A lit of things that would be a lot better without government bureaucracy.

quote:

---

A lit of things that would be a lot better without government bureaucracy.

---

You're right, state supported local monopolies with the ability to do whatever they want is not the answer.

Correct.

Anyone that ever lived in B/CS in the era of Cox/Suddenlink/Cablevision should know this. The internet here sucks and we cant get anything better due to BS government getting in the way.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why the **** is everyone phrasing this as a government takeover of the internet business? This isn't takeover - it's regulation.

---

I fail to see the difference.

---

I also fail to see the difference....

---

You can't see the difference between say, the Post Office, and any number of regulated industries?

Air travel
Pharmaceuticals and clinical research
Energy
Communications/Media

---

Don't expect this bunch of blithering idiots to be able to rationally comprehend facts.

I wish i could have suddenlink right now. I was getting consistent speeds, minus their weekly outage, and paying less for more speed than what i'm doing now with AT&T fiber...

I would love to switch to Charter in my area, but my apartment isn't eligible. They are offering $20 or $40 for 20mbs. I'm paying $80 for 12 and i don't even get 12, i average 2 to 3 if that...screw AT&T

FCC calls out AT&T on their Fiber

the comments on Reddit, i find interesting, and have no idea how to begin to find evidence to the top comments claims. Any one care to help out?


http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/2mbcs3/fcc_calls_atts_fiber_bluff_demands_detailed/

Like this claim?

quote:

---

they got like 20 billion for it 8 or 10 years ago, the money disappeared, federal judge has a "special task force" on it. was in the news for a day like a year ago. nobody cared, nobody seems to ever remember that, not even the FCC.
I guess the money is just gone as "special task force" normally means it will just go away...

---

and this response

quote:

---

Try $200 billion and 18 years ago. The money didn't disappear; it went straight to their bottom lines during an era of record profits and growth for the telecommunications industry (immediately preceding a completely predictable crash). We were supposed to have bi-directional 45mbps broadband for $40/mo IN PLACE 8-10 years ago. In major cities you can only just recently get those speeds (downstream only, of course) for roughly double that price; everywhere else, you're still screwed

---

How does one go about finding how true these are?

Porn stars explain Net Neutrality
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/9873757f97/porn-star-net-neutrality

Many people had the same complaints when cell phone companies started to limit data usage. My observation of the path of that industry over the last 10 year is: 1) boom time with fairly cheap rates and unlimited data but most users didn't have smart phones so it was no big deal; 2) oversold their network's capabilities (much like the ISPs that can't keep up with their current demand) and raise rates by large percentages; 3) solution is to limit data usage with pricing, everyone *****es, people rush to get unlimited iphone plans then never drop them; 4) companies like AT&T actually start telling their customers how much data they use and how much money they can save by going to a limited plan; 5) cell plan prices finally start to come down.

I feel like highspeed internet is in a similar place to 2 & 3. Right now, customers who want good internet speeds for things like gaming are subsidizing the use of the downloaders.

Personally, I like the model of the government subsidizing the cost of building infrastructure, but then allowing anyone to compete using that infrastructure. And no, companies like AT&T don't need a monopoly period afterwards to recoup their expenditures. AT&T will always have built in advantages that smaller starts up can't easily obtain. If Congress needs to pass any law, it would be a ban on any governmental entity granting a monopoly within a demonstratively competitive market. If they were to do that, competition alone would drive down ISP prices and improve quality in practically every town in the US.

IMO net neutrality is just different sides of the market asking Uncle Sam for his protection. If the ISPs start charging Netflix more for their data usage, their price will be forced to go up, thereby driving more people to go back to cable. Net neutrality would prevent that, thereby allowing companies like Netflix to maintain that market advantage. It's not about free speech, it's not about the NSA (they will do what they want regardless), it's about business handouts, pure and simple.

Stop streaming, pay for storage, and let the issue be moot.

So any thoughts on the recent decision? Has anyone looked at the nitty gritty details?

quote:

---

So any thoughts on the recent decision? Has anyone looked at the nitty gritty details?

---

there are no details, they had to pass it to write it