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.
Sometimes I wonder what it is that 'conservatives' think they're 'conserving'?
I mean they sure don't want to conserve the environment.
They're constantly putting forth schemes to secede (again) from the U.S. so they apparently don't want to 'conserve' the Union.
They openly flout laws they don't like and advocate repealing and/or violating parts of the constitution they don't like... so it ain't rule of law that they're conserving.
They do everything in their power to gut programs that have allowed the middle class to grow over the past century: public schools, public universities, social security, medicare, unions... basically they hate ANYTHING that helps the poor and middle class. So it sure ain't the American Dream that they're conserving.
Best I can tell, the ONLY things they're interested in 'conserving' is:
1. Their marginally preferred status as white/straight/male/protestants.
Not true. There has been no "corrupt, anti-competitive" activity. This action by the FCC will guarantee that not much new will be coming. The Internet is about to become stagnant.
Please read up on Comcast
If you actually bother to do that, and you don't change your mind... then I can only conclude that you're not interested in honest inquiry.
It was the private sector that built the Internet.
There you go again, using "profits" as though it is an ugly term. Profits are necessary and good. You do not deserve to have "free" service. You didn't invest any money, string any cable, invest in the servers and hire the technical professionals, invest in the advertising and marketing, pay for trucks and installation service personnel, hire accountants, etc., etc. You are the consumer. You must pay for the service or go without.
No, it is not.
Comcast sued the FCC and won. The court ruled in their favor, and told the FCC that it did not have the authority to do what they were trying to do (the last time they tried to push so-called "Net Neutrality." The FCC is pretending the court ruling didn't exist, and they are back with the same thing. The FCC will be sued again, as it should.
The private sector built the internet eh?
Look I know your AM Talk Radio idols get away with complete fabrication all the time... but that don't mean it's a habit you should take up. Please research where the internet came from and how the infrastructure was built.
Whooo hoooo! Hooray for more government interference, and bureacracy!
Without the government, you wouldn't have the internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
It was the private sector that built the Internet.
What?!?
Uh, no...the US government--aided by France, UK, and other European countries funded the research starting back in the 1960's is what built the foundation of the internet. NASA and the National Science Foundation continued to drive the funding of the backbone of the internet today-primarily starting in the 1980's.
Last edited by Wolfpacker; 03-02-2015 at 12:31 PM..
Calm down buddy- I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to 'conservatives' who have sided with cable company monopolies over consumers. ALL opposition to net neutrality came from 'conservatives'.
Seriously? Are you surprised when something as successful as the Internet, with all the innovation that has come from from free market capitalists is attacked by anti-capitalist, big government interests, is defended by free market capitalists who made it what it is today?
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkey-head
Because it isn't competition per set that they want. What 'conservatives' want is vicious competition for you and me... along with subsidies and profits protections for the wealthy.
It is competition that stimulates innovation. No competition, no reason to innovate. The status quo is good enough.
How many new cable companies do you think will enter the competition for your dollars now that the FCC has taken control?
Just when broadband was coming into its own, the government thinks it has to jump in and issue rules and regulations that will surely choke off any new entry's into the market.
There are many rural areas with no broadband service. Those areas will have to wait even longer until the current big players, Comcast, Time Warner, Armstrong, decide it's worth the money to invest in the cable and equipment to service those areas.
In our area, we had an upstart company string all the cable and offer service about 5 years ago. There was no cable service prior to that time in our area. He was a local guy. Now, after that service has been in operation for several years, Armstrong bought him out about 2 1/2 years ago. Armstrong offers good service, but they may not have bothered with us if there had not been another individual willing to invest in running the cable, etc. a few years prior. The cable was already in, and people signed up.
Not true. There has been no "corrupt, anti-competitive" activity. This action by the FCC will guarantee that not much new will be coming. The Internet is about to become stagnant.
Utterly untrue, but go ahead and keep pretending that the ISP monopoly will lead to "innovative" services, whatever that means.
What innovative services has Comcast or AT&T added in the last 15-20 years?
ALL of the innovation on the internet over the last 40 years has come from Google and e-commerce and the ability of individuals and businesses who put up their own websites and engaged in fun and trade. Give me some specific examples of innovation if you disagree.
To reiterate, there is no "free market" internet. Give me specifics if you disagree.
Seriously? Are you surprised when something as successful as the Internet, with all the innovation that has come from from free market capitalists is attacked by anti-capitalist, big government interests, is defended by free market capitalists who made it what it is today?
It is competition that stimulates innovation. No competition, no reason to innovate. The status quo is good enough.
How many new cable companies do you think will enter the competition for your dollars now that the FCC has taken control?
Just when broadband was coming into its own, the government thinks it has to jump in and issue rules and regulations that will surely choke off any new entry's into the market.
There are many rural areas with no broadband service. Those areas will have to wait even longer until the current big players, Comcast, Time Warner, Armstrong, decide it's worth the money to invest in the cable and equipment to service those areas.
In our area, we had an upstart company string all the cable and offer service about 5 years ago. There was no cable service prior to that time in our area. He was a local guy. Now, after that service has been in operation for several years, Armstrong bought him out about 2 1/2 years ago. Armstrong offers good service, but they may not have bothered with us if there had not been another individual willing to invest in running the cable, etc. a few years prior. The cable was already in, and people signed up.
The FCC hasn't taken control of anything, they've regulated ISP's in the same fashion Energy providers have been regulated. Now you see the abundance of energy service providers throughout the states. This is directly due to government intervention. It has forced competitive rates, the model has worked in every country its been implemented in. NN will be no different here, it actually stands to force competition, network upgrades to better serve customers at competitive rates. It stops the larger telco lobbying and restrictions put on smaller ISP's that keep them from entering markets. Houston, for example is the 4th largest city with one of the most diverse economies on earth yet only has 2, maybe 3 ISP's and no fiber offerings. This is directly due to anti-competitive lobbying by large telco/cableco to restrict anyone else from entering the market and building out their own infrastructure. Critical access to GOVERNMENT infrastructure has also been allowed from this point. The more players, the better the offerings, the more competitive, the more investment to keep up. Everyone has to play by the same rules, something that has not been for a long time. Please detail how this will stifle investment and force anti-competitive business climates? The rural areas you speak of now have a right to wire themselves or let the smaller outfits come in and get a foothold on the market. There are several alternatives to cable such as fixed LTE, hybrid-cable/optical wireless; much of which could be extremely useful in getting smaller outfits into the game. Big ISP's arent going to invest in rural areas without someone making them whether its the government or some scrappy smaller ISP that has managed to turn a profit where they believed it wasnt worth it. It has happened, and it will be more so now.
communities should just start using imminent domain. . and remove the cable companies force-ably (for the public good) from owning the infrastructure. Lots cheaper than building your own. . then allow companies compete to be an ISP
There is no need to use eminent domain. Communities get to renew the franchises regularly. The reason why communities don't follow your advice is that it is far more costly to maintain the infrastructure than your comments indicate. The companies that get the franchises generally are so much better at it than the community would be. The companies typically earn a profit; communities typically spend taxpayer money to cover costs.
"There aren't monopolies like Bell System/MA Bell that span across the nation"
THAT is the point. We had them. Then we got RID of them. So, why should we go back to them?
Utility companies ARE government sanctioned and controlled "monopolies?
"The very first sentence: "The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to regulate broadband Internet service as a public utility,"
You are thinking of the slippery slope in regards to the FCC regulating the internet, the same way as those that think that now you can be censored on the internet. I see the FCC just regulating that you cannot price people different and a Netflix or Hulu can't be charged at a premium. Now of course the FCC COULD step in farther. Will they, that is the question we have to watch for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
"The monopolies are localized and in specific markets like say Cincinnati Bell who have no competition"
There is a whole lot MORE competition NOW the there EVER WAS. FIOS is available in some Cincinnati zip codes.
I do NOT get my telephone service from ANY former bell company.
Satellite offers Interne service.
"Are you saying the internet is now a monopoly or what?" I AM saying that the internet is being declared a UTILITY. In the past utilities WERE government controlled monopolies.
Satellite does internet service and if you have internet you can do say Vonage, the issue is you don't have a ton of choices especially depending if you live out of the coverage area. Some choices (Direct and Dish for myself) have tooned themselves out based on service and how they do things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann
Why do you think that two competitors in any market means a "free" market? Go back to the pre 70's, when there were two carriers on every airline route. When the Carter administration deregulated, many routes benefited from lower fares.
A free market means that ANYONE can enter that market and compete on price and speed. Is that what we have today?
The real issue is the separation of service from content. Right now we are confused regarding monopoly as practiced by the designated providers.
I didn't, I know they are if anything Oligarchies if you consider parts of Arizona that have CenturyLink and Cox or CenturyLink and SuddenLink or Long Island, NY where you have Cablevision (Optimum) and now Fios through Verizon. These aren't free markets but it is free-er than say just having Nynex or Bell Atlantic (both were pretty much the same and now under the Verizon banner) for phone, AOL or maybe Compuserve for internet and Cablevision or maybe Dish or Direct for television.
All I can say is this issue has genuinely confused me. I really don't know whether it was a good ruling or not.
I just wish we had more than a couple internet providers so this wouldn't be an issue.
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.
