re: Sky Screamers Rejoice! Senate votes to repeal the repeal of Net Neutrality

quote:

---

He should probably just admit he's liberal at this point. Or at least come to terms with it.

---

I'm not a liberal in the sense that you use the word.

I don't believe in political trap boxes and I don't appreciate generalities.

quote:

---

NN takes this to an illogical end. 400 channels is nothing. NN says, you have to take the entire internet.

---

First off, in my analogy the U-450 package was equivalent to the entire internet. How many more damn channels could you watch?

Second, I do see how you can take this argument in either direction. My stance is that it allows you to take only what you use. You pay for the overall data that passes through their infrastructure, not for a package of connections. That being said, I actually DO understand the economics of the counter-argument in that demand generated by certain services drives the price up for everyone, even if they don’t use those particular services.

quote:

---

Nope. You have this backward. ESPN (for example) has been able to force itself on cable operators because consumers want it.

---

ESPN is a red herring in my original post, I think. I understand why ESPN is part of the basic cable package and I understand how they’ve managed to strong-arm providers into including their other networks as well. My point was that there is clear demand for a more debundled service (for example, HBO/Showtime only) which has been demonstrated by the number of cord cutters.

In a truly competitive cable market these cord cutters would have bought the debundled packages, but TV providers’ monopolies have allowed them to forcefully upsell. Streaming services broke into that monopoly.

quote:

---

How many ISPs does HBO Go/Now, Netflix and Hulu own?

---

I’m not sure if you’re suggesting that the streaming services HAVEN’T created competition for cable TV, or if you’re simply pointing out the reality of their business situation.

If it’s the latter, you’re right. They have the product but need the ISPs for distribution. A pretty common business predicament.

The overall intent of my post was to point out that you really can’t talk about net neutrality without discussing the ISPs, cable providers, satellite providers, and wireless companies. They all push the same product, at the end of the day - data. The problem is that they’ve not-so-quietly been consolidating market share through M&A and nobody seems to care.

I loved it when AT&T got into the TV market with U-Verse. Somebody finally gave cable a real competitor (for internet and TV services). But it seems the long game is an end-around antitrust laws by owning 33% of the cable TV/broadband, wireless, and satellite networks instead of owning 100% of one. THEY seem to realize that these industries compete even if the regulators don’t..

I digress

quote:

---

It's the Ole fix govt frickups with more govt.

---

How can the federal government fix a nation wide problem without passing legislation?

It can give us more freedom. For example: congress creating new public land, laws to prevent the few (corporations) from disenfranchising the many (people), laws making it illegal to enslave people, civil rights and suffrage laws, etc. All result in a net increase of freedom.

Problem is that people don't give two shits about freedom or liberty in general. They care about their own freedom and not that of their neighbor.

ISPs are like the new owners of a recently converted toll road. They set a price to access their roads. How fast you are allowed to go and how much gas you have available is limited by what you are willing to pay. We are pretty much all happy with that. I think most reasonable people would take issue with the toll road company (who owns Swift trucking) disallowing (or charging disparate prices to) their competitors trucks. It should be completely unacceptable for an ISP to be in the content creation or delivery game unless there are enforceable rules governing their conduct.