Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sounds like the whole argument is moot. Whenever anything increases profits it's never rolled back. And it's always offered on a take it or leave it basis. The consumer has no say if there are no better alternatives. With cable/internet being dominated by a few companies people will take it or leave it, but it will have no effect on the companies because most people will take it. Only one company (Optimum) offers cable/internet in my subdivision and it has doubled in price in the past 10 years, and several times a week there are glitches in programs I have recorded. Someitmes they start late or end early or just don't tape at all. This is all done on Optimum's servers, so it has nothing to do with my connection or boxes. I have no alternative unless I want a dish connected with 10 bolts on my roof (no thanks). Optimum recently increased my broadband speed for free. They advertised it as 100Mbps but I measured it as 20 download and 10 upload. Still, better than it was. For $11 a month I get as good entertainment on Netflix as I get on cable for $255 a month. Still, unless I could stream HBO, SHO plus the standard channels through my internet connection I have no real alternative. I'm retired and cable/internet is my connection to the world, so crappy or not I'll continue to pay for it. I suspect the majority of consumers of cable/internet feel the same.
Sounds like the whole argument is moot. Whenever anything increases profits it's never rolled back. And it's always offered on a take it or leave it basis. The consumer has no say if there are no better alternatives. With cable/internet being dominated by a few companies people will take it or leave it, but it will have no effect on the companies because most people will take it. Only one company (Optimum) offers cable/internet in my subdivision and it has doubled in price in the past 10 years, and several times a week there are glitches in programs I have recorded. Someitmes they start late or end early or just don't tape at all. This is all done on Optimum's servers, so it has nothing to do with my connection or boxes. I have no alternative unless I want a dish connected with 10 bolts on my roof (no thanks). Optimum recently increased my broadband speed for free. They advertised it as 100Mbps but I measured it as 20 download and 10 upload. Still, better than it was. For $11 a month I get as good entertainment on Netflix as I get on cable for $255 a month. Still, unless I could stream HBO, SHO plus the standard channels through my internet connection I have no real alternative. I'm retired and cable/internet is my connection to the world, so crappy or not I'll continue to pay for it. I suspect the majority of consumers of cable/internet feel the same.
Thank you
when i called verizon because i wanted to leave
i got told my only option was optimum
every month my bills have some new taxes or chargers
250 a month
was 150 2 years ago
they have arguments with landlords so both parties are milking us
so now they repealed this rules it's gonna get even worse
Sure. Its what will happen. Get it. I know I didn't go into some lengthy ramble like one of your posts, but the contribution was equal. Just because your a transplant doesn't mean your smarter than all of us.
Sure. Its what will happen. Get it. I know I didn't go into some lengthy ramble like one of your posts, but the contribution was equal. Just because your a transplant doesn't mean your smarter than all of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Dale
They'll be more innovation too. So we have cheaper, increased competition, and an innovation boom to look forward to.
Oh, so you can’t explain anything but you’re pretty excited, good on you!
There are a lot of smart natives of New York City. Just obviously not everyone.
There are also a lot of dumb as bricks transplants just as there are the same among native New Yorkers. A lot more average people than people at either end of the spectrum. These are hard concepts.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 12-15-2017 at 09:57 PM..
Oh, so you can’t explain anything but you’re pretty excited, good on you!
There are a lot of smart natives of New York City. Just obviously not everyone.
There are also a lot of dumb as bricks transplants just as there are the same among native New Yorkers. A lot more average people than people at either end of the spectrum. These are hard concepts.
You haven't explained otherwise either. You just like to ramble on and waste words to pretend to be so intelligent. I came to this thread to ask questions to attain a better understanding, but you can't help your smug pretentious tendencies.
I can understand the federal government controlling the infrastructure to manage inefficiencies, but why should they control who and how service providers conduct business in the space. Of course antitrust should be heavily enforced, but why should the barriers to entry be controlled? Since 2015, how much competition has there really been? Have costs went down? You have large players and you have small players, knowingly that the small players can't put pressure on the large players. Maybe now the small players can consolidate to put that pressure on the big boys.
You haven't explained otherwise either. You just like to ramble on and waste words to pretend to be so intelligent. I came to this thread to ask questions to attain a better understanding, but you can't help your smug pretentious tendencies.
I can understand the federal government controlling the infrastructure to manage inefficiencies, but why should they control who and how service providers conduct business in the space. Of course antitrust should be heavily enforced, but why should the barriers to entry be controlled? Since 2015, how much competition has there really been? Have costs went down? You have large players and you have small players, knowingly that the small players can't put pressure on the large players. Maybe now the small players can consolidate to put that pressure on the big boys.
Someone else reads through his BS. Not only is he pretentious, but he attacks people that disagree with his point of view.
You haven't explained otherwise either. You just like to ramble on and waste words to pretend to be so intelligent. I came to this thread to ask questions to attain a better understanding, but you can't help your smug pretentious tendencies.
I can understand the federal government controlling the infrastructure to manage inefficiencies, but why should they control who and how service providers conduct business in the space. Of course antitrust should be heavily enforced, but why should the barriers to entry be controlled? Since 2015, how much competition has there really been? Have costs went down? You have large players and you have small players, knowingly that the small players can't put pressure on the large players. Maybe now the small players can consolidate to put that pressure on the big boys.
How were the barriers being controlled via title 2? Throttling is pretty straightforward, but your talk about small players has all of what to do with this? If you bothered to read what I wrote or done some cursory research, there’s little historical reason to believe this helps bring in smaller players. I asked you to explain how these lower prices happen. You demured. Meanwhile, the explanation for how throttling and net neutrality works is in this thread and pretty straightforward for how additional charges can be levvied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pierrepont7731
Someone else reads through his BS. Not only is he pretentious, but he attacks people that disagree with his point of view.
Where is the BS then? Where did I get things wrong on this? If someone has basic facts wrong and can’t put together a coherent argument, then somehow it’s pretentious to not dismiss it. Sorry, I don’t buy into this everyone-gets-a-trophy snowflake business.
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate and answer your question using the exact same talking points that the anti-neutrality crowd has been using, which always goes something like this:
Quote:
"If they repeat net neutrality, that means that ISPs could throttle sites like YouTube if they wanted to introduce their own version of these services."
Think about that for a second. YouTube completely dominates the user-generated video content realm. Totally. It has 78.8% of the market share.
If the ISPs each introduced an alternative to YouTube, we would no longer just have YouTube. We would have YouTube and Verizon's version of a user-generated video site or YouTube and some other cable ISP's YouTube version.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
