Posted on 12/15/2017 6:39:39 AM PST by Erik Latranyi
I've had VONAGE phone service for nearly TEN years.
I had it some two years before Comcast even offered it.
After Comcast began offering it and getting me to try to switch from Vonage to Comcast's phone service.. for nearly a year and a half I had a constant problem with being in the middle of a phone conversation and suddenly losing connectivity. This would happen 60% of the time I was on a call that lasted longer than 7 minutes.
I eventually found out through a Comcast technician that this was a Comcast tactic employed to get non-Comcast phone service users to switch to Comcast.
My point: Comcast had the upper hand of CONTROL because Vonage needed an Internet connection to pass through in order to work.
Comcast CONTROLLED that connectivity. My only alternative for connectivity at the time was AT&T's DSL, which IMO was inferior and cost nearly as much as Comcast.
By the way.. during this interruptive period I was deluged with emails, snail mail ads, and TV commercials trying to sell users, like myself, on Comcast's Internet phone service.
ALL of this happened during a period when there was NO NET NEUTRALITY. Between 2005 and 2012, five attempts to pass bills in Congress containing net neutrality provisions failed. Each sought to prohibit Internet service providers from using various variable pricing models based upon the user's quality of service level, described as tiered service in the industry and as price discrimination arising from abuse of "local monopolies enshrined in law" by some economists
Net Neutrality came into existence in 2015.
I'm sure Kaslin will do her usual excellent job of posting his opening comments this evening. :-)
Given that they provide the product, including infrastructure and support, shouldn’t they control it? The only thing I would change is to introduce an easier means to compete with them in providing that service.
And we all know that the best way to increase competition and choices is to get government involved. After all, the ACA has done wonders for the availability and affordability of health care.
Government is not the answer for this particular problem. They will stagnate the issue at the point they got their grubby mits on it. If a company treats its customers poorly, in a free market other companies will step forward to offer better services and products.
Easier SAID than DONE!
Sadly, there are those who believe that the government can do a better job of controlling things than those DASTARDLY, EVIL CORPORATIONS. Health care, climate, and now the internet; control of all these should now be handed over to Washington DC!
"Oh no! Oh no!" They'll object; "Just a little bit of control!" Right; just like the camel's nose in the tent.
Why they are on a conservative forum like Free Republic, I cannot for the life of me understand.
So YOU'RE anti-Government.
Strangely.. SOMETIMES, like a broken clock which is RIGHT twice a day, the Government isn't ALWAYS wrong.
My Point: There are times when Government ACTUALLY BENEFITS and PROTECTS BOTH Citizens and Consumers.
I learned long ago that there are NO ABSOLUTES so therefore Government ISN'T ALWAYS WRONG.
And NN wasn't one of those times.
I'm anti bad government. You apparently can't tell the difference. Telling.
Government helped create the cable monopoly - Comcast - that you railed against. What makes you think government can improve the internet?
Government has screwed up health care, education, even toilets. Only someone oblivious to the history of such thinks that government regulating the internet like a utility would be an improvement.
So what happened here in Canada with ISP providers is they put limits on how much high speed a user can have. You get various tiers to pay for. We are in the 500 GB tier, which we come close to, only because we are using Netflix on the highest quality setting. We pay $80 for it, which sucks, but I rather have that than the government get involved.
You're entitled to your opinion.
That doesn't make me wrong.
We'll let things unfold and then we'll BOTH know who was correct.
As I said earlier.. "realize it's a "tug of war" over the direction and the DOLLARS."
My point: It has little to do with protection of the consumer, which NN does.
yep
What could possibly go wrong with sending your DNA off to complete strangers???
I’m a bit confused because I thought net neutrality never actually got into place. There were 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans on the FCC and so they were deadlocked. The Dummies wanted NN but couldn’t get it.
Hey, it’s the Obamacare provider bins!
Like I said "Broken Clock" and there are "NO ABSOLUTES"
Government sometimes actually benefits us.
Apparently in your world it never does. Which is a STRANGE POV.
Read it and chuckle:
Good point. I have friends who claim that these companies doing the DNA testing are a front for the CIA and NSA who are busy creating the beginnings of a National DNA database.
Again, you're right..What could possibly go wrong?
I believe 23 and Me is a Google subsidiary, so.....
Yes, I agree that it will probably be swept into a national database if it isn’t already. But hey, people say it’s all just tinfoil - everything is no problem.....
>>>>Google invested $3,900,000 in the company, along with Genentech, New Enterprise Associates, and Mohr Davidow Ventures.[13] Wojcicki was married to Google co-founder Sergey Brin at the time.[7]<<<<<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23andMe
Damn, wish I hear it. There is no cogent argument even on FR. Everyone has different viewpoint and opinions and they all seem to make a good point.
I am kind of knee-jerk and am against it because of those who support it which doesn’t make me feel like I’m on firm footing yet. Anything you find that might help to better explain it will be greatly appreciated, thanks.
Apparently you are twisting my words. I demonstrated that government involvement helped create the mess you complained about, but you still cling to the notion that maybe this time government will make this situation better.
Government does good in some areas - military, law enforcement, even some level of regulation - but regulation of market access? Meh. History is on my side, not yours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.