Net Neutrality pt.2

[GhastMaster]

Then my first post stands. You really don't understand what Net Neutrallity is all about. There is nothing that can be said to change you mind. You are too set in your ways even given the information that has been shown to you here (repeal of Net Neutraliy allows a monopoly Corporation to tread on your rights to get access you need to be able to make an informed decision on the governmental process of the Federal Government by simply not allowing access to information, this is the crux of Net Neutrality).

I was looking for informative discussion. I wasn't able to prod in time before this comment. I think it would have come around.

I would like to retract that statement.

Natural monopolies are a myth and if they are not, why do people fear them? All monopolies exist due to government interference in the "free market". The article I originally posted shows how monopolies are created not destroyed by Net Neutrality.
https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

If we apply the Net Neutrality logic cable TV services should be required to show all channels at the same price to every region. Is cable not a "Public Utility"? Do you apply some principle to come to this conclusion or make decisions based on how you feel(i.e. there seems to be enough people and industry dependent now to declare Title 2 status)? How do you come to this conclusion? Is there a metric we can apply to come to this conclusion?

I think Net Neutrality will unfold the same as the DACA issue. I believe Trump actually likes Net Neutrality and wants to make it permanent, but without him getting the blame. This appears to be what he is doing with DACA:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ev...ncna830246

[Lissa]

Then my first post stands. You really don't understand what Net Neutrallity is all about. There is nothing that can be said to change you mind. You are too set in your ways even given the information that has been shown to you here (repeal of Net Neutraliy allows a monopoly Corporation to tread on your rights to get access you need to be able to make an informed decision on the governmental process of the Federal Government by simply not allowing access to information, this is the crux of Net Neutrality).

I was looking for informative discussion. I wasn't able to prod in time before this comment. I think it would have come around.

I would like to retract that statement.

Natural monopolies are a myth and if they are not, why do people fear them? All monopolies exist due to government interference in the "free market". The article I originally posted shows how monopolies are created not destroyed by Net Neutrality.
https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

You completely ignored what I said earlier. The ISPs *ARE* monopolies because they collude to not compete. The government is not sitting there telling them to not compete, they actively choosing to not compete against each other. As I stated earlier, only in a couple of tech hub cities do you see competition between ISPs, outside those areas, you really only have one choice for an ISP because the other ISPs have worked out a deal to not go into another ISPs area so long as there is reciprocity. The ISPs lobby the politicians to turn a blind eye to what they're doing (lobbying needs to end, the amount of corruption caused by it is insane).

If we apply the Net Neutrality logic cable TV services should be required to show all channels at the same price to every region. Is cable not a "Public Utility"? Do you apply some principle to come to this conclusion or make decisions based on how you feel(i.e. there seems to be enough people and industry dependent now to declare Title 2 status)? How do you come to this conclusion? Is there a metric we can apply to come to this conclusion?

Here's the difference with what you're saying. There are broadcast stations that offer service for *FREE* requiring the consumer to simply watch commercials during the shows to pay for said shows. So, effectively Broadcast TV *IS* a public utility.

If you pay attention to the various pay TV providers, you'll see that they all charge you the same price. The only difference between Cox, ComCast, and Verizon in my area, with respect to TV, is the set top boxes and what those set top boxes can do. The price for all of them is $39.99 per month for just TV and the channels offered in the basic package is the same.

So you're dealing with deflection because TV services is not the same as internet access (although they can be sent over the same cable). And before you say, but cell can be broadband, no, it cannot. Anyone that says this doesn't understand what the difference is between a broadband connection and a cell connection (speed, metering, accessibiliity, signal strength, etc).

I think Net Neutrality will unfold the same as the DACA issue. I believe Trump actually likes Net Neutrality and wants to make it permanent, but without him getting the blame. This appears to be what he is doing with DACA:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ev...ncna830246

If Trump really cared about Net Neutrality, he would have told Pai to leave the decision alone. Quit fooling yourself. Trump cares about one thing and one thing only, himself. Everything he's done so far has to fatten his own coffers (just take a look at the tax bill).

[Tal]

True, but I've also seen statistics (I know, I know) that say roughly 50% to 60% of registered Republican voters think that Net Neutrality should not have been repealed. So, this may not be to force replacment of Republican with Democrats, but to remove Republican incumbents with new Republican office holders.

My understanding is those numbers are for users that don't understand what Net Neutrality entails. When educated it spikes to something like 85% against repeal. Educating on this is the challenge that democrats will need to embrace. Thankfully it does not look like they are being single issue this election term the recent offensives lead by Feinstein and Cardin show that this is only the beginning...

[Bolty]

This is all about getting Republicans on record as voting to take away Net Neutrality rights from citizens to fuel a blue midterm.

In my (limited) experience, the average American doesn't really understand what Net Neutrality means. I think this is an issue only us nerds really care about. The average citizen will only notice years later when some website loads more slowly than Facebook does, and they may get a little annoyed by it.

[Taem]

Here is the very definition of irony for you all:

I have been unable to check back on this very post since posting it from work due to the flooding in Santa Barbara. Why, you may ask? Because Cox Cable owns the very monopoly spoken of in this thread, and is unable to make repairs, and because of the complete lack of competition, there simply is no other infrastructure, no competitors to get service from, so when the only game in town goes down, everyone else does as well. At work, we have been without internet for four days now and have enough manually ran credit card slips to keep us busy for a full day inputting them when the net comes back online. I was able to login from my phone today, I had actually forgotten I even made this post tbh die to all the chaos around here, but saw it during some downtime and laughed due to the irony. I'll probably chime in with something meaningful when I can type it gonna keyboard and not text it.

[Taem]

If Trump really cared about Net Neutrality, he would have told Pai to leave the decision alone. Quit fooling yourself. Trump cares about one thing and one thing only, himself. Everything he's done so far has to fatten his own coffers (just take a look at the tax bill).

Due to recent events, I have no doubts that this is truly the case. Most of the discussion in this thread seems to have been on what exactly Net Neutrality is and what it represents, so hopefully that was cleared up. Knowing what Net Neutrality is, why would anyone try to repeal it? The obvious answer here is money, the only thing that really moves this country. Pai being a shareholder for Verizon sounds like a huge conflict on interest to me, but so did Trump continuing to run his businesses when he became president, but, far as I can tell, he still hasn't made good on his promise to transfer all his assets in his companies out of his name until his term ends. Words words words... The insincerity of Trumps words are clear as day, and his agenda is worn on his sleeve for all to see.

In my (limited) experience, the average American doesn't really understand what Net Neutrality means. I think this is an issue only us nerds really care about. The average citizen will only notice years later when some website loads more slowly than Facebook does, and they may get a little annoyed by it.

My understanding is those numbers are for users that don't understand what Net Neutrality entails. When educated it spikes to something like 85% against repeal. Educating on this is the challenge that democrats will need to embrace.

Yes, this is the real issue that must be addressed, and if Tal is right, the senate vote is more about getting voters to see the Dems trying to defend their freedoms, and to vote Blue next voting season. If this happens, Net Neutrality will obviously be a hot button topic for next election year by Dems and depending on how it's spun, could help set the stage for who enters office. At the end of the day, it's all about educating Americans as to what Net Neutrality accomplishes, and why they need it!

[FireIceTalon]

I think the above post is a testament to just how universally accepted and desirable net neutrality is. Me and Taem are complete opposites on the political spectrum in almost every sense of the word, but as I stated before, I don't see how its objectively possible to see net neutrality as being a bad thing, UNLESS you are a CEO or a politician that represents said CEO(s). These are the only two groups of people who stand to lose anything by keeping net neutrality intact. Everyone else wins.

[Alram]

Another important issue closely related to net neutrality are the legislative barriers imposed by states in favor of the telecom companies lobbying efforts.

Much of the country has laws on the books preventing communities from taking it upon themselves to build their own broadband infrastructure. Four states have laws on the books that prevent public ownership of broadband networks: Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas. Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have de facto bans, and 11 others have varying levels of restrictions. These laws exist to protect the vested interests of the incumbent carriers, essentially giving them control of markets all across the country, and preventing cities and towns everywhere from being able to bridge the digital divide and provide truly world class internet speeds to their citizens.

CLICK

[kandrathe]

I really don't trust either the "anti-" massive internet service providers (AT&T, Verizon, Charter... ), or the "pro-"content provider lobby backed by Facebook, Google, Amazon...

Inevitably what is good for maintaining a monopoly is bad for entrepreneurial innovation. So often we are artificially pitted between lose and lose.