Eliminating Net Neutrality Rules Will Favor Carriers Over Internet Content Providers

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, GG said:

 

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?

 

merger, of course.

 

You may have missed my edit asking whether or not wireless would have happened were it not for the breakup of bell.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

So I'll put you down as being in favor of monopoly, then. Excellent.

 

If you're an abject moron with zero sense of nuance, sure.  Does that describe you, Joe?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

If you're an abject moron with zero sense of nuance, sure.  Does that describe you, Joe?

 

So then how about YOU prescribe a remedy, Dr. TYTT?

[GG]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

merger, of course.

 

You may have missed my edit asking whether or not wireless would have happened were it not for the breakup of bell.

 

 

No **** sherlock, they merged.  Have you wondered why?

 

Yes, wireless would have happened with or without the AT&T breakup, because there were 10 licensees getting concessions in a region.  And the same thing would have happened - you'd see consolidation because it's an industry that requires a lot of mass and capital where the little guy can't compete (because it's not an industry made for the little guy)

[Azalin]

3 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

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?

 

 

When Ma Bell was broken down in 1982, they were not divided into competing entities. What was left after the divestiture were seven regional "Baby Bells" AKA "RBOCs" (Regional Bell Operating Company) that served different territories (for example Bell South, Ameritech, Southwestern Bell, etc) that handled all the local telecom traffic, AT&T became a separate entity that only handled long distance, with the new MCI as AT&T's sole competitor until Sprint came along.

 

Outside of the still very young cellular service, there was no local competition that I recall until the telecommunication act of 1996 was signed into law. That forced the RBOCs to open a portion of their facilities to prospective competitors, where they could install transport equipment of their own. The bill also forced the baby Bells to sell dial tone from their own networks to competitors at a rate that allowed them to pass it along to customers for less. The point here is that it wasn't the breakup of AT&T that led to competition in local markets. 

 

I know you said that Comcast is your ISP, but do you not have a local telephone company where you live?

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

So then how about YOU prescribe a remedy, Dr. TYTT?

Natural monopolies, when they exist, do so because the service levels, products, and prices they provide are unable to be met or bettered by their competitors.  However natural monopolies are exceedingly rare.  Most monopolies, or entities you would describe as monopolies, exist because regulatory barriers create insurmountable hurdles for market entry.  The solution is to deregulate, thereby lowering the cost of market entry, which will stimulate competition.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

When Ma Bell was broken down in 1982, they were not divided into competing entities. What was left after the divestiture were seven regional "Baby Bells" AKA "RBOCs" (Regional Bell Operating Company) that served different territories (for example Bell South, Ameritech, Southwestern Bell, etc) that handled all the local telecom traffic, AT&T became a separate entity that only handled long distance, with the new MCI as AT&T's sole competitor until Sprint came along.

 

Outside of the still very young cellular service, there was no local competition that I recall until the telecommunication act of 1996 was signed into law. That forced the RBOCs to open a portion of their facilities to prospective competitors, where they could install transport equipment of their own. The bill also forced the baby Bells to sell dial tone from their own networks to competitors at a rate that allowed them to pass it along to customers for less. The point here is that it wasn't the breakup of AT&T that led to competition in local markets. 

 

I know you said that Comcast is your ISP, but do you not have a local telephone company where you live?

Verizon, whose only option is DSL, which as a telecommuter 3/4ths of the time would not be a viable option. So, I have Comcast and Comcast as choices.

 

But it appears I'm not alone:

 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-no-broadband-competition-at-25mbps-fcc-chair-says/

 

Does that look like healthy capitalism to you?

 

And now that they've pushed the FCC into taking any regulatory shackles off, they're more powerful than ever.

 

11 minutes ago, GG said:

 

No **** sherlock, they merged.  Have you wondered why?

 

Yes, wireless would have happened with or without the AT&T breakup, because there were 10 licensees getting concessions in a region.  And the same thing would have happened - you'd see consolidation because it's an industry that requires a lot of mass and capital where the little guy can't compete (because it's not an industry made for the little guy)

 

Hey, since you're the smartest guy in the room, care to inform us all about how Comcast grew into the behemoth it is today?

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack

[Paulus]

1 hour 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.

I need to do the Linux thing... Windows is ****, the more I think about how much of my ram/cpu it is now using compared to when I first bought my comp. And, the bulk of the usage is Windows "upgrade" crap. "To make Windows better." 

 

I really do think those two issues are pretty huge. Suprised others even care.

[GG]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

Verizon, whose only option is DSL, which as a telecommuter 3/4ths of the time would not be a viable option. So, I have Comcast and Comcast as choices.

 

But it appears I'm not alone:

 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-no-broadband-competition-at-25mbps-fcc-chair-says/

 

Do you people enjoy providing links that prove our points?

 

You're showing an article from 2014 where the FCC commissioner complains about substandard coverage, and then the same FCC commissioner enacts regulations that kill RoI and then people are still miffed that coverage didn't improve. 

 

Time to nationalize ISPs, because that will fix things, right.?

 

I wonder if anyone who understood the industry would have predicted something like this would happen when Australia nationalized its network grid?  This is your solution, Bernie.

 

[Azalin]

2 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

Verizon, whose only option is DSL, which as a telecommuter 3/4ths of the time would not be a viable option. So, I have Comcast and Comcast as choices.

 

But it appears I'm not alone:

 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-no-broadband-competition-at-25mbps-fcc-chair-says/

 

Verizon doesn't offer FIOS there yet? If not, it's coming. So is Google Fiber, and eventually more.

 

Nothing in the Net Neutrality controls that were reversed were going to do anything to remedy the lack of availability of high speed internet access, and reinstating them will not do so either. 

[Paulus]

7 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

Verizon, whose only option is DSL, which as a telecommuter 3/4ths of the time would not be a viable option. So, I have Comcast and Comcast as choices.

 

But it appears I'm not alone:

 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-no-broadband-competition-at-25mbps-fcc-chair-says/

 

Does that look like healthy capitalism to you?

 

 

I have ATT and Cox as choices. ATT is DSL only. I was getting lIke .7MBPS download speed and they said it was the best they had. Cellular and satellite services are insanely expensive or not available  (house in side of large mountain/hill. 

 

So, I am left with Cox, if I want to use the Internet like the rest of the world.

 

Whatever happened to that 400 billion the ISPs got for fiber infrastructure?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Do you people enjoy providing links that prove our points?

 

You're showing an article from 2014 where the FCC commissioner complains about substandard coverage, and then the same FCC commissioner enacts regulations that kill RoI and then people are still miffed that coverage didn't improve. 

 

Time to nationalize ISPs, because that will fix things, right.?

 

I wonder if anyone who understood the industry would have predicted something like this would happen when Australia nationalized its network grid?  This is your solution, Bernie.

 

 

So again, your solution is what? Allow comcast to do whatever it pleases? Merge with whoever it pleases?

 

That increases innovation and competition how?

 

[Paulus]

2 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Verizon doesn't offer FIOS there yet? If not, it's coming. So is Google Fiber, and eventually more.

 

Nothing in the Net Neutrality controls that were reversed were going to do anything to remedy the lack of availability of high speed internet access, and reinstating them will not do so either. 

It's been coming for decades in many places... what a load...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Paulus said:

I have ATT and Cox as choices. ATT is DSL only. I was getting lIke .7MBPS download speed and they said it was the best they had. Cellular and satellite services are insanely expensive or not available  (house in side of large mountain/hill. 

 

So, I am left with Cox, if I want to use the Internet like the rest of the world.

 

Whatever happened to that 400 billion the ISPs got for fiber infrastructure?

 

SOMEONE had to pay those CEO bonuses.

 

those yachts won't pay for themselves.

 

4 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Verizon doesn't offer FIOS there yet? If not, it's coming. So is Google Fiber, and eventually more.

 

Nothing in the Net Neutrality controls that were reversed were going to do anything to remedy the lack of availability of high speed internet access, and reinstating them will not do so either. 

 

no, no fios here.

 

I anticipate it'll take about 20 years before any fiber's run out here.

 

[Azalin]

1 minute ago, Paulus said:

It's been coming for decades in many places... what a load...

 

You live out in the middle of nowhere and expect Net Neutrality to help you attain greater choices in ISPs?

Really?

 

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

no, no fios here.

 

 

 

I anticipate it'll take about 20 years before any fiber's run out here.

 

 

Not trying to be funny, that was a sincere question. I'm genuinely surprised you live in New Jersey and can't get decent high speed access there.

 

Your solution probably won't come in the form of fiber optics, but rather in wireless.

[DC Tom]

Just now, Azalin said:

 

You live out in the middle of nowhere and expect Net Neutrality to help you attain greater choices in ISPs?

Really?

 

 

Not trying to be funny, that was a sincere question. I'm genuinely surprised you live in New Jersey and can't get decent high speed access there.

 

Your solution probably won't come in the form of fiber optics, but rather in wireless.

 

I'm not surprised.  It's tough to find anything decent in New Jersey.

[Paulus]

3 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

You live out in the middle of nowhere and expect Net Neutrality to help you attain greater choices in ISPs?

Really?

 

When Palm Springs and beach cities of the OC are the middle of nowhere... Dude, come on now.

[TakeYouToTasker]

20 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

SOMEONE had to pay those CEO bonuses.

 

those yachts won't pay for themselves.

So your problem is with capitalism.  GG had it right with the Bernie Bro tag.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

17 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

You live out in the middle of nowhere and expect Net Neutrality to help you attain greater choices in ISPs?

Really?

 

 

Not trying to be funny, that was a sincere question. I'm genuinely surprised you live in New Jersey and can't get decent high speed access there.

 

Your solution probably won't come in the form of fiber optics, but rather in wireless.

 

Let's hope so. I present a diagram to you:

 

4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

So your problem is with capitalism.  GG had it right with the Bernie Bro tag.

 

 

 

He raised a legitimate question about "where the 400 billion for fiber infrastructure" handed out by the taxpayers went to.

 

I posited an answer to the legitimate question.

 

My problem isn't with capitalism. It's with whatever you call the system we live under currently where corporations buy politicians who then stuff the corporate executives' pockets and do them favors.

 

if we lived in a capitalist system, half our banks and the entirety of our auto industry wouldn't be here today.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack

[GG]

16 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Your solution probably won't come in the form of fiber optics, but rather in wireless.

 

Correct, no one in their right mind is going to greenlight a wireline  buildout with 5G around the corner.