Hah, thats a new one. The ACA supposedly slowed down price increases. Yet my costs keep going up every year. 2016,17 and now 18 is looking at a 200% increase from 2015 when I had to buy an ACA approved plan. Yes, prices were getting out of control but has it ever occurred to you that government influence in healthcare is the cause for the rising costs? Since the late 1960s, the Feds and state governments have become the Walmart of the medical industry. They have the largest customer base and thus the government sets the prices. The non welfare care customer pays higher prices at the doc's office to compensate the medical provider not making much if anything from the government based patients and pays more in taxes for the privilege. For pete's sake, the federal government, the CONgress for decades now has made it a felony to re-import cheap drugs back to America. Americans subsidize the world's cheap medical costs via that or via paying for their defense via NATO. But you know, its all about profit caps on insurance companies, not a ponzi scheme all around to enrich a few and give power to power hungry whore politicians.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The FCC Has Repealed Net Neutrality
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
Hah, thats a new one. The ACA supposedly slowed down price increases. Yet my costs keep going up every year. 2016,17 and now 18 is looking at a 200% increase from 2015 when I had to buy an ACA approved plan. Yes, prices were getting out of control but has it ever occurred to you that government influence in healthcare is the cause for the rising costs? Since the late 1960s, the Feds and state governments have become the Walmart of the medical industry. They have the largest customer base and thus the government sets the prices. The non welfare care customer pays higher prices at the doc's office to compensate the medical provider not making much if anything from the government based patients and pays more in taxes for the privilege. For pete's sake, the federal government, the CONgress for decades now has made it a felony to re-import cheap drugs back to America. Americans subsidize the world's cheap medical costs via that or via paying for their defense via NATO. But you know, its all about profit caps on insurance companies, not a ponzi scheme all around to enrich a few and give power to power hungry whore politicians.
VanGoghComplex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,286
Google =/= Google Fiber. But it's good that you bring it up, because it's an excellent example of why ISPs operate in a monopolistic space. Google Fiber should, by all rights and all reason, be nationwide at this point. Unbeatable performance, incredibly competitive pricing, what's not to love? It should have put Comcast on it's face, and were the ISP market actually free, it would have.
Instead, Google Fiber got blocked at every turn by established and entrenched ISP. Because, as I've said a dozen times in this thread, and my conservative brethren can't seem to get through their skulls, ISPs are geographical monopolies and the invisible hand gets ground into hamburger in the presence of monopolies.
Google can filter their search engine's results because it's THEIR search engine and you agree to their terms when you use it. ISPs blocking and throttling sites that don't directly benefit their bottom line is not equivalent. You keep confusing hardware and software.
Imagine if your power company also manufactured appliances, and they structured their rates as such that you get a massive discount for using their appliances in your home. Or, other side of the coin, they charged you extra for using appliances from other, competing manufacturers. In this case your power company is using the monopoly it has in the distribution market to extend that monopoly to associated markets. It's the best analogy I can come up with because it highlights a specific point: if you don't like it, what are you gonna do? Buy your electricity elsewhere?
Last edited:
Grimlaking
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,245
So no examples.... understood.
chockomonkey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 8,328
The solution to this problem isn't more regulation, though.. it's less. Remove the government granted monopolies!
Guarana [BAWLS]
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2001
- Messages
- 1,951
And this shit that Ajit pulled is only making them stronger.
I will say one thing - This awful thread has given me faith in the "quiet" group on [H]. The loud mouths are spewing the same bs, yet the educated minority are rebutting... in large part with no response to the copy paste talking points always posted or same 'ol snowflake type "burns". Makes me happy there are still a few people not regurgitating their favorite fringe site propaganda on my favorite tech site!
(Go vikes!)
(Go vikes!)
VanGoghComplex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,286
They aren't government granted monopolies. They're natural monopolies created by infrastructure and barriers to entry. They're the same kind of monopoly your power company has, and it's regulated to the hilt: the result being that your electricity prices are fixed, the quality of your electrical service is mandated, you are allowed to power whatever you want with the electricity you buy, and your electric company is legally required to disclose everything they charge you on.
chockomonkey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 8,328
Fill me in then cause that's not what I've been hearing forever about Comcast. The usual reasons parroted by Google for instance for why it hasn't been able to roll out fiber. Has nothing to do with natural monopoloes but rather exclusivity deals.
Shit like this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8066173
After reading all that it seems there is still no concensus.
velusip
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,579
That's a good point. A municipal deal which demands service to a majority (rather than a convenient, high profit area) reduces prospects for a second offering after factoring in any late agreement changes or incumbent competition. e.g. a company bought into easy pickings, competition looks elsewhere for a similar deal. You end up with one bid from years ago, and no future offers. So basically, until all areas are saturated with initial offerings, we won't see much in the way of competition.
VanGoghComplex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,286
Even if that were overcome, you still have a natural monopoly based on infrastructure. Just like no one is going to build a second power delivery infrastructure in order to provide competing electrical service (because, if they wanted to turn a profit sometime in the next half a century after the initial investment in the new infrastructure, their prices simply could not be competitive), no one is going to build a second cable network. Or a second DSL network. Wireless is a potential out for this, someday, but the technology isn't mature enough yet for wireless to be considered an alternative to wired broadband.
chockomonkey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 8,328
Couldn't we solve some of this by taxpayers owning the last mile infrastructure,l and having the local governments treat that portion as they do roads? This way any company could move into town and hook up to the local node and begin offering it's services?
VanGoghComplex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,286
...you do realize that you've 180°'d on your "get the government away from the internet" stance, right?
That's okay though, from where I'm standing. The infrastructure should be a public utility. The content providers should absolutely not be regulated, as they constitute the free speech and free market that the internet enables - as long as the ISPs aren't playing gatekeeper.
I like the net neutrality approach because it lets the ISPs remain private. It's really very light handed regulation when you compare it to other public utility companies. That's a good thing. I'd rather the keys to such a huge chunk of our culture and economy stay in the private sector - as long as there are rules preventing the ISPs from wielding that immense power to the detriment of free speech and the free market that occurs in the digital world.
Eshelmen
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 6,632
Hi there, I can't tell how many times this 2015 example has been brought up on this forum as a justification for not needing such a law. And I think some of you need some serious clarification.
Here's the thing, Net Neutrality has been around since 1996 under the Telecommunications Act. So that wonderful experience you admired before 2015, is because of Net Neutrality laws.
What happened in 2015 during the Obama administration was the reclassification of Net Neutrality Title 1 classification, to Title 2 Classification.
This happened due to the larger ISPs monopolizing the market, blackmailing and throttling smaller companies and were on track to down right damage public access to an otherwise public utility.
What you may or may not have personally experienced on the internet pre 2015, doesn't mean nothing was happening.
Last edited:
If Google has problems, the rest of mere mortals stand no chance.
I'm lucky enough to be in an area with a lot of major players who are relatively competitive with each other. In like 5 years I've gone from 30/5 to 35/35, 150/150 now Gigabit at basically the same price point. It's beautiful.
VanGoghComplex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,286
You're very lucky. I get 150/30 for $100/m, and my only other option is 25/5 for $90. No real competition there.
The FCC's decision on Net Neutrality can be nullified and reversed by Congress through the Congressional Review Act (CRA). If you support Net Neutrality, call, email, and tweet your Senators and Representatives in Congress! We will not go quietly!
www.BattleForTheNet.com
www.BattleForTheNet.com
staknhalo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,924
Lol, President Trump will just veto it. That's if it could even pass the House. I doubt it could pass in the Senate, but I think if it had a chance of passing anywhere it would be there so let's just say it can. Still won't matter cause won't even pass the House.
Last edited:
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
No we cant because every time local governments try to do anything like this the big ISPs come in and file law suits, then they drag them through court for as long as they can draining them financially, and they pay for politicians that will sell the people out. TBH lol its actually kind of karma, because local governments were the ones whos corruption gave the local monopolies to the ISPs in the first place, then after they start to see what a mess it is, and all the soccer moms are finally complaining about their connection they try to fix it, unfortunately they made such a massive adversary out of the few cable companies they cant afford to fight this out.
Grimlaking
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,245
Unless by some Miracle we get a 2/3rds majority. The the president couldn't do shit. And wow would that be a glorious thing to see.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,030
Yeah, take a problem, completely misrepresent it, then offer a rebuttal for that misrepresentation and call it a day. That always works!
VanGoghComplex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,286
You do not understand the difference between internet service and internet content.
When will this asinine stupid logic end? "Because it hasnt happened yet it will never happen", are you serious? Is this how you live your life? Until you get fucked you're just going to pretend like it's not even possible? Why wear a seatbelt when you drive if you have never been in a car crash? Why have life insurance if you have never died? Why doesnt the grocery store sell hand grenades if nobody has ever blown themselves up? Why bother advancing your career, if you arent successful yet you never will be?
Do you not understand the glaring underlying concept of "there's a first time for everything"? You have a company who has been quite outspoken about their ability to prioritize network traffic. You have the chairman of the FCC actually utter the words "paid prioritization" in reference to "medical technology" (as if it'll end there), you have an industry that used stolen identities and forged MILLIONS of complaints to the FCC to repeal NN. Why in the holy fuck would they go through all this effort if they didnt intend to do exactly the things NN aims to prevent? Just because they hadnt yet doesnt mean they wont. They were obviously just getting around to things.
chockomonkey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 8,328
That's fair. I don't claim to know wtf.. The politicized nature of all this and the difficulty I've had finding facts has simply left me skeptical about both sides stated agendas. Simply feels there's more going on here.
The past is a giant example. What will the internet look like before NN? Maybe how it looked before NN. There was a tremendous amount of growth and innovation before NN. NN means the government gets to decide what is fair and proper. Somehow I like the idea of de-centralized control better than a face-less, unaccountable federal bureaucracy comprised of SJW's.
Actually I never really thought of it much. Like all progressive ideas it sounds ok on the surface but when you stop and think about it suddenly you realize it's an excuse for the very worse people (SJW's) to decide what's best for everyone. Actually you all have convinced me... I am against government imposed price controls on the internet. The only way for the internet to be "free" is get the government's slimy hands off the internet.
SJW's want to control what you think and do. Big business only wants your money. As long as there isn't a monopoly businesses will compete with each other for your money. Business will always be more responsive to it's customers than a faceless entrenched bureaucracy with no accountability...
VanGoghComplex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,286
Come back when you understand what the NN laws are. Maybe then you can actually argue against them, instead of spouting hyperbolic slippery-slope fallacies and right-wing spin jobs.
Oh, and while you're at it, learn what a monopoly is. Also look up the economic term "barrier to entry," particularly in regards to existing infrastructure.
Last edited:
staknhalo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,924
Yeah 2/3rds would not require the President's signature, but there's statistically a better chance of you or me shitting out actual 24k gold bricks for the rest of our lives than that happening.
Last edited:
The problem with "net neutrality" is exactly the same as "fairness in broadcasting". Both are intrusive, left-wing (meaning fascist), government takeovers of the means of disseminating information.
Control the flow of information and you control the person.
Now, are there "barriers to entry"? Yes. EVERY business has a barrier to entry. Are the barriers artificially high for new ISPs? Sure. They are high because GOVERNMENTS CONTROL where new lines can be run. The US Constitution (I know, only (or mostly) applicable to the Federal Government) gives the right of eminent domain. (And that has been abused too often. Power, corruption, etc.) However, there is ample precedent for allowing ANYONE to use right-of-ways to lay new cable without having to buy a politician. Oops, "beg for approval". Would this create a mess? Possibly. I could also create a thriving free-market of providers.
A local government could lay multiple fiber optic lines and declare them usable by anyone who wants to create an ISP. Imagine that. Free market created by LOOSE regulation. (Oh, and pay for the lines by local tax revenue. Get some skin in that game folks. Want to treat it like a public utility? Pay for it like a public utility.)
Control the flow of information and you control the person.
Now, are there "barriers to entry"? Yes. EVERY business has a barrier to entry. Are the barriers artificially high for new ISPs? Sure. They are high because GOVERNMENTS CONTROL where new lines can be run. The US Constitution (I know, only (or mostly) applicable to the Federal Government) gives the right of eminent domain. (And that has been abused too often. Power, corruption, etc.) However, there is ample precedent for allowing ANYONE to use right-of-ways to lay new cable without having to buy a politician. Oops, "beg for approval". Would this create a mess? Possibly. I could also create a thriving free-market of providers.
A local government could lay multiple fiber optic lines and declare them usable by anyone who wants to create an ISP. Imagine that. Free market created by LOOSE regulation. (Oh, and pay for the lines by local tax revenue. Get some skin in that game folks. Want to treat it like a public utility? Pay for it like a public utility.)
VanGoghComplex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,286
But what if... we continued to allow the network infrastructure to be privately owned, but simply placed regulations on the companies that prevent them from diddling their data delivery streams in favor of the media companies they own?
You're another right-winger who knows only one thing: NN happened when Obama was president, so it's bad and has to go away.
Net Neutrality does NOT control the dissemination of information. It does the opposite: it prevents ISPs from controlling the dissemination of information.
In fact, right now, if some pinko commie offered your ISP a large sum of money and lobbying pull, as long as they blocked Fox News, Bietbarf, and any other "conservative" media outlet they wanted - they could do it! It would be perfectly legal, as long as your ISP disclosed it.
Under the Net Neutrality laws, that WOULDN'T be legal, because NN explicitly prevents ISPs from blocking legal content.
chockomonkey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 8,328
Then we'd still be in the same shit we have been. You seem to be another liberal who pretends like everything was perfect the way that it was once Obama saved the net with NN.
Most people still had limited choice in ISPand no matter what AND does or doesn't do, having limited competition is not good for anyone.
From the ideas thrown around lately, I much like the idea of local municipalities owning the last mile and letting any ISP hook up and compete.
VanGoghComplex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,286
I'm a conservative. I think the free market is always the answer when it's an option, but in the case of ISPs, it is not. It would be wonderful if it could be structured better, but it isn't. We have what we have and we have to make do with that.
Net Neutrality was never intended to give people more options in ISP. It recognized that ISPs are monopolies and sought to prevent them from wielding their monopolistic power to - and get this - QUELL FREE SPEECH AND THE FREE MARKET in regards to CONTENT. The whole point is Net Neutrality was to prevent ISPs from doing those things! Of course they would never do those things if they operated in the free market and ran the risk of losing customers to their competitors, but - again - that's not the way it is today, for a variety of reasons.
Look up the regulatory battles that have happened since the dotcom boom. The net has NOT "lived free of government" before 2015. In fact, your very own suggestion of having local governments own the infrastructure would get the feds a MUCH stronger hold over content that letting them stay with private companies. Picture this: the next liberal president is in office. They decide that anything promoting immigration through legal channels only is hate speech. They decide they don't want people to have access to content of that nature. They tell Arizona that if they want more federal funding, they'll block traffic from conservative media outlets.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
So there was a tremendous amount of growth of the internet before the internet existed? That's your argument? NN has literally been in existence as a principle of the internet from the beginning. Bits are bits. The internet took off and grew under Title II regulation that was more encompassing than even simple NN because it also had local loop unbundling and when LLU went away, consumer choice in ISPs also went away.
Except there is a monopoly in ISPs....
And no business won't be more responsive to it's customers. That thinking is how we got rivers literally on fire, company towns, and child labor.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
So we should go back to the days of ATT running everything and only being able to use ATT authorized equipment? I think you don't understand the history of telecommunications.
The vast majority of ROWs are privately owned or on private property. You also might do a little research on natural monopolies. The governments don't control where new lines can be run, basic property laws and logistics do.
Unexploded
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 265
While I'm glad we still have net neutrality in Canada, it's worth noting that both our previous & current government were only too happy to jump into the TPP.
Which, from what I recall, would have left us equally fucked when it comes to the internet had the US not bailed on the deal.
Yes, Trump's plan would cut healthcare subsidies for low income families and remove the tax penalty for lack of coverage. However, we have always and always will pay for everyone's healthcare coverage one way or another. That's why it's stupid we don't have universal coverage by now. I'd rather pay part of someone's $80 office visit instead of a $2000-$3000 hospital bill for the same treatment. We're going to pay for it anyway, we might as well pay less for it. And if we eliminate the need for insurance companies in the process, that's an instant 20% cut off of health insurance premiums/taxes.
thesmokingman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 6,617
Add to that they the Feds turn a blind eye to the lobbyist armies from the equipment manufacturers and most egregiously big pharma. Those two have literally meaningless regulations so they can do whatever the want and charge whatever they want. And all ppl see is that the insurer is evil never knowing one iota of how the system actually works. Every single penny an insurer makes is accounted for and regulated. They only get to keep something like 3% profit and the rest has to go back into the business whereas big pharma can charge $1k a pill and control the supply holding the ill hostage. There's so much bullshit in healthcare.
VanGoghComplex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,286
I'm resisting a really strong urge here, because healthcare interests me greatly, but at the risk of backseat moderating, let's stay on topic, eh?
The political partisanship behind every discussion re: Net Neutrality has been the worst thing to happen to it... Let's not conflate and pick scabs on other R vs. D points while we're at it.
Grimlaking
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,245
But today business ARE the faceless entrenched bureaucracy of the internet. Unless you have multiple broadband providers competing for you business. Tell me are you in one of those rare communities?
No, it did not exist as a regulation with the force of law. The concept of net neutrality is quite dissimilar from the regulation that was just removed.