Broadband Giants Quietly Blame Verizon For New Neutrality 'Mess'

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It looks as though Verizon is currently filling the roll of redheaded step-child of the broadband industry.

Verizon effectively got greedy. And while their lawsuit was successful and did overturn the rules, the court actually declared that the FCC did have some, albeit shaky, authority to try and regulate broadband ISPs. That brings us to the FCC's current attempt to not only craft new rules (that may actually cover wireless networks) but to possibly do it in a more legally sound fashion by reclassifying ISPs as utilities under Title II.
Click to expand...
 
"possibly do it in a more legally sound fashion by reclassifying ISPs as utilities under Title II."

Thank God. Finally.
 
In my world the telecom world.....Verizon is known for being the biggest sack of shit ever. They have some of the worst business practives of the whole industry....they are very underhanded in respects to the repairs made within thier own network, they f over everybody else when they get a chance.
 
JeffDC said:
"possibly do it in a more legally sound fashion by reclassifying ISPs as utilities under Title II."

Thank God. Finally.
Click to expand...

Yep, so they can do to the Internet what they did to the POTs telephone system in this country. People are so funny to think "the government" is the "solution" to everything in life they might not agree with, or, or more likely, not understand. Regulation brought us the AT&T long-distance monopoly, and regulation ruined the nation's phone systems--which did not recover until the mess the government created was undone through deregulation.

The real problem at the moment is the stupidity of most wireless phone customers with Internet access, who cheerfully pay a multiple of times what they pay for their wired Internet access, even though their wireless access is much slower and far less dependable, and usually comes with caps so low as to be insulting. The ISPs naturally want to cash in on the stupidity of these people, so why should they care what people think about their wired Internet access bandwidth offerings? The ISPs will spend all their money rolling out wireless service because that's where the suckers and the money are to be found. It is pretty much just that simple. It perfectly explains, for instance, why Verizon launched FiOS with such gusto only to completely halt its growth a few years later. Stupid people will stupidly pay *much more* for inferior wireless service, so that's where the ISPs are headed and that's where the ISPs are spending their roll-out cash.

So, tell me, how is the FCC going to fix stupid customers?...;) No cure for that except an injection of brains, imo.
 
Hopefully this is the equivalent of Verizon rousing the sleeping giant (although the giant, in this case, is still a lumbering idiot).

The best thing that can happen is Verizon pisses off the rest of the market so badly that it starts a price war.
 
WaltC said:
Yep, so they can do to the Internet what they did to the POTs telephone system in this country. People are so funny to think "the government" is the "solution" to everything in life they might not agree with, or, or more likely, not understand. Regulation brought us the AT&T long-distance monopoly, and regulation ruined the nation's phone systems--which did not recover until the mess the government created was undone through deregulation.
Click to expand...
THis is mostly true until the government undid a rule that allowed those with local hardwire monopoly to not be neutral in fees charged to competing services. Then poof AT&T re-emerged. The problem is that instead of simple policing rules with an eye towards preserving competition, people use that type of example to try to justify making companies marionettes with some misguided social justice goal.

The real problem at the moment is the stupidity of most wireless phone customers with Internet access, who cheerfully pay a multiple of times what they pay for their wired Internet access, even though their wireless access is much slower and far less dependable, and usually comes with caps so low as to be insulting. The ISPs naturally want to cash in on the stupidity of these people, so why should they care what people think about their wired Internet access bandwidth offerings? The ISPs will spend all their money rolling out wireless service because that's where the suckers and the money are to be found. It is pretty much just that simple. It perfectly explains, for instance, why Verizon launched FiOS with such gusto only to completely halt its growth a few years later. Stupid people will stupidly pay *much more* for inferior wireless service, so that's where the ISPs are headed and that's where the ISPs are spending their roll-out cash.

So, tell me, how is the FCC going to fix stupid customers?...;) No cure for that except an injection of brains, imo.
Click to expand...
Consumers are stupid. This is true.
 
WaltC said:
Yep, so they can do to the Internet what they did to the POTs telephone system in this country. People are so funny to think "the government" is the "solution" to everything in life they might not agree with, or, or more likely, not understand. Regulation brought us the AT&T long-distance monopoly, and regulation ruined the nation's phone systems--which did not recover until the mess the government created was undone through deregulation.

The real problem at the moment is the stupidity of most wireless phone customers with Internet access, who cheerfully pay a multiple of times what they pay for their wired Internet access, even though their wireless access is much slower and far less dependable, and usually comes with caps so low as to be insulting. The ISPs naturally want to cash in on the stupidity of these people, so why should they care what people think about their wired Internet access bandwidth offerings? The ISPs will spend all their money rolling out wireless service because that's where the suckers and the money are to be found. It is pretty much just that simple. It perfectly explains, for instance, why Verizon launched FiOS with such gusto only to completely halt its growth a few years later. Stupid people will stupidly pay *much more* for inferior wireless service, so that's where the ISPs are headed and that's where the ISPs are spending their roll-out cash.

So, tell me, how is the FCC going to fix stupid customers?...;) No cure for that except an injection of brains, imo.
Click to expand...

The problem we have is corruption in the process not so much, just 'regulations'.. honestly, is the more and MORE corruption.. seems to be speeding-up third-world style.

Good internet is dead// we are going Canada's way, slowly, or maybe worse.
 
The problem is we don't need to "regulate" the internet, it should be something that one company can undercut another, or one can charge more than another. What we need is to "regulate" the existing market and break up the power grab these monopolies have. No not oligopoly, actual monopolies, when companies like Comcast convince cities to sign exclusivity contracts they create a monopoly with that product, the fact you can put a dish on your roof, or get the internet over copper is irrelevant, they are blocking out any other company from using the same technique/technology and they have created a cable monopoly, and since they have a cable monopoly they're pretty damn close to having a broadband monopoly, which FYI is why Comcast was getting their feathers rustled up when the FCC suggested 10Mbps as a minimum which they can easily do, however AT&T's DSL service is not doing that (unless there is Uverse.. the real Uverse not rebranded DSL) because they don't want a real monopoly line to be drawn.
 
The ISPs have done a fantastic job of getting all of you gullible idiots clamoring something that will cost you more money. Title II regulations beg for a pay per byte system of billing. This will likely lower the cost of internet for many people, however the howling idiots who are all up in arms about this are likely the ones who use the most data and are going to be cutting out their livers to pay for their netflix addictions.
 
I'm sure Twitch sending this guy a photocopy of the check for almost $1 billion from Amazon would convince him otherwise.
 
sfsuphysics said:
The problem is we don't need to "regulate" the internet, it should be something that one company can undercut another, or one can charge more than another. What we need is to "regulate" the existing market and break up the power grab these monopolies have. No not oligopoly, actual monopolies, when companies like Comcast convince cities to sign exclusivity contracts they create a monopoly with that product, the fact you can put a dish on your roof, or get the internet over copper is irrelevant, they are blocking out any other company from using the same technique/technology and they have created a cable monopoly, and since they have a cable monopoly they're pretty damn close to having a broadband monopoly, which FYI is why Comcast was getting their feathers rustled up when the FCC suggested 10Mbps as a minimum which they can easily do, however AT&T's DSL service is not doing that (unless there is Uverse.. the real Uverse not rebranded DSL) because they don't want a real monopoly line to be drawn.
Click to expand...

10 Mbps would be sweet, though I'm sure Verizon and the others will pull out their briefcases full of money and get things they really want like capping, 10 mb for 200 a month or price per byte it will resemble what the cell data is like now, in order to watch a movie or download music you will end up paying up the rear for this... thus killing the thriving business that is emerging now. when I talk about the emerging business I mean movie streaming, something I'm enjoying I don't have to get up to rent a dvd I just pick the movie from apple tv. say bye bye to that kind of crap. kind of funny also redbox and verizon had their streaming that has failed. this is just a way to eliminate competition.
 
WaltC said:
Yep, so they can do to the Internet what they did to the POTs telephone system in this country.[/QUOTE}Our telephone system has been under these exact same Title II regs and protections since 1934.


WaltC said:
People are so funny to think "the government" is the "solution" to everything in life they might not agree with, or, or more likely, not understand. Regulation brought us the AT&T long-distance monopoly, and regulation ruined the nation's phone systems--which did not recover until the mess the government created was undone through deregulation.
Click to expand...
Not sure what school you went to, but the Communications Act of 1934 was our federal government's response to the already-existing monopoly by telephone service providers in our country.

Government is and can be the only effective protector of our constitutional rights, and restraint on corporate profit motive. Sorry to break the news to the last extremely tattered remnants of Ronald Reagan's coattails, but the internet has become by all accounts not only our country's but the world's primary and most essential utility for private communication, and it not only should but must and will be protected as such. It's the only eventuality if we wish to save the internet as a two-way medium.
Click to expand...
 
JeffDC said:
WaltC said:
Yep, so they can do to the Internet what they did to the POTs telephone system in this country.[/QUOTE}Our telephone system has been under these exact same Title II regs and protections since 1934.


Not sure what school you went to, but the Communications Act of 1934 was our federal government's response to the already-existing monopoly by telephone service providers in our country.

Government is and can be the only effective protector of our constitutional rights, and restraint on corporate profit motive. Sorry to break the news to the last extremely tattered remnants of Ronald Reagan's coattails, but the internet has become by all accounts not only our country's but the world's primary and most essential utility for private communication, and it not only should but must and will be protected as such. It's the only eventuality if we wish to save the internet as a two-way medium.
Click to expand...

ok lets me see in the 80's the price for a kilowatt hour was about 7.80 now it is 11.80
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0810
the price for Gas was about 1.25 now it is 3.54
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/r..._transportation/2014/5_Economy/table5_8_table
if you notice I used your beloved gov site for my information, the same gov that says inflation is in check the reg those industries, if you believe that gov is the answer here your really naive.
Click to expand...
 
Autopia said:
JeffDC said:
ok lets me see in the 80's the price for a kilowatt hour was about 7.80 now it is 11.80
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0810
the price for Gas was about 1.25 now it is 3.54
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/r..._transportation/2014/5_Economy/table5_8_table
if you notice I used your beloved gov site for my information, the same gov that says inflation is in check the reg those industries, if you believe that gov is the answer here your really naive.
Click to expand...
I think the record and history of our telephone system speaks for itself, at least from 1934 until the multinational coup that occurred under Nixon when he "opened the gates to China" and finished burying our country's gold standard in 1971. Reagan followed with eight years of relentless lying, again on behalf of the multinationals, about the ability of America's labor force to compete with socialist Communism -- Nixon buried our gold standard at a time when China was the only major trading partner who dictated the value of their own currency.
Click to expand...
 
JeffDC said:
Autopia said:
I think the record and history of our telephone system speaks for itself, at least from 1934 until the multinational coup that occurred under Nixon when he "opened the gates to China" and finished burying our country's gold standard in 1971. Reagan followed with eight years of relentless lying, again on behalf of the multinationals, about the ability of America's labor force to compete with socialist Communism -- Nixon buried our gold standard at a time when China was the only major trading partner who dictated the value of their own currency.
Click to expand...

there are a couple things that need to be cleared 1) Nixon himself was a Keynesian, having a gold standard got in the way with what they wanted to do... with a gold standard government was held in check as to what they could spend and borrow without it they could do what ever they wanted. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_nixongold.html
2) everyone that had gold stored in America came and asked for their gold back. with a value set at 35. a ounce it would have broke America. thus the second reason for removing America off the standard. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/nixon-shock
both are good reads if you have time.

as for Reagan: no other President has done more to create new jobs for average Americas because of his earlier policy's the middle class thrived and moved up the economic ladder, "note I said his early policies." later that changed as he gave into government stoolies. http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/11/02/the-real-story-of-job-creation/
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...nd_job_creation_winners_and_losers_99968.html

1 president declared the end of big government (Clinton) http://www.cnn.com/US/9601/budget/01-27/clinton_radio/

the other push tax cuts with no government intervention. numbers don't lie point being as long as new jobs are created we can compete with everyone as soon as that dies we find that your point is correct.
Click to expand...
 
m heisty said:
The ISPs have done a fantastic job of getting all of you gullible idiots clamoring something that will cost you more money. Title II regulations beg for a pay per byte system of billing. This will likely lower the cost of internet for many people, however the howling idiots who are all up in arms about this are likely the ones who use the most data and are going to be cutting out their livers to pay for their netflix addictions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's sad how many people think government action = lower cost, when often the opposite is true, and this will likely be another example of it.
 
You know despite all the fear mongering over what the government might do to the internet, we already know what the corporate self interests are doing to it. There are no what-if scenarios with Comcast right now. They have already shown their cards on the table. They want to charge for premium access to certain WEBSITES. I mean how can it get any worse than this? I'd rather have a pay per byte system no matter what the cost, because I can at least throw money at the problem and get equal access to whatever I want. But Comcast isnt charging their subscribers additional fee's to use Netflix, they are charging Netflix to use Comcast. This gives them the power to shape content and squeeze competitors out of the market. This is the very problem with monopolies. It doesnt let the consumer dictate the success of a business. It lets the business decide what we have access to. If Comcast had such a problem with streaming media then they could consider it a premium service and charge extra for streaming protocol, but they didnt. They chose Netflix because they are their #1 competitor in on-demand television.

There is absolutely nothing about a regulation free ISP that is going to benefit us in any way whatsoever. It wouldnt matter how badly the gubment fucked it up, Comcast et al will do far worse.
 
What's even more funny is that the only example the anti-gov peeps have on display here is our woefully outdated and underperforming infrastructure in the USA. It's like you're holding up Comcast as some sort of crowning achievement for what ISP's should aspire to, "behold, our internet! We must not let the evil clutches of gov't touch thee, for else it may end up inefficient and expensive!!". The USA's broadband network is the laughing stock of the 1st world. Acting as if we must preserve what we have now lest we lose it all to gov bureaucracy makes my cheeks tingle after a solid facepalm.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
Yeah, it's sad how many people think government action = lower cost, when often the opposite is true, and this will likely be another example of it.
Click to expand...

Sad how people think that the "market will correct itself" is a better action. Things will "correct itself" when there are options. However when any choice you have in high speed internet is cable.... and that's it, then you're fucked proper style. Just look at where Google fiber entered the market, now all of a sudden Cable will push 300Mbps, and hell even AT&T is saying they can delivery 1Gbps speeds. However places where Google fiber doesn't plan on pushing into, you're pretty much hosed, I think for me 25Mbps for $60-70/month after the promo period ends (although I did start getting flyers saying they were doubling speeds on so who knows... maybe faster)
 
You have a conglomerate of cronies ranking worst in customer satisfaction year after year, actively and publicly engaging in anti-neutrality behavior with no shame, overcharging and underdelivering, trying to define FOUR MEGABITS as broadband (lol? LOL???!!) and these are the people you want to entrust to manage our access to the internet? Are you fucking kidding me???. It's like climate deniers, it's so ridiculously easy to manipulate people into acting against their own best interests. The fact that anyone could possibly defend American ISP's and act as if they are doing just fine on their own is like..... god I dont know what it's like, it's just fucking pure lunacy lol.
 
Autopia said:
as for Reagan: no other President has done more to create new jobs for average Americas because of his earlier policy's the middle class thrived and moved up the economic ladder, "note I said his early policies." later that changed as he gave into government stoolies. http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/11/02/the-real-story-of-job-creation/
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...nd_job_creation_winners_and_losers_99968.html

1 president declared the end of big government (Clinton) http://www.cnn.com/US/9601/budget/01-27/clinton_radio/

the other push tax cuts with no government intervention. numbers don't lie point being as long as new jobs are created we can compete with everyone as soon as that dies we find that your point is correct.
Click to expand...
We're well off topic and this will be my last unrelated response in this thread.

According to history, when Reagan was elected in 1980, the U.S. was the world's largest creditor, a title our country had held for several decades. By the time Reagan left office eight years later our country was, and remains to this day, the largest debtor nation in the world. It's amazing imo that some people still insist on regarding him as a fiscal conservative.

Again imo you're either too young or haven't read enough to know what actually went on in the mid-1980's. One of the major issues during Reagan's second term was Congress' (controlled at the time by Democrats) attempt to modify our corporate tax code, to remove at least some of the financial incentives our corporations had to export our jobs. Everyone saw the writing on the wall with regard to our labor force, in light of Nixon's "opening the gates to China", but Reagan campaigned relentlessly against this and because of his popularity (mainly people like yourself) the proposals were dropped. And the mass exodus of our labor force commenced. Our corporations did it and continue doing it simply because our government rewards them financially for doing so.

Every U.S. president before Nixon ignored Communist China, because it was and remains the only way to maintain fair trade, labor, environmental and many other standards among Western countries. In fact I've discovered the most efficient way to separate real Republicans from fake ones is to ask them where they stand on trade with China. Multinational traitors will start mumbling horseshit about how America will just start dropping dead in the streets if we're deprived of $50 computer monitors, while real ones will simply explain the history and reasons for it.

The direct result of Nixon's "opening the gates to China" is our current trillion dollar annual trade deficit with the aforementioned country. Anyone of any political affiliation is invited to explain, preferably soon, how much longer these deficits are sustainable.
 
The problem with charging per byte is that internet access is an all or nothing thing. The cost to send 1GB is effectively the same as it is to send 1MB (probably less than 1% difference) given the same size pipe (or virtual pipe with wireless). Hell, it is still close to the same cost to send nothing at all and just keep the equipment running.

Wireless (and hardline as well actually) should really be charging as: pay more and be less likely to be throttled when our network can't handle all of the bandwidth. So at 3AM, you should be able to download as fast and as much as you want because almost no one else is using the bandwidth and at 8PM, you have to pay for speed if there are lots of people on. It is simple QoS, but make it apply to all traffic equality and not favor any particular type of traffic.
 
McFry said:
You know despite all the fear mongering over what the government might do to the internet, we already know what the corporate self interests are doing to it. There are no what-if scenarios with Comcast right now. They have already shown their cards on the table. They want to charge for premium access to certain WEBSITES. I mean how can it get any worse than this? I'd rather have a pay per byte system no matter what the cost, because I can at least throw money at the problem and get equal access to whatever I want. But Comcast isnt charging their subscribers additional fee's to use Netflix, they are charging Netflix to use Comcast. This gives them the power to shape content and squeeze competitors out of the market. This is the very problem with monopolies. It doesnt let the consumer dictate the success of a business. It lets the business decide what we have access to. If Comcast had such a problem with streaming media then they could consider it a premium service and charge extra for streaming protocol, but they didnt. They chose Netflix because they are their #1 competitor in on-demand television.

There is absolutely nothing about a regulation free ISP that is going to benefit us in any way whatsoever. It wouldnt matter how badly the gubment fucked it up, Comcast et al will do far worse.
Click to expand...

you tend to forget that corp like comcast have a local monopoly signed deals with the local government to keep competition out of the area, in other words government and corp working to screw the people in the area.
please explain to me can any company go into a area and line line or fiber op for new internet service?
 
JeffDC said:
We're well off topic and this will be my last unrelated response in this thread.

According to history, when Reagan was elected in 1980, the U.S. was the world's largest creditor, a title our country had held for several decades. By the time Reagan left office eight years later our country was, and remains to this day, the largest debtor nation in the world. It's amazing imo that some people still insist on regarding him as a fiscal conservative.

Again imo you're either too young or haven't read enough to know what actually went on in the mid-1980's. One of the major issues during Reagan's second term was Congress' (controlled at the time by Democrats) attempt to modify our corporate tax code, to remove at least some of the financial incentives our corporations had to export our jobs. Everyone saw the writing on the wall with regard to our labor force, in light of Nixon's "opening the gates to China", but Reagan campaigned relentlessly against this and because of his popularity (mainly people like yourself) the proposals were dropped. And the mass exodus of our labor force commenced. Our corporations did it and continue doing it simply because our government rewards them financially for doing so.

Every U.S. president before Nixon ignored Communist China, because it was and remains the only way to maintain fair trade, labor, environmental and many other standards among Western countries. In fact I've discovered the most efficient way to separate real Republicans from fake ones is to ask them where they stand on trade with China. Multinational traitors will start mumbling horseshit about how America will just start dropping dead in the streets if we're deprived of $50 computer monitors, while real ones will simply explain the history and reasons for it.

The direct result of Nixon's "opening the gates to China" is our current trillion dollar annual trade deficit with the aforementioned country. Anyone of any political affiliation is invited to explain, preferably soon, how much longer these deficits are sustainable.
Click to expand...

it is obvious you didn't read the articles which is sad. if you weren't so narrow minded you see that you are partly correct but lacking in so areas all you need to do is read to fill in those holes anger will do that to people.
 
Autopia said:
it is obvious you didn't read the articles which is sad. if you weren't so narrow minded you see that you are partly correct but lacking in so areas all you need to do is read to fill in those holes anger will do that to people.
Click to expand...

I don't want to hop on this train anymore than JeffDC, but please take off the blinders. As someone greatly interested in the state of the economy, with much invested into not experiencing a second dip with the end of QE, I feel you just don't get it. Please go look at the massive amount of information and statistics that show the wealth gap skyrocket due to reaganomics. This is nothing more than fact. Consumer spending has halted because there is no longer a middle class. Simply look at the numbers, a five year old could read the graph. I cannot understand this argument against it, it's asinine and naive (as you comically stated)
 
mt2e said:
In my world the telecom world.....Verizon is known for being the biggest sack of shit ever. They have some of the worst business practives of the whole industry....they are very underhanded in respects to the repairs made within thier own network, they f over everybody else when they get a chance.
Click to expand...

So does comcast and any other broadband provider.
 
No one remembers that AT&T used to charge by the DOLLARS per minute instead of cents on landlines before FCC stepped in and did its job?

Market wont fix itself, sorry. Third world class internet for all if a dollar is a vote.
 
In Florida,it won't help to put verizon wireless, or the internet plant and IP under the public utility commission. The commision is totally ineffective,possibly due to corruption. Florida has had to prosecute commision members in the past.
I believe that Internet providers should not be able to provide content and that they should not own plant,such as copper cable and fiber optics.No entity should be able to provide any business with a monopoly over plant,IP,or content.
 
Autopia said:
you tend to forget that corp like comcast have a local monopoly signed deals with the local government to keep competition out of the area, in other words government and corp working to screw the people in the area.
please explain to me can any company go into a area and line line or fiber op for new internet service?
Click to expand...

While this certainly makes gov't complicit in the problem, it's kind of irrelevant since a local monopoly would exist either way. It's not like because of the gov't these monopolies were made possible, the local municipalities simply allowed it, which is lame. But even if you removed gov't from the equation Comcast would have no problem simply using their power to push out competitors anyway. In fact they would probably be a lot further along the process than they are right now. There would be no debate on the time warner merger, it would have already happened 5 years ago. In fact they'd probably buy ATT too, and own at least 90% market share.
 
JeffDC said:
The direct result of Nixon's "opening the gates to China" is our current trillion dollar annual trade deficit with the aforementioned country. Anyone of any political affiliation is invited to explain, preferably soon, how much longer these deficits are sustainable.
Click to expand...

A long time. I know "a trillion dollars" sounds like a lot of money, but compared to GDP and the grand scheme of things it's not. Our country's deficit is on par with any other loan:value ratio. Do you make $300k per year? Probably not, but I bet you can get a loan for it to buy a house, and I bet you'll pay it off too with little risk to the lender.
 
What is being said in this thread leads me to believe that many of you do not know the difference between Verizon and Comcast. They are in fact very different companies. Verizon is a Tier 1 provider and is an actual internet backbone provider. They have the power to charge what ever they damn well please to either side of the market. If they want to tell Netflix that it is going to cost them x$/petabyte they can do that. Comcast on the other hand is in a far weaker position. They are what is known as a last mile (not really an accurate title but whatever) they purchase peering agreements with major content providers and Tier 1 backbone providers. They do not actually host the internet, they are merely just a point of connection for retail customers.

Everyone is freaking out and claiming ISPs are the boogey men and will take their facebook away from them. Besides from that actually being a good thing for society (taking away facebook) they, Comcast esp, have no incentive to do that. If they loose customers they loose revenue. Verizon has a different issue. If they loose customers not only do they loose revenue but their costs being to rise. Their peering agreements with other Tier 1 providers is governed by near neutral loads. This means they send and receive almost the same amounts of data between themselves. If one agent suddenly is sending or receiving more than receive or send their balance is thrown off and the others will start to bill them for this. How will this happen if they loose customers? Their networks will now be used more for pass through than point of origination or destination. Because of this their balance will be skewed because nothing is starting or ending within their network and their ability to charge their interconnect partners goes down.

Everyone needs to realize that the internet isn't just ISPs and the world wide web.
 
McFry said:
A long time. I know "a trillion dollars" sounds like a lot of money, but compared to GDP and the grand scheme of things it's not. Our country's deficit is on par with any other loan:value ratio. Do you make $300k per year? Probably not, but I bet you can get a loan for it to buy a house, and I bet you'll pay it off too with little risk to the lender.
Click to expand...

Those are two totally different things.

The person you quoted was talking about trade deficit. Which it just so happens to not matter either. Everyone gets all butt hurt about how much we spend on military. In reality fighting oil wars are just an added benefit. The real reason we have a big military is money. We can enforce our borrowing with the barrel of a gun. We can enforce the US dollar as the reserve currency of the world at the barrel of a gun. We can borrow with impunity and face no real serious consequences because we can enforce our rules with a gun.

I'm not a fan of the country carrying all of this debt but the fact of the matter is it is irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of the money is borrowed basically 0% interest so why not borrow the money. What I do have a serious problem with is how we spend the borrowed money. We spend it on things that will never have any return of any kind ever. We need to spend it on hard projects such as infrastructure, space exploration, mineral exploration, etc. Not making sure every fucking looser has health insurance, free money for women who pop out a kids with no though of how to raise them, extending grandmas life for a few more days just because we as a society can't mature enough to understand that death is a natural process. I am in no way saying that we shouldn't give people health care if they have years of life left in them. I am however saying that putting someone in the hospital and loading them full of expensive drugs just so they can live a week longer is not a smart use of resources. Send them home with pain killers, and oxygen. If they die on Wednesday, when they could have made it until Monday in the hospital. Well that's just sucks for them.
 
haste. said:
I don't want to hop on this train anymore than JeffDC, but please take off the blinders. As someone greatly interested in the state of the economy, with much invested into not experiencing a second dip with the end of QE, I feel you just don't get it. Please go look at the massive amount of information and statistics that show the wealth gap skyrocket due to reaganomics. This is nothing more than fact. Consumer spending has halted because there is no longer a middle class. Simply look at the numbers, a five year old could read the graph. I cannot understand this argument against it, it's asinine and naive (as you comically stated)
Click to expand...

oh Haste, printing 85 billion a month and giving it to the stock market how is that reaganomics? The only people it is helping is the rich the poor doesn't have money to invest in the stock market you guys seem to miss that point...I use to own a business for 12 yrs until everything collapsed then I went back to school and now work in IT. my point which I think everyone is missing is this, if NEW JOBS are created everyone will be working and moving up but new jobs aren't being created and that hurting everyone, that is why economist look for the new jobs report.

Please explain to me if things are better now then why isn't there a middle class? theres no way the 80s killed the middle class forever or Clinton wouldn't have anything to brag about. I keep posting article from places that aren't conservative you guys just blow past it never reading the information you ask me to read and I am reading using information in this I believe cordial debate if you ask me you guys are the ones with blinders on. sorry if that comes across harsh i just find it sad you won't even look at the information posted and base your rebuttal on it.
 
Autopia said:
oh Haste, printing 85 billion a month and giving it to the stock market how is that reaganomics? The only people it is helping is the rich the poor doesn't have money to invest in the stock market you guys seem to miss that point...I use to own a business for 12 yrs until everything collapsed then I went back to school and now work in IT. my point which I think everyone is missing is this, if NEW JOBS are created everyone will be working and moving up but new jobs aren't being created and that hurting everyone, that is why economist look for the new jobs report.

Please explain to me if things are better now then why isn't there a middle class? theres no way the 80s killed the middle class forever or Clinton wouldn't have anything to brag about. I keep posting article from places that aren't conservative you guys just blow past it never reading the information you ask me to read and I am reading using information in this I believe cordial debate if you ask me you guys are the ones with blinders on. sorry if that comes across harsh i just find it sad you won't even look at the information posted and base your rebuttal on it.
Click to expand...

You have what they assume are conservative leaning ideas. In reality your ideas are more libertarian. However, therefore any source you use is inherently invalid because it does not fit their world view. This is common among people who view themselves as "free thinkers" or "independents" in reality these are generally the easiest people to fool. They grasp on so tightly to one point of view they basically become the people they mock. The only difference is they still seem to believe they are impartial.
 
McFry said:
While this certainly makes gov't complicit in the problem, it's kind of irrelevant since a local monopoly would exist either way. It's not like because of the gov't these monopolies were made possible, the local municipalities simply allowed it, which is lame. But even if you removed gov't from the equation Comcast would have no problem simply using their power to push out competitors anyway. In fact they would probably be a lot further along the process than they are right now. There would be no debate on the time warner merger, it would have already happened 5 years ago. In fact they'd probably buy ATT too, and own at least 90% market share.
Click to expand...

I do believe because of the government these monopolies exist deals were stuck with local, state and federal governments and now we are where we are. if the government wasn't as corrupt as it is now we wouldn't have this problem. but because people of character aren't running things now. I would agree with your rebuttal if there was honorable people there but that doesn't seem to exist people like that are made fun of. I know this just opened up whole another can of worms.
 
m heisty said:
You have what they assume are conservative leaning ideas. In reality your ideas are more libertarian. However, therefore any source you use is inherently invalid because it does not fit their world view. This is common among people who view themselves as "free thinkers" or "independents" in reality these are generally the easiest people to fool. They grasp on so tightly to one point of view they basically become the people they mock. The only difference is they still seem to believe they are impartial.
Click to expand...

I do have a more libertarian view point and it at times drives my wife crazy. Thank You!
 
McFry said:
A long time. I know "a trillion dollars" sounds like a lot of money, but compared to GDP and the grand scheme of things it's not. Our country's deficit is on par with any other loan:value ratio. Do you make $300k per year? Probably not, but I bet you can get a loan for it to buy a house, and I bet you'll pay it off too with little risk to the lender.
Click to expand...
Our national debt is already $18 trillion. Or are you in the camp who says it doesn't matter how big the debt gets, we'll let our great-great-great-grandkids worry about paying it back"?

So at what point does the world decide we pay ourselves with Monopoly money. After just paying over $12 for two made-in-china toothbrushes I think they've already started to catch on. Aren't the benefits of Chinese sweatshops just great?
 
JeffDC said:
Our national debt is already $18 trillion. Or are you in the camp who says it doesn't matter how big the debt gets, we'll let our great-great-great-grandkids worry about paying it back"?

So at what point does the world decide we pay ourselves with Monopoly money. After just paying over $12 for two made-in-china toothbrushes I think they've already started to catch on. Aren't the benefits of Chinese sweatshops just great?
Click to expand...

Well according to an enlightening conversation I had with an economy major 2 years ago, 50 trillion in debt and then things start getting worrisome.
 
Autopia said:
oh Haste, printing 85 billion a month and giving it to the stock market how is that reaganomics? The only people it is helping is the rich the poor doesn't have money to invest in the stock market you guys seem to miss that point...I use to own a business for 12 yrs until everything collapsed then I went back to school and now work in IT. my point which I think everyone is missing is this, if NEW JOBS are created everyone will be working and moving up but new jobs aren't being created and that hurting everyone, that is why economist look for the new jobs report.

Please explain to me if things are better now then why isn't there a middle class? theres no way the 80s killed the middle class forever or Clinton wouldn't have anything to brag about. I keep posting article from places that aren't conservative you guys just blow past it never reading the information you ask me to read and I am reading using information in this I believe cordial debate if you ask me you guys are the ones with blinders on. sorry if that comes across harsh i just find it sad you won't even look at the information posted and base your rebuttal on it.
Click to expand...

My point is that there is no middle class and If you would look at the "cold hard" facts, you will see that the income gap became fantastically unequal immediately when reaganomics began. The rest of my post will be my opinion, but that is absolute fact. There is no middle class, there is the rich and the not rich - don't kid yourself into believing otherwise.

QE, although foolish and flawed, has (and only my opinion which I understand means nothing in the grand scheme) has prevented disastrous inflation or deflation.

They are cutting the QE cord at the right time. The rally of the US dollar combined with the spread on treasury vs foreign treasury had influenced foreign money coming in... Preventing a bond bubble at least for today. QE tapering could have been a nightmare, but the fed lucked out.
 
sfsuphysics said:
The problem is we don't need to "regulate" the internet, it should be something that one company can undercut another, or one can charge more than another. What we need is to "regulate" the existing market and break up the power grab these monopolies have. No not oligopoly, actual monopolies, when companies like Comcast convince cities to sign exclusivity contracts they create a monopoly with that product, the fact you can put a dish on your roof, or get the internet over copper is irrelevant, they are blocking out any other company from using the same technique/technology and they have created a cable monopoly, and since they have a cable monopoly they're pretty damn close to having a broadband monopoly, which FYI is why Comcast was getting their feathers rustled up when the FCC suggested 10Mbps as a minimum which they can easily do, however AT&T's DSL service is not doing that (unless there is Uverse.. the real Uverse not rebranded DSL) because they don't want a real monopoly line to be drawn.
Click to expand...

sfsuphysics said:
Sad how people think that the "market will correct itself" is a better action. Things will "correct itself" when there are options. However when any choice you have in high speed internet is cable.... and that's it, then you're fucked proper style. Just look at where Google fiber entered the market, now all of a sudden Cable will push 300Mbps, and hell even AT&T is saying they can delivery 1Gbps speeds. However places where Google fiber doesn't plan on pushing into, you're pretty much hosed, I think for me 25Mbps for $60-70/month after the promo period ends (although I did start getting flyers saying they were doubling speeds on so who knows... maybe faster)
Click to expand...

The problem is that nobody can afford to try to be an option. Now due to red tape, but just due to the overall nature of the costly the entire project is. I could see Google easily spending $150+ million per city they move into. When you have no way to recover that you aren't going to be so willing to go spend that much if you aren't a company with money to blow on things. $150 million to Google is like $5 to us. In most places there is nothing stopping somebody else from coming into your area. Hell last week EarthLink (using a different name) emailed me to sell me fiber to our office. Which being that we are a Telco / ISP don't need their service. But they decided they wanted to sell service in our area so I guess they moved in and started to build a fiber network. Also found that another company is doing something similar. Not like we can to tell them to screw off this is our area. Even parts of your city have an option for cable as another company came in and built overtop of Comcast.

The regulations that are in place now really hurt customers more than they help. Adding more will not really change anything either. Sadly I think the only real option is to just hope that customer demand will change things. However even though the average person isn't going to use more than 15 - 20 Mbps of service, if Comcast offers them 40Mbps for the same price as 20Mbps from somebody else they will go haul ass over to Comcast while bitching the entire time about how they hate them.

And as I have said many times before xDSL can do 10+Mbps so AT&T can do that without any trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top