Net Neutrality

Savannah is the 3rd most populated city in Georgia with over 100k in the metro area. Comcast has a monopoly on high speed internet here. There's probably a news article every few months about how terrible they are.

FioS entered our market very very small 7 years ago but prices for Comcast have doubled here. The kicker here is whenever anybody has issues with Fios... fios has to ask comcast to fix it.
 
No, it isn't.

Obamacare was used to create healthy competition for health care providers. (obv government regulated)

Now, the net neutrality is hype to lower prices through healthy competition. When have prices gone down when government regulates?
 
That includes mobile devices.

Even if it didn't, it's still ridiculous that about 25 million households have only one provider available.

So, what percentage of households are limited to 1 internet service provider?
 
http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/ngillespie/2015_02/fccfixedandmobile.jpg?h=532&w=500

FWIW, according to the FCC's data in the chart linked, over 80% of households have 2 or more providers (nearly 50% have 3+ choices) for at least 10 Mbps downstream.

10 MbPS isn't broadband. It's acceptable for a small household of primarily older folk. My parents use DSL and once more than one person starts streaming the buffering comes a problem. IIRC they're at that 10 MbPS ideal system. That's ideal of course, your real life speeds never match that because of other users who're online.
 
Obamacare was used to create healthy competition for health care providers. (obv government regulated)

Now, the net neutrality is hype to lower prices through healthy competition. When have prices gone down when government regulates?

No it wasn't. Obamacare was used to mandate healthcare. Not the same. This would be like requiring every household to own cable. Not stopping ISPs from making fast lanes.
 
So, what percentage of households are limited to 1 internet service provider?

I based the 25 million households off the linked 2012 data that includes mobile devices. So that's a minimum of 25 million households, which is ridiculous. Take away the mobile data and I suspect that number would jump dramatically.
 
That includes mobile devices.

Even if it didn't, it's still ridiculous that about 25 million households have only one provider available.

That's scary. Cause Mobile isn't a real option since they all are way too expensive and have many other issues.
 
10 MbPS isn't broadband. It's acceptable for a small household of primarily older folk. My parents use DSL and once more than one person starts streaming the buffering comes a problem. IIRC they're at that 10 MbPS ideal system. That's ideal of course, your real life speeds never match that because of other users who're online.

It was considered broadband until a few weeks ago, no?
 
Or are willing to consider the long-term pros and cons of such a drastic change without jumping to "net neutrality is great I and anyone who questions otherwise is OBVIOUSLY a mororn!"

i guess some people like getting boned by comcast.
 
This concept Wheeler has come up with that 10Mbps is not enough is absurd. (obviously some of you super nerds need more to download porn and stupid **** and a handful need it for work purposes) There are 4 users in my house; 3 HD televisions, Blue Ray, Netflix, Apple TV, 4 tablets, laptop, XBOX on 10 Mbps is plenty.
 
This concept Wheeler has come up with that 10Mbps is not enough is absurd. (obviously some of you super nerds need more to download porn and stupid **** and a handful need it for work purposes) There are 4 users in my house; 3 HD televisions, Blue Ray, Netflix, Apple TV, 4 tablets, laptop, XBOX on 10 Mbps is plenty.

It isn't absurd. A LOT more than a handful need it for work purposes.
 
Back
Top