Paulus Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 30 minutes ago, GG said: You're demonstrating an incredibly ignorant understanding of how the industry works, as well as conflating the differences between unserved areas, underserved areas and what's behind the build out decisions by the ISPs. Fact is that fixed broadband build outs stopped cold as soon as Obama started talking about net neutrality. But you and you pals think that continuing a stupid policy that is an RoI killer will somehow get the ISPs to build. Do you have the same level of indignation when you walk into a Starbucks to demand a free cup of coffee because the pot is already brewed? I don't go to Starbucks, ha! Also, as to the bold text, source? It seemed to me like they stopped years before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 Just now, joesixpack said: Not exactly. I have comcast, and that's pretty much it. I'm sure they paid the local municipality WELL for the privilege as well. I sort of agree with you and tasker...if I had a choice of choosing a provider who would push my packets I'd take my business there. But I don't have a choice. I have a monopoly. Comcast paid the municipality because the municipality DEMANDED the payment through a franchise tax and other schemes that would be illegal in the private sector. Comcast did not pay the municipality to ensure exclusivity and having exclusive concessions has been illegal for decades. But I'm sure you knew that given your understanding of the subject. Just now, Paulus said: I don't go to Starbucks, ha! Also, as to the bold text, source? It seemed to me like they stopped years before. Check the financial statements of thew major ISPs, especially Verizon's FIOS and AT&T's uVerse plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 23 minutes ago, Nanker said: Because they squeeze the cable companies for “free” local channels that are used for public-centric programming. They give the contract to the company that gives them the most “free” stuff. This is actually vastly more important than NN. GREASE !@#$ers are literally jacking up the prices and taking bribes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, GG said: Comcast paid the municipality because the municipality DEMANDED the payment through a franchise tax and other schemes that would be illegal in the private sector. Comcast did not pay the municipality to ensure exclusivity and having exclusive concessions has been illegal for decades. But I'm sure you knew that given your understanding of the subject. So then why, pray tell, is comcast the exclusive provider for about a 75-mile radius? It's not like I live in Wyoming. I'm sure if the market were -truly- free, they'd have some competition. I defer to your obvious advantage in knowledge on the topic Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Paulus said: This is actually vastly more important than NN. GREASE !@#$ers are literally jacking up the prices and taking bribes. No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. Our local government officials only have our best interests at heart. While we're at it... why hasn't anyone ever sued Microsoft and Apple for the buggy software and hardware they churn out? That's one industry that has prospered incredibly without any government intervention and they've never suffered for the ****ty products they mass produce. Edited December 15, 2017 by Nanker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 1 minute ago, joesixpack said: So then why, pray tell, is comcast the exclusive provider for about a 75-mile radius? It's not like I live in Wyoming. I defer to your obvious advantage in knowledge on the topic Because it costs up to $2k per home passed (not per customer) to wire a neighborhood. So do the math, assuming 20% penetration and see if makes sense to build out and assuming that you can't pass the cost of increasing bandwidth traffic onto the actual bandwidth hogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 2 minutes ago, Nanker said: No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. Our local government officials only have our best interests at heart. While we're at it... why hasn't anyone ever sued Microsoft and Apple for the buggy software and hardware they churn out? That's one industry that has prospered incredibly without any government intervention and they've never suffered for the ****ty products they mass produce. Because they're effective monopolies. Shame that. Linux is so good, so flexible and SO not MS/Apple. But it can't gain any ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 17 minutes ago, joesixpack said: I'd like some remedy in the interim while I tilt at THAT windmill. Which of course entitles you to dictate to others what they must provide you with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Which of course entitles you to dictate to others what they must provide you with. Well, if the government were to break up comcast and dole out their precious property to the child companies in a way that allowed for competition, I'd be less likely to ask for that kind of thing. Because then I'd at least have a choice. And before you cry foul...realize this is what the feds did to Bell Tel back in the day, and we're all better for it. Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Well, if the government were to break up comcast and dole out their precious property to the child companies in a way that allowed for competition, I'd be less likely to ask for that kind of thing. Because then I'd at least have a choice. And before you cry foul...realize this is what the feds did to Bell Tel back in the day, and we're all better for it. Ok, Bernie, let's play. Exactly how would you propose breaking up Comcast that would ensure that you would get more competition in your area? Edited December 15, 2017 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 6 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Well, if the government were to break up comcast and dole out their precious property to the child companies in a way that allowed for competition, I'd be less likely to ask for that kind of thing. Because then I'd at least have a choice. And before you cry foul...realize this is what the feds did to Bell Tel back in the day, and we're all better for it. The differences between your philosophy, voiced here, and that of Hugo Chavez aren't all the different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: The differences between your philosophy, voiced here, and that of Hugo Chavez aren't all the different. Except I'm not advocating for a government takeover of Comcast. 5 minutes ago, GG said: Ok, Bernie, let's play. Exactly how would you propose breaking up Comcast that would ensure that you would get more competition in your area? Same way they broke up Bell. Split it into smaller companies. The smaller companies then have the impetus to grow their service areas and customer bases, not to mention offering a wider range of services with price competition. Are you really advocating for monopoly here, Mr. Rockefeller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 Here is the conversation from the CEO of ZZZ ISP corp. " Well this removal of Net Neutrality is a good thing for us. We have lost 10% of our cable TV subscribers over the last 3 years and it is projected to go as high as 50% over the next 8 years. This is our chance to make up for that. So this is our new marketing strategy. First, we are going to demand Netflix, Amazon and Youtube pay us $2 a month for each of the subscribers as a base entry charge. This isn't a big deal for them because they will just pass the cost on to their subscribers. Now the issue with all these cable cutters is they don't necessarily use Netflix, Amazon or Youtube for video. So break out all the usage data we have and we will make a tiered volume usage cost plan. We can probably start with a totally unlimited package for $120 a month, which is about what cable TV costs in non-competitive markets. Then we will scale down from there. We want to get this out as soon as possible, so QQQ ISP corp will know what the market is. When they beat our prices a little we will come down to their rates, but only in markets where there is direct competition. Make sure no one has any contact with QQQ so it can't be viewed as price fixing. Now call a Board of Directors meeting. I think we have to review my bonus plan" If you don't think things will play out like this, think about how the price of the Epipen sky rocketed. Also, since this is basically ISP deregulation, it might be a good time to buy stock in ISP's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 2 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Except I'm not advocating for a government takeover of Comcast. Same way they broke up Bell. Split it into smaller companies. The smaller companies then have the impetus to grow their service areas and customer bases, not to mention offering a wider range of services with price competition. Are you really advocating for monopoly here, Mr. Rockefeller? Tell me Bernie, after AT&T was split into Baby Bells, how many of them entered the other Bells' market to compete head on? Are we better off now, as you say because of intense competition among the Baby Bells or because a totally new technology upended the industry? BTW, whatever happened to AT&T and the Baby Bells since 1982? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 It's almost as if people forget the internet did just fine before 2015. Conditioning is a hell of a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 10 minutes ago, GG said: Tell me Bernie, after AT&T was split into Baby Bells, how many of them entered the other Bells' market to compete head on? Are we better off now, as you say because of intense competition among the Baby Bells or because a totally new technology upended the industry? BTW, whatever happened to AT&T and the Baby Bells since 1982? I know! I know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 (edited) 22 minutes ago, GG said: Tell me Bernie, after AT&T was split into Baby Bells, how many of them entered the other Bells' market to compete head on? Are we better off now, as you say because of intense competition among the Baby Bells or because a totally new technology upended the industry? BTW, whatever happened to AT&T and the Baby Bells since 1982? Well, essentially, they're now three companies, two of which are players in mobile more than landline and the third which is essentially an ISP. Unlike in landline ISP, there IS competition in wireless...which is good for the consumer. Coincidentally, I use the descendant of a baby bell for wireless service, and it's generally a better experience than I get from comcast. Edit: also, would those technologies have developed under the watchful gaze of ma bell? 22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: It's almost as if people forget the internet did just fine before 2015. Conditioning is a hell of a thing. traffic before 2015 =/= traffic since. Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 24 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Except I'm not advocating for a government takeover of Comcast. No, you're advocating exactly that. The only difference is who you want to run the companies after using government force to take over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No, you're advocating exactly that. The only difference is who you want to run the companies after using government force to take over. So I'll put you down as being in favor of monopoly, then. Excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 7 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Well, essentially, they're now three companies, two of which are players in mobile more than landline and the third which is essentially an ISP. Unlike in landline ISP, there IS competition in wireless...which is good for the consumer. Coincidentally, I use the descendant of a baby bell for wireless service, and it's generally a better experience than I get from comcast. traffic before 2015 =/= traffic since. Answer the question, how many Baby Bells went into direct competition with one another? Why are there only 2 out of 7 Baby Bells left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts