goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
Lol
The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
Lol
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Net neutrality preserves choice. Abridging or abrogating it is what's anti-choice.
Please elaborate sir.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I wish more people had the ability to view the NN decision based on the reality on the ground (like Jaw does) instead of on the basis of misapplied Econ 101 theory. "More choice" =/= more choice if the power to dictate that choice is so heavily concentrated in the hands of a scant few providers.
And, just to tie a couple of threads together...the rationale against higher corporate taxes is that higher taxes will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. So now that, say, NBC-Universal-Comcast and AT&T will be paying billions less in taxes, surely they'll lower prices to consumers...
...
...
won't they?
And, just to tie a couple of threads together...the rationale against higher corporate taxes is that higher taxes will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. So now that, say, NBC-Universal-Comcast and AT&T will be paying billions less in taxes, surely they'll lower prices to consumers...
...
...
won't they?
The Internet has become the most important public utility in, well, history, and it's not something that anyone should be open to tampering with in any way, shape, form or fashion. That we, as Americans, have long since rolled-over and allowed ISPs to regulate fundamental aspects of the connection process such as bandwidth usage (capped at 1TB a month, from most providers) and, to a lesser extent, speed of service (having a line to your house that's capable of far greater speeds, but restricted to something ridiculous like 10mbps), should be an incredibly ominous sign of things to come.
The goal here should be to grow out the Internet in every sector of society - not strangulate it under the guise of "competitive growth".
The goal here should be to grow out the Internet in every sector of society - not strangulate it under the guise of "competitive growth".
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
The short answer is hell no. And it will probably be blamed on having to pay their employees more.
sturg33
I
It's not up to you dictate what others do with their own money, no matter how badly you think you have that right.
I'm glad they have the option. I expect to see some combination of higher wages, higher R&D investment, dividends, stock buy backs and lower prices on products.
The private sectors record of effenciency, technology advancement, and better prices for consumers speaks for itself
Look at what Chattanooga did for their Gigabit internet and the opportunities it has created.
And look at what the telecom companies did to try and sabatoge it.
And look at what the telecom companies did to try and sabatoge it.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Look at how Russia has attempted to gain influence with a few small ad buys in social media, just on the hope that specific groups would see a message.
Think of Google's recent decision to demonetize YouTube channels that Google disagrees with politically.
Now imagine the power that an ISP will have to shape the way people think by promoting or blocking certain points of view. It's frightening.
Think of Google's recent decision to demonetize YouTube channels that Google disagrees with politically.
Now imagine the power that an ISP will have to shape the way people think by promoting or blocking certain points of view. It's frightening.
But that ISP will lose cusotmers to another ISP if it shapes its content the way its users don't want and I think that is the point. Right now Google/Facebook have absolute monopolies on information. This limits that because because can choose to pay for a package which doesn't include their content. Why do you think companies like netflix are so opposed to this?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Actually, I'm not. I'm just pointing out a deceptive talking point about corporate taxes and consumer pricing. But why would you expect lower prices on products (in the broadband arena) because of lower corporate tax rates when Comcast is a duopoly or monopoly in a huge slice of markets?
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Throttling, bro. It's anti-choice, and ISPs were already doing it before they were sued, then reclassified, then regulated out of the practice. It's not only anti-consumer, but anti-development as well.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Criminy, thethe...one ISP can't lose customers to another ISP if there is no competition within a given market. I'm not sure why you don't/won't/can't internalize this.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
^^^^^^^^ so much
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
How many ISPs are usually in a given market? Two is the top number of options I've ever had, and I've usually had only one, either effectively or entirely. ISPs already have much greater practical monopolies than Google or Facebook, and abridging net neutrality frees them to abuse that hegemony even more.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
But you yourself don't even believe that, no matter how convenient it sounds. You think we do have a right to tell people what they do with their own money if their pursuit impinges upon the bodily or property rights of others (though your line here, as ever, remains nebulous and under-drawn...but I digress).
Repealing net neutrality regulations and permitting throttling materially impinges on public utility property rights.
I don't know enough about this obviously but why can't there be more ISP's in the market? What is to stop a large private equity firm from realizing this market inefficiency and create a new ISP?
Launching an ISP (from scratch) is virtually the equivalent to starting an electric utility provider, both in terms of cost and contending with obscene regulatory hurdles.
How many choices do you have in that realm?
Google (an example I referenced upthread) has a net worth larger than Apollo (largest private equity firm in the States), a background in the specific tech required to build out a fiber network, a rabid customer base, AND cooperation from various local municipalities - yet they still couldn't get things off the ground.
Building networks is, to no one's surprise, expensive. Financial analysts last year estimated that Google had to spend $84 million to build a fiber network that passed 149,000 homes in Kansas City, with the cost per home at $500 to $674. That figure did not include additional costs for actually connecting each home that requests service. A national Google Fiber build out passing 15 percent of US homes would cost $11 billion a year for five years, Wall Street analysts have estimated.
https://arstechnica.com/information...t-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/
THat is the only way to drive down costs and offer more choice. But what you posted above seems to be a significant cost to enter the market. Hopefully new technologies can be created to reduce that.