Portuguese ISP Shows Us What the Net Looks like without Net Neutrality

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
If this is true, why hasn't it happened up until now? Baseless fear mongering by HardOCP's resident snowflake leftist.
Not sure what you mean?
The whole thing has been growing, the entire information age keeps growing, and with that growth, comes interest in control.. for of course more and more profit.
So, I am not sure what you mean about it hasn't happened until now (?) Amazon hasn't happened until not too long ago, Netflix hasn't happened until not long ago.. (?)
 
D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
Net neutrality is a fix specific to our market, because it wasn't politically possible to do the ideal thing which is mandate line sharing so any ISP can offer service over a provider's "dumb" pipe. If you have line sharing then you don't necessarily need NN anymore, because then the free market would sort itself out, people would switch to a better service out of a hundred choices if they didn't like their current provider.

As is, you get the choice of one or two providers per area in our market because the last mile is not shared, so the ISP owning it can do what it pleases, NN tries to keep them in check. It's better than the "nothing" alternative.

One hopes this monopoly problem is not going to be one of the "crony-capitalist" curses the next generation has to bear as well, but odds are against them thanks to their parents.
That would do nothing to fix the problem. You don't need line sharing, you need it to be a free market where ISPs can choose to lay cable/fiber, as it stands now government controls all ROWs and did so under the guise that if it didn't, private market would control the ROWs and restrict others from installing lines to peoples homes.....Exactly what the government is doing now. This is why most areas have single providers, these ISPs get in first and offer kick backs to regulators and local government, this is why most public buildings get free internet, phone and cable services in these areas as well, its another part of the kick back, in turn the local regulation of the ROW restricts others from installing lines, or makes it so hard and expensive that it's not an option if the other ISP wants to be price competitive. Googles struggle with this is a prime example, they are one of the few with the legal team and money to push into the market, and even then some areas took YEARS to force into and is why they bought that gigabit wireless company so they would not have to install last mile in ROW, getting around all the local regulation, they were swiftly sued by others stating they should still be controlled as if they were installing into a ROW and stopped from doing so. In one area Google was installing into Comcast stated it's lines were saturated and it could not offer extra speeds and didn't have the money to install super expensive new lines. As soon as Googles service went active Comcast dropped prices and upped speeds on its service across the board over night.

We don't need MORE government control and regulator capture, we need LESS.
 

nysmo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
945
You could also look at the Internet in the USA for the last 30 years if you wanted to see Internet without "net neutrality".

Just saying.
I hate this tired dumb excuse every time I see it. Hey, why wear a seatbelt if you havent been in a car wreck in the last 30 years? Heck why have any insurance at all, I mean historically you have a 100% success rate at living and surviving injury, therefore the past predicts the future and you are set for life right? Failing to be proactive can have costly consequences.

The internet has not existed as it has for the last 30 years. 30 years ago the internet wasnt the internet as we know it today. It was a growing burgeoning ecosystem that nobody quite knew where it was headed or where to profit. The landscape is still shifting but not quite as much anymore. There simply was not enough data to incentivize raping the system as there was today. Carriers were still building their infrastructure, things like Netflix werent a legitimate threat to cable.
 

jardows

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
1,794
But isn't this the exact same thing we've been clamoring for with subscription TV services? Instead of paying one high rate for everything + the kitchen sink, we pay lower rates for only what we use? In an age where Internet access is mostly used for entertainment consumption anyway, can any of those so upset about this offering tell me how this is any different than the Cable TV packages we all hate?
 
D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
I hate this tired dumb excuse every time I see it. Hey, why wear a seatbelt if you havent been in a car wreck in the last 30 years? Heck why have any insurance at all, I mean historically you have a 100% success rate at living and surviving injury, therefore the past predicts the future and you are set for life right? Failing to be proactive can have costly consequences.

The internet has not existed as it has for the last 30 years. 30 years ago the internet wasnt the internet as we know it today. It was a growing burgeoning ecosystem that nobody quite knew where it was headed or where to profit. The landscape is still shifting but not quite as much anymore. There simply was not enough data to incentivize raping the system as there was today. Carriers were still building their infrastructure, things like Netflix werent a legitimate threat to cable.
This would be more like not wearing a seat belt and then asking a drunk stranger to drive.

The internet and POTs has been around a long time, and it's history is rich with government involvement, and that involvement was also directly responsible for the abuse and control of Ma Bell along with a host of others including the current limited ISP choices, if you some how think more government control is going to fix this, I have news for you.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
Do you think AOL as it was 20 years ago would be considered anti Net Neutrality today?
Don't know, never used it?
I did use dialup, as far as I could know, there was no limitation, or distinction in how I used my data (time?, I think it was minutes then).
This would be more like not wearing a seat belt and then asking a drunk stranger to drive.

The internet and POTs has been around a long time, and it's history is rich with government involvement, and that involvement was also directly responsible for the abuse and control of Ma Bell along with a host of others including the current limited ISP choices, if you some how think more government control is going to fix this, I have news for you.
So, how does more regulatory capture my the extra-large no-competing ISPs going to help?
 

nysmo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
945
But isn't this the exact same thing we've been clamoring for with subscription TV services? Instead of paying one high rate for everything + the kitchen sink, we pay lower rates for only what we use? In an age where Internet access is mostly used for entertainment consumption anyway, can any of those so upset about this offering tell me how this is any different than the Cable TV packages we all hate?
Why are you comparing the internet to cable tv? They are two entirely different services.
 

westrock2000

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,169
Dial up used a loophole in the infrastructure of telephone service to allow users to circumvent the telephone companies as well as the traditional Internet providers AOL, Compuserv and Prodigy.

You still had to pay the telephone company to use their phone, but the nature of dial-up allowed you to directly contact an ISP. You were still double paying for Internet access (phone company + ISP). It wasn't that the phone companies didn't want to stop dial-up, they just couldn't. So they came up with a better solution.
 

nysmo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
945
if you some how think more government control is going to fix this, I have news for you.
sorry I dont really subscribe to the fairy tale of corporate entities with rational self-interests. Your only solution is a hope and a prayer that MAYBE a bunch of mom n' pop style ISP's sprout up and provide real competition to big Cable. Sorry but I dont have faith that Generic Co. is gonna come trench my neighborhood and run new fiber so I can get gigabit. But comcast did, and it's there now. They are the only organization that can afford to build out our country so we are reliant upon them, but at the same time they need to be put in check to make sure they dont abuse the control they have been given.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
Dial up used a loophole in the infrastructure of telephone service to allow users to circumvent the telephone companies as well as the traditional Internet providers AOL, Compuserv and Prodigy.

You still had to pay the telephone company to use their phone, but the nature of dial-up allowed you to directly contact an ISP. You were still double paying for Internet access (phone company + ISP). It wasn't that the phone companies didn't want to stop dial-up, they just couldn't. So they came up with a better solution.
Grow extra large, become faster-access internet via having the government allow extra taxes, and such. Then after they control the gates (as they do), eliminate open access (or NN) rules to essentially turn the gates into a toll booths, for both customer, and internet-based companies.
It is brilliant!
It's NOT good for anyone but themselves.
 
D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
Don't know, never used it?
I did use dialup, as far as I could know, there was no limitation, or distinction in how I used my data (time?, I think it was minutes then).

So, how does more regulatory capture my the extra-large no-competing ISPs going to help?
Be further reducing the ability of new ISPs from competing or offering services, it also reduces the ability of companies to offer value added services, such as the case of tmoble whose service was offering streaming to given music and video services that would not count to data caps, all of which would not be allowed under NN. NN also does not solve the current problem, its a bad solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

sorry I dont really subscribe to the fairy tale of corporate entities with rational self-interests. Your only solution is a hope and a prayer that MAYBE a bunch of mom n' pop style ISP's sprout up and provide real competition to big Cable. Sorry but I dont have faith that Generic Co. is gonna come trench my neighborhood and run new fiber so I can get gigabit. But comcast did, and it's there now. They are the only organization that can afford to build out our country so we are reliant upon them, but at the same time they need to be put in check to make sure they dont abuse the control they have been given.
You don't need mom n' pop style ISPs, and a number exist already, we have a number of providers, including Google who want nothing more than to be allowed to install new fiber, Google just happens to be the only one with the money to force it's way in, even then, they have had to skip over markets because it was going to be to expensive to fight the regulators. The same ideas you have were also used back in the Ma Bell days, in that no one else would run phone lines, it's expensive after all and economies of scale are what we need, not competition. And once those rules were reversed and the market opened up again, they had HUNDREDS of competitors in just a few years time and prices plummeted. But who cares about history and fact, lets use the same logic and Title II rules that allowed Ma Bell to become the government enforced monopoly monster it was.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
Be further reducing the ability of new ISPs from competing or offering services, it also reduces the ability of companies to offer value added services, such as the case of tmoble whose service was offering streaming to given music and video services that would not count to data caps, all of which would not be allowed under NN. NN also does not solve the current problem, its a bad solution to a problem that doesn't exist.



You don't need mom n' pop style ISPs, and a number exist already, we have a number of providers, including Google who want nothing more than to be allowed to install new fiber, Google just happens to be the only one with the money to force it's way in, even then, they have had to skip over markets because it was going to be to expensive to fight the regulators. The same ideas you have were also used back in the Ma Bell days, in that no one else would run phone lines, it's expensive after all and economies of scale are what we need, not competition. And once those rules were reversed and the market opened up again, they had HUNDREDS of competitors in just a few years time and prices plummeted. But who cares about history and fact, lets use the same logic and Title II rules that allowed Ma Bell to become the government enforced monopoly monster it was.
Eeehhh, I don't know... if Tmobile can afford to give 'free' access to select data-intensive services, why not simply offer MORE data for less money?
I mean since I am saying they shouldn't do that (give value added services) there is still lowering price/increasing service offer to compete.
Yes, there is no NN rules for mobile, but more problematic, and coming soon, they WILL eliminate NN for internet for your house.
 

jardows

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
1,794
Why are you comparing the internet to cable tv? They are two entirely different services.
But are they? Cable TV offers Education and Research (History, Discovery, Nat. Geo., etc.), shopping (HSN), Political information (C-Span), entertainment (too long to list examples) and the opportunity to upload and present your own content (Local access).

Both are services that provide access to content, useful and not. If all I need is email, why do I have to pay extra to have access to Steam, YouTube, Instagram, etc.?

One high price for all cable TV content = bad
Many different lower prices for a la carte TV content = Good
One high price for all Internet content = Good
Many different lower prices for a la carte Internet content = Bad

Please explain this to me.
 

nysmo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
945
But are they? Cable TV offers Education and Research (History, Discovery, Nat. Geo., etc.), shopping (HSN), Political information (C-Span), entertainment (too long to list examples) and the opportunity to upload and present your own content (Local access).

Both are services that provide access to content, useful and not. If all I need is email, why do I have to pay extra to have access to Steam, YouTube, Instagram, etc.?

One high price for all cable TV content = bad
Many different lower prices for a la carte TV content = Good
One high price for all Internet content = Good
Many different lower prices for a la carte Internet content = Bad

Please explain this to me.
Because one is on-demand and the other is a service.

It's like asking why should the grocery store carry all these groceries when all you need is milk and eggs.
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
Eeehhh, I don't know... if Tmobile can afford to give 'free' access to select data-intensive services, why not simply offer MORE data for less money?
I mean since I am saying they shouldn't do that (give value added services) there is still lowering price/increasing service offer to compete.
Yes, there is no NN rules for mobile, but more problematic, and coming soon, they WILL eliminate NN for internet for your house.
Because they force lower tier quality on those services and they also cache the content on local servers for the services that participate.
 

compslckr

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
8,883
It's kind of funny how the argument goes both ways.

With Cable TV everybody complains that they are paying for a bunch of channels that they will never watch. Nobody complains about all the websites they have access to that they will visit.
 

nysmo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
945
You don't need mom n' pop style ISPs, and a number exist already, we have a number of providers, including Google who want nothing more than to be allowed to install new fiber
We dont really know what Google's intentions are if given unfettered access to install wherever they want. Would they re-wire the entire continental united states? Was this just a one-off for a few cities to build some kind of brand repertoire? I mean this is no easy task. Google wants to retrofit Austin with Terabit fiber hey have at it, what about the other 8000 cities in the USA?
 

nysmo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
945
It's kind of funny how the argument goes both ways.

With Cable TV everybody complains that they are paying for a bunch of channels that they will never watch. Nobody complains about all the websites they have access to that they will visit.
Well thats because there's about 10 million websites you could visit so you cant make a pre-emptive call on what you do or dont want. There's only a hundred or so TV channels so it's pretty easy to say you dont care about Bravo or HGTV for example. If the entire internet were consolidated into a handful of websites like Facebook and Youtube then you could finally decide which package is right for you. TV is by and large nothing more than entertainment. Nobody wakes up one day and says "holy shit I need access to NASA tv for a research project im doing". However if you require access to a website that isnt part of your package then you're screwed.

It's like comparing a library with tons of information to your local theater that only has a few things on show. The on-demand nature of walking into the library so you can find the book you need is entirely different than walking into a movie theater and hoping they have something you want to watch. You all need to stop comparing TV to the internet just because both are controlled by the same organizations.
 

jardows

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
1,794
Because one is on-demand and the other is a service.

It's like asking why should the grocery store carry all these groceries when all you need is milk and eggs.
But I don't have to buy everything in the grocery store to just get the milk and eggs, so that is a bad analogy. Try again.
 

nysmo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
945
But I don't have to buy everything in the grocery store to just get the milk and eggs, so that is a bad analogy. Try again.
But if you need Olive Oil one day it's there. With cable tv it's never there whether you want/need it or not. If none of the packages they offer includes what you want then it's game over, which is why comparing TV to the internet is apples to oranges. TV is an entertainment medium consisting of a couple of hundreds channels, the internet is a multi-function communication service consisting of millions if not billions of "channels". When you go to the grocery store you need access to a wide array of products because at any given time they might be required. Cable TV is like walking into a movie theater, the expectation is "i'll take what I can get".

and dont be an ass saying "try again". If you have something to debate then go at it, quit acting like you've already won and it's up to me to prove you wrong.
 

jardows

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
1,794
But if you need Olive Oil one day it's there. With cable tv it's never there whether you want/need it or not. If none of the packages they offer includes what you want then it's game over, which is why comparing TV to the internet is apples to oranges. TV is an entertainment medium consisting of a couple of hundreds channels, the internet is a multi-function communication service consisting of millions if not billions of "channels". When you go to the grocery store you need access to a wide array of products because at any given time they might be required. Cable TV is like walking into a movie theater, the expectation is "i'll take what I can get".
Still, the grocery store is not a good analogy, since I do not pay for access to the grocery store, only for the items I purchase.

and dont be an ass saying "try again". If you have something to debate then go at it, quit acting like you've already won and it's up to me to prove you wrong.
I just want someone to explain to me how it is so different. You have failed to explain it to me. If I need the essential communication infrastructure, why do I have to pay for access to all the entertainment medium as well? Is it not acceptable to offer an "email only" plan, or something of the like? Why do I have to pay for the entirety of the Internet if I do not need it all? I want a good, well-reasoned explanation, not short, ineffectual analogies.
 

Mize

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
134
This is so cool!
Now I can just add the websites I want and not have to worry about searching for new ones.
Plus, my ISP can make kick-backs from the sites it does offer so it can get paid two ways for the same thing.
 

/dev/null

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Mar 31, 2001
Messages
14,390
T-mobile currently has something like this already in the US. Audio and video apps don't count towards caps.
If you have a favorite service, you just submit it to them.
If you don't like it, you can opt out. It's really not a bad deal.
Can I submit them my home /29, vpn there & run all my traffic through there? Then I end up with unlimited LTE....
 

dr.stevil

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
9,096
I just want someone to explain to me how it is so different. You have failed to explain it to me. If I need the essential communication infrastructure, why do I have to pay for access to all the entertainment medium as well? Is it not acceptable to offer an "email only" plan, or something of the like? Why do I have to pay for the entirety of the Internet if I do not need it all? I want a good, well-reasoned explanation, not short, ineffectual analogies.

x2

I don't get it either. The only thing I've ever read about 'net neutrality' sounded a whole lot like scare tactic/propaganda non-sense to me.

regardless, I don't see how it would even be remotely possible TBH (ISP's censoring shit behind paywalls). VPNs and tunneling makes it pretty moot.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
Still, the grocery store is not a good analogy, since I do not pay for access to the grocery store, only for the items I purchase.


I just want someone to explain to me how it is so different. You have failed to explain it to me. If I need the essential communication infrastructure, why do I have to pay for access to all the entertainment medium as well? Is it not acceptable to offer an "email only" plan, or something of the like? Why do I have to pay for the entirety of the Internet if I do not need it all? I want a good, well-reasoned explanation, not short, ineffectual analogies.
Because you are not paying for websites, you are paying for a communication service. Plus tv is nothing like internet. Tv is one sided only. Internet more about speech, and communication, less about broadcasting something.
 

scan13

[H]Lite
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
70
x2

I don't get it either. The only thing I've ever read about 'net neutrality' sounded a whole lot like scare tactic/propaganda non-sense to me.

regardless, I don't see how it would even be remotely possible TBH (ISP's censoring shit behind paywalls). VPNs and tunneling makes it pretty moot.
Without NN they decide what "kind" of data you're allowed to use. So if they say "no VPN", you can only obey.
 

dr.stevil

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
9,096
Without NN they decide what "kind" of data you're allowed to use. So if they say "no VPN", you can only obey.
I completely understand that. I 100% get what people are worried about. My question is.... why is this all of a sudden a thing?

The internet has been around for a long time, and widely adopted for decades at this point. We've never had NN and it's never been an issue until now. It's being promoted by companies and individuals, many of whom have less than stellar track records concerning privacy and censorship (Which is incredibly ironic). Until this actually becomes an issue, and ISPs want to charge per site or whatever, I don't see why people are sooooooo quick with the kneejerk reactions is all.

I'm not for ANY regulation of the internet (unless it's desperately needed). That is a dangerous slippery slope
 
Last edited:

PaulP

Gawd
Joined
Oct 31, 2016
Messages
776
There's so much bullshit being spewed about this issue these days that you need an axe to cut through it.
 

nysmo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
945
Still, the grocery store is not a good analogy, since I do not pay for access to the grocery store, only for the items I purchase.
The entry fee is built into the price of the items you purchase.
 

nysmo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
945
I just want someone to explain to me how it is so different. You have failed to explain it to me. If I need the essential communication infrastructure, why do I have to pay for access to all the entertainment medium as well? Is it not acceptable to offer an "email only" plan, or something of the like? Why do I have to pay for the entirety of the Internet if I do not need it all? I want a good, well-reasoned explanation, not short, ineffectual analogies.
You cant pay for "less access" to the internet, since all access is the same. An a la carte network package makes its money by overcharging for limited services. If you pay $50/month for access to 100 million websites or $5/month for access to 5, then you can see the per charge cost highly favors the ISP. There is no cost or difference between an ISP accessing Facebook vs Youtube, so when they choose to impose such a cost by segregating the websites the end goal is to coerce you into paying more for the same thing (basic access). The whole principle of tiered internet is to condition people into paying exorbitant prices for the same thing. They want a future where $125/month is the new standard for access to "everything" so on and so forth.
 

haste.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
1,651
Maybe, but maybe it's a case where video streaming is unlimited if you pay roughly 5 euro. I mean it doesn't make sense if this is super expensive, because you can buy a plan in London for 15 Pounds (about 20 bucks) and that plan is good all over europe. If I go to Portugal, I can simply add money to my account and BOOM I've got service. This won't be successful if they're charging a lot more than carriers in other EU countries.
US Sprint is basically free in all populated areas of Europe with only added cost on all traditional plans for calls (.20$/minute for calls, but free data for streaming albeit capped at 3g. 4g LTE is added cost and about equal with what you are saying, a few Euros). All this NN stuff is nothing but bad news.
 

davethehedgehog

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
195
Another example of how the old world money is starting to gain a stronger grasp on the new world. 10 years from now the Internet will be like every other CONSUME service out there.

It all started out so well....
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
I completely understand that. I 100% get what people are worried about. My question is.... why is this all of a sudden a thing?

The internet has been around for a long time, and widely adopted for decades at this point. We've never had NN and it's never been an issue until now. It's being promoted by companies and individuals, many of whom have less than stellar track records concerning privacy and censorship (Which is incredibly ironic). Until this actually becomes an issue, and ISPs want to charge per site or whatever, I don't see why people are sooooooo quick with the kneejerk reactions is all.

I'm not for ANY regulation of the internet (unless it's desperately needed). That is a dangerous slippery slope
The worry is because technology allows them to take unprecedented control.. pretty much to the packet level i understand.
 

dr.stevil

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
9,096
The worry is because technology allows them to take unprecedented control.. pretty much to the packet level i understand.
I completely 100% understand that. But it's not currently an issue is it? It's a 'might', not an 'is'. Until it "is", why are we talking about regulation of the internet?

IMHO, that fear is somewhat irrational as well. Not only would such a move 'break' the internet, but it WILL be circumvented in one way or another. I promise you that.
 
D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
Eeehhh, I don't know... if Tmobile can afford to give 'free' access to select data-intensive services, why not simply offer MORE data for less money?
I mean since I am saying they shouldn't do that (give value added services) there is still lowering price/increasing service offer to compete.
Yes, there is no NN rules for mobile, but more problematic, and coming soon, they WILL eliminate NN for internet for your house.
Cost. I love how people just assume if you do this, or that, it's just as easy as offering something else. Data for some types costs more due to fees or deals, in this case some services have made deals with t mobile, which reduces the cost, and t mobile gets to use it as a value added service to attract more customers. t mobile also already offered unlimited data, this data for given services just didn't count to priority data, all of this has to do with keeping the network from becoming saturated.

We dont really know what Google's intentions are if given unfettered access to install wherever they want. Would they re-wire the entire continental united states? Was this just a one-off for a few cities to build some kind of brand repertoire? I mean this is no easy task. Google wants to retrofit Austin with Terabit fiber hey have at it, what about the other 8000 cities in the USA?
We do know, Google is after money, and they will go into any market that has high prices, as those markets have room for high returns, markets where prices are already at the minimal levels, returns are often to low for the costs of install. Those markets however would see little gain from more competition as for those prices to happen the market would already be close or at supplier saturation. Google only installed fiber, with a rock bottom price of $70 a month for 1gbps/1gbps, when other ISPs didn't even offer that on a residential service and that in a business line would run thousands. That is what competition looks like. Here we have a SINGLE provider upsetting markets all over the US, but hey, lets make it even harder and more expensive for new ISPs to enter a market and even start up.
 

grtitan

Telemetry is Spying on ME!
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
1,266
I saw something similar in Mexico and Dominican Republic, where they were offering "Facebook" packages, which FB usage was white listed from your data bucket.
 

nysmo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
945
That is what competition looks like. Here we have a SINGLE provider upsetting markets all over the US, but hey, lets make it even harder and more expensive for new ISPs to enter a market and even start up.
Regardless of the current state of affairs, we're still talking about NN here. I dont really see how a deregulated market is going to entice ISP's from screwing over the consumer, and typically this has the opposite effect. I imagine that your theory is based upon the idea that Google would ride in on their white horse, offer fully unrestricted internet for $50/month and force all of the competitors out of their tiered plans. Even if this is exactly what happened, it would only apply to areas where Google was your ISP. Everywhere else would get the shaft, so we still need regulation to prevent this.
 

Master_shake_

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
10,683
I completely understand that. I 100% get what people are worried about. My question is.... why is this all of a sudden a thing?

The internet has been around for a long time, and widely adopted for decades at this point. We've never had NN and it's never been an issue until now. It's being promoted by companies and individuals, many of whom have less than stellar track records concerning privacy and censorship (Which is incredibly ironic). Until this actually becomes an issue, and ISPs want to charge per site or whatever, I don't see why people are sooooooo quick with the kneejerk reactions is all.

I'm not for ANY regulation of the internet (unless it's desperately needed). That is a dangerous slippery slope
there were never lumbering giants like netflix or facebook or youtube google or ebay or amazon in the early days of the internet.

they get the most traffic so they gotta pay is the reasoning isps have.

when in fact data is data.

you are going to use it and it doesn't matter where it comes from.
 
D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
Regardless of the current state of affairs, we're still talking about NN here. I dont really see how a deregulated market is going to entice ISP's from screwing over the consumer, and typically this has the opposite effect. I imagine that your theory is based upon the idea that Google would ride in on their white horse, offer fully unrestricted internet for $50/month and force all of the competitors out of their tiered plans. Even if this is exactly what happened, it would only apply to areas where Google was your ISP. Everywhere else would get the shaft, so we still need regulation to prevent this.
Where is that the opposite effect? In your mind? Because that is the only place it exists, in a free market where a company has to compete they answer to the customer, and not a single regulatory body. Trying to rise prices in that sort of market is not possible, as once you go past a given point, the profit margin is so high that everyone and their brother will want to enter it. And Google is offering unrestricted internet for $70 a month, this is not theoretical, this is happening. Regulation however for the majority of POTs and Internets history has all had negative effects for the consumer, why you think this will magically change this time around I have no idea. This "restricted" internet also does not even exist, however you are trumpeting as if it's already happening.
 
Top