Jump to content

Net neutrallity: needs help


Hyperqube

Recommended Posts

Left wing or right wing, for anyone who's still here - and cares for net neutrallity - and if you don't know what it is, you seriously should ! I suggest googling "John Oliver Net neutrality" as I think he explains it well  -


Net neutrallity is almost destroyed.

Please act, urge friends & family to act, etc ...

 

(I'm linking Philip the Franco, as he explains the situation & advises what ppl can do; if other ppl have other youtube's that help, please share)

 

 


-- signed. Someone who's not from the U.S., but who understands how important this is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure it already passed, now all they (the 83% who voted to keep net neutraliy) have to do is either take this to court or put Ajit Pais head on a spear in front of his own house, along with the other normies who voted against it. This isn't the final word in the matter, that's not how it works, it'll be a country wide riot or I'm gonna lose that last fragment of hope I had in humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, womentigerthai said:

So we cant jack off to free porns on net any more ??


... why end with "free" ? For your internet provider there's little difference between a free & a paying site ...

 

and you can also substitute porn for any other website your Internet Service Provider happen to dislike/have beef with/thinks can get coin from/ ...

 


Suppose you like Amazon, but your internet service provider doesn't.

Your ISP asks Amazon to pay more or get dumpt to the slow lane.

Now Amazon has to chose between giving you slow site and thus sh*tty service, or paying your ISP - which means having to increase their prizes.


... so in a sense: good news for you: you'll no longer need your free porn, because in both cases: you're the one who getting screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2017 at 12:51 AM, Hyperqube said:

Left wing or right wing

Lol. The only "right wing" people taking an anti-NN stance on this are people who know nothing beyond what "battleforthenet.org" says about it (Unfortunately, a large majority of the people "dedicated to this cause"). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently, under title 2, effective ISP monopolies are allowed, and cannot be broken up unless they are monopolies on a federal level.

 

Under the new regulations (old regulations before Title 2), service providers need to be transparent about practices, public promises are enforced, if Comcast or any ISP does something people don't like, and the people don't have an alternative, they will be held under the FTC as a monopoly. They will either be split up in that area, or forcefully held to the Open Internet standards.

So the people complaining about having one ISP then also wanting NN as it stands are shooting themselves in the foot and it can't be fixed until NN is repealed; this is due to the previous courts ruling that the FCC MUST, by law, make ISPs a utility if they are to continue enforcing Open Internet regulations. Again, in case you didn't catch that, utilities cannot be monopolies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, DrDavid52 said:

So the people complaining about having one ISP then also wanting NN as it stands are shooting themselves in the foot and it can't be fixed until NN is repealed; this is due to the previous courts ruling that the FCC MUST, by law, make ISPs a utility if they are to continue enforcing Open Internet regulations. Again, in case you didn't catch that, utilities cannot be monopolies.

 

The red, bolded part is something that is absoluteluy incorrect: One could just make a law that fixes it, without repealing NN.

 

 

PLEASE, use your brain for not even 2 seconds: both consumers and corporations hate repealing NN. The only people who like it are the ISPs - the second strongest lobbying group, after the militairy.

 

To argue repealing NN will be good for consumers/corporations  / bad of ISPs ... is a blatant denial of reality.

 

 

 

... or, we can always assume that the people of Facebook, Google, Amazon, Kickstarter, to name but a few ... all have no idea how internet or business on the internet works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2017 at 5:27 AM, Hyperqube said:

... so in a sense: good news for you: you'll no longer need your free porn, because in both cases: you're the one who getting screwed.

 

If the battle for Net Neutrality was a literal war, I'd imagine this'll be a short motivational speech a general gives before he along with his platoon plunges into certain death.

 

I hope for the best for all 300 million of you in the US.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, so I've done a lot of research on this topic. And what's being said here is effectively fear-mongering, and it's quite annoying how prevelant it is. Let's break this all down, shall we?

 

Introduction: What is Net Neutrality?

 

First off, before we delve into the meat of this issue, let's make one thing very clear- there is not, and never has been, a formal Net Neutrality law. In that same line, the FCC thus is not and could not "repeal Net Neutrality", because there is no Net Neutrality law it could theoretically be repealing. And there is such thing as a "formal Net Neutrality law", so it isn't a matter of that there can't be such a thing. The European Union, through the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, or BEREC published a document called the "BEREC Guidelines on the Implementation by National Regulators of European Net Neutrality Rules"- a formal Net Neutrality law.

 

As for what Net Neutrality is, the actual definition is "the concept that broadband Internet service providers should provide non-discriminatory access to Internet content, platforms, etc., and should not manipulate the transfer of data regardless of its source or destination". 

 

Net Neutrality: The History and Legality of the Issue

 

Now then, with that out of the way, let's break down the history of this issue, or at least the most relevant bits. In 2010, the FCC passed the Open Internet Order, or OIO. In this order, they declared they had three capabilities regarding "keeping the internet 'open'":

  1.  They could prevent throttling
  2.  They could prevent discrimination
  3. They could demand transparency from internet companies

This was all well and good, except it wasn't legal. And in 2014, Verizon sued the FCC over that issue in Verizon Comm. v. FCC (2014). In the case, Verizon argued that the FCC did not have authority to prevent throttling and discrimination under the OIO because Verizon (and all internet providers) were not Common Carriers. The court agreed with this argument, and ruled in favor of Verizon, voiding points 1 and 2 of the OIO. An interesting side note here is that the court also implied the FCC still technically had the legal authority to prevent throttling and discrimination, but under justification of Section 709 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, not the 2010 OIO. But the FCC never got a chance to put that implication to the legal test, so I digress.

 

In 2015, the FCC responded to this voiding of the 2010 OIO. Not through an actual Net Neutrality bill, mind you, instead they chose to declare all internet providers Common Carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, just so that the 2010 OIO was technically no longer void. Essentially, the 2015 Free Internet bill exploited a loophole in the court's ruling to keep the 2010 OIO legally binding- the court said the 2010 OIO was void because Verizon wasn't a Common Carrier, thus the FCC made everyone a Common Carrier. However, the FCC did not consider the economic consequences of such a hamfisted action (They didn't have a single economist review the bill).

 

Now, in 2017, the FCC under the leadership of Ajit Pai has pushed forwards a repeal of the 2015 bill. But that does not mean "Net Neutrality is dead", or that such a outcome is even the FCC's goal or plan. In fact, the FCC's plan is quite straightforwards:

  • Remove the economically damaging 2015 bill
  • Enforce more effectively Net Neutrality

You may be then wondering, hold on- I've been told Net Neutrality is dead under this repeal? How could it be being strengthened? And that's because what isn't mentioned about the repeal is what is being included after it occurs, events detailed in the "Memorandum of Understanding" the FCC released a few days ago. This document details how issues of throttling and discrimination will be handled post-repeal:

 

The FCC will receive all complaints concerning Net Neutrality infractions. They will then examine the complaint, investigating it with their technical knowledge. Should the FCC find substance to the complaint, the issue will now be passed off to the FTC, who can pursue further investigation or punishment as it sees fit. This plan benefits Net Neutrality, because the only two objections to it are both void for the following:

 

An objection to the FCC's ability to investigate is void because the FCC was still investigating before the repeal- therefore doubting it's ability to do so is a moot point because the repeal doesn't change their abilities, and in fact it includes language that allows their demands for transparency to be harsher than ever. And an objection to the FTC's ability or willingness to punish is also not grounded- complaints about the FTC in recent years are quite consistently concerned about the FTC's over-enthusiastic nature to punish broadly. Therefore, companies will be even less likely to violate Net Neutrality if they know they will garner the very unfavorable attention of the FTC.

 

Net Neutrality: The Economics of the Issue

 

Now that I've laid out the history of the issue and touched on the topic of Net Neutrality, let's examine the other half of this issue- why is the FCC so against the 2015 bill? What is all this about economic problems? Let's break it all down.

 

I'll be defining "Functioning markets" as a market that requires equilibrium price and quantity in the long run such that the LRAC (Long Run Average Cost) curve is at minimum efficiency. Under this definition, there are several kinds of markets that are "functioning":

 

  • Perfect Competition: There's really no such thing as true perfectly competitive market, but agricultural markets are a close enough example. Though of course, US agricultural markets are god awful examples of this since the government meddles enormously in these markets to protect domestic industries and whatnot- the Florida sugar markets are a fantastic example of this flawed economic policy.
  • Monopolistic Competition: In monopolistic competition markets, firms are free to enter and leave without restriction. Firms provide products that are differentiated, and can create short-run economic profits but cannot do so in the long run. In the long run, firms that are making a loss under their variable costs leave the market, decreasing supply and thus allowing the market to reach equilibrium. However, since firms do not make a economic profit in the long run, they use differentiation and marketing strategies to keep the market in flux so that it never reaches the long run. Good examples of monopolistic competition would be burgers, ice cream, sodas, pens, etc. etc.
  • Oligopoly: In an oligopoly market, there are barriers for firms to enter and leave. This means that there are a small number of firms in a market, and thus they have an incentive to collude, which would allow them to keep an economic profit in the long run by charging the same price a monopoly holder would charge. Because of this, governments prevent collusion. However, this does not mean oligopolies are unhealthy- they are a natural and "healthy" market, and is what internet should be.

However, some markets do not necessarily meet the conditions to be defined as "functioning" yet are perfectly acceptable. Natural monopolies come with significant government oversight and subsidization to protect consumers, but they are by definition "natural". Government-enforced monopolies are also acceptable, because patents are crucial to encouraging innovation. Resource monopolies are an inherent part of a free market, and again have significant government oversight. Monopolies created as user-bases grow are especially prevalent in companies like Google and Amazon, but their healthiness in a market is questionable.

 

So internet should exist as a oligopoly, but is that a good thing? Well, an oligopoly is a perfectly fine form of market as long as the government prevents collusion. There's nothing to be disappointed about that the market is an oligopoly, because the only other option when your product is identical is a perfect competition market, but since there are costs to entry in providing broadband it physically can't be that. And an oligopoly is not a "reasonably efficient allocation" of resources that could have a better alternative. If regulated to prevent collusion, oligopolies will shift to a level of market equilibrium in the long run such that economic profit is zero. That's not "reasonably efficient", that's efficiency by definition.Thus, an oligopoly is a commonplace and normal market type that functions fine (With the government preventing collusion). It's only when you have state regulations and ham-fisted Title II reclassification for the purpose of exploiting a loophole that you get market problems.

 

Addendum: State Regulations

 

Now, I mentioned briefly an issue of state regulations. Is that related to the repeal? The simple answer is that no, it is not. The 2015 bill did not fix the issue of state regulations meddling in the market, nor did it worsen it. The 2015 bill created government-enforced monopolies and duopolies in areas that weren't already being meddled in by the state governments, but did not affected areas already being meddled with. The most striking example of the irrelevance of this point can be seen in Tennessee et. al. v. FCC et. al. (2016). This case occurred after the 2015 bill, yet the court still ruled in favor of the states' rights (With the high bar precedent set in Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League (2004) being used as justification). Interestingly, Ajit Pai actually dissented in this case from the FCC's own argument. And this ruling came in spite of the fact the FCC had clear evidence the states' regulations were enforcing monopolies/duopolies and hurting consumers.

 

Conclusion

 

I hope this helps explain the issue a bit better, both in regards to Net Neutrality, the economics of the issue, and the plan of the FCC going forwards. I'm not quite sure why exactly this issue has become so horribly distorted in what the actual problem is, but hopefully this explains it better than the rather poor articles I've seen in the past.

 

Sources

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Keroro1454 said:

Person capable of individual thoughts and opinions

Perhaps the strongest indication that there is hope for the Internet beyond the endless circlejerk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Keroro1454 said:

Alright, so I've done a lot of research on this topic. And what's being said here is effectively fear-mongering, and it's quite annoying how prevelant it is. Let's break this all down, shall we?
...
Remove the economically damaging 2015 bill
Enforce more effectively Net Neutrality
...

 

You must apparently have done A LOT of research ... considering you come to a different conclusion then Facebook, Google, Amazon, Kickstarter, to name but a few famous ones, that means, you've done the more research than ... hundreds of professionals? (how large would the teams of layers be of those companies?)

 

When you say  " I'm not quite sure why exactly this issue has become so horribly distorted in what the actual problem is, " You're basically saying "I have no clue why reality isn't conform with my analysis ... but I'm pretty sure I'm right and everyone else is wrong".

 

This obviously undermines your initial sentence. Maybe you've done what you consider to be "a lot" of research ... but "a lot" is not always the same as "enough".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Hyperqube said:

You must apparently have done A LOT of research ... considering you come to a different conclusion then Facebook, Google, Amazon, Kickstarter, to name but a few famous ones, that means, you've done the more research than ... hundreds of professionals? (how large would the teams of layers be of those companies?)

 

When you say  " I'm not quite sure why exactly this issue has become so horribly distorted in what the actual problem is, " You're basically saying "I have no clue why reality isn't conform with my analysis ... but I'm pretty sure I'm right and everyone else is wrong".

 

That's wonderful. I appreciate, truly, wholeheartedly, the thorough response you've ma...oh wait, you've just attacked my character and research, provided zero counterpoints outside of "But Amazon said Net Neutrality is good ur a dummy", and cited exactly zero of your claims. Admittedly, you didn't actually make any claims, factual or otherwise, so I suppose that point can be forgiven.

 

59 minutes ago, Hyperqube said:

This obviously undermines your initial sentence. Maybe you've done what you consider to be "a lot" of research ... but "a lot" is not always the same as "enough".

 

Why don't you go and provide me with some research that counters my argument. And by research, I don't mean a single video by Philip DeFranco (I mean come on, it's like citing the Huffington Post), I mean actually thought out research that explains the situation, explains the legalities, and explains the economics of the issue.

 

Because, funnily enough, I'm not against people being against the repeal. I'm against people being against anything when they don't have a real argument why. If you provided an argument for say, preemptive regulations, then cheers to you! I personally don't think preemptive regulation, especially in something like the internet market, is the most efficient method of government involvement, but if you could craft a real argument for it, then I'd be happy to discuss that and more than happy to read over your argument. But your argument, so far, is- "Tech companies have told me the repeal is bad. They have not told me why it's bad beyond some vague, broad talking points, have not explained the economics or legality of the issue. But because I was told it by people (with no real sources from these ogre-like layers of companies), I will adamantly argue against anyone and everyone who argues for the repeal." That's not an argument, that's an uninformed opinion. I have no interest in debating with someone who's entire argument is built on such a foundation, because you will not provide any insight into the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hyperqube said:

 

You must apparently have done A LOT of research ... considering you come to a different conclusion then Facebook, Google, Amazon, Kickstarter, to name but a few famous ones, that means, you've done the more research than ... hundreds of professionals? (how large would the teams of layers be of those companies?)

 

When you say  " I'm not quite sure why exactly this issue has become so horribly distorted in what the actual problem is, " You're basically saying "I have no clue why reality isn't conform with my analysis ... but I'm pretty sure I'm right and everyone else is wrong".

 

This obviously undermines your initial sentence. Maybe you've done what you consider to be "a lot" of research ... but "a lot" is not always the same as "enough".

LOL, you're ignoring all of his analytical work because he came to a different conclusion than companies who net neutrality directly benefits? That's actually the worst response I think you've ever given on this forum, holy Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Keroro1454 said:

Why don't you go and provide me with some research that counters my argument.

 

But your argument, so far, is- "Tech companies have told me the repeal is bad.


It's not "my research" you need to counter - I'm just a random guy on the internet - it's theirs - because unlike me,  they got teams of people dealing with this stuff and are not in the business of making random statement about laws.

As long as your logic doesn't provide a decent reason why, from consumers to small fries to big tech companies ... it's the word of a random person who claims to know the truth, vs scores of competent people with the opposite conclusion.  Perhaps you are right, perhaps the hundrerds of professionals are wrong; but if all you got is "I've got no idea why all these competent people reach a different conclusion then me" ... then I'm sorry mate, but there's an easy answer: no matter how much you think your logic is correct, you might have missed a few key details?

 

Me not giving you those details doesn't make that less true - because, again, I'm just a random guy on the internet. They, however, are not.

 

THAT is my argument.

 

 

17 hours ago, HarryG said:

LOL, you're ignoring all of his analytical work because he came to a different conclusion than companies who net neutrality directly benefits? That's actually the worst response I think you've ever given on this forum, holy Lord.

Sigh ... let me quote Keroro:

 

"Oligopoly: In an oligopoly market, there are barriers for firms to enter and leave. This means that there are a small number of firms in a market "

 

I'm not sure how or why you think that the big firms would hate these barriers. I mean, I presume you have the two braincells required to realise that it's the big firms that will survive, and the small ones, and the start-up companies who will have most difficulty with these barriers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hyperqube said:


It's not "my research" you need to counter - I'm just a random guy on the internet - it's theirs - because unlike me,  they got teams of people dealing with this stuff and are not in the business of making random statement about laws.

As long as your logic doesn't provide a decent reason why, from consumers to small fries to big tech companies ... it's the word of a random person who claims to know the truth, vs scores of competent people with the opposite conclusion.  Perhaps you are right, perhaps the hundrerds of professionals are wrong; but if all you got is "I've got no idea why all these competent people reach a different conclusion then me" ... then I'm sorry mate, but there's an easy answer: no matter how much you think your logic is correct, you might have missed a few key details?

 

Me not giving you those details doesn't make that less true - because, again, I'm just a random guy on the internet. They, however, are not.

 

THAT is my argument.

 

And my argument is that I have not seen an iota of evidence provided by these "scores of competent people". I've heard people say "Net Neutrality is dead". I've heard people say "Ajit Pai is a evil Verizon puppet". I've heard people say "We're going to pay for everything after the repeal". And I've seen these claims repeated on Youtube, on Reddit, by credible (and not-so-credible) news sources, by these "Hundreds of professionals" in official statements by Amazon and Google. Believe me, I've read their statements.

 

But where's their proof? Where's their explanation of why they're taking that stance? Or maybe, just maybe, people are parroting what these "super trust-worthy scores of competent people" said, who themselves said without any proof.

 

Provide me with some examples of these competent people providing proof. I don't give a damn if "Google said something". Hell, I don't care if the world's most respected economist "said something". Someone's arbitrary "competency" is not something to base an understanding of an issue on. If that person or group of people is truly competent, they will provide proof. It is that simple. If your "competent" people can not, or do not, provide proof then they are inherently not competent.

 

Now I'm not saying I'm "competent" in the legal field or the economics field. But I have bothered to research the issue, present my research and findings, and then cite all my claims.

 

9 minutes ago, Hyperqube said:

Sigh ... let me quote Keroro:

 

"Oligopoly: In an oligopoly market, there are barriers for firms to enter and leave. This means that there are a small number of firms in a market "

 

I'm not sure how or why you think that the big firms would hate these barriers. I mean, I presume you have the two braincells required to realise that it's the big firms that will survive, and the small ones, and the start-up companies who will have most difficulty with these barriers?

 

You're right, the big firms love these barriers created by the 2015 Free Internet bill. That's why Comcast and whatnot are saying they "support Net Neutrality" and don't want to see the bill die- they are being serious, they don't want the bill to die, because it created a government-enforced duopoly/monopoly situation that they can exploit. You're using my evidence, to prove my point, and then drawing a completely baseless conclusion with that evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully support NN and think getting rid of it is an atrocious idea, but...

 

From a libertarian point of view, the free market would automatically ensure net neutrality. It's quite simple; no one will pay extra for an internet service if another provider is cheaper. I don't see how two internet providers cannot compete unless they're both owned by a bigger brand. If you charge people extra to use Facebook but your competitor does not, then your customers will move to your competitor. 

 

I love net neutrality, but I can't say that making it a law is the only way to achieve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha you think isps support net neutrality? please, comcast themselves had a little blurb on their website claiming they wouldn't throttle speeds (as per the law) which mysteriously vanished around this time.

 

who do you think lobbied so hard for this bill to pass anyway? the top isps ofc. the bill didn't set their monopoly in stone, that's been ongoing for a long time now. the nn repeal wouldn't end the monopoly or anything; rather, it would open up easy ways to exploit the costumer (which i remember firsthand thanks to good ol' comcast).

 

not sure why you would trust isps' media goons, ofc their going to say their "for" nn. just wait until it's all set in stone and the price hikes begin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22-12-2017 at 8:02 PM, Keroro1454 said:

Hell, I don't care if the world's most respected economist "said something".

...

Now I'm not saying I'm "competent" in the legal field or the economics field. But I have bothered to research the issue, present my research and findings, and then cite all my claims.

 

Yeah, you see ... that's stupid. In the real world, credibility is proportional to the chance you're right. (pretty much why there's such a concept of credibility)

 

When you're saying " Now I'm not saying I'm "competent" in the legal field or the economics field. " Perhaps you should try and understand why people who ARE compentent in the legal & economcal field, come to a different conclusion then you do,

 

 

You're asking us to trust you, while you admit not being at home in legal & economcal fields, and you have no decent explenation why credibile, competent, people reach the opposite conclusion.

 

Do you grasp how utterly mental that is?

 

 

 

On 22-12-2017 at 8:02 PM, Keroro1454 said:

You're right, the big firms love these barriers created by the 2015 Free Internet bill.

 

You seem confused, because we're talking about the barriers the 2017 law would possibly introduce.


 

On 22-12-2017 at 8:02 PM, Keroro1454 said:

That's why Comcast and whatnot are saying they "support Net Neutrality" and don't want to see the bill die

As micheal pointed out

 

... oh, sure they support net neutrallity

... and they would never slow down internet speeds

... and only the tip.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22-12-2017 at 8:02 PM, Keroro1454 said:

You're right, the big firms love these barriers created by the 2015 Free Internet bill.

 

BTW: perhaps, in all your research you failed to notice this clip, published Jun 1, 2014 ,

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23-12-2017 at 1:32 AM, Zcrab said:

From a libertarian point of view, the free market would automatically ensure net neutrality. It's quite simple; no one will pay extra for an internet service if another provider is cheaper. I don't see how two internet providers cannot compete unless they're both owned by a bigger brand. If you charge people extra to use Facebook but your competitor does not, then your customers will move to your competitor.

 

Ideally, sure... but 55% of americans only have access to 1 ISP, and of the other 45%, most of them only have the option of out of 2 and because of the exhuberant costs it takes to becaome an ISP, it's extremely unlikely this will change in the near future.


In the end

- When Google starts to suck, people will start to use Bing, or Yahoo! or a new company that gives a better service.

- When Commcast starts to suck ... people can chose not go on-line.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2017 at 6:32 PM, Zcrab said:

From a libertarian point of view, the free market would automatically ensure net neutrality. It's quite simple; no one will pay extra for an internet service if another provider is cheaper. I don't see how two internet providers cannot compete unless they're both owned by a bigger brand. If you charge people extra to use Facebook but your competitor does not, then your customers will move to your competitor.

While this is theoretically true, many ISP's have a "monopoloy" over a certain area, with agreements which lock other ISPs away from bringing service to the area (or make it a burden to do so).

The way they can get around being classified as a monopoly in those situations is that there's another ISP in the area, which provides dial-up speeds.

Don't like the current ISP you have, who screws you with bad practices? Good news! You have an alternative. Just switch to dial-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hyperqube said:

 

Ideally, sure... but 55% of americans only have access to 1 ISP, and of the other 45%, most of them only have the option of out of 2 and because of the exhuberant costs it takes to becaome an ISP, it's extremely unlikely this will change in the near future.


In the end

- When Google starts to suck, people will start to use Bing, or Yahoo! or a new company that gives a better service.

- When Commcast starts to suck ... people can chose not go on-line.

 

 

11 hours ago, Apo said:

While this is theoretically true, many ISP's have a "monopoloy" over a certain area, with agreements which lock other ISPs away from bringing service to the area (or make it a burden to do so).

The way they can get around being classified as a monopoly in those situations is that there's another ISP in the area, which provides dial-up speeds.

Don't like the current ISP you have, who screws you with bad practices? Good news! You have an alternative. Just switch to dial-up.

 

I was not aware that Americans have so few options. Although, if one ISP starts to abuse the power they've got now that NN is gone, it would be easy for another ISP to move in, provide a neutral service and steal customers. Charging people more for certain services could easily backfire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Zcrab said:

I was not aware that Americans have so few options. Although, if one ISP starts to abuse the power they've got now that NN is gone, it would be easy for another ISP to move in, provide a neutral service and steal customers. Charging people more for certain services could easily backfire.

 

It is not easy/cheap to move to these areas. It can be a long and expensive legal battle to roll coverage out to an area. (see Comcast/AT&T lawsuits Re: Google Fiber)

There may be potential for competition in larger cities, but people living in rural areas are often SOL. Not many ISP's will want to build out to a smaller city, because the profit just isn't there. The expansion costs would be too high for the small amount of potential profit.

Since nobody will build out there, the 1 ISP in the area can just screw people over, and not having to worry about people switching to another provider.

The only way for those people to get an alternative would be to use a satellite provider, (trash speed/latency, connectivity issues) or a home internet solution from a cell phone carrier, such as a hotspot device. ([not available in every area] unreliable speeds/latency, potential connectivity issues, may have to worry about data caps, or potentially get kicked off the network for no good reason)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Zcrab said:

I was not aware that Americans have so few options. Although, if one ISP starts to abuse the power they've got now that NN is gone, it would be easy for another ISP to move in, provide a neutral service and steal customers. Charging people more for certain services could easily backfire.

With large costs & time, it's not as easy for another ISP to move in. By the time you're ready, will your compeditor still be screwing over customers; will enough customers switch and will you be able to charge them enough to cover the large costs you made to get there?

 

Not to mention, the problem is two-fold. At the one hand ISPs can screw over customers, they can also provide unfair competition for companies:

- Webshops needs to pay ISP to get in the fastlane

- ISP owned Webshop follows the same rules (as it's net neutral)  ... except obviously it's paying to itself - meaning, it actually gets the fast lane for free.

 

 

Which is why both companies & consumers are in favor of the rules: it's a nice example of the  libertarian view working: With little to no barriers the best sites get the customer, and the customers get the best sites.
Very people remember this, but the reason google got so big, is because, it was one of the first search engines that had the "Did you mean X" function when you made a typo. Other  search engines were searching the wrongly spelled word. Microsoft's Bing has spend years trying to get a piece of the pie, but as it provides little to no additional benefits, it has a very hard time snooping away customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...