In a fast moving industry and technology area like this... where three to five years that an antitrust case may take to the conclusion would block small, innovative startups from market entry? Yes, antitrust laws are almost useless.
How do you know more than the leadership of major tech companies like Amazon, Facebook, Google, etc.? How are all of them wrong? Also, what do you mean by "broadband investment"? The physical act of expanding broadband networks?
Not me. FTC Commissioner Olhausen and me. The companies you mentioned, all benefit big time from heavy handed regulation on ISPs. all they have to do then is lobby the FCC to make ISPs do whatever they want. this is much harder when ISPs are treated as equals under the FTC. With title 2, the government (and therefore Goggle and their army of lobbyists) now control pricing and a million other things involving ISPs. and technology. (pretty damning article) Here is new Commissioner Pai's recent speech btw
Why the deference to ISPs instead of other companies? ISPs at one time provided search engines/home pages and email services that competed directly with the likes of Google (like rr.com) and lost due to consumers choosing a better product. Would you find it anti-capitalistic if ISPs deliberately hindered access to sites like Google and Amazon by forcing consumers to pay more money to access them? By no means am I a Google champion, by the way. I'm just put off by the idea that some of the most despised companies in America when it comes to customer service (Comcast, Spectrum, etc.) would suddenly be "gatekeepers" for end-content that users want and depend on. If we're going to get really fundamental, I think something as critical as Internet access shouldn't be hindered in 2017 by ISPs if it means curbing web development.
I really do not get why the electricity, gas and water companies cannot charge different rates for their products? If you don't pay, you get intermittent electricity to your home, or less power output, that sounds like a great plan to make money.
My guess (after years of reading anti-NN takes) is that he'll say Internet access is a privileged service and not critical to daily life in 2017, thus attempts to impede how much money ISPs can make by treating it differently is anti-free market.
Im against regulatory capture of all companies. IF someone proposed government control over Google's pricing i would oppose it too. I think those markets have been ruined by government intervention. Who knows how much advancement could of been achieved if innovation hadnt been stymied? desalinization maybe could of been achieved.
Duly noted, thanks for the reply. You didn't answer my other question and I'm interested in your response: Would you find it anti-capitalistic if ISPs deliberately hindered access to sites like Google and Amazon by forcing consumers to pay more money to visit them? Why does it matter if it's the government or another company if the end result is the same: deliberate market hindrance without letting the "market" (users) freely decide which companies succeed and fail?
not at all. OF course this boogie man has never and would never happen unless customers wanted it, but its definitely not anti-capitalistic.
Got it. Looking forward to paying the $10 per month basketball BBS debate zone fee so we can continue this in the future
yea because that's the way it was before 2015... You could also try taking a glass half full approach and look forward to paying less to not have access to spurs/mavs forums. Save yourself some money. What if an ISP offered you access to only 10 sites (of your choosing) for $5 a month? unlimited data. pretty amazing deal . might not be for you, buts that's ok free markets will offer you what you want. Good thing you have squashed this opportunity for everyone.
Looks like 4chan, that bastion of left leaning thought, has now realized what Ajat's new rules would mean for its existence and all of a sudden they are freaking out and joining in on the protest! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...an-for-net-neutrality/?utm_term=.d747eba35881
I work in tech and disagree with the idea that ISPs should be gatekeepers, collecting tolls from users, to access new and exciting websites. A startup should not have potential access to its product hindered because users, after decades on the Internet, are forced to change their behavior after being conditioned to go to a search engine, query something and find countless solutions (the best of which usually rises above the others) to a problem. What you are supporting is a not only a fundamental shift in the way that Internet-based business is done, but would entail a dramatic and unnecessary change in human behavior. You have no problem with ISPs blocking/limiting access to third-party sites by imposing a fee on users for visiting them. What effects do you think it would have on the broader economy if publicly-traded companies like Amazon, Facebook, Google and eBay were suddenly and arbitrarily denied access to their customers by ISPs? You have claimed that innovation has been stymied because of the regulations placed on ISPs. Do you not view Silicon Valley companies as innovators that have generated billions of dollars in wealth for users and shareholders? Do you really think ISPs would've created Uber, Facebook or Amazon if the "shackles" had been removed from their development? Frankly, I just don't understand siding with some of the most disliked companies in America instead of those people enjoy using. Many people don't choose to use Comcast or Spectrum. Instead, it's the only option available in their area. Should people forego Internet access if they dislike the only option available to them? The beauty of the Internet is that one person can create a unique and innovative solution to problems we didn't even know existed. Arbitrarily creating barriers to entry ("Subscribe to our start up package for only $10 per month! Each domain is guaranteed to have less than 100,000 monthly active users. But, don't worry; our Series A tier of growing websites is yours to visit for only $5 more!") hurts consumers and entrepreneurs.
everyone does these days again you are arguing something that never happened and was never a threat to happen. but lets do it anyways. do you think grocery stores should be gatekeepers to what foods are available? this is a problem for every new product entering any marketplace ever. no name recognition and people aren't conditioned to use your product. not at all. How great would it be for low income elderly people who only use their internet for email and facebook to only pay for that access if they wish. Their internet would be like $2 a month. its like only paying for the tv channels you want. oh the horror. God forbid this be offered to them. We must pass laws to stop it. no more than i have a problem with my local grocery stores inhibiting my ability to access certain food products. or any retailer for that matter. If my ISP isnt offering me i want (which is access to everything) than I'll find one that will. And spare the bullshit monopoly nonsense which, again as the FTC has said, is absolutely false. Once this **** is repealed you can come show me in 2020 all these horrors that have taken place and how awful the internet will be.
Your grocery store analogy isn't a good one. HEB doesn't make me pay $5 to even see the fruit aisle before I decide what I want to buy. If kiwis aren't selling well, consumers make that decision and the grocery store adjusts its orders accordingly. Maybe I bought bananas instead for reasons beyond access (ripeness, cost, season) that I could only decide at the point of sale. The point is I wasn't charged to have a choice in the first place. You also didn't answer what the impact on the broader economy would be if ISPs are allowed to arbitrarily charge more to access certain websites. What do you think would happen if Apple, Amazon, Walmart (and their recent acquisitions like Jet, Bonobos and Mod Cloth), Google and other Fortune 500 companies suddenly had their user base cut out from under it by ISPs? You say everybody works for tech nowadays. Do you work for an ISP? I'll tell you I don't. If I'm debating this topic with you again in 2020, I've got much larger problems in my life I need to address.
This cracked me up. You think an ISP would have a $2/mo plan? Just like you can just order a $2 cable package to get the 3 channels you watch and nothing else right? Wow, some people really have no sense of how the world works. I'm sorry you take issue with your local grocery having to decide themselves what to stock it's shelves with. Not sure how that has anything to do with ISP's. A better analogy would be Fedex opeing your packages and charging you just not on shipping weight and size, but on the content of what you are sending. Oh, that's a contract, we charge a 25% contract fee. Oh, you're sending a check? We charge a 5% fee of the value of the check. I see you are sending pictures of your grandma - that will be a 8.5% emotion tax. That's what you are supporting.
Yeah, I imagine that never happening. They will still be charged by AT&T for the actual service of connecting to the internet. Which, since Ajit wants to give them MORE power they won't be afraid to make sure to bleed every dime out of people. Oh, and in his world if they mess up and want to visit another site one day they'll have to pay more...which is inevitable. It's more like you'll be charged $10 for Email $20 for a package that INCLUDES FACEBOOK and then the price for your actual connection to the internet. Being liberal here with my guess, in his scenario he'll be paying around $80 for it all...when he could be paying that now for access to the ENTIRE internet. But hey, the guy is consistent. Conservatives are all about giving as much power to corporations as possible and hope that they will throw a bone out to the consumer..eventually..
