50 US cities pen letter to FCC demanding net neutrality, democracy

[BKDotCom]

Tulsa not among them

http://www.metro.us/news/local-news/net-neutrality-50-cities-letter-fcc-democracy

[TeeDub]

So I am supposed to support net neutrality at the cost of higher internet rates?

[swake]

So I am supposed to support net neutrality at the cost of higher internet rates?

You think Cox is going to pass those earnings on to you? That's funny.

We have among the highest internet costs in the world because there's so little competition and no regulation to speak of.

[rebound]

You think Cox is going to pass those earnings on to you? That's funny.

We have among the highest internet costs in the world because there's so little competition and no regulation to speak of.

Highest rates, and crappiest service levels.   

[Hoss]

I posted this once before when it came out in 2015, I"m posting again so you can get a primer on it.

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

Here's his followup from this year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak

[TeeDub]

I don't care if they pass the earning on, as long as they don't raise my prices due to network congestion.

And surprise, a content provider (HBO) puts out a funny video supporting its own position.

[Hoss]

I don't care if they pass the earning on, as long as they don't raise my prices due to network congestion.

And surprise, a content provider (HBO) puts out a funny video supporting its own position.

If you think the service providers will break down why they will raise your prices, then come see me about some beachfront property I'm selling in northern Alaska...they've been raising rates for the last 15 years at breakneck speeds.  It needs regulation.  Title II needs to remain where it is.

[TeeDub]

The internet model works like the telephone model - estimated oversubscription.  (ie. If you think everyone in Tulsa could pick up the telephone at the same time and make a call, you are sorely mistaken.)

The problem is, most ISPs don't make much money per subscriber and backbone connections cost a lot.  In a couple of years, it is estimated that 80% of traffic will be video.   The problem with video is that it is data intensive and isn't happy with hiccups or "buffering."

So, if you push for net neutrality, expect lower data caps.  (Which Cox is already implementing.)

[Hoss]

The internet model works like the telephone model - estimated oversubscription.  (ie. If you think everyone in Tulsa could pick up the telephone at the same time and make a call, you are sorely mistaken.)

The problem is, most ISPs don't make much money per subscriber and backbone connections cost a lot.  In a couple of years, it is estimated that 80% of traffic will be video.   The problem with video is that it is data intensive and isn't happy with hiccups or "buffering."

So, if you push for net neutrality, expect lower data caps.  (Which Cox is already implementing.)

And many other ISPs implemented data caps even WITH NN.  Cox was one of the last of the holdouts.

That argument doesn't hold water.

[heironymouspasparagus]

If you think the service providers will break down why they will raise your prices, then come see me about some beachfront property I'm selling in northern Alaska...they've been raising rates for the last 15 years at breakneck speeds.  It needs regulation.  Title II needs to remain where it is.

Since the 60's at least.  My grandparents had 'cable tv' in mid 60's.  Kept jacking up the prices so they got rid of it after just a few years.

[TeeDub]

It isn't entirely Cox's fault the prices keep going up....   Look at the content providers as well.


Despite the loss in subscribers, ESPN is just as popular as ever, if not more, and we can see this in their monthly subscriber fees. ESPN now charges $7.21 per subscriber, by far the most expensive cable network, and up 54% from what they were charging in 2011, when it cost $4.69 per subscriber. And that is just for ESPN's main network.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cable-satellite-tv-sub-fees-espn-networks-2017-3

[heironymouspasparagus]

It isn't entirely Cox's fault the prices keep going up....   Look at the content providers as well.


Despite the loss in subscribers, ESPN is just as popular as ever, if not more, and we can see this in their monthly subscriber fees. ESPN now charges $7.21 per subscriber, by far the most expensive cable network, and up 54% from what they were charging in 2011, when it cost $4.69 per subscriber. And that is just for ESPN's main network.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cable-satellite-tv-sub-fees-espn-networks-2017-3

And now we have circled back around to the fact that I cannot buy the channels I want and leave the rest of that carp alone.  Cox Basic has a LOT of music channels way up high in the numbers - maybe 2 or 3 out of dozens that are worth listening to.

And ESPN?  I think there are at least 3 versions of that on basic - I don't want any of them.  Let me pick the 10 or 15 I want and just keep the rest...

[TeeDub]

And now we have circled back around to the fact that I cannot buy the channels I want and leave the rest of that carp alone.  Cox Basic has a LOT of music channels way up high in the numbers - maybe 2 or 3 out of dozens that are worth listening to.

And ESPN?  I think there are at least 3 versions of that on basic - I don't want any of them.  Let me pick the 10 or 15 I want and just keep the rest...

So somehow the prices are going to go down because you want more regulation?    Yeah, that's how that works.

[Hoss]

So somehow the prices are going to go down because you want more regulation?    Yeah, that's how that works.

You obviously haven't read up enough on what this is.

NN..or the lack of it I should say, would give content providers leverage to throttle certain vendors.  Say you have a content provider with an exclusive agreement with a streaming service for whatever reason.  Say Hulu.  Removing NN would effectively allow ISPs to throttle the content of the competing vendors (in this case, say Netflix).  How is that fair?

To be sure this likely won't reduce costs at the consumer level.  What it has the potential of reducing though is a level playing field for everyone using data.  So while you might be paying a pretty penny for something, there's also the possibility you won't be getting a fair shake on your preferred method of watching video.

Capiche?

[heironymouspasparagus]

So somehow the prices are going to go down because you want more regulation?    Yeah, that's how that works.

Still doing the Kook-Aid shots, huh??   If past experience has shown us anything, it is that deregulation has NOT resulted in lower costs.  Only more competition has a glimmer of hope in helping that.   But then, you probably still believe that cutting taxes will more than pay for themselves in increased economic activity....