|
Post by kellerowl on Dec 15, 2017 9:33:26 GMT -5
Thats a little overstated. They required it to run more like a business but they still subsidize it. State of California is going to run into the same issue in just a few years as they are operating like all the California employees will never retire. The state is grossly unfunded. Novel concept to ask government entities to operate within their revenue parameters. All of the sky is falling, doom and gloom on the subject will never come about. Competition, if allowed to compete, will always find openings. sure tell us just what private corporations fund their retirements for the next 75 years. No accounting rules are just for the actuarial life of the employee. The 75 years is probably the average life expectancy of the worker so your premise is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by somedad on Dec 15, 2017 12:13:22 GMT -5
I feel compelled to jump in - weird on this forum to see this issue. My input is random, but hopefully relevant
1) Thanks to the person who explained what we all refer to as "Net Neutrality" is, codifying that "common carriers" have to pass and accept traffic. Most of what I read is people telling me why NN is either bad or good. Every original source trying to tell me how I should think, but most importantly lobby my government representative, has their own agenda.
2) Laws of Economics and personal motivation are. We assign good and bad to the behavior and the laws. Words like "hard working" and "greedy" are flip sides of the same coin. So the laws are and do describe economic behavior that is/does take place. Regulation, any regulation, changes the economic environment and either slightly or significantly changes economic behavior. Economics will generally tell you that profit in a certain space will lead to more activity in that space, and that entities in a profitable space will do all they can to prevent competitors from entering that space. Regulations, Licenses, Certifications are barriers to entry, and we can argue weather they are necessary or artificial Another barrier to entry is business loss. Amazon created their space for a long time by not showing a profit, and even now, with the exception of their cloud hosting, Amazon does not really show a profit. That has prevented others from directly competing with Amazon, and now they are so big, there is no true competitor. Remember when their competitor was Barnes and Noble? Ahhh good times. Anyway, the existing big names in the Internet want to control the direction of the Internet and maintain their market leadership, profitability and market capitalization. Be leery of what entrenched companies want you to believe. No way does Google want to make it as easy as possible for their future competitor to challenge their dominance. Just ask Yahoo and MySpace.
3) Somehow, some way, despite the lack of NN, companies that did not exist 25 years ago completely became more relevant than Microsoft, who everyone thought would take over the world, who displaced IBM, who everyone thought would take over the world, who was challenged by Xerox and Kodak? Who - exactly my point. All this happened without NN. The development of the very large and powerful companies happened without NN. Shocking to hear that those companies are now threatened if we don't have NN. Really, think about that. Now I get the argument that all NN does is maintain the Status Quo. But if you look at the Telecom industry, you will find very highly paid people who's only job is to lobby state and federal government. They are not lobbying to ensure opportunities for their competitors. AT&T was notorious for lobbying state government to pass/approve tariffs "regulating" AT&T. When AT&T's smaller competitors complained about how much AT&T charged to, this is important, "satisfy the government mandate to pass and accept all traffic to other carriers" AT&T would say, "There is nothing we can do, we are governed by this Tariff, and by the rules of the state, we can't deviate from it. Really, if you have a complaint, you need to complain to the state, there is nothing that we at AT&T can do. Our hands are tied" AT&T was able to charge other companies to pass and accept traffic because they needed equipment and management to enable the passing of that traffic.. So, the regulators allowed them to make a certain return on that investment. How it broke down in the telecom space, if you passed as much traffic as you accepted, the cost from each balanced out. But if there was an imbalance either way, one party bore a cost, the other party made a profit. Large (and smaller) ISPs have cost as well.............So, any high school or college debate team member will tell you that the only way to maintain the status quo is to actually maintain the status quo. It is nearly impossible to inject regulation to maintain the status quo. The real argument, and I am not saying that it is invalid, is "Should the federal government have more or fewer regulations on the Internet."
4) For better or for worse, companies act in the best interest of the people who run them. It would be nice to say they operate in the best interest of the owners, regardless of the private or public nature of the owners, but human nature dictates that people act in their own self interest. So, when peoples' interests are to "do no harm" or to "bring people together to build homes, community and hope", and those people at that company, not companies, really mean it, business makes a better society. When people are selfish and greedy, companies can have a negative effect on society, but with our relative free flow of information, make possible in large part by the Internet, greedy usually gets called on the carpet and it's negative effect is blunted. Most companies want to make money, and we all need to choose how we spend our $ and support the right companies. So if your company is acting unfairly toward certain segments, you have an obligation to contact that company and challenge them. Move your business if you have to. Almost all of us currently have a choice in ISP, and with greater penetration of 5G on the horizon the competitive landscape will again be rocked, choose the company that aligns best to your business ethics, and make it in the company's best interest to align themselves to you.
5) This forum will survive, it is a very small boat that will rise or fall with the tide, and the Internet is the tide, and the Internet is not going away. It might be shaped by regulation or lack of regulation but it is not going away. The only entity that can make it go away is a regulating body with national reach. I don't think we will let that organization make it go away.
6) Regarding the milk example from page one, and the video on the beer.....those examples could be used to justify the other side. The entity pinching the straw could be companies hiding behind government regulation as is the case in the telecom world. The straw pincher could be a regulator who determines what kind of speech we should or should not be allowed to hear. Ask folks in other countries who's political views are outside of what a foreign government thinks it ought be if regulation is good for free political speech. The straw pincher does not have to be a greedy ISP. And, personally, I am at the whim of a straw pincher today. AT&T mobile. And I am ok with it. I happily moved from a limited data plan to unlimited, with the deal being that when I get certain level, I allow AT&T to pinch the straw to, if they have to, slow down the data transfer. Straw pinching is an economic tool to encourage people to self limit how much of a scarce resource they consume. If I know that I will be riding in a car toward the end of my billing period and I for sure want to live stream an event, I don't exceed my limit. For AT&T, their current investment does limit how much data they can simultaneously download at any pinch point. So the customer's self regulation helps ensure that bandwidth is available to all who ask for it when they ask.
7) On the Beer - no bartender who wants a tip, another economic tool, will slow pour. Especially if there is a bar with capacity across the street. That tender will at least earn a lesser tip, and may lose the business altogether. Ironically, the tender really does not care about lost business, the tender cares about a lost tip. The owner is the only one who cares about lost business, as long as the buyer comes back, otherwise future tips are at risk making the tender again care. Anyway, in Wisconsin, there are many corner bars that when created maybe had to pay a $5 liquor license. Fast forward to 2017, and many many corner bars just don't have the business to justify the cost to keep their license because they don't have enough seats in the establishment for the much higher cost of the license. In more corrupt cities across the US, large establishments have used a high priced liquor license to drive smaller competitors from the market. They used regulation to eliminate competition.
8) We have the FTC who can weigh in and "regulate" predatory practice and ensure competition.
9) I had a friend who once said "Rush Limbaugh, he should be chopped up and sold by the pound." I thought to myself, "wow, I have to find out who this person is if they can cause my buddy to have such a strong reaction." If you listen exclusively to Rush, tune in to NPR once in a while, and vice versa. Really, the tactics of those who want to shape your thought are to shame you into listening to only one viewpoint. Challenge people who tell you, "WOW, you really watch (fill in the blank." Or, "You can't tell anyone that you listen to (fill in the blank) they will think you are crazy"
10) There are two extremes in news/media. In a capitalist society, media exists to sell advertising. In a government regulated society, media exists to prop up the current government. Sounds harsh, but really, those are the only two models. At least in a capitalist society, if you want objective journalism, you can support it when you find it. However, no one, not even Walter Cronkite back in the day or the folks who wrote what showed up on the teleprompter, provided "objective" journalism. Everyone in the media has an agenda, your job is to use your filter to figure out the angle and discren the truth. And let's face it, about the only objective coverage is the performance of individual stocks and bonds, and the box score of a sporting event. Reading about the hows and the whys of a company's or a team's performance from a biased journalist is way more fun. Really, everyone has an angle. Figure out what it is. The journalist may think that they don't, but human nature says that they do and their coverage is affected by it.
11) NN or no NN, we have to be as involved as we are now to ensure an open society that fosters opportunity. Create your own microcosm of what you want the world to be, trust that others are doing the same, and we will all be better for it. Don't ever assume that we have the right rules, or lack there of, in place which allow us to stop working to support opportunity and the pursuit of happiness.
Well, I feel better for getting that off my chest, and isn't that what this forum is all about?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 15, 2017 13:43:48 GMT -5
But can you actually switch ISPs? I cannot currently. Nor can a large number of Americans. I can. We have a couple of choices. Not enough frankly. What I said far earlier in the thread, which has been echo'd by others is the need for deregulation's that would assist new ISP's into forming. Competition is what will keep the checks and balances in place. I want multiple ISP's fighting for my business. Once again, THIS deregulation does not help new ISPs form. It just gives this oligopoly more power to abuse.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 15, 2017 13:48:21 GMT -5
I can. We have a couple of choices. Not enough frankly. What I said far earlier in the thread, which has been echo'd by others is the need for deregulation's that would assist new ISP's into forming. Competition is what will keep the checks and balances in place. I want multiple ISP's fighting for my business. Once again, THIS deregulation does not help new ISPs form. It just gives this oligopoly more power to abuse. Obviously the big ISPs did not fight so hard for this so that they could make it easier for competitors to enter the field and take away their market share. Sometimes people are so blinded by their ideologies (eg. "government regulation stifles competition") that they ignore reality right in front of them.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 15, 2017 13:55:06 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure the reason the cable companies wanted this so badly is the trend toward "cord cutting". They are seeing people walk away from buying the very profitable TV and telephone services and instead just buy internet access. Then the cable companies are left with providing the internet bandwidth for their own replacements (subscription TV streaming, skype, etc.). Getting rid of net neutrality will allow the cable companies to either tap into the money stream by squeezing the providers or else charge the customers fees to access the services. Or both.
|
|
|
Post by boxarox on Dec 15, 2017 21:27:12 GMT -5
A benevolent dictator is, a dictator. An internet with government controls is, a government-controlled internet. I can't imagine how any free, thinking person could willingly accept either.....because of what invariably happens next in each case.
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Dec 15, 2017 22:04:29 GMT -5
A benevolent dictator is, a dictator. An internet with government controls is, a government-controlled internet. I can't imagine how any free, thinking person could willingly accept either.....because of what invariably happens next in each case. You’re right. No regulations. It worked well when corporations destroyed our environment. It worked well when corporations poisoned our citizens and lied about it. It worked well... wait, it didn’t work well. Here’s the deal. Corporations don’t care about people, they care about money and when people understand that, it works, because we can put boundaries on (regulations) that allow them to innovate while protecting people from corporate abuses. The whole idea of no regulation leads to eutopia is ridiculous, because if you go country to country, the ones without basic regulations are anything but. But going too far with regulations is equally damaging. There will always be disagreement on where that line should be. The internet is a fundamental part of our society and allowing a small group of corporations to dictate who and what can access whatever they want is not what I think is good for society. I don’t want government to tell me what I can see or access, and I don’t want corporations to do that. And repealing net neutrality does just that, it allows corporations other then the content providers to dictate what I can and can’t see, how I see it, and how much I need to pay to see it. Unless someone can explain why repealing THIS regulation allows for ISP’s to be more innovative there is really no logical explanation for it benefiting society.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 15, 2017 22:11:50 GMT -5
A benevolent dictator is, a dictator. An internet with government controls is, a government-controlled internet. I can't imagine how any free, thinking person could willingly accept either.....because of what invariably happens next in each case. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The only "government control" involved here is the government trying to control that the corporations don't control our internet. Let's look at your statement with a few words switched: "A benevolent dictator is a dictator. A state with police is a police-state. I can't imagine how any free, thinking person could willingly accept either.....because of what invariably happens next in each case." You can have police without living in a police state, and you can have government regulations on ISPs without having a government-controlled internet.
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Dec 15, 2017 22:13:11 GMT -5
A benevolent dictator is, a dictator. An internet with government controls is, a government-controlled internet. I can't imagine how any free, thinking person could willingly accept either.....because of what invariably happens next in each case. The other irony with this, is that net neutrality enhances your freedom to view what you want. Repealing net neutrality will in the end likely limit what people can view as companies profitize areas they can by adding additional costs, or content if the industry were to go in that direction which I think is less likely.
|
|
rook
Sophomore
Posts: 180
|
Post by rook on Dec 16, 2017 0:22:16 GMT -5
I’m very confused here, so please explain it to this simpleton....you say VT will cease to exist without net neutrality...exactly how did VT exist BEFORE net neutrality was put into place in 2015? The internet was just fine before net neutrality and so was VT, and it will be fine after it, as will VT.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 16, 2017 0:29:26 GMT -5
I’m very confused here, so please explain it to this simpleton....you say VT will cease to exist without net neutrality...exactly how did VT exist BEFORE net neutrality was put into place in 2015? The internet was just fine before net neutrality and so was VT, and it will be fine after it, as will VT. No one said VT "will cease to exist" after net neutrality comes into effect. At least, not right away. As for the other, as I pointed out before, "net neutrality" is basically the default position. The internet was designed for it, and pretty much every ISP operated under this assumption anyway. So why did it get made a policy in 2015? Because several large ISPs announced plans to move away from it. These are not hypothetical concerns about throttling back certain kinds of content. The big cable companies announced that they were going to do it. So the feds blocked them by making the decision that they were "common carriers" and could not do that. They were unhappy, because they really do want to throttle back the streaming video that competes with their own bread-and-butter cable TV. So they waited a couple years until Trump got elected, and then had him give them what Obama had refused to let them take.
|
|
|
Post by ocmyhome on Dec 16, 2017 0:46:27 GMT -5
It's as though the internet sucked all the way up to 2015, and once 2015 hit and net neutrality became a thing, the internet suddenly became super awesomer... The private industry will provide better outcomes than a gov't bureaucracy...
|
|
rook
Sophomore
Posts: 180
|
Post by rook on Dec 16, 2017 0:53:28 GMT -5
I’m very confused here, so please explain it to this simpleton....you say VT will cease to exist without net neutrality...exactly how did VT exist BEFORE net neutrality was put into place in 2015? The internet was just fine before net neutrality and so was VT, and it will be fine after it, as will VT. No one said VT "will cease to exist" after net neutrality comes into effect. At least, not right away. As for the other, as I pointed out before, "net neutrality" is basically the default position. The internet was designed for it, and pretty much every ISP operated under this assumption anyway. So why did it get made a policy in 2015? Because several large ISPs announced plans to move away from it. These are not hypothetical concerns about throttling back certain kinds of content. The big cable companies announced that they were going to do it. So the feds blocked them by making the decision that they were "common carriers" and could not do that. They were unhappy, because they really do want to throttle back the streaming video that competes with their own bread-and-butter cable TV. So they waited a couple years until Trump got elected, and then had him give them what Obama had refused to let them take. Isn’t it in the companies best interest to provide a good product to its customers? If att streaming of netflix, hulu, etc. sucks because they want you buying their directv package, wouldn’t a competitor like Comcast be smart to capitalize on this by offering faster streaming of internet streaming services? Couldn’t Verizon or t-mobile benefit by offering more data at cheaper rates so you can unplug altogether and stream via a solid LTE network? This whole thing sounds like USAV’s lame excuses for their stay-and-play policy. “We have to do things this way to keep the costs of hotels low for our customers.” The reality...you can go online and get the same room for $30, $40, $50 cheaper, and stay-and-play, like most over-zealous regulations, creates its own racket. No one on the NN side seams to think of the cost side of things for the distributor either. What happens if that internet service provider goes under because they can’t make a profit because the government forces them to provide certain services (streaming) well below cost? What happens if they all go under? The internet is not a right, companies who provide internet service have to be able to make money. So they can reinvest and make the service better. The market works if we let it work. There are laws in place that make it illegal to collude, so one company’s failure will be another company’s gain.
|
|
|
Post by hustleslowly on Dec 16, 2017 1:25:46 GMT -5
No one said VT "will cease to exist" after net neutrality comes into effect. At least, not right away. As for the other, as I pointed out before, "net neutrality" is basically the default position. The internet was designed for it, and pretty much every ISP operated under this assumption anyway. So why did it get made a policy in 2015? Because several large ISPs announced plans to move away from it. These are not hypothetical concerns about throttling back certain kinds of content. The big cable companies announced that they were going to do it. So the feds blocked them by making the decision that they were "common carriers" and could not do that. They were unhappy, because they really do want to throttle back the streaming video that competes with their own bread-and-butter cable TV. So they waited a couple years until Trump got elected, and then had him give them what Obama had refused to let them take. Isn’t it in the companies best interest to provide a good product to its customers? If att streaming of netflix, hulu, etc. sucks because they want you buying their directv package, wouldn’t a competitor like Comcast be smart to capitalize on this by offering faster streaming of internet streaming services? Couldn’t Verizon or t-mobile benefit by offering more data at cheaper rates so you can unplug altogether and stream via a solid LTE network? This whole thing sounds like USAV’s lame excuses for their stay-and-play policy. “We have to do things this way to keep the costs of hotels low for our customers.” The reality...you can go online and get the same room for $30, $40, $50 cheaper, and stay-and-play, like most over-zealous regulations, creates its own racket. No one on the NN side seams to think of the cost side of things for the distributor either. What happens if that internet service provider goes under because they can’t make a profit because the government forces them to provide certain services (streaming) well below cost? What happens if they all go under? The internet is not a right, companies who provide internet service have to be able to make money. So they can reinvest and make the service better. The market works if we let it work. There are laws in place that make it illegal to collude, so one company’s failure will be another company’s gain. You're assuming there's competition and that people can just switch providers. Remember when Netflix was purposely slowed down? Or when you couldn't use FaceTime on at&t when it first came out (although wireless is handled differently)?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 16, 2017 2:06:39 GMT -5
It's as though the internet sucked all the way up to 2015, and once 2015 hit and net neutrality became a thing, the internet suddenly became super awesomer... The private industry will provide better outcomes than a gov't bureaucracy... It's as if people refuse to read anything that anyone else wrote in this thread and decided to just make straw-man comments instead.
|
|