Eliminating Net Neutrality Rules Will Favor Carriers Over Internet Content Providers

[Paulus]

36 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Wired high speed as of June 2015.  Nice how everyone ignores wireless, where LTE provides north of 15 Mbps to over 90% of population across 4 carriers, and big data packages available.  Also convenient to ignore that pending 5G investments which can deliver over 100Mbps speeds are directly influenced by net neutrality regs.

 

But go on carrying water for the impoverished Google.

The whole "data plan" thing is a pretty weak argument, IMO. I mean, everyone can also get satellite Internet, too. It is just insanely expensive if one were to use it in the same way people use traditional ISPs. You're really telling people that they can pay 10x the price, if they want the ability to choose. Fact is, some people can't afford it. Paying 10x to use a different channel of interstate commerce is akin to using an interstate toll road to get to work. 

 

I really think you're reaching too far down the toilet to make your argument.

5 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Other than the fact that I'm a paying customer, you mean? I should have access to any content I please.

 

If i have a telephone, I can call whoever I want, can I not? Why should THIS kind of communication be any different?

 

Exactly...

[GG]

9 minutes ago, Paulus said:

The whole "data plan" thing is a pretty weak argument, IMO. I mean, everyone can also get satellite Internet, too. It is just insanely expensive if one were to use it in the same way people use traditional ISPs. You're really telling people that they can pay 10x the price, if they want the ability to choose. Fact is, some people can't afford it. Paying 10x to use a different channel of interstate commerce is akin to using an interstate toll road to get to work. 

 

I really think you're reaching too far down the toilet to make your argument.

Exactly...

 

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?

[Nanker]

1 hour ago, Paulus said:

Thanks, still doesn't change my mind much, outside of the argument that removing the regulations will for localities to allow more ISPs. This is a YUGE problem, IMHO. I really don't know why localities prevent new ISPs from entering the market. I find it disgusting, really. The question is, "why do localities do such things?"

 

If removing NN forces localities to allow more infrastructure building, then a compelling argument has been made, for me at least. 

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.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

31 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Other than the fact that I'm a paying customer, you mean? I should have access to any content I please.

 

If i have a telephone, I can call whoever I want, can I not? Why should THIS kind of communication be any different?

 

As a paying customer, you have the right to whatever they sell, assuming they are willing to sell it to you.  You do not have the right to receive from them products or services they do not offer.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

As a paying customer, you have the right to whatever they sell, assuming they are willing to sell it to you.  You do not have the right to receive from them products or services they do not offer.

 

All i'm asking from the ISP is for packets of my choosing to be sent through my router to my computer without impediment.

 

 

I'm not asking for something they don't offer, like say, ice cream cones.

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

All i'm asking from the ISP is for packets of my choosing to be sent through my router to my computer.

 

I'm not asking for something they don't offer.

 

 

If they stop offering certain packets, you don't have a right to demand that they offer them.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

If they stop offering certain packets, you don't have a right to demand that they offer them.

 

 

I do, if they've received any kind of government money.

 

Now, if they never got any kind of taxpayer dollars, you may have a case to make.

 

[GG]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

 

I do, if they've received any kind of government money.

 

Now, if they never got any kind of taxpayer dollars, you may have a case to make.

 

 

Say what?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, GG said:

 

Say what?

 

have they received any incentive at any point in time from the federal or state government? any property easements? any kind of dollars to develop infrastructure? any tax breaks?

 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

 

I do, if they've received any kind of government money.

 

Now, if they never got any kind of taxpayer dollars, you may have a case to make.

 

No, you don't.

 

What other types of businesses, which have received subsidy, do you have the right to make demands of?

 

[GG]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

have they received any incentive at any point in time from the federal or state government? any property easements? any kind of dollars to develop infrastructure? any tax breaks?

 

 

 

What does that have to do with the type of content they have to offer?  Do you have a right to demand a first class seat on an airline because they benefit  from federal funding of airports? 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, you don't.

 

What other types of businesses, which have received subsidy, do you have the right to make demands of?

 

 

Unfortunately none.

 

Which is why I am generally against ANY corporate entity receiving taxpayer dollars. The taxpayer never sees benefit.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

have they received any incentive at any point in time from the federal or state government? any property easements? any kind of dollars to develop infrastructure? any tax breaks?

So because they are large companies operating within the United States, and are subject to the laws and policies of the United States and the member states; you have the right to dictate to them what services and products they must provide you?

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

Unfortunately none.

 

Which is why I am generally against ANY corporate entity receiving taxpayer dollars. The taxpayer never sees benefit.

 

So your argument is that because you don't like US tax policy you get to dictate to businesses living under that policy?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

So because they are large companies operating within the United States, and are subject to the laws and policies of the United States and the member states; you have the right to dictate to them what services and products they must provide you?

Since it's my tax dollars boosting their bottom lines (let alone my sub fees), I should.

 

But again, the system is what it is. It's tilted permanently in favor of corporations and against the taxpayer.

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack

[GG]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

Unfortunately none.

 

Which is why I am generally against ANY corporate entity receiving taxpayer dollars. The taxpayer never sees benefit.

 

 

So if I understand it correctly, you're against corporations receiving any taxpayer dollars mandated by the government, but you're perfectly fine with that same government dictating how those businesses should deploy their investment dollars? 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, GG said:

 

What does that have to do with the type of content they have to offer?  Do you have a right to demand a first class seat on an airline because they benefit  from federal funding of airports? 

 

Because airlines using airports is anything close to ISPs pushing packets.

 

Just now, GG said:

 

So if I understand it correctly, you're against corporations receiving any taxpayer dollars mandated by the government, but you're perfectly fine with that same government dictating how those businesses should deploy their investment dollars? 

 

if it's in the name of consumer protection, yes.

[GG]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

Because airlines using airports is anything close to ISPs pushing packets.

 

 

It's actually an exact analogy, especially since you have a broader choice in ISPs than in airports

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, GG said:

 

It's actually an exact analogy, especially since you have a broader choice in ISPs than in airports

 

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. And now, with this ruling that monopoly has more power than it did before.

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

Since it's my tax dollars boosting their bottom lines (let alone my sub fees), I should.

 

But again, the system is what it is. It's tilted permanently in favor of corporations and against the taxpayer.

 

Your entire argument is a non-sequitur.

 

I don't like the tax/economic system the United States employs; therefor I have the right to dictate to individuals and companies the services they must provide.

 

 

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.

So that's the fight you fight.  Attack state sponsored monopoly.  I'll join you there.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

So that's the fight you fight.  Attack state sponsored monopoly.  I'll join you there.

 

I'd like some remedy in the interim while I tilt at THAT windmill.