@georgeh said:
I can't imagine a free market conservative looking at the current broadband market and thinking "This market sure is efficient. Lots of competition."
I am a free market conservative and believe the TC market is broken based on the fact that corporations can throttle your internet.
So whenever this type of thing gets mentioned, I always see responses like "Why do we need to regulate? Shouldn't the free-market take care of this?" and other such things. And that's fine, valid questions for just about a any other industry. But this is not just any other industry.
In the early days, telecom providers (including cable TV) lobbied congress and municipalities to allow them exclusive access to run the lines to provide services (phone, TV, etc), under the assumption that they would be able to provide the best possible service without having to worry about that pesky competition.
And it worked, for a while. Long enough for the companies to bask in their effective government-mandated monopolies and stop worrying about spending money on things like "innovation" and "customer service", funneling that money into more lobbying and lawyering-up any time a municipality tried to change their mind and create their own broadband provider, etc.
So now we have a situation where the largest cable company wants to buy the second-largest cable company because, you know, free market and all that. Don't worry about monopolies, there's FIOS in some areas, AT&T DSL (L-O-L) in others, and hey, Google Fiber is in 2 markets so COMPETITION! Look at all this competition we have to deal with!
It's now gotten to the point where Comcast's proposed merger with Time Warner (see above) is in jeopardy because Comcast's customer service is SO BAD, the FTC doesn't think it's quite such a good idea anymore, even with all those $100 bills sticking out of their underwear.
Now, I'm not one to condone the harassment of someone's family members to get results, but really. If your company is so bad at doing half of its job that people think it's finally time to resort to these methods, then yes, more regulation will be a good thing.
@AlexDeGruven I have AT&T DSL and it sucks. Also, I was watching Fox News the other day (LET"S NOT GET INTO THAT DISCUSSION) where they were talking about the FCC proposal and they had the FCC top dog (Not Wheeler, but someone else. I can't remember his name. When I see it I'll remember.) and he was saying that this would bring about new taxes and fees. Any response to this?
@aspieRommel said:
[...] he was saying that this would bring about new taxes and fees. Any response to this?
I personally haven't heard any reason why there would be new taxes and fees.
My hunch is that talking heads say things like that because their audience has been trained by the media as a whole to associate any government involvement with taxes or waste. "New regulation? Of course that means new taxes!"
If there do turn out to be new taxes, then my next question would be if they are worth the potential benefits we get from increased regulation. Hard to say with no data to go by, but I can certainly imagine scenarios where they would be.
@Gargoyle said:
If there do turn out to be new taxes, then my next question would be if they are worth the potential benefits we get from increased regulation. Hard to say with no data to go by, but I can certainly imagine scenarios where they would be.
Can't recall where I heard this or whether it was anything other than speculation, but it had something to do with the tax that's intended to get service to rural areas. It's currently attached to landline bills, and would be shifted to internet service so of course it's a new tax...because it helps the ISP's cause. That's why everyone dropped landlines in the first place...
@aspieRommel said:
AlexDeGruven I have AT&T DSL and it sucks. Also, I was watching Fox News the other day (LET"S NOT GET INTO THAT DISCUSSION) where they were talking about the FCC proposal and they had the FCC top dog (Not Wheeler, but someone else. I can't remember his name. When I see it I'll remember.) and he was saying that this would bring about new taxes and fees. Any response to this?
It's always a possibility, taxes at least. By regulating as a utility, the gov't can levy a tax to help pay for infrastructure growth in underserved areas. But at the same time, regulation may eliminate some of the BS fees you see on your bill already that are imposed by the carrier/provider because "fee" looks official and makes it easier for them to raise prices without actually raising the price (see: Verizon and AT&T and their "upgrade fee").
Additionally, competition puts downward pressure on prices. If the new regulations open the wires for any provider to come in, breaking those monopolies, then there's no reason why a new company couldn't come in and undercut everyone in the area by 50% or more (I'll have to dig for the source, but I read somewhere that cable internet has somewhere in the 90% profit margin).
So yes, there is a chance there will be more taxes imposed, but there will be other things to put much more downward pressure on pricing.
Additionally, the FCC reclassified broadband as a minimum of 24Mbit, so if you're paying for "broadband" on your AT&T DSL plan, and you're not getting more than 24, then things might be changing soon.
@aspieRommel said: Also, I was watching Fox News the other day (LET"S NOT GET INTO THAT DISCUSSION) where they were talking about the FCC proposal and they had the FCC top dog (Not Wheeler, but someone else. I can't remember his name. When I see it I'll remember.) and he was saying that this would bring about new taxes and fees. Any response to this?
So I have heard mumblings that Ajit Pai (R), an FCC commissioner, has been warning the public that this plan will do more harm than good. His statements have been somewhat reaffirmed by Michael O'Rielly, another Republican FCC commissioner. They both make claims that I haven't been able to verify about increase in taxes, hidden fees and an overall increase in cost to the customer. I'll follow that by saying that I'm not buying what these two are selling. I would love to be able to read the 332 page plan for myself though.
@Sonorous THAT'S WHO IT WAS! Thanks for the name! Yes, it was Mr. Pai who was on Cavuto (I believe) talking about how this would raise or introduce new taxes. I believe what they are trying to do is make the counter-argument sound as "conservative" as possible so that people like me or @Creeperbane2 would automatically think it's a bad idea. However, the issue is that of knowing what the issue is. (For the next statement, please allow me to be political for just a minute. I am only saying this to make a point.) For example, during the mid-term elections last year, a lot of contested Democrats tried to appear "conservative" to save their seats, most notable being Former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) who switched from her opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline to trying to support it. However, knowledgeable voters knew her voting record on Keystone, so it didn't work and she lost to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA).
@aspieRommel said:
Sonorous THAT'S WHO IT WAS! Thanks for the name! Yes, it was Mr. Pai who was on Cavuto (I believe) talking about how this would raise or introduce new taxes. I believe what they are trying to do is make the counter-argument sound as "conservative" as possible so that people like me or Creeperbane2 would automatically think it's a bad idea. However, the issue is that of knowing what the issue is. (For the next statement, please allow me to be political for just a minute. I am only saying this to make a point.) For example, during the mid-term elections last year, a lot of contested Democrats tried to appear "conservative" to save their seats, most notable being Former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) who switched from her opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline to trying to support it. However, knowledgeable voters knew her voting record on Keystone, so it didn't work and she lost to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA).
I refuse to pass judgment until action is taken, I dropped affiliation long ago, it's just I trust nothing. An informed citizen keeps an eye on what the king does and all that...
0
RahnalH102the Green Devout, Veteran Monster Hunter, Creature EnthusiastNew MexicoIcrontian
@AlexDeGruven said:
Additionally, the FCC reclassified broadband as a minimum of 24Mbit, so if you're paying for "broadband" on your AT&T DSL plan, and you're not getting more than 24, then things might be changing soon.
I hope this is very soon cause I'm tired of 400kbs when we're paying for 3mbs. We've checked with our ISP and their charts say were supposed to be getting around 1.5 mbs, when we bring this to their attention, they deny it and say we don't have the infrastructure in this area for it, which is BS cause down the street, let lone in other parts of town, people get 10mbs or higher. There is only one other provider out here and they both do the same thing in regards to service. So hopefully this really changes things up here for the better.
There could be some truth to it, though. Not that it exonerates them in the slightest, but it's there.
In the town I live, the only alternative to Charter cable (which, fortunately have been a fantastic company to work with) is AT&T. In SOME areas, very very close to the main ingress point for AT&T, UVerse is available and works reasonably well. Go anywhere outside of that very narrow range, and everything degrades very quickly. The fastest AT&T can get us is 5mbps, which is laughable, especially due to the fact that they are priced on-par with Charter's offerings.
A friend of mine used to work as a lineman in my area for AT&T and when I asked him about UVerse his response (when he stopped laughing) was essentially "Dude, the copper in your area is so crappy, I'm surprised you can get DSL at all, let alone anything usable".
At the same time, if you are paying for 3Mbps, and they are only able to deliver 1.5, then they need to pony up and give you a big discount (and probably some retroactive). There's no way I'd tolerate paying for one thing and getting half consistently without making a big stink.
@aspieRommel said:
I am a free market conservative and believe the TC market is broken based on the fact that corporations can throttle your internet.
Can you expand on this? I think there are a lot of things broken in the telecom market, but selling 100mbs connections for more than 10mbs connections seems like a reasonable market solution to allocating ISP's bandwidth.
It's more that you can buy a 100Mbps connection but if you "use too much of it", they can knock you down. Also, caps (which are making a comeback on Comcast (but that might get whacked, now)).
Yeah, hidden caps are a good example of the market being broken. "Unlimited" data with asterisks and conditions is something I've run into on AT&T and am looking forward to them being smacked down for it. Also glad to have access to WOW as an alternative to Comcast where I live.
@georgeh said:
Can you expand on this? I think there are a lot of things broken in the telecom market, but selling 100mbs connections for more than 10mbs connections seems like a reasonable market solution to allocating ISP's bandwidth.
Basically, if I pay for, say, 100mbs, I expect 100mbs.
@aspieRommel said:
Basically, if I pay for, say, 100mbs, I expect 100mbs.
I had that situation when I tried to get ADSL 15 years ago. I was paying for 3 Mbps (which was decent at the time) and I only got 768 Kbit. It was a physical limitation of my line (or a limitation of their technician's ability to troubleshoot). My choices were either to accept it or cancel. Luckily I had other options so I switched to cable.
I think that more competition would definitely help here, but if I was paying for 100 Mbps and only getting 60 Mbps, I would downgrade to their 60 Mbps service.
@georgeh said:
I think that more competition would definitely help here, but if I was paying for 100 Mbps and only getting 60 Mbps, I would downgrade to their 60 Mbps service.
Well, if it is a physical limitation, that's one thing. But to say that you are giving me 100mbs but only giving me 60mbs, barring any physical limitations, then that is shady business and I don't appreciate that.
Comments
There is no such thing as a fair shake. The odds are too stacked in his favor.
I am a free market conservative and believe the TC market is broken based on the fact that corporations can throttle your internet.
So whenever this type of thing gets mentioned, I always see responses like "Why do we need to regulate? Shouldn't the free-market take care of this?" and other such things. And that's fine, valid questions for just about a any other industry. But this is not just any other industry.
In the early days, telecom providers (including cable TV) lobbied congress and municipalities to allow them exclusive access to run the lines to provide services (phone, TV, etc), under the assumption that they would be able to provide the best possible service without having to worry about that pesky competition.
And it worked, for a while. Long enough for the companies to bask in their effective government-mandated monopolies and stop worrying about spending money on things like "innovation" and "customer service", funneling that money into more lobbying and lawyering-up any time a municipality tried to change their mind and create their own broadband provider, etc.
So now we have a situation where the largest cable company wants to buy the second-largest cable company because, you know, free market and all that. Don't worry about monopolies, there's FIOS in some areas, AT&T DSL (L-O-L) in others, and hey, Google Fiber is in 2 markets so COMPETITION! Look at all this competition we have to deal with!
It's now gotten to the point where Comcast's proposed merger with Time Warner (see above) is in jeopardy because Comcast's customer service is SO BAD, the FTC doesn't think it's quite such a good idea anymore, even with all those $100 bills sticking out of their underwear.
"How bad is it?", you ask. How about so bad a reporter called Comcast's CEO's mother.
Now, I'm not one to condone the harassment of someone's family members to get results, but really. If your company is so bad at doing half of its job that people think it's finally time to resort to these methods, then yes, more regulation will be a good thing.
@AlexDeGruven I have AT&T DSL and it sucks. Also, I was watching Fox News the other day (LET"S NOT GET INTO THAT DISCUSSION) where they were talking about the FCC proposal and they had the FCC top dog (Not Wheeler, but someone else. I can't remember his name. When I see it I'll remember.) and he was saying that this would bring about new taxes and fees. Any response to this?
I personally haven't heard any reason why there would be new taxes and fees.
My hunch is that talking heads say things like that because their audience has been trained by the media as a whole to associate any government involvement with taxes or waste. "New regulation? Of course that means new taxes!"
If there do turn out to be new taxes, then my next question would be if they are worth the potential benefits we get from increased regulation. Hard to say with no data to go by, but I can certainly imagine scenarios where they would be.
Can't recall where I heard this or whether it was anything other than speculation, but it had something to do with the tax that's intended to get service to rural areas. It's currently attached to landline bills, and would be shifted to internet service so of course it's a new tax...because it helps the ISP's cause. That's why everyone dropped landlines in the first place...
It's always a possibility, taxes at least. By regulating as a utility, the gov't can levy a tax to help pay for infrastructure growth in underserved areas. But at the same time, regulation may eliminate some of the BS fees you see on your bill already that are imposed by the carrier/provider because "fee" looks official and makes it easier for them to raise prices without actually raising the price (see: Verizon and AT&T and their "upgrade fee").
Additionally, competition puts downward pressure on prices. If the new regulations open the wires for any provider to come in, breaking those monopolies, then there's no reason why a new company couldn't come in and undercut everyone in the area by 50% or more (I'll have to dig for the source, but I read somewhere that cable internet has somewhere in the 90% profit margin).
So yes, there is a chance there will be more taxes imposed, but there will be other things to put much more downward pressure on pricing.
Additionally, the FCC reclassified broadband as a minimum of 24Mbit, so if you're paying for "broadband" on your AT&T DSL plan, and you're not getting more than 24, then things might be changing soon.
Maybe the burden of proof should be on the people making claims like that, not the rest of us. I'm pretty sure that's how actual news shows work.
So I have heard mumblings that Ajit Pai (R), an FCC commissioner, has been warning the public that this plan will do more harm than good. His statements have been somewhat reaffirmed by Michael O'Rielly, another Republican FCC commissioner. They both make claims that I haven't been able to verify about increase in taxes, hidden fees and an overall increase in cost to the customer. I'll follow that by saying that I'm not buying what these two are selling. I would love to be able to read the 332 page plan for myself though.
@Sonorous THAT'S WHO IT WAS! Thanks for the name! Yes, it was Mr. Pai who was on Cavuto (I believe) talking about how this would raise or introduce new taxes. I believe what they are trying to do is make the counter-argument sound as "conservative" as possible so that people like me or @Creeperbane2 would automatically think it's a bad idea. However, the issue is that of knowing what the issue is. (For the next statement, please allow me to be political for just a minute. I am only saying this to make a point.) For example, during the mid-term elections last year, a lot of contested Democrats tried to appear "conservative" to save their seats, most notable being Former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) who switched from her opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline to trying to support it. However, knowledgeable voters knew her voting record on Keystone, so it didn't work and she lost to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA).
I refuse to pass judgment until action is taken, I dropped affiliation long ago, it's just I trust nothing. An informed citizen keeps an eye on what the king does and all that...
I hope this is very soon cause I'm tired of 400kbs when we're paying for 3mbs. We've checked with our ISP and their charts say were supposed to be getting around 1.5 mbs, when we bring this to their attention, they deny it and say we don't have the infrastructure in this area for it, which is BS cause down the street, let lone in other parts of town, people get 10mbs or higher. There is only one other provider out here and they both do the same thing in regards to service. So hopefully this really changes things up here for the better.
There could be some truth to it, though. Not that it exonerates them in the slightest, but it's there.
In the town I live, the only alternative to Charter cable (which, fortunately have been a fantastic company to work with) is AT&T. In SOME areas, very very close to the main ingress point for AT&T, UVerse is available and works reasonably well. Go anywhere outside of that very narrow range, and everything degrades very quickly. The fastest AT&T can get us is 5mbps, which is laughable, especially due to the fact that they are priced on-par with Charter's offerings.
A friend of mine used to work as a lineman in my area for AT&T and when I asked him about UVerse his response (when he stopped laughing) was essentially "Dude, the copper in your area is so crappy, I'm surprised you can get DSL at all, let alone anything usable".
At the same time, if you are paying for 3Mbps, and they are only able to deliver 1.5, then they need to pony up and give you a big discount (and probably some retroactive). There's no way I'd tolerate paying for one thing and getting half consistently without making a big stink.
theres a neat-o countdown at the bottom of my browser...
Icrontic is automatically opted-in to Internet Defense League campaigns.
oh, cool...i thought you made the countdown, which would have been pretty cool too.
Can you expand on this? I think there are a lot of things broken in the telecom market, but selling 100mbs connections for more than 10mbs connections seems like a reasonable market solution to allocating ISP's bandwidth.
It's more that you can buy a 100Mbps connection but if you "use too much of it", they can knock you down. Also, caps (which are making a comeback on Comcast (but that might get whacked, now)).
Yeah, hidden caps are a good example of the market being broken. "Unlimited" data with asterisks and conditions is something I've run into on AT&T and am looking forward to them being smacked down for it. Also glad to have access to WOW as an alternative to Comcast where I live.
Unlimited.
Basically, if I pay for, say, 100mbs, I expect 100mbs.
does that mean that satellite internet will no longer be able to throttle internet speeds after, say, 10 Gb as is the case with me?
No
I had that situation when I tried to get ADSL 15 years ago. I was paying for 3 Mbps (which was decent at the time) and I only got 768 Kbit. It was a physical limitation of my line (or a limitation of their technician's ability to troubleshoot). My choices were either to accept it or cancel. Luckily I had other options so I switched to cable.
I think that more competition would definitely help here, but if I was paying for 100 Mbps and only getting 60 Mbps, I would downgrade to their 60 Mbps service.
Well, if it is a physical limitation, that's one thing. But to say that you are giving me 100mbs but only giving me 60mbs, barring any physical limitations, then that is shady business and I don't appreciate that.
meh, didnt think so but it was worth a shot.
Well hopefully come Thursday we'll finally get that carbon neutral internet.
It's happening...
But keep your cynic hats on for now just in case.
Yeah, that's why my FB post about it was a guarded "this looks good"