Home  ›  News  ›

House of Reps Puts the Kibosh on FCC Net Neutrality Push

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 44 replies

Here you go sir...

mycool

Feb 18, 2011, 9:35 AM
10 gb/month for $10.

1 week later...

"Hi, yes. I'm calling because I'm trying to use slacker radio on my phone and I can't get it to work, only over WiFi."

"I'm sorry sir, but we do not support accessing Slacker radio. Have you tried Raphsody instead? It's only $10/month for unlimited music."

"Umm, also I can't get to YouTube."

"VCast is only $10/month for unlimited VCast videos."

"And, also. Every time I try to go to (Social Networking Site), I can't do so."

"Well sir. We only support Facebook and Twitter. Have you made an account with them yet? It's only $5/month for access to both of those sites!"

"Forget it. I'll just use Google RealTime search to flip through twitter."

"I'm sorry sir, but we have partnered up ...
(continues)
...
trenen

Feb 18, 2011, 10:10 AM
Nice exaggeration. I love when people make businesses out to be the bad guys. Not that there will be some businesses that try that, but on the same coin you can't really blame them. You definitely can't blame a wireless carrier for wanting to protect their assets. This primarily would have effected the carriers right to disconnect or throttle or charge those certain people that break the TOS and tether when they are not supposed to.
...
thebigsaxon

Feb 18, 2011, 10:26 AM
trenen said:
Nice exaggeration. I love when people make businesses out to be the bad guys. Not that there will be some businesses that try that, but on the same coin you can't really blame them. You definitely can't blame a wireless carrier for wanting to protect their assets. This primarily would have effected the carriers right to disconnect or throttle or charge those certain people that break the TOS and tether when they are not supposed to.


When wireless carriers start offering everything a la carte for only $10 per month lets see what your opinion is then.
...
trenen

Feb 18, 2011, 11:23 AM
That's a nice fairy tale. They haven't done it now, why would they do it later? Twitter, Facebook, etc don't use much bandwidth...streaming services however, do, and should rightly be charged accordingly.
...
Dreyfous23

Feb 18, 2011, 12:20 PM
Yeah, because people are not inherently greedy you ****! 🙄

It will happen and Verizon's suing the FCC is just proof that their financial plans lead into that direction.
...
flagrantmisuse

Feb 18, 2011, 2:02 PM
then you will have the option of going to another service provider that doesnt do that.

in stl we have many landline internet providers and wireless carriers a-plenty, if charter starts doing that i can go to att or satelite internet.

those that assume that every corp is inherently greedy really make me laugh. if these companies cannot make money, they cannot provide you service, they cannot improve their speeds or coverage area.

if you want their services then subscribe, if you dont, then dont. simple as that.
...
japhy

Feb 18, 2011, 2:25 PM
trenen said:
That's a nice fairy tale. They haven't done it now, why would they do it later? blockquote>

Because it's ILLEGAL under current regulations. If such a thing were allowed, trust me, it would happen.

trenen said:
Twitter, Facebook, etc don't use much bandwidth...streaming services however, do, and should rightly be charged accordingly.


How much is "not much"? Facebook can have mucho megabytes of pictures & videos, and it's not just about regulating speed/throughput but also the amounts of total data allowed. Imagine if EVERY carrier had a 1gb on data for every device, with a flat overage fee. It's already here for most folks in the US - try finding a new datacard/us
...
(continues)
...
trenen

Feb 18, 2011, 3:20 PM
This wasn't happening PRIOR to NN, so why now? Nothing has changed.

I'm talking about user access from a device, not the bandwidth used by the Twitter/Facebook servers to supply the content/store images/etc
...
lollipop

Feb 23, 2011, 3:22 PM
Easy the reason it hasn't happened prior to NN rules is due to the Wireless internet market wasn't taken seriously.

Verizon used to view $30 data plans for consumers as non-sense. It wasn't until they saw just how successful and profitable the iPhone was on AT&T that they changed their minds.

Now you say that these people are exaggerating.. Hello, Verizon was once charging a MONTHLY FEE to enable your bluetooth on your phone. Verizon was forced to drop the fee due to a class action lawsuit. So yes, if they were willing to force people to pay to use the bluetooth feature on their phone i see no reason they wouldn't mind making you pay extra to view websites.
...
GettingSleepy

Feb 18, 2011, 2:18 PM
mycool said:
10 gb/month for $10.

1 week later...

"Hi, yes. I'm calling because I'm trying to use slacker radio on my phone and I can't get it to work, only over WiFi."

"I'm sorry sir, but we do not support accessing Slacker radio. Have you tried Raphsody instead? It's only $10/month for unlimited music."

"Umm, also I can't get to YouTube."

"VCast is only $10/month for unlimited VCast videos."

"And, also. Every time I try to go to (Social Networking Site), I can't do so."

"Well sir. We only support Facebook and Twitter. Have you made an account with them yet? It's only $5/month for access to both of those sites!"

"Forget it. I'll just use Google RealTime search to flip through twitter."

"I'm sor
...
(continues)
...
Joba Fett

Feb 18, 2011, 3:13 PM
competition. Even if VZW (or any major wireless carrier for that matter) does enforce such strict regulations on their users' browsing, they will soon learn that people are not going to tolerate such imposing business strategies. People are simply going to vote with their feet and drop a poor quality service like that.
...
WiWavelength

Feb 18, 2011, 3:27 PM
That is true in an open market. But broadband Internet access provision is not even remotely an open market. Rather, it is dominated by entrenched natural monopolies/oligopolies. Many Americans have access to only one or two broadband providers. And many of those providers are Big Telecom or Big Cable (e.g. AT&T, Comcast). If/when one or all of those providers decide that they can make greater profits by embracing discriminatory data carriage policies, then where do consumers go "to vote with their feet"?

Simply put, broadband Internet access provision is not a heartily competitive market.

AJ
...
trenen

Feb 18, 2011, 3:29 PM
I disagree. I can lookup in the phonebook "internet providers" and get a whole slew of independent services. Television is different, that is more locked down...but Internet still has many, many choices.
...
WiWavelength

Feb 18, 2011, 3:45 PM
trenen said:
I disagree. I can lookup in the phonebook "internet providers" and get a whole slew of independent services.


How many of those are dial up ISPs? How many are dedicated line providers (or resellers) to businesses? Of those that provide broadband service to residences, how many are wired (e.g. DOCSIS, DSL) providers? If you have greater than two or three wired broadband ISPs that serve residential consumers, then your locale is an exception, not the rule.

AJ
...
trenen

Feb 18, 2011, 3:54 PM
AJ - the point is, thanks to capitalism in a free-market, consumers have OPTIONS. Are you liberal? You sound like you're against anything dealing with corporations or business entrepreneurs and would rather have the Feds spoon-feed you your life rather than have the freedom to make choices best for YOURSELF.
...
GettingSleepy

Feb 18, 2011, 5:02 PM
I think AJ was simply pointing out that in a free market where there's only 1 or 2 companies offering the services, what other options do the customers have?

The real question in this case though is should the government step in, or should someone try to start up another company to compete (not an easy task in this industry)?
...
ELawson87

Feb 18, 2011, 5:08 PM
If there is only one or two companies, it isn't a free market. It's an oligopoly.
...
GettingSleepy

Feb 18, 2011, 6:50 PM
Hay, I learned a new word today! 🙂
...
ELawson87

Feb 18, 2011, 7:17 PM
Congratulations. You're officially smarter than trenen.
...
cstone

Feb 18, 2011, 7:22 PM
His point is that for the vast majority of Americans there is only 1 broadband provider, maybe 2 (if they are lucky.) Where do those of us that only have 1 provider available go to if that is the one that starts crap like this. Capitalism is great, but it doesn't mean that there is always competition. IMO the FCC does need to have some control here, but it needs to be limited some. Maybe if they proposed the rules and congress had to approve or deny them it may be better. There are still problems with that idea though. Congress does not always make the right decision, not even always the decision that the general public would make. There are problems will all parts of our government, not just the FCC. IMO the FCC was really trying to help th...
(continues)
...
Azeron

Feb 18, 2011, 9:30 PM
We certainly cannot expect businesses to act in the best interest of the consumer. May as well ask the fox to guard the hen house.
...
Azeron

Feb 18, 2011, 9:26 PM
We DON'T have options. Despite the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the Cable companies STILL do not compete head-to-head. They divide cities into territories like gangsters.
...
Slammer

Feb 18, 2011, 3:59 PM
Two years ago, I'm guessing I had over a dozen providers. Today, I have 7. 4 of which are reselling for the remaining 3. This leaves me with little choice in the end due to same rules.

John B.
...
trenen

Feb 18, 2011, 4:02 PM
The beauty of capitalism? Make your own business if you don't like what's happening. It's not that difficult.
...
ELawson87

Feb 18, 2011, 4:51 PM
YEah, guys. Just build your own nationwide network infrastructure, hire a few thousand customer service reps, spend a few million on advertising, and take a multimillion dollar loss every year while you try in vain to build a customer base in a market that is already dominated by enormous corporations(you know, an oligopoly) that will do everything they possibly can to run you into the ground.

It's not that difficult.
...
trenen

Feb 18, 2011, 4:55 PM
Yup, not that difficult. You get investors and start small. How else you think these 'evil' corporations got where they are today? I'm glad you understand the fundamentals of capitalism.
...
ELawson87

Feb 18, 2011, 5:05 PM
It's too bad you don't. You'd look a lot less stupid.

A start-up internet provider wouldn't just be unable to "start small," it wouldn't be able to start at all. The companies that exist today were able to survive because there were no established businesses in the market when thy were starting. Now, if you try to start Trenen Communications, Inc., Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, Charter, etc, would run you into the ground--and, given your complete lack of economic understanding, it wouldn't be difficult.

Investors wouldn't put any money into a start-up internet provider for the same reason: Frosty the Snowman would have a better chance of surviving in hell.

We do not live in a free-market society. We live in an oligopoly. The faster y...
(continues)
...
Azeron

Feb 18, 2011, 9:35 PM
Fat chance! This kid is hopeless.
...
WiWavelength

Feb 18, 2011, 6:17 PM
trenen said:
Yup, not that difficult. You get investors and start small. How else you think these 'evil' corporations got where they are today?


You conveniently forget that the primarily telephone & cable companies in question "got where they are today" in large part due to decades of sanctioned natural monopolies and public subsidies. So, sure, it is not that difficult to start up your own business -- if you have the market entirely to yourself and the public even chips in to help you construct your network.

AJ
...
Azeron

Feb 18, 2011, 9:33 PM
Are you serious? How did Verizon and AT&T get where they are? I would suggest a history book, but we know how likely that is. Take Ma Bell...break her up and then let the smaller parts work for fifty years to put it back together and you end up with two remaining.
...
Slammer

Feb 18, 2011, 5:06 PM
I was going to start my own business. However, I couldn't affford to get on the internet and educate myself on how to do it because my carrier wanted to charge me extra to access those web sites.

John B.
...
cstone

Feb 18, 2011, 7:43 PM
Now, now, John.... You know that's not a good excuse! You could have just got some people to invest in your company so that you could afford the internet access you needed to research how to start your business. 🤣
...
Azeron

Feb 18, 2011, 9:23 PM
Good for you. I have one broadband option...Comcast. AT&T does not offer DSL at my address. There is no other company.
...
cstone

Feb 19, 2011, 1:08 PM
I'm in the same boat. Time Warner has a contract with my apartment complex to be the only provider of both phone and internet. Verizon has DSL across the street from me but my apartment complex will not allow them to connect to us. I could get satellite if I lived on the other side of the building but on the bottom floor facing north I have no view of the southern sky so that is not an option. This leaves me with Time Warner as my only option for TV, Phone and Internet. Their prices and practices are not bad for the first year, but their prices almost double on everything after a year. You can bet that I will be moving to a new place after my lease is up and I will not be staying with Time Warner.

Anyone who is against NN please tell me w...
(continues)
...
lollipop

Feb 19, 2011, 3:33 PM
Really, who? Here is the issue when has the carriers actually competed on price? At&t and Vz are them same on their prices. Infact, their price plans are the same. Only T-mo and Sprint are competing on price and they are both facing backlashes. Sprint isn't profitable and their is constant rumors that they are in dire straights.

T-mo hasn't been profitable at all and Duetch telekom has stated if they don't shape up they will drop support. Also another issue is that Companies like Verizon and At&t are slowly stifling rural competition by not offering Roaming agreements to rural providers who cover areas that are already covered by the two.

Face the facts that the cellphone industry is an Oligopoly that between both of them ...
(continues)
...
Joba Fett

Feb 19, 2011, 1:37 PM
I certainly understand that the mobile broadband market is, in some areas, reflective of an oligopoly. But can I justify imposing regulations upon business to create a freer market? Absolutely not. If anything, the federal government should exercise its power of the antitrust law to disassemble monopolies (and in this case, oligopolies) in order to create a more open market.

Imagine if the federal government provided substantial grants to those wishing to establish a business. Combined with suing Big Telecom companies for committing the felonious crime of monopoly, funds for start-ups could effectively provide rural markets with more competition in the telecom market, thus providing consumers in rural areas the ability to 'vote with thei...
(continues)
...
trenen

Feb 18, 2011, 3:27 PM
Vote with their wallet is more like. Unfortunately, certain people seem to rather give up their rights as a free-market consumer and have everything controlled by the Feds. Idiots.
...
ELawson87

Feb 18, 2011, 3:53 PM
Telecommunications is an oligopoly, not a free market, and you have no choice if all of the companies are doing it.

Idiot.
...
trenen

Feb 18, 2011, 3:54 PM
look up free-market before you call me an idiot, idiot.
...
ELawson87

Feb 18, 2011, 4:36 PM
Look up oligopoly and take a basic economics course before you show yourself to be more of an idiot, idiot.
...
flagrantmisuse

Feb 21, 2011, 9:45 AM
gorilla dust
...
CellStudent

Feb 18, 2011, 5:39 PM
Hey, idiot:

Look up barriers to entry.

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry »
...
lollipop

Feb 19, 2011, 3:51 PM
There is no such thing as voting with your wallet you idiot. If your carrier makes a plan you dislike and you leave you have not even touched their bottom line.

The vote with your wallet approach only effects small business. A large multinational company with 90+ million customers could give a damn if they lose 900k. The annual churn for verizon is around 1%. That means every year they lose 900k out of 90million customers.

Now most customers (you definately included) have NO IDEA about the value of what they are buying. Most customers except the prices a carrier wishes to charge and due to this willingness allows business to do what they want. The small minority of customers who understand and are educated about the business k...
(continues)
...
Azeron

Feb 18, 2011, 9:20 PM
Sure they will. When we're down to AT&T and Verizon and their policies mirror one another...we're screwed. Hopefully, Sprint and T-Mobile can continue to survive.
...
Azeron

Feb 18, 2011, 9:14 PM
Damn, it is scary how accurate this is. This was Verizon before they teamed up with Google. That is why it was such a HUGE surprise when the two companies mated.
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.