Posted on 11/21/2017 10:55:59 AM PST by smileyface
“Not sure how “net neutrality” or eliminating it is going to impact my pretty crappy Comcast service”
The big thing, is that more is likely to be invested in expanding capacity, and developing competitors over time.
From the article:
“AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have said that repealing the rules could lead to billions of dollars in additional broadband investment”.
When the Government limits profits, less investment will occur. On top of that simple math, there is the added risk of further Government interference and expense - even total loss - when the Government shows that it is moving in to control an industry. Investors head for greener pastures.
Besides existing providers sinking more capital to expand capacity, improving the prospect of financial return by taking the Government’s boot off of business, should also make it more attractive (and easier) for new competitors to enter. New technologies for networking could overturn cable companies and cell phone providers - providing better, faster and cheaper service - but not if the Government has the market rigged to stay just like the current politicians want.
That was what net neutrality basically did - informally nationalized or enslaved telecom companies, within a narrow band of freedom dictated by regulatory bureaucrats. It was a factor in repressing the investment in infrastructure, that may well have resulted in the declining quality of service that you experienced.
Great analysis!
The term “Net Neutrality” is very misleading. Nothing “neutral” about it.
Key word: COULD. It's far more likely that those billions of dollars end up in shareholder's dividends which if I were a shareholder, that's exactly where I'd want them to be.
I don't fault companies for making a profit. I do fault companies that make profits and provide such SHITTY service as Comcast does.
The idea that the restaurant market even remotely resembles the ISP market is patently absurd.
Analogy fail.
Its a product/service, just like any other. Big gov should stay out of it.
Yes, another win...
You really don’t understand quasi-monopolies, do you?
You are being conned here. Obama just signed off on a law that had been written by others and planned for years that simply codified the way the internet has always been. That law didn’t change anything. Net neutrality is the only internet we have ever known. NN is core to what the internet is. Without it, the internet is essentially Comcast digital cable on demand.
I’m worried by how badly many conservatives have been deceived on this. The telecom industry has targeted conservatives with a massive lobbying campaign full of dishonest and misleading talking points. Just because some liberals like net neutrality doesn’t mean we should be against it.
Net neutrality is essential to the existence of a conservative internet. There is no possible benefit to ending it. The push against NN is entirely coming from telecom industry lobbyists whose companies produce their own content and want to freeze out independent content producers. Those companies are all run by the worst sorts of liberals. This change would empower those media industry leftists to block conservative sites.
For anyone who has at all noticed the rise of radical political correctness and the increasing pressure for censorship from the the establishment, the end of NN is terrifying. Anyone who understands the internet and how the telecom industry works can see what will happen. Content will have to be packaged into larger blocks to negotiate with the providers. That gives a chokepoint that will be used to block the inclusion of non-PC speech.
This is incredibly frustrating to see many conservatives take a dangerously wrong stance on an issue they do no understand, due to a lobbying campaign by some of the most liberal multi-nationalis.
More WINNING!
Go President Trump!!!
This was a back door plan to censoring and controlling the Internet by Obama and his Globalists buddies.
Great move to leave the Internet on it’s own and not controlled by the FCC.
Of course the NY Times is going to try to trick their readers into thinking it’s a bad thing.
There is no free market in ISPs. Cable companies generally have monopolies. Most markets have a cable provider and inferior dsl alternative.
It’s the worst example of knee-jerk political tribalism that assumes anything the other side does is bad simply because its them doing it. I thought people here were critical thinkers.
Anything that’s bad for Google and Facebook is good for the American people. Anything that undoes anything Odumbo did is good for the American people.
Your logic is impeccable.
Net Neutrality law is making it illegal for cable and cell phone companies to take over the internet. Since Google is neither then of course they oppose it. They’re not the only one opposing it either.
They don’t want a situation where Verizon is allowed to block Google Maps from your phone and only allow you to use Verizon Maps, thus stealing a lot of Google business.
While cell phone providers have some competition it is often not so for the cable providers. Just see above the trouble one freeper has to put up with because Comcast is the only cable he can get. Now imagine giving Comcast the power to block or throttle services like Amazon.
Eliminating net neutrality makes it possible for Comcast executives to walk into the Amazon headquarters and saying things like "Nice online shop you have there. Would be a shame if suddenly Comcast customers couldn't access it. You really should consider paying for the Extended Protection Package."
That pretty much sums up what Comcast is driving at. Great graphic, I’m “borrowing” it ... just glad I’m not in China. LOL!!
I would assume FR would be a target for slowing.
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong but rescinding net neutrality leaves the FCC as the final arbitrator of any disputes. So here is the scenario if it gets rescinded; Comcast decides to slow down access to all conservative sites for its customers, Verizon does the same. Conservative sites complain to the FCC, it takes years to get resolved and when it finally gets to the arbitration board, a Democratic President is in charge and his appointed FCC board decides against the conservative sites. Could happen during an election cycle like Lerner did when Obama weaponized the IRS. Despite my gut reaction against anything Obama did, this scenario could play out, no?
The mechanism would allow it. In the past they didn’t mess with the political topics though. They tried to make money by attempting to block services like Skype so that people would have to pay their overseas call rates to keep in touch with friends and family abroad. The reason Skype won over competing internet call services was that it did clever things to bypass these blocks. Verizon was also blocking Google Wallet service in 2012. I suspect the cell network companies would very much like to block Google Maps and roll out their own map solutions.
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.