re: FCC to free Internet From Obama's “Net Neutrality” Rules

I stand with the consumers.

Bonhoeffer stands with the bureaucrats.

He ignores the expansion of ISP services and the expansion of ISP quality in the USA.

He wants to give the FCC power to regulate things like the massive opportunity rural communities have utilizing the new Microsoft technology. No question if the FCC is regulating ISP the current ISPs will soon use the FCC to stop such new technology. LINK

quote:

---

I stand with the consumers.

Bonhoeffer stands with the bureaucrats.

---

More and more I am starting to think you are either the dumbest shill alive or you are literally a paid troll. No one can say the above, claim we need to hand ISP's the ability to extort consumers and businesses, and with a straight face say you stand with consumers.

You are a short sighted denier of actual facts looking for government oversight over an industry that has grown quite impressively without government oversight.

You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

My ISP does not extort me or my business. I pay them what I pay them at my own free will.

You probably want free healthcare and free food too.

Not a word from you about local regulation of ISPs that prevent competition. Why is that? you want to protect those bureaucrats too?

quote:

---

You are a short sighted denier of actual facts looking for government oversight over an industry that has grown quite impressively without government oversight.

You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

My ISP does not extort me or my business. I pay them what I pay them at my own free will.

You probably want free healthcare and free food too.

Not a word from you about local regulation of ISPs that prevent competition. Why is that? you want to protect those bureaucrats too?

---

Seriously dude, either you are a shill or getting paid. I hope its the later because if its not, this behavior is just sad and pathetic.

We lag most other developed countries in high speed broadband and fiber growth. That is largely because most of the market is dominated by a few key players, many of which, in areas that encompass over 50% of households, are the only game in town for over 25mbps service.

Full territory ISP's are currently natural monopolies. Which means the barrier to entry is incredibly high and the market conditions such that given the enormous upfront costs most markets are not viable for more than a few players, at least in terms of wide adoption, sometimes only one or two. This high cost of entry can be easily illustrated by looking at the investment costs municipal broadband is faced with. Seattle: 450 million for just infrastructure, Lafayette: 160 million just for infrastructure. On top of millions in operating costs and a long trajectory to reach break-even. Lafayette for instance did everything they could under state law to entice private companies to do what they ultimately were forced to do. they tried enticing new cable companies, capital investors, companies in the community, but the cost was just too much of a barrier. So they put it to a vote and spent years wading through state hurdles ISP's had set up to prevent what they were doing. Ultimately they won, have invested the large amount of money and produced a viable local broadband alternative. I absolutely encourage local communities to look at such solutions and to push back on state legislation that tries to prevent this.

Also of note, places where Comcast and Verizon were extorting Netflix or throttling pre-NN, had competition, but it was light, an oligopoly market. But major markets still. Which at best is what even the best marketplaces from a competitive standpoint would classify as. So it is just not true to say that rescinding laws mitigates the need for NN.

But the larger problem of natural monopolies is that left unchecked, they have little incentive to invest in new and upgraded infrastructure with any haste. Instead what many have done in this space, evidenced by their millions in lobbying efforts and personal actions, is sought out rent-seeking arrangements. Finding ways to extract more money to grow revenue from the consumer and back end. This includes trying to pass model legislation that is harmful to consumers but beneficial to strengthening their hold on markets and preventing public investments. Which you claim I don't care about. Yet everyone in this thread has acknowledged is its own problem needing addressing. And doing things like fighting monopoly laws, getting legislation to sell people's data without consent, as happened earlier this year, and reserving the right to discriminate traffic for profit.

Net Neutrality has came about because of those ISP's engaging in a slow creep of behavior that amounted to using their gatekeeper status, in often monopoly or oligopoly arrangements, to rent seek consumers and businesses. And I will once again note, that issues of crony legislation is not a magical substitute for the issue of net neutrality. Even highly competitive marketplaces like in much of England maintain net neutrality rules for issues that even under their umbrella had popped up.

If you have been insulated from its effects in your unknown location you refuse to divulge to the board, that experience is not the only experience of the country. Nor is it evidence of this being a non-issue. Let alone claiming this is a problem that doesn't exist.

quote:

---

Fast lanes for what?
I still dont understand how paying 10 more a mnth would bother anyone

---

Why don't they just increase rates then? It's about market share and removing competition.

quote:

---

Consumers don’t want to pay for fast lanes

---

Have consumers been forced to pay for fast lanes yet?

quote:

---

We lag most other developed countries in high speed broadband and fiber growth.

---

Developed countries that are smaller than many US states.

Population density matters. The amount of fiber you run matters. The amount of equipment you need to support that fiber matters. The amount of equipment to transmit the data over the fiber matters.