President Trump- The Implications

[rebound]

The hyperventilating is comical.

What we have is a communication channel that is incredibly popular and shows no signs of letting up. You think that service providers who have to fight for customer loyalty are just going to start implementing some of these draconian measures that you "suggest" might happen? No, they'll be out of business in a week.

Look what happened a few years ago. Cable companies saw an opening, made the product available, and now you have all the big AT&T types trying to keep up. All to the BENEFIT of the customer. Now even Google has entered the fray in some markets.

These hypotheticals are just nonsense really. The reality was that FCC was going to do far more to limit customer satisfaction than the combination of all these private companies.

And with the improvements in speed of wireless tech, this only limits what the big bad AT&T types will do. They MUST retain customers.

The sky is falling net neutrality chicken little types should really just go back to saying the world is going to end because of global cooling, warming, well, change...whatever.

The "need" for NN started years ago because ComCast began throttling BitTorrent because it was (or at least they thought it was) competitive to their own media offering.  The sky isn't falling (and I agree the hyperbole in some quarters is really over the top) but there is a real potential for this to be a PITA for consumers.  At best it will get confusing, and at worst unduly restrictive.  Not immediately, but give it a year or so for the new plans to start phasing in. 

[erfalf]

The "need" for NN started years ago because ComCast began throttling BitTorrent because it was (or at least they thought it was) competitive to their own media offering.  The sky isn't falling (and I agree the hyperbole in some quarters is really over the top) but there is a real potential for this to be a PITA for consumers.  At best it will get confusing, and at worst unduly restrictive.  Not immediately, but give it a year or so for the new plans to start phasing in.  

I guess I don't really fear providers offering plans that are more in line with the customers demands.

There is just too much competition, and there will only be more, to expect any of those predictions of the sky is falling to occur.

[rebound]

I guess I don't really fear providers offering plans that are more in line with the customers demands.

There is just too much, and there will only be more, to expect any of those predictions of the sky is falling to occur.

Which customer?   From the consumer side, what is more simple and in-line with my demands than "charging me $XXX for XX amount of data use"?  Give me a discount for higher usage, or give me unlimited, but don't discriminate on what I see or how fast I see it.

The problem, and this is what they want to to do, comes on the Provider side.  They want to charge premiums for faster lanes to the larger providers.  Which de-facto discriminates against the smaller content providers, and de-facto against the consumer.   

It's going to move toward the same models that "cable" television uses, where they will have packages of content, etc.  And I don't know anyone who thinks that is optimal for the consumer.

 

[BKDotCom]

I guess I don't really fear providers offering plans that are more in line with the customers demands.

Troll

[erfalf]

Which customer?   From the consumer side, what is more simple and in-line with my demands than "charging me $XXX for XX amount of data use"?  Give me a discount for higher usage, or give me unlimited, but don't discriminate on what I see or how fast I see it.

The problem, and this is what they want to to do, comes on the Provider side.  They want to charge premiums for faster lanes to the larger providers.  Which de-facto discriminates against the smaller content providers, and de-facto against the consumer.  

It's going to move toward the same models that "cable" television uses, where they will have packages of content, etc.  And I don't know anyone who thinks that is optimal for the consumer.

You really should check out new DirecTV offerings. People do like paying less for only what they want, a la cart so to speak. That is what is happening in the market right now. If you are lucky enough to not desire live sporting events, you can save a substantial amount on your TV service. And this is in large part due to more competition, and listening to what the consumer demands. All of these fears could only happen in a world that was not dictated on consumer spending habits, which are fickle. And the options that are opening up are only going to help that. We don't live in a world where AT&T is the only (or even the best) provider of internet anymore. That is why this is not going to be a big deal.

Proof that many of these fears are most likely unfounded:

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/12/amazon-prime-video-arrives-on-apple-tv-in-over-100-countries/

If this happens in this case, why in the world would companies start offending their consumers at every turn. And I get it, people will complain about service providers. But that has been going on for a long LONG time, and will continue, probably forever. And prices will go up, as have prices for virtually every service around the world over time.

[swake]

I think it's apt to recall that one of the first things the FCC did in the name of Net Neutrality was go after T-Mobile for offering unlimited data plan. Just saying.

T-Mobile was only giving unlimited data for video providers that they chose, all others had data caps. T-Mobile was choosing the video stream a customer had the best access too, not the customer.

It's kind of the point here.

[swake]

The hyperventilating is comical.

What we have is a communication channel that is incredibly popular and shows no signs of letting up. You think that service providers who have to fight for customer loyalty are just going to start implementing some of these draconian measures that you "suggest" might happen? No, they'll be out of business in a week.

Look what happened a few years ago. Cable companies saw an opening, made the product available, and now you have all the big AT&T types trying to keep up. All to the BENEFIT of the customer. Now even Google has entered the fray in some markets.

These hypotheticals are just nonsense really. The reality was that FCC was going to do far more to limit customer satisfaction than the combination of all these private companies.

And with the improvements in speed of wireless tech, this only limits what the big bad AT&T types will do. They MUST retain customers.

The sky is falling net neutrality chicken little types should really just go back to saying the world is going to end because of global cooling, warming, well, change...whatever.

I've been through this with you before. No ISP is going to be out of business in a week for providing bad service. They are too big and the cost of entry into the market is too high for new competitors.

Most homes in this country have access to two or less wired broadband providers. They usually have access to broadband from one cable company and one land line phone company. Some people live too far from the Telco's central office and only have cable. Many rural people have no wired broadband provider. Only a small percentage of people even have three competing providers. I've not heard of an area that has four, but I guess that could happen in cities like New York.

Wireless isn't an option because cell phone companies make too much money selling metered data and as an added bonus, AT&T and Verizon, the two cell phone companies that together happen to have 70% market share in the US, ALSO happen to be owned by AT&T and Verizon the by far two largest Telcos that sell DSL, U-Verse and FIOS. These companies have no incentive to compete with themselves.

There is no healthy competition in the ISP market in this country.

[swake]

You really should check out new DirecTV offerings. People do like paying less for only what they want, a la cart so to speak. That is what is happening in the market right now. If you are lucky enough to not desire live sporting events, you can save a substantial amount on your TV service. And this is in large part due to more competition, and listening to what the consumer demands. All of these fears could only happen in a world that was not dictated on consumer spending habits, which are fickle. And the options that are opening up are only going to help that. We don't live in a world where AT&T is the only (or even the best) provider of internet anymore. That is why this is not going to be a big deal.

Proof that many of these fears are most likely unfounded:

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/12/amazon-prime-video-arrives-on-apple-tv-in-over-100-countries/

If this happens in this case, why in the world would companies start offending their consumers at every turn. And I get it, people will complain about service providers. But that has been going on for a long LONG time, and will continue, probably forever. And prices will go up, as have prices for virtually every service around the world over time.

You are confusing content with access. Two very different things. There is NOT growth in competition in access, in fact, it's shrinking as Telcos abandon rural areas and potential new providers like Google find entering the industry too hard and give up. Yes, even a company the size of Google has decided they can't compete in the ISP industry, it's just too expensive. 

[Hoss]

You really should check out new DirecTV offerings. People do like paying less for only what they want, a la cart so to speak. That is what is happening in the market right now. If you are lucky enough to not desire live sporting events, you can save a substantial amount on your TV service. And this is in large part due to more competition, and listening to what the consumer demands. All of these fears could only happen in a world that was not dictated on consumer spending habits, which are fickle. And the options that are opening up are only going to help that. We don't live in a world where AT&T is the only (or even the best) provider of internet anymore. That is why this is not going to be a big deal.

Proof that many of these fears are most likely unfounded:

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/12/amazon-prime-video-arrives-on-apple-tv-in-over-100-countries/

If this happens in this case, why in the world would companies start offending their consumers at every turn. And I get it, people will complain about service providers. But that has been going on for a long LONG time, and will continue, probably forever. And prices will go up, as have prices for virtually every service around the world over time.

Ha.  DirecTV shouldn't be the example you start with; I just got an email today informing me of a price increase beginning in January.

[patric]

Ha.  DirecTV shouldn't be the example you start with; I just got an email today informing me of a price increase beginning in January.

Cox hasnt gotten around to sending the same letter.  Some of it is carrier-related, but much of it is content providers figuring out how to bundle the cost of their loss-leaders with the channels people actually watch.  Not exactly ala-carte.

Who remembers the phone company wanting you to rent an interconnect device before you could plug in your newfangled answering machine?
...or not even being able to have another phone that you didnt rent from Ma Bell?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/carterfone-40-years/


FWIW, at&t is laying fiber in parts of Tulsa for its new 1Gb service, and offering an introductory price of $80/Month for the lowest tier.

"AT&T's pricing for this service varies depending on the level of regional competition. With cable providers increasingly deploying DOCSIS 3.1-based gigabit service, and Google Fiber continuing to expand in select markets, AT&T's pricing for this service has dropped accordingly -- down from the $130 or more AT&T was originally charging in many early deployment markets."  (dslreports)

[erfalf]

Ha.  DirecTV shouldn't be the example you start with; I just got an email today informing me of a price increase beginning in January.

Uhhh, and you are going to mock me for "fox talking points".

I hope for your sanity that you understood that Net Neutrality would have done nothing to limit general price increases.

Honestly I think there is a lot of confusion about what Net Neutrality does and doesn't do. It's only been in effect for a little over a year and I don't know that anyone really noticed. Public pressure will stop most shenanigans from occurring, not that they won't be tried. Ironically even under NN, AT&T has already been offering "preferred content" in the form of it's DirecTV access that didn't count toward data caps even.

Also, I hear this link being made that internet access should be like a utility, while failing to realize that utilities charge more for more consumption. And the claims that it will stifle innovation obviously have forgotten the years and years without NN where we were apparently in the dark ages.

[swake]

Uhhh, and you are going to mock me for "fox talking points".

I hope for your sanity that you understood that Net Neutrality would have done nothing to limit general price increases.

Honestly I think there is a lot of confusion about what Net Neutrality does and doesn't do. It's only been in effect for a little over a year and I don't know that anyone really noticed. Public pressure will stop most shenanigans from occurring, not that they won't be tried. Ironically even under NN, AT&T has already been offering "preferred content" in the form of it's DirecTV access that didn't count toward data caps even.

Also, I hear this link being made that internet access should be like a utility, while failing to realize that utilities charge more for more consumption. And the claims that it will stifle innovation obviously have forgotten the years and years without NN where we were apparently in the dark ages.

This is one of the tricks of the ISP industry, that there is such a thing as "consumption", the cost and limiting factor is capacity, not consumption with internet. Those ones and zeros don't have to be mined and they aren't a finite resource. Unused capacity costs the ISP the exact same amount as used capacity.

Internet needs to be treated as a utility.

[Hoss]

This is one of the tricks of the ISP industry, that there is such a thing as "consumption", the cost and limiting factor is capacity, not consumption with internet. Those ones and zeros don't have to be mined and they aren't a finite resource. Unused capacity costs the ISP the exact same amount as used capacity.

Internet needs to be treated as a utility.

And given that I know where swake works or has worked in the past and what industry he's in, I'll take his word over erf's any day of the week and then some that aren't in the week.

Repealing NN may not be bad short term, but just wait.

[patric]

The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation's top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases — including "fetus" and "transgender" — in any official documents being prepared for next year's budget.

Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based" and "science-based."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html

[patric]

The Man-Who-Said-That-he-Considered-The-Klan-to-be-OK-Guys-Until-he-Found-Out-They-Smoked-Pot Accidentally Leaked the Agenda From His Anti-Marijuana Meeting


https://www.civilized.life/articles/jeff-sessions-leaked-agenda-anti-marijuana-meeting/