[paraclete]

Because capitalists want super profits

[tomder55]

who says consumer's interests aren't being served now ? What site can you not log onto ?

[NeedKarma]

Until you educate yourself this conversation is over. You sound very ignorant on the whole subject.

[paraclete]

The pot calling the kettle black again we always know when you run out of constructive argument Karma

[NeedKarma]

Ask me any questions on the subject clete. I work in this field.

[tomder55]

that's alright . Didn't really want a conversation with you anyway. If you mean I am ignorant because I don't agree that greedy capitalists are ruining the net and the heavy hand of government is the solution then indeed we have nothing more to say .

[talaniman]

Control of the Net is but a small part of the overall puzzle of profit seeking capitalists. A capitalist who isn't greedy is like saying a snake won't bite. They both do what they do.

[paraclete]

I think that snake analogy should reflect the nature of capitalists as a python, squeezing the life out of the economy

[tomder55]

ummm no . The fall out has begun. Investment by providers is taking a pause .

"We can't go out and invest that kind of money deploying fiber to 100 cities not knowing under what rules those investments will be governed,"

AT&T to pause fiber spending on net neutrality uncertainty | Reuters

[NeedKarma]

Cisco says the same thing. My answer is: don't care.

[talaniman]

AT&T, whose $48.5 billion bid for DirecTV (DTV.O) is under government review, said on Friday that it would also pay $1.7 billion to acquire Mexican wireless operator Iusacell. It trimmed its 2015 capital spending outlook to $18 billion from $21 billion.

So after buying its wireless and satellite competitors out for $50 billion bucks, Ma Bell willchill its expansion by 3 billion next year.

At the same conference on Wednesday, Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N) Chief Financial Officer Fran Shammo struck a somewhat lighter tone but also said the FCC could restrict "paid prioritization" deals, where content companies pay for faster downloads of some websites or applications, without pursuing utility-style regulations.

Still no definitions of the regulations they feel hurt them. Its always soaring rhetoric followed by regulations. Well which ones? And what the hell is utility style regulations?

Its like hollering taxes are too high, and then you never pay them because of loopholes, and deductions. Hell Tom, Romney pays whatever tax rate he wants, doesn't matter what the rate is. Or the country he hides his money in that he never pays taxes on.

Poor AT&T.

[tomder55]

And what the hell is utility style regulations?

1930s type restrictions ;rules written nearly 80 years ago for plain old telephone service,designed by socialists to stifle competition in an industry and restrict players in the game to the chosen few.
You want the nation to have a network of fiber optics ... you expect the industry to construct the infrastructure ,and then you want to screw them so that you can get your Netflix cheap. (while they conversly absorb up to 40% of the entire commercial internet virtually for free, after paying only a small flat fee. )
But then again ,Netflix and other Silicon Valley companies are huge Dem donors ...so of course they are doing their share of 'rent seeking " in return . The Dem liberal cronyism machine at it's best. Title II will be a defacto government price setting . Hugo Chavez is smiling from his grave .

“The growth of the Internet and the rapid adoption of mobile technology have been great American success stories, made possible by a light regulatory touch,” “This approach has freed innovators to develop and sell the products people want—and create jobs in the process—without waiting around for government permission.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell

You worry about consumers . Let me ask you .....do you pay more for higher speed access ? Of course you do . It's logical you should .It's your choice . No one is forcing you to buy that modem .
But under your system,if I'm a Verizon customer and don't use Netflix ,Youtube ,or other high usage streamers ,then I have to subsidize other users with my fees for usage. (oh wait ,you don't think those "greedy "providers won't pass on the costs ? You are full of contradictions . )Ask yourself why should ratepayers absorb the transmission costs of companies like Netflix if they don't use the service ?

Its like hollering taxes are too high, and then you never pay them because of loopholes, and deductions. Hell Tom, Romney pays whatever tax rate he wants, doesn't matter what the rate is.

Or Warren Buffett who complains his taxes are too low and then doesn't pay them at all.

[NeedKarma]

BBC News - Why is broadband more expensive in the US?

You already pay the highest access rates in the world for the lowest bandwidth.

[tomder55]

exactly my point .

"Americans pay so much because they don't have a choice," says Susan Crawford, a former special assistant to President Barack Obama on science, technology and innovation policy.
Although there are several national companies, local markets tend to be dominated by just one or two main providers.

And what the hell is utility style regulations?



1930s type restrictions ;rules written nearly 80 years ago for plain old telephone service,designed by socialists to stifle competition in an industry and restrict players in the game to the chosen few.

[NeedKarma]

Show me how a private enterprise is prevented by the government from building a network from scratch to compete with the big boys. Links to regulations would be great.

[tomder55]

You want the regs for every municipality in the country ? The fact is that many municipalities have specific, individualized noncompete agreements with telecom and cable providers . As an example ;for NY, it's cable provider is exclusivelyTime-Warner . With kickbacks and cheap or free internet service to government buildings, it's not even clear that those cities even want to change the status quo. So yes if you looked at the US as a whole you would think there is plenty of competititon. But the truth is that exclusive franchising is written into local laws .

[NeedKarma]

Nah, it's not. It's a combination of those kickbacks, industry collusion, and just plain overwhelming barriers to entry. It's right for the gov to protect their citizens from predatory practices.

[paraclete]

You want the regs for every municipality in the country ? The fact is that many municipalities have specific, individualized noncompete agreements with telecom and cable providers . As an example ;for NY, it's cable provider is exclusivelyTime-Warner . With kickbacks and cheap or free internet service to government buildings, it's not even clear that those cities even want to change the status quo. So yes if you looked at the US as a whole you would think there is plenty of competititon. But the truth is that exclusive franchising is written into local laws .

Must be wonderful to live in a "free" country

[tomder55]

aint nothing 'free ' about living here in the people's Republic of NY .

[paraclete]

Well leave but you think things are bad wait until the illadvised TPP is in place