@FunnyAnimatorJimTV Yes, it was Ajit's choice. Perhaps a better way to phrase my comment is to say he was appointed to his position because he shares Trump's ideology. This change is reflection of Trump's agenda.
Water_Flame
9 hours ago
#30
@Jacob531 The problem is that companies such as Comcast, AT&T and all the other big internet providers can now charge as they please, and give a slower connection to those that can't afford to pay as much.
Providers are not going to start slowing peoples connection, degrading the service that has been provided for years. They have always charged as they please, the highest affordable rates without pricing themselves out of business. The net-neutrality regulations insured everyone would pay the same price for their service; it had little to do with how much the actual base rate was.
The internet can be a whole lot faster, more secure and reliable. From AT&T's perspective the way to accomplish this is by spending more money on R&D, hiring of more employees and building a larger and technologically better infrastructure. The new costs need to be passed on to the consumer. Those that can afford an improved service will be charged more, whatever their analysis shows is sustainable.
The television companies have a "tiered" rate schedule that nobody complains about. They offer a basic package for the lowest rate and the prices increase for unlimited channel watching. As the provided services are improved, the consumer pays a higher rate.
AT&T says there is no "incentive" to make advances, to spend it's money on a faster internet, when the net-neutrality regulations forced them charge everyone the same rate. They would lose money because the rates would have to be kept low, not much higher than today's rates and yet provide the new and improved service that they had spent a fortune developing.
So yes, if they get their way, improved services will cost more, probably more than the average consumer can afford. They are already paying a steep price, a big chunk of their incomes. However, the providers will not suddenly degrade the service already provided in an attempt to squeeze the last dollar out of small companies and poor individuals. For them the internet would remain much the same.
9 hours ago
#30
@Jacob531 The problem is that companies such as Comcast, AT&T and all the other big internet providers can now charge as they please, and give a slower connection to those that can't afford to pay as much.
Providers are not going to start slowing peoples connection, degrading the service that has been provided for years. They have always charged as they please, the highest affordable rates without pricing themselves out of business. The net-neutrality regulations insured everyone would pay the same price for their service; it had little to do with how much the actual base rate was.
The internet can be a whole lot faster, more secure and reliable. From AT&T's perspective the way to accomplish this is by spending more money on R&D, hiring of more employees and building a larger and technologically better infrastructure. The new costs need to be passed on to the consumer. Those that can afford an improved service will be charged more, whatever their analysis shows is sustainable.
The television companies have a "tiered" rate schedule that nobody complains about. They offer a basic package for the lowest rate and the prices increase for unlimited channel watching. As the provided services are improved, the consumer pays a higher rate.
AT&T says there is no "incentive" to make advances, to spend it's money on a faster internet, when the net-neutrality regulations forced them charge everyone the same rate. They would lose money because the rates would have to be kept low, not much higher than today's rates and yet provide the new and improved service that they had spent a fortune developing.
So yes, if they get their way, improved services will cost more, probably more than the average consumer can afford. They are already paying a steep price, a big chunk of their incomes. However, the providers will not suddenly degrade the service already provided in an attempt to squeeze the last dollar out of small companies and poor individuals. For them the internet would remain much the same.
Repealing the regulations opens the door for smaller, competing companies to make innovations. They might one day compete with the bigger providers if their development of new technology proves superior.
I think the central issue is most everybody has taken the internet for granted; almost as if it is a "right" and even a necessity to own. People, small companies can not live without it. They have become totally dependent on the service. Hence, it needs regulating so it remains equally affordable and accessible to everyone. People prefer the Government control what they experience rather than a monopolistic company.
A strong argument for sure. But the trade-off is advances in services provided are stymied, as companies are not going to further invest when no profits are to be made.
I presented the argument from AT&T's perspective, not one that I necessarily agree with. It may very well be they could invest a fortune to improve their services, charge everyone a lower rate and still make a substantial profit, albeit a much smaller one. The accounting books are not accessible to the public, but that is their side of the story.
I think the central issue is most everybody has taken the internet for granted; almost as if it is a "right" and even a necessity to own. People, small companies can not live without it. They have become totally dependent on the service. Hence, it needs regulating so it remains equally affordable and accessible to everyone. People prefer the Government control what they experience rather than a monopolistic company.
A strong argument for sure. But the trade-off is advances in services provided are stymied, as companies are not going to further invest when no profits are to be made.
I presented the argument from AT&T's perspective, not one that I necessarily agree with. It may very well be they could invest a fortune to improve their services, charge everyone a lower rate and still make a substantial profit, albeit a much smaller one. The accounting books are not accessible to the public, but that is their side of the story.
"Repealing the regulations opens the door for smaller, competing companies to make innovations. They might one day compete with the bigger providers if their development of new technology proves superior."
This argument doesn't really work, because the whole point of Net Neutrality is that it forces data companies to treat all data the same. In the new rules they can throttle back speeds to sites that don't pay a premium to be on their network.
For example let's say that a new streaming was invented tomorrow that was better in every way than Netflix. Since they are a start-up they don't have a lot of money and certainly don't have the money to pay Verizon to not throttle their content. That company would be unable to compete with Netflix, because Netflix would be able to pay to not have their content throttled and thus the new site would constantly buffer and Netflix would not. Said new company would never get any new customers because any new person would just see a streaming service that constantly buffers and not stick around.
This argument doesn't really work, because the whole point of Net Neutrality is that it forces data companies to treat all data the same. In the new rules they can throttle back speeds to sites that don't pay a premium to be on their network.
For example let's say that a new streaming was invented tomorrow that was better in every way than Netflix. Since they are a start-up they don't have a lot of money and certainly don't have the money to pay Verizon to not throttle their content. That company would be unable to compete with Netflix, because Netflix would be able to pay to not have their content throttled and thus the new site would constantly buffer and Netflix would not. Said new company would never get any new customers because any new person would just see a streaming service that constantly buffers and not stick around.
It is also worth keeping in mind that the big companies are currently an oligopoly. They do not allow other companies to enter the market. Just look at what happened to google fiber. Net neutrality is very bad news. You can't put your rights into the hand of big for profit corporations and expect to not to get hurt.
Also, what happens to start-up companies that have a better model or invent new technology is the larger monopoly companies simply buy the star-up with two alternatives in mind. Either the companies innovations become integrated or the new company is laid to rest, it's innovation never sees the light of day, new ideas get squashed so that the status quo is not threatened.
Headlines here today shout "Consumers To Pay More for Internet Service." Probably true but how much more we'll have to wait and see. Fear-mongering rhetoric is certain to take over the news. If services are not improved, than it is likely consumers will revolt at paying more for less.
Headlines here today shout "Consumers To Pay More for Internet Service." Probably true but how much more we'll have to wait and see. Fear-mongering rhetoric is certain to take over the news. If services are not improved, than it is likely consumers will revolt at paying more for less.
The history of the moguls that built America is very interesting and enlightening. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan on up today, the likes of Gates and internet entrepreneurs. They all started out very small, faced tremendous odds, often made wrong decisions, but they persevered by sheer determination and a belief in their projects. To say that the small guy has no chance of competing is not completely true.
Was the internet broken before 2015? Did it require the regulations that were put in place? Was AT&T running over consumers and charging outrages rates? They were "preventive", just in case measures. Democrats love to regulate. Give them the opportunity and they'll regulate your entire life. Obama passed more regulations than any previous President. Funny how people are selective. They want Government out of their lives on certain issues, but embrace Big Brother on others.
With the regulations that were in place, there was no chance for a start-up company to succeed. If they developed a better technology, provided a better service, naturally being a small company they'd have to initially charge more, until they signed up enough subscribers enabling them to lower rates. This would be impossible with "net-neutrality" as it regulates that all rates be the same, regardless of the service provided. The start-up, being forced to charge the same rate as a lesser service but having invested money for improvements, could not survive.
Entertainment companies such as satellite and cable television all have a tiered rate plan. The more channels subscribed to the higher the rate. Some even offer plans that provide faster connections and larger data capacity for a higher rate. What is different for internet providers that the Government makes regulations preventing a tiered rate plan ?
With the regulations that were in place, there was no chance for a start-up company to succeed. If they developed a better technology, provided a better service, naturally being a small company they'd have to initially charge more, until they signed up enough subscribers enabling them to lower rates. This would be impossible with "net-neutrality" as it regulates that all rates be the same, regardless of the service provided. The start-up, being forced to charge the same rate as a lesser service but having invested money for improvements, could not survive.
Entertainment companies such as satellite and cable television all have a tiered rate plan. The more channels subscribed to the higher the rate. Some even offer plans that provide faster connections and larger data capacity for a higher rate. What is different for internet providers that the Government makes regulations preventing a tiered rate plan ?
Yeah, the Gilded Age was the best era in American History. Let's go back to that, and while we're at it, repeal all those pesky anti-trust laws. This was prok barrel legistlation to big corporate donors, in the guise of "decreasing regulation." Let's not forget that all cable companies essentially work together as a cartel and don't actually compete with each other. Look at the numbers of households in the U.S. which only have 1 provider of over 25 MBPS internet speeds.
Net Neutrality was a thing before 2014, it was repealed and then put back into place after a huge backlash. This repeal goes back to the 2014 repeal that everyone freaked out about, not to pre-2013 Net Neutrality.
The difference between cable tv and the internet is that the Internet is not primarily used for entertainment anymore. It has many more functions, many of which are backbones of our economy: Banking, commerce, etc. It is a utility, like Power and Water, not an entertainment service like TV.
Net Neutrality was a thing before 2014, it was repealed and then put back into place after a huge backlash. This repeal goes back to the 2014 repeal that everyone freaked out about, not to pre-2013 Net Neutrality.
The difference between cable tv and the internet is that the Internet is not primarily used for entertainment anymore. It has many more functions, many of which are backbones of our economy: Banking, commerce, etc. It is a utility, like Power and Water, not an entertainment service like TV.
Also, I don't think you understand what Net Neutrality is. What it does is prevent providers from favoring different companies with regards to how much bandwidth is provided to them. I.e. it is related to throttling the data speed of your competition to prevent them from being able to compete with you.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.