?). When the FCC starts floating the notion that they're simply going to step in and assume regulatory control of an entire industry, the people within that industry sit up and take notice. I'm not tossing down a "I work in the business so blah blah blah" trump card. I'm offering you a perspective from an industry professional with two-plus decades of experience. Feel free to take it or leave it.

[B-Man]

This is a portion of remarks Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, delivered on the Senate floor on Thursday.

 

 

The Obama administration’s proposal to give away control of the internet poses a significant threat to our freedom, and it’s one that many Americans don’t know about. It is scheduled to go into effect on Sept. 30, 2016. Twenty-two days away. Just over three weeks.

 

Now what does it mean to give away control of the internet?

 

From the very first days of the internet, when it was developed here in America, the United States government has maintained its core functions to ensure equal access for everyone with no censorship. The government role isn’t to monitor what we say, it isn’t to censor what we say, it is simply to ensure that it works—that when you type in a website, it actually goes to that website and not somewhere else. And yet, that can change.

 

The Obama administration is instead pushing through a radical proposal to take control of internet domain names and instead give it to an international organization, ICANN [internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers], that includes 162 foreign countries. And if that proposal goes through, it will empower countries like Russia, like China, like Iran to be able to censor speech on the internet, your speech. Countries like China, Russia, and Iran are not our friends, and their interests are not our interests.

 

Imagine searching the internet and instead of seeing your standard search results, you see a disclaimer that the information you were searching for is censored. It is not consistent with the standards of this new international body, it does not meet their approval.

 

You look at the influence of foreign governments within ICANN, it should give us greater and greater concern.

 

For example, ICANN’s former CEO Fadi Chehadé left ICANN to lead a high-level working group for China’s World Internet Conference. Mr. Chehadé’s decision to use his insider knowledge of how ICANN operates to help the Chinese government and their conference is more than a little concerning.

 

This is the person who was leading ICANN, the body that we are being told to trust with our freedoms. Yet this man has since gone to work for the Chinese Internet Conference, which has rightly been criticized for banning members of the press such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.

 

{snip}

 

Not only is there a concern of censorship and foreign jurisdictions stripping U.S. law from authority over the internet, there are also real national security concerns. Congress has received no assurances from the Obama administration that the U.S. government will continue to have exclusive ownership and control of the .gov and .mil top-level domains in perpetuity, which are vital to our national security. The Department of Defense, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines all use the .mil top-level domain. The White House, the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security all use .gov.

 

The only assurance ICANN has provided the federal government regarding .gov and .mil is that ICANN will notify the government in the future if it decides to give .gov and .mil to another entity. So if someone is going to the IRS, or what you think is the IRS, and you’re comforted that it’s on a .gov website so that you know it must be safe, you may instead find yourself victims of a foreign scam, a phishing scam, some other means of fraud with no basic protections.

 

Now, some defenders of the Obama proposal say ‘this is not about censorship. It’s about handing control to a multi-stakeholder unit. They would never dream of censoring content on the internet.’

 

Well recently, leading technology companies in the United States—Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Microsoft—reached an agreement with the European Union, to remove ‘hate speech’ from their online platforms within 24 hours. Giant U.S. corporations signing on with the government to say, ‘we are going to help you censor speech that is deemed unacceptable.’

 

Congress should not sit by and let this happen. Congress must not sit by and let censorship happen.

 

This should be an issue that brings us all together—Republicans, Democrats, all of us coming together. There are partisan issues that divide us, there always will be. We can have Republicans and Democrats argue till the cows come home about the top marginal tax rate, and that is a good and healthy debate to have. But when it comes to the internet, when it comes to basic principles of freedom, letting people speak online without being censored, that ought to bring every one of us together.

 

 

More at the link: http://dailysignal.com/2016/09/08/obamas-radical-proposal-could-result-in-censorship-online/

[What a Tuel]

My god the logical leaps Ted Cruz makes. It is painful.

 

Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, whoever make their own policies and censor what they want already. They don't need government permission because you agree to their terms from the start.

 

Take this for example.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-norway-primeminister-idUSKCN11F194

 

Ever hear Ted Cruz commission on NASA? The guy has a continued agenda and frames his arguments around it without letting facts get in his way.

 

 

(This is how we got Trump as a nominee btw)

 

 

No offense meant - you can take my reply any way you want. It isn't even an argument from my perspective, it's just the truth. The argument for net neutrality goes back years, and its proponents have tried various approaches over time to win over sympathetic support, even going so far as to argue the unfairness of telecom companies offering customers a multi-tiered pricing/bandwidth option (oh, Joe Blow can afford to spend more, so that should entitle him to purchase better service?). When the FCC starts floating the notion that they're simply going to step in and assume regulatory control of an entire industry, the people within that industry sit up and take notice. I'm not tossing down a "I work in the business so blah blah blah" trump card. I'm offering you a perspective from an industry professional with two-plus decades of experience. Feel free to take it or leave it.

 

To each their own. I can say that the truth is somewhere in the middle between content creators and ISP's, but net neutrality is not some government takeover of the internet. But we can agree to disagree.

[Azalin]

 

To each their own. I can say that the truth is somewhere in the middle between content creators and ISP's, but net neutrality is not some government takeover of the internet. But we can agree to disagree.

 

The FCC has taken regulatory control of the internet.

 

https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet

 

Question: How can they enforce any of this if they have no regulatory control?

[What a Tuel]

 

The FCC has taken regulatory control of the internet.

 

https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet

 

Question: How can they enforce any of this if they have no regulatory control?

 

They had to do this as a result of court challenges by ISP's saying that the FCC did not have the regulatory authority to impose net neutrality. If all you are referring to is the precedent the FCC is setting then fine, but do you really have a problem with the below?

 

• No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
• No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
• No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

[Azalin]

 

 

They had to do this as a result of court challenges by ISP's saying that the FCC did not have the regulatory authority to impose net neutrality. If all you are referring to is the precedent the FCC is setting then fine, but do you really have a problem with the below?

 

• No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
• No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
• No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

 

 

Yes, I do have problems with some of those items, for reasons I've already explained.

[What a Tuel]

 

Yes, I do have problems with some of those items, for reasons I've already explained.

 

Then we agree to disagree.

[GG]

 

 

They had to do this as a result of court challenges by ISP's saying that the FCC did not have the regulatory authority to impose net neutrality. If all you are referring to is the precedent the FCC is setting then fine, but do you really have a problem with the below?

 

• No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
• No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
• No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

 

 

Because the industry had no problem with FCC's previous net neutrality guidelines, but a big time problem with FCC reclassifying the Internet as a utility.

 

You're too gullible to believe what the content providers are selling you, even though you complain of the direct effect on you.

 

You complain that you only have TWC service in North Tonawanda, even though Verizon can upgrade the lines for fiber carriage? Why do you think Verizon stopped its FIOS expansion? If you think that Google is all about doing good, why aren't you beating down their doors to provision North Tonawanda with Google Fiber?

[DC Tom]

Whatever you guys say. I am comfortable in my knowledge of the subject.

 

Proof that you shouldn't be.

[What a Tuel]

Because the industry had no problem with FCC's previous net neutrality guidelines, but a big time problem with FCC reclassifying the Internet as a utility.

 

You're too gullible to believe what the content providers are selling you, even though you complain of the direct effect on you.

 

You complain that you only have TWC service in North Tonawanda, even though Verizon can upgrade the lines for fiber carriage? Why do you think Verizon stopped its FIOS expansion? If you think that Google is all about doing good, why aren't you beating down their doors to provision North Tonawanda with Google Fiber?

 

That is not true. Verizon sued the moment the FCC put forward the open internet order (net neutrality) for not having the regulatory authority or jurisdiction to regulate the internet. The court ruled that the FCC did not have that authority. The FCC gained that authority and survived subsequent lawsuits by reclassifying the internet as a utility.

 

As for Verizon I don't mind at all that Verizon stopped building it's network. It sucks that it fell short of my area, but I have no sense of entitlement to it. The thing about that is that Time Warner Cable is entrenched in the area. Verizon took a bunch of money and built up its network. They dove in and it is great in areas that offer both choices. However they won't continue building their network because of how entrenched Time Warner Cable is, and how it can stand to simply increase speeds, and lower prices at the hint of any sort of competition. So it just isn't worth it to Verizon at this point. So, yes it is quite annoying that I am stuck with Time Warner Cable as my only choice and no competition or innovation is taking place in my area.

 

It would be awesome if Google laid down fiber in our area, but it won't be happening. In the areas they are, you see the current ISP's scrambling to up their speeds, and lower prices though. Especially with their 1000 mbps connection.