Net neutrality repealed!

[GMDino]

(12-20-2017, 11:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: OK. Seems like Cell Phone companies already do this exact thing.

But they don't tell you it will cost an extra $5 to call your mom or dad.

[*bfine32*]

(12-20-2017, 11:25 AM)GMDino Wrote: But they don't tell you it will cost an extra $5 to call your mom or dad.

They sure don't, unless Mom and Dad live outside my plan's coverage area.

[CageTheBengal]

(12-20-2017, 11:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: OK. Seems like Cell Phone companies already do this exact thing.

Yup when it comes to data. It's very inconvenient (to be kind.) to rural America who barely get access to the internet in the first place.

[GMDino]

(12-20-2017, 11:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: They sure don't, unless Mom and Dad live outside my plan's coverage area.

Except this will be anytime, anywhere.  Mom and dad will cost extra because they are mom and dad.  Not because of location.

[BmorePat87]

(12-20-2017, 11:15 AM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Meanwhile a lot of rural America only has access to dial up or overpriced unreliable satelite internet.

Living in an area like that it's crazy how forgotten we are when it comes to internet access while others are fighting over speed.

A definite area of need as well

[GMDino]

(12-20-2017, 11:15 AM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Meanwhile a lot of rural America only has access to dial up or overpriced unreliable satelite internet.

Living in an area like that it's crazy how forgotten we are when it comes to internet access while others are fighting over speed.

(12-20-2017, 12:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A definite area of need as well

Well where's the profit in that?



Those people can just move to areas with better service.  

[SunsetBengal]

(12-20-2017, 12:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well where's the profit in that?



Those people can just move to areas with better service.  

Damn, and here I thought that Net Neutrality was going to force the evil Telecom Companies to bring fiber optic service to every home in America.  Free of charge!

[BmorePat87]

(12-20-2017, 12:44 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Damn, and here I thought that Net Neutrality was going to force the evil Telecom Companies to bring fiber optic service to every home in America.  Free of charge!

?

[GMDino]

(12-20-2017, 12:44 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Damn, and here I thought that Net Neutrality was going to force the evil Telecom Companies to bring fiber optic service to every home in America.  Free of charge!

I thought the gas company was maintaining their lines with my payment every month.  Here it turns out they need to raise my rates and/or add a surcharge so they fix the lines.

It's almost like they were just taking our money and figuring nothing would ever go wrong in the future.

[Benton]

(12-20-2017, 12:44 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Damn, and here I thought that Net Neutrality was going to force the evil Telecom Companies to bring fiber optic service to every home in America.  Free of charge!

For at least a decade the trend has been for federal and state dollars to pay private companies to bring those services to rural areas. Small telecom companies are hard to maintain a profit, so what often happens is somebody starts one to take advantage of the grants dollars, fulfills the contract (X amount of homes in Y square miles) and then after a couple years of operation, they sell out to one of the big companies.

It's pretty profitable as the startup company gets guaranteed tax dollars, then sells out to a larger company.

Which is much the same way utility networks were/are built as municipalities give dollars to run water lines, gas lines, etc., to areas of need. We've treated the internet as a utility (in regard to public spending on it) for at least a decade.

[Dill]

(12-19-2017, 07:41 PM)Benton Wrote: Public utilities weren’t public utilities until they were public utilities.

I understand the argument that private businesses should be allowed to charge what they want. The problem is, like other utilities, the internet has become something bigger.

As far as the electric company, you’re missing the other half of the issue. Electric companies and telecom charge you for usage. That’s how they make money. What you do with that usage should be up to you, whether it’s powerig Christmas lights or making toast. Telecom is saying they should decide the end use, or at least charge you more for it depending on their own interests.

LOL beat me to it.  

Also, your analogy brings out very well the effort to insinuate finer control into a service in order to weasel out more profit.

[Dill]

(12-19-2017, 07:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Or as I mentioned earlier it's like saying a Baker is losing money because other bakers are selling pies in his shops.

As has been mentioned before: the Public utilities analogies have zero merit; as ISPs are not public utilities. 

And from what I understand the electric company does charge you based on how much you use their commodity. 

It's like saying a customer is losing money because he has to first pay the Baker and then the other Bakers selling pies in his shop.

[*bfine32*]

(12-20-2017, 01:18 PM)Dill Wrote: It's like saying a customer is losing money because he has to first pay the Baker and then the other Bakers selling pies in his shop.

You mean like paying a cover charge if you are not a member?

Government should regulate.

[BmorePat87]

(12-20-2017, 01:18 PM)Dill Wrote: It's like saying a customer is losing money because he has to first pay the Baker and then the other Bakers selling pies in his shop.

In reality you're paying the shop owner to get into the shop and then you're paying him a second time to get access to the good pies in the back of the store instead of just the stale ones in the front. 

Or the shop owner can choose to charge the good bakers more to carry their pies in his store and the crappy bakers less, causing the price of the good pies to go up even more.

The shop is also one of only 2 shops in the town and his rival does it too. 

Both are scenarios that can occur. 

[CageTheBengal]

The whole debate pretty much boils down to whether or not you think the internet should be a utility or not.

If you think it's a utility then it should be placed under the same umbrella as your electric company etc and treated as such. Net Neutrality ensured that ISPs can't throw less populated areas to the back of the line as far as bandwidth something they had already practiced before. That would be illegal for your electric company to do. They couldn't provide less power and/or less of a service to rural areas because it isn't in their best interest money wise compared to less populated areas. They have to maintain their infrastructure and keep a certain standard regardless of the population of the area. ISPs before Net Neutrality could choose to upgrade infrastructure in say NY city multiple times over while people like me are left in the 90s with dial up internet because I live in the country.

Net Neutrality is about setting regulations to protect the internet in the best interest of the people after ISPs have choosen to leave rural America with outdated or no internet at all, after ISPs have choked bandwidth for smaller areas with less population and after they choked bandwidth because a user chooses Netflix compared to Comcast's preferred streaming service associated with their company. All of this isn't what ifs it has actually happened prior to Net Neutrality.

[Dill]

(12-20-2017, 03:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You mean like paying a cover charge if you are not a member?

Government should regulate.

   I mean this . . .

(12-20-2017, 03:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: In reality you're paying the shop owner to get into the shop and then you're paying him a second time to get access to the good pies in the back of the store instead of just the stale ones in the front. 

Or the shop owner can choose to charge the good bakers more to carry their pies in his store and the crappy bakers less, causing the price of the good pies to go up even more.

The shop is also one of only 2 shops in the town and his rival does it too. 

Both are scenarios that can occur. 

I agree, and wonder what happens when we are not talking about pies and entertainment, but access to communication necessary for livelihood.  Should the government protect a monopoly without setting any conditions?

[*bfine32*]

(12-20-2017, 05:04 PM)Dill Wrote:    I mean this . . .



I agree, and wonder what happens when we are not talking about pies and entertainment, but access to communication necessary for livelihood.  Should the government protect a monopoly without setting any conditions?

So like paying a cover charge and then paying extra if you want a premium drink?

Some people can only afford the stuff on the bottom shelf. I suppose I am wrong in thinking you may have to pay a little extra if you want the Patron; while to bar's name brand tequila is readily available at the same price for everyone



Cage makes a good point about folks in rural areas and we can hope that net neutrality repeal will spur a movement to increase satellite speeds. When we get right down to it folks are complaining about how much they may have to pay for entertainment. As I would challenge anyone to give me an example of needing a "fast lane" to pay my bills or do my online backing.

[Au165]

(12-20-2017, 05:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So like paying a cover charge and then paying extra if you want a premium drink?

Some people can only afford the stuff on the bottom shelf. I suppose I am wrong in thinking you may have to pay a little extra if you want the Patron; while to bar's name brand tequila is readily available at the same price for everyone



Cage makes a good point about folks in rural areas and we can hope that net neutrality repeal will spur a movement to increase satellite speeds. When we get right down to it folks are complaining about how much they may have to pay for entertainment. As I would challenge anyone to give me an example of needing a "fast lane" to pay my bills or do my online backing.

You skipped over my question a while back, so I'll restate it, why is the internet considered a luxury item vs telephones being an essential utility that should be protected for quality of life purposes? Why do I NEED a telephone? There is nothing mail, or getting in a car, can't achieve making a phone a luxury of speed and convenience.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2017, 11:32 AM)Au165 Wrote: You skipped over my question a while back, so I'll restate it, why is the internet considered a luxury item vs telephones being an essential utility that should be protected for quality of life purposes? Why do I NEED a telephone? There is nothing mail, or getting in a car, can't achieve making a phone a luxury of speed and convenience.

You do not need a phone. Also not sure the internet should be considered a luxury item; however, access to the faster lanes so you can stream entertainment might be, sorta like a 900 number. I have a phone line for communication and bill paying purposes, why you want to charge me more if I use the dial pad to dial 1-900

[Belsnickel]

(12-21-2017, 12:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You do not need a phone. Also not sure the internet should be considered a luxury item; however, access to the faster lanes so you can stream entertainment might be, sorta like a 900 number. I have a phone line for communication and bill paying purposes, why you want to charge me more if I use the dial pad to dial 1-900

Emergency communications systems would disagree.