VERIZON - "FCC’s ‘Throwback Thursday’ Move Imposes 1930s Rules on the Internet"

[Dabombinable]

wow, in the UK virgin media just invested another 3B in their network to go from 12 to 18 mill homes with fiber cause they said they profited from the last time they did it, so they are using that money to make it bigger . Telco in your country sounds like your version of BT of our country here.

Yeah...they were a monopoly for so long its taking forever for competition to catch up. And the stupid thing is they used to be government owned, but got sold off a few years ago. So in a way we had net neutrality, but it got kiiled off.

[SparkySamZa]

Yeah...they were a monopoly for so long its taking forever for competition to catch up. And the stupid thing is they used to be government owned, but got sold off a few years ago. So in a way we had net neutrality, but it got kiiled off.

that's a very sad.

[HalGameGuru]

Can you provide any sources to back this up?

 

Right after the FCC enforced NN rules and the change to Title II, they also enacted rules that overruled and forbid local monopolies and State Laws that prevent municipal run ISP's and prevent new startup ISP's from running their own cabling.

 

Seems like they're doing literally the exact opposite of what you state.

 

The 300+ page packet of regulations and new taxes on ISPs? The one we weren't allowed to peruse? The increase in federal bureaucracy and tax revenues that will be added to our bills.

 

That doesn't "limit" the current players, that makes it harder and more expensive for new players to ENTER. The good old boys already have the cash flow to take a hit, it solidifies their position and makes competition that much harder to muster up. It makes the end user's purchase more expensive and the product they are getting lower margin and more likely to be scaled back in quality. You can "forbid" monopolies all you want, you cannot force competition to enter the market, but all the regulations being added are going to make it harder for those who wish to enter to do so.

 

Once again, how many people had options other than a Bell company for landline under such regulations? How many people have multiple COMPETITIVE options when it comes to electricity, gas, or water even now? How many of them are actual competitors and not distributors feeding off the same wholesaler? Giving it a new hat doesn't change the state sponsored static market we already had. And now we have questions coming in on censorship and data structuring because television is digital now and much of it transits through these ISPs and backbones same as any other traffic, investment and new infrastructure roll outs will be hampered by legislation bordering on a century old. You already had start ups being strangled by the near monopoly on pole real estate and local infrastructure from phone and electric providers, and most "utility" competitors are just salesmen selling the same power/gas over the same wires/pipes from the same sources. Do we see 20 "ISPs" selling rebranded AT&T DSL for roughly the same price all on AT&Ts network as a positive? As competition? Heck that was already the reality for a lot of places.

 

Adding more layers of bureaucracy and regulation, increasing taxes levied and costs of entry, and doing so with no transparency is NOT a victory for the common man, and it does not open the market and foster consumer protection and value.

 

UPDATE:

Municipal or state startups are not a valid argument in this context, the state doesn't have to justify its costs or turn a profit, taxation removes any semblance of market influence and pursuit for profits, subsidized funding. The fact that all the losses incurred are borne by the taxpayer removes the veneer of progress. It doesn't matter if it only costs 20 a month to subscribe to municipal internet if every tax payer is paying an extra 20 out of pocket to cover its existence, whether they choose to use it or not.  

[Trik'Stari]

The 300+ page packet of regulations and new taxes on ISPs? The one we weren't allowed to peruse? The increase in federal bureaucracy and tax revenues that will be added to our bills.

 

That doesn't "limit" the current players, that makes it harder and more expensive for new players to ENTER. The good old boys already have the cash flow to take a hit, it solidifies their position and makes competition that much harder to muster up. It makes the end user's purchase more expensive and the product they are getting lower margin and more likely to be scaled back in quality. You can "forbid" monopolies all you want, you cannot force competition to enter the market, but all the regulations being added are going to make it harder for those who wish to enter to do so.

 

Once again, how many people had options other than a Bell company for landline under such regulations? How many people have multiple COMPETITIVE options when it comes to electricity, gas, or water even now? How many of them are actual competitors and not distributors feeding off the same wholesaler? Giving it a new hat doesn't change the state sponsored static market we already had. And now we have questions coming in on censorship and data structuring because television is digital now and much of it transits through these ISPs and backbones same as any other traffic, investment and new infrastructure roll outs will be hampered by legislation bordering on a century old. You already had start ups being strangled by the near monopoly on pole real estate and local infrastructure from phone and electric providers, and most "utility" competitors are just salesmen selling the same power/gas over the same wires/pipes from the same sources. Do we see 20 "ISPs" selling rebranded AT&T DSL for roughly the same price all on AT&Ts network as a positive? As competition? Heck that was already the reality for a lot of places.

 

Adding more layers of bureaucracy and regulation, increasing taxes levied and costs of entry, and doing so with no transparency is NOT a victory for the common man, and it does not open the market and foster consumer protection and value.

If it prevents them from purposefully throttling a competitor's service, I'd say its worth it.

[awesomes8wc3]

 

A net loss for innovation...When did you innovate Verizon. I would like to learn about that time

 

[HalGameGuru]

 

 

A net loss for innovation...When did you innovate Verizon. I would like to learn about that time

 

 

When they were pushing Fiber Optic to the home in markets served only by DSL and Cable?

[SYPH]

Can someone explained what the FCC approved? Cause I didn't understand it.

[SImoHayha]

Throw back these nuts~

[HalGameGuru]

http://www.cnet.com/news/7-things-net-neutrality-wont-do/

[awesomes8wc3]

Can someone explained what the FCC approved? Cause I didn't understand it.

title ii i think