[tomder55]

I don't believe in monopolies. That doesn't mean that other competing companies gets a free ride either . I would charge them a fee for the access. Transmission lines for electicity was strung all over the country . The power company here at least is forced to carry electricity generated by other providers ,especially so called 'green ' energy producers . But providers of the net are not subject to a single transmission vehicle . You can get your service through fiber optic lines ,through your cable provider ,by satt .etc. The service I use does not own the phone line to my modem.

[NeedKarma]

The problem is that the US (and by some extent Canada as well) does not have true competition in the internet access field. Let to their own devices the handful of providers would (and do) collude to offer less services for higher fees. An example of this is their wanting to mess with net neutrality to further increase their revenues.

[tomder55]

or maybe companies like Netflix wants to demand unlimted capacity without having to pay for that capacity . Makes for a great business model when someone else invested in the infrastructure that makes your business run.

[NeedKarma]

Yes I agree there is a gray area here whereas one application uses up a larger percentage of the available bandwidth. There hasn't been any proof yet that users are experiencing a degradation of service due to Netflix's success. But it's no reason to instituted a tiered approach for access to different kinds of content.

[tomder55]

so then if that is so,who exactly is complaining about access ? I think this is a "solution" looking for a problem . The net has worked fine in nations that don't put the heavy hand of government regulation on it's back. It has been one of the most innovative industries in recent decades exactly because the major companies have put the investment into the infrastructure that makes the industry work.
I don't see a problem with startups paying to piggy-back on that ;and they should indeed pay based on their usage . That would be the fair solution.

[talaniman]

You keep going back and forth between a business model for carriers, and providers, but ignore the consumer in this deal. Don't they at least deserve a minimum requirement of service for their payments? Of service choices? The FCC can only set a standard for that requirement no matter the lease agreements between carriers and providers, very similar to what the regulations are between utility company providers and carriers.

You can blur the lines between them all you want but the reality is that the consumer is the one who returns investments from revenue. You either are for an open internet with no technical censorship,or you want the internet to sell a product that makes profit for less censorship.

The law has to keep up with the technology, whether you like laws or not. An example of the form of censorship you are facing is a boss firing you for content you post on Facebook, or even making your Facebook accessible to the company as a requirement for employment. If they can circumvent your right to privacy, what makes you think they wouldn't use censorship to drive more revenue streams through a tiered system of access to content, data, and information?

Make ISP's and carriers, under one umbrella, telecommunications, and protect consumers rights to no censorships, at a minimum. They can pay for more movies channel bundles, but NOT data and content. You are against monopolies Tom, but there can be NO competition unless you have a level playing field for the smaller competitors.

It may not fix the broken business model manipulated by larger businesses, but does set a minimum standard that CONSUMERS don't get raped by.

You have never been for consumers though have you?

[NeedKarma]

I think this is a "solution" looking for a problem .

You are correct.

The net has worked fine in nations that don't put the heavy hand of government regulation on it's back.

Again correct. The problem today in the U.S. is that the oligopoly of internet access businesses are trying to mess with that. The government regulation to keep the status quo. You really need to read up on this subject, you're all over the map.

[tomder55]

monopoly cannot exist without government assistance through franchises, protectionism, and other means. .I contend that the very providers that people are complaining about (the oligopoly ) is already a defacto gpvernment supported monopoly . The pols give the absurd argument that natural monopolies exist because it would be too inconvenient to duplicate the infrastructure . That is nonsense .
Tal the cable companies you are complaining about could not operate under their model except that the governement allows them exclusive territory of operation. I guarantee that even as few as 2 or 3 competing for the business would greatly benefit the consumer because they would not get away with their packaging policies. They can belly ache about duplication of infrastructure all they want to .It would be better that our utility poles to have 2 or 3 cable lines snaking through our communities than for us to be hostage to their service .Service would be better and cheaper just due to the increase in the option. The level playing field you seek is the free market.

[talaniman]

LOL, government never stopped the investors from creating cable companies or running lines or even leasing their uses to others Tom, nor did it stop bigger companies from expanding by gobbling up smaller ones creating the monopolies. My own ISP included. No doubt yours either.

As you have done many times before, bellyache about regulations and then use the free market capitalists system to justify screwing consumers and minimize the demand in the supply and demand business equation. That's the BROKEN business model that favors profits before people, and subjects ordinary people to less service for a higher fee.

The free market ain't free, it's manipulated, but you are free to worship it all the same.

[NeedKarma]

monopoly cannot exist without government assistance through franchises, protectionism, and other means

There you are wrong. Monopolies exist for several reasons, some being a natural monopoly and another being collusion among businesses that result in an oligopoly. The situation here is a little of both.

[tomder55]

Natural monopolies do not exist by definition without government approval . That's why they started the so called public utility system in the 1st place. I see no benefit at all in natural monopolies.
I'll let Uncle Miltie explain the rest .
Milton Friedman - Monopoly - YouTube

"Corporations own the government .They need to be regulated" "by whom " ? "BY THE GOVERNMENT " lol

[NeedKarma]

I know that you have a constant need to bash anything that has to do with the government, especially when a liberal one is power, but you've proven that you've lost any objectivity in these matters. In this case the government is going to bat for you, the consumer. You don't like monopolies, no one does, is it good when the government breaks them up?

[tomder55]

yes of course ;especially the ones that have grown "too big to fail " because of their relationship with the government . The breakup of Ma Bell was a great move by the government on behalf of the consumer . But it should be recognized that Ma Bell could not have existed without a hat tip from the government .

[talaniman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqgmUURct4I

[NeedKarma]

But it should be recognized that Ma Bell could not have existed without a hat tip from the government .

Ok, so?

[talaniman]

AT&T Divestiture - What Killed Ma Bell? by Melvin D. Barger

Ma Bell is back. Should you be afraid?

The enduring danger is that AT&T will instead be the evil giant who uses its power to mess with everything attached to the AT&T system. Today, that would mean messing with search engines, slowing down your cousin's blog, degrading YouTube or voice-over-IP, and so on. Guarding against those dangers are the milestone network-neutrality rules—the most important rules the FCC has made AT&T agree to. But those rules will last only two years, and it is now clear that Congress needs to make those rules into enduring law.

Thought I would dig these out before Tom blathers about the free market and unspecified government regulations... AGAIN!

[paraclete]

Weird, Tom must learn to live in the present

[tomder55]

the present is government nationalization of industry . no thanks .

[paraclete]

Many nations have lived through such eras Tom, but nationalisation in the US, well it is hardly widespread

[talaniman]

Rules and guidelines (Okay... REGULATIONS) are hardly nationalization of industry. Given the profit motive of private business, why can't consumer interests be served while those profits are being made?