Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
Sorry I did not touch on the part about the mature product.
If I understand you, you are saying that a mature product is ok to regulate since there is little innovation to be done. Then you imply that broadband is not mature because of its fast - and I would argue - continuing growth. So which is it? You are kinda arguing against yourself here.
Who is to say when innovation has peaked? How far have we come since IBM posited there was a market for five computers? Or when DEC couldn't see people wanting a computer in their home? Sure, POTS delivers very basic voice and does it reliably. But is that all we need now? Doesn't matter consumers demand so much more in the way of telecommunications than merely voice? Yet, despite that, POTS still, despite being very reliable, only provides voice. In fact, how many people are ditching voice though they are hardly communicating less?
Now, you could argue that telephony had truly become a utility service. But, per my other post, while I do not think data networks to the home are there yet, their uses go far beyond basic utility. The question we must ask is are we satisfied with being mere pipes for bits or can they do more? I contend that digital technology can empower them to do far more, probably things we have not even thought of yet. Certainly, faster speeds can be utilized beyond what we think now is even remotely need. I would not want to stymie that future of innovation by effectively freezing in place the status quo. And that is a very real risk of the proposed net neutrality regulation. Right now we have effectively a duopoly but even plodding, mature industries can be disrupted - many, many have been but not when that duopoly is effectively cemented in place by bureaucratic, short-sighted regulation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
Comcast's network is NOT public property. Honestly, I am not sure exactly what you are getting at though I have an idea and that is what I am trying to address. Comcast has invested the capital to build out their network, just as UPS has invested to build a fleet of vehicles to transport goods. Some of that transport is done over public roads and other infrastructure (e.g. airports). But that does not mean that the government should tightly control the UPS business model. That is why UPS pays taxes. Not being disingenous, just trying to address your analogy as best as I can.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
Then you've got better service than most people in the USA. The majority of citizens have one (or zero) 'choices' for residential broadband access, especially if you define broadband as a band that's actually broad enough to stream high quality video.
According the data from the national broadband map, more than 95 percent of Americans now have access to fixed broadband and 88 percent of households can choose from two or more fixed providers.
88% of households having a choice of fixed broadband providers (not to count wireless) is rather a supermajority.
Airline fare, even post-deregulation have fallen about 15% in the last 19 years and, going back nearly 30 years into the regulation era, they have fallen by approximately half. Whether it was a luxury is a matter of opinion, but the data show clearly that getting rid of excessive government regulation has been consumer friendly.
To your points:
1. I do not agree whatsoever that internet is in the same category - yet - as power, water, gas, etc. Furthermore, while it has grown largely commoditized, it is not quite to level of pure commodity as are those services. This is evidenced by the enhanced level of internet transport service Comcast was able to offer Netflix. We may get there - and no doubt the Internet has become very important to modern life - it is not yet to the point that you simply cannot live without it. Whether it is a perfect comparison to airline travel or not, the fact that regulation fostered competition, innovation and lower costs in the airline industry is an apt comparison to the Internet as we are discussing the impact of regulation in a competitive market.
2. No, I am not kidding you. I have already offered the data. As far as nickel-and-diming, you could argue that decoupling services and allowing for a la carte selection has enabled cheaper basic fares. In the past, whether or not you checked a bag - a service provided by the airline - you paid the same fare as the guy besides (all the variables of airline pricing notwithstanding, but prior to recent years, those variables did not include opting out of checking luggage). That is hardly a service that everyone uses. Many swear by NOT checking a bag. Now, if you don't wish to check a bag, you pay less. That gives the consumer more choice. For those of us that check - I am one of them - it is annoying, but I cannot argue against the fairness of paying for what you get. The same could be said for other services that used to be offered uniformly to all passengers.
As for making the planes more uncomfortable, I again strongly dispute this. I took my first flight in 1996 and coach seats are no less comfortable now than then. They have been cramped for a very long time. However, Delta (my preferred carrier) has leather (or leatherette! :) ) seating in the entire plane. I have the option to purchase an enhanced service offering - not unlike an ISP "fast lane" - if I want more space and comfort (and I do). Movies are no longer one-size-fits-all with one screen playing one movie. Many aircraft, even domestically offer seatback video giving you choice of what to watch. The flying experience now is much more comfortable and friendly than even 20 years ago. You may have a different opinion, you cannot deny that some of these amenities, whether you value them as a passenger or not, were not available. I would contend that competition has ushered these in. If Delta does not offer them, I can go to American or Southwest. True, the hub and spoke system strongly favors one carrier per market, but that is not the same as a monopoly.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
But as I said elsewhere, we don't have monopoly. Where I live, I can choose between AT&T and Comcast at home or I could use wireless (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile). Granted, wireless isn't yet cost effective and on par with the land-based options, but that will come in time...if they are not choked off by regulation.
How much innovation have we seen in landline? The home phone is virtually no different now than it was when I was a kid 35 years. Same dial tone, same dialing sequence. Yes, we have a few more innovations than back then like call-waiting, three-way calling, etc. But these are clunky, user-unfriendly, etc. Compare that to your cell and how wireless networks have transformed by leaps and bounds in a decade. I used to be a wireless RF engineer. Back then, data was a non-issue. All of our engineering was based on voice capacity. Now...data is the bottleneck. The network today is so drastically different than the ones I worked on that, even if I wanted to go back to that job, I would be obsolete. Only a small part would be the same. Contrast that to POTS and I know for a fact that AT&T has telephone infrastructure out there, still in use, that is a century old. Is that what you want for the internet? Because, intended or not, that, or something similar would be the side effect of government meddling in the market. What we have may have shortcomings, but what we have is far more dynamic than POTS. To me, it is crystal clear.
Finally, lost of industries are prone to consolidation. Do we put in place onerous regulations in every industry? The airline industry has consolidated a lot and some would argue it has not all benefited the consumer. But it sure is a lot more consumer friendly and cost effective than back in the days of regulation. When I was a kid, airline travel was perceived as the luxury of rich or well off people. Now, everyone flies for far lower fares than decades past.
This sounds more like conspiracy theory. Where is your evidence? The Consumerist is hardly a rabid free-market blog and they acknowledge there was nothing untoward done by Comcast.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
You may some valid points. The problem is they don't really apply to net neutrality. Steel prices have come down over the years due to technological innovation spurred by market competition. None of that innovation was dictated by government regulation and certainly was not impeded by that. In fact, one reason steel is so cheap now is international competition. If those who generally favor net neutrality got the tariffs to protect US steel production, those prices would be a good bit higher due to limited competition. So the low steel prices are a function, in part, to lower government regulation...which is the polar opposite of net neutrality.
It may be best that infrastructure be cheap but that should be driven by the market - and ultimately will if there are not barriers to competition and innovation - rather than trying to be forced into that market by the government. It would be one thing if net neutrality regulations fostered competition in the ISP space, but there is no rational reason to see that occurring, not as the regulations are proposed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
So the fact that a business touches on any public space means they should have unreasonable regulation placed on them? Roads are government property. Should businesses have their business models regulated because they transport goods over roads? That's why we pay taxes but it does not justify government regulation that discourages innovation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
To be sure anti-trust regulation is government interference in the marketplace but capitalism works best when there is competition. It is that principle on which anti-trust regulations exist. Net neutrality does not inherent stoke competition, it merely places limits on what their business model can be. Two very different types of regulation.
As for antitrust, if Microsoft's was not ruled a monopoly, there is no way Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc. would meet the definition. They are hardly the old AT&T (pre-breakup) or Standard Oil. Those markets may be oligopolistic, but those are not illegal. And if those markets are legal, then it is not the place of government to regulate business models.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
Perhaps you should educate yourself before suggesting that to others.
Networks slow down when under congestion. The fast lane Comcast offered - and was accepted by Netflix - provided additional service over and above the slow natural state. There was no throttling undertaken by Comcast. The enhanced service got around that natural state.
Note, ceasing to perform services that were previously done as a courtesy is not throttling. It is allowing the natural state under congestion to take its course.
Let me let you in on a little secret. Companies exist to earn a...profit. They aren't charities or non-profits, but they are there to take in more than spend. You act as if that is a dirty word, but it's at the root of basic economics and business. All this "illegal" allegations you are making are baseless so I won't waste any time on them.
You say "where there are insufficient resources to transmit the full capacity, then capacity has to be expanded, that's part of the cost of doing business as a backbone operator."
Do you understand how investment decisions like these are made? They look at the financial return on these projects. Now, under your scenario of net neutrality, where they cannot offer premium services to web companies, services that generate higher margins (i.e. profits) that makes achieving those hurdle rates that much more difficult. Sure, they could pass on those costs to the individual end user, but how much do you want to pay per month for service? Granted, it is not that simple, but you get the gist of market economics. And all that aside...why should the government go in and interfere with doing business? How does that encourage innovative market value propositions? Scoff at that all you want, but that is basic business.
Finally, please tell me where my ISP is telling anyone what they can and cannot say? Prove that because that is a ridiculous claim.
It's laughable that you want to silence a voice that disagrees with you when you base your arguments on ludicrous agenda-fueled talking points of "criminality." I know such people do not like to be called out and challenged, but that's too bad. I will not stop speaking out against attacks on free markets and voices advocating infringing on freedom with government regulation.
See my above comment. To the degree there should be more competition - and I am welcome to that should the market conditions result in that - that is something to be handled via anti-trust. Having the government come in and tell businesses how to run themselves does not create the environment to attract competition.
As for protecting competitors that is the argument that pro-net neutrality advocates provide: smaller web company cannot afford the "fast lanes" that Netflix can. Maybe, maybe not, but it is not the government's place to protect those competitors who cannot via net neutrality.
To the degree that there is not competition, that is an issue. But that is not to be addressed by regulating those market participants that do compete in that space. The proper venue to address any monopolistic practice and increase competition is antitrust. I would welcome more competition in the ISP space but the lack of competitors in an oligopoly doesn't justify excessive regulation that interferes with the free practice of that business. If there was not a market for fast lanes, web companies like Netflix would not pay for them.
I almost never agree with Jesse Jackson but he is right on this. While I don't think is motivation is a free market free of regulation - he rarely shys away from regulation - the net effect is joining the fight for that free market. It is not he place of the FCC to interfere with the market and protect certain competitors. For web companies, the Internet is effectively part of their supply chain. Companies in all industries can afford or not afford differing levels in those supplies chains. Bypassing caps or paying for fastlanes is just that. The fact that some competitors can't afford such amenities does not mean that those that can should be prohibited from having access to them. And that is what net neutrality does by interfering with ISPs ability to offer certain value propositions to the market. The government should ensure a fair playing field with equality of opportunity, NOT equality of outcome.
On the post: Jesse Jackson Insists He's Lobbying For Weaker Net Neutrality Rules To Help Protect The Poor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
If I understand you, you are saying that a mature product is ok to regulate since there is little innovation to be done. Then you imply that broadband is not mature because of its fast - and I would argue - continuing growth. So which is it? You are kinda arguing against yourself here.
Who is to say when innovation has peaked? How far have we come since IBM posited there was a market for five computers? Or when DEC couldn't see people wanting a computer in their home? Sure, POTS delivers very basic voice and does it reliably. But is that all we need now? Doesn't matter consumers demand so much more in the way of telecommunications than merely voice? Yet, despite that, POTS still, despite being very reliable, only provides voice. In fact, how many people are ditching voice though they are hardly communicating less?
Now, you could argue that telephony had truly become a utility service. But, per my other post, while I do not think data networks to the home are there yet, their uses go far beyond basic utility. The question we must ask is are we satisfied with being mere pipes for bits or can they do more? I contend that digital technology can empower them to do far more, probably things we have not even thought of yet. Certainly, faster speeds can be utilized beyond what we think now is even remotely need. I would not want to stymie that future of innovation by effectively freezing in place the status quo. And that is a very real risk of the proposed net neutrality regulation. Right now we have effectively a duopoly but even plodding, mature industries can be disrupted - many, many have been but not when that duopoly is effectively cemented in place by bureaucratic, short-sighted regulation.
On the post: Jesse Jackson Insists He's Lobbying For Weaker Net Neutrality Rules To Help Protect The Poor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
On the post: Jesse Jackson Insists He's Lobbying For Weaker Net Neutrality Rules To Help Protect The Poor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
Sorry but that simply is not true:
According the data from the national broadband map, more than 95 percent of Americans now have access to fixed broadband and 88 percent of households can choose from two or more fixed providers.
88% of households having a choice of fixed broadband providers (not to count wireless) is rather a supermajority.
Airline fare, even post-deregulation have fallen about 15% in the last 19 years and, going back nearly 30 years into the regulation era, they have fallen by approximately half. Whether it was a luxury is a matter of opinion, but the data show clearly that getting rid of excessive government regulation has been consumer friendly.
To your points:
1. I do not agree whatsoever that internet is in the same category - yet - as power, water, gas, etc. Furthermore, while it has grown largely commoditized, it is not quite to level of pure commodity as are those services. This is evidenced by the enhanced level of internet transport service Comcast was able to offer Netflix. We may get there - and no doubt the Internet has become very important to modern life - it is not yet to the point that you simply cannot live without it. Whether it is a perfect comparison to airline travel or not, the fact that regulation fostered competition, innovation and lower costs in the airline industry is an apt comparison to the Internet as we are discussing the impact of regulation in a competitive market.
2. No, I am not kidding you. I have already offered the data. As far as nickel-and-diming, you could argue that decoupling services and allowing for a la carte selection has enabled cheaper basic fares. In the past, whether or not you checked a bag - a service provided by the airline - you paid the same fare as the guy besides (all the variables of airline pricing notwithstanding, but prior to recent years, those variables did not include opting out of checking luggage). That is hardly a service that everyone uses. Many swear by NOT checking a bag. Now, if you don't wish to check a bag, you pay less. That gives the consumer more choice. For those of us that check - I am one of them - it is annoying, but I cannot argue against the fairness of paying for what you get. The same could be said for other services that used to be offered uniformly to all passengers.
As for making the planes more uncomfortable, I again strongly dispute this. I took my first flight in 1996 and coach seats are no less comfortable now than then. They have been cramped for a very long time. However, Delta (my preferred carrier) has leather (or leatherette! :) ) seating in the entire plane. I have the option to purchase an enhanced service offering - not unlike an ISP "fast lane" - if I want more space and comfort (and I do). Movies are no longer one-size-fits-all with one screen playing one movie. Many aircraft, even domestically offer seatback video giving you choice of what to watch. The flying experience now is much more comfortable and friendly than even 20 years ago. You may have a different opinion, you cannot deny that some of these amenities, whether you value them as a passenger or not, were not available. I would contend that competition has ushered these in. If Delta does not offer them, I can go to American or Southwest. True, the hub and spoke system strongly favors one carrier per market, but that is not the same as a monopoly.
On the post: Jesse Jackson Insists He's Lobbying For Weaker Net Neutrality Rules To Help Protect The Poor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
How much innovation have we seen in landline? The home phone is virtually no different now than it was when I was a kid 35 years. Same dial tone, same dialing sequence. Yes, we have a few more innovations than back then like call-waiting, three-way calling, etc. But these are clunky, user-unfriendly, etc. Compare that to your cell and how wireless networks have transformed by leaps and bounds in a decade. I used to be a wireless RF engineer. Back then, data was a non-issue. All of our engineering was based on voice capacity. Now...data is the bottleneck. The network today is so drastically different than the ones I worked on that, even if I wanted to go back to that job, I would be obsolete. Only a small part would be the same. Contrast that to POTS and I know for a fact that AT&T has telephone infrastructure out there, still in use, that is a century old. Is that what you want for the internet? Because, intended or not, that, or something similar would be the side effect of government meddling in the market. What we have may have shortcomings, but what we have is far more dynamic than POTS. To me, it is crystal clear.
Finally, lost of industries are prone to consolidation. Do we put in place onerous regulations in every industry? The airline industry has consolidated a lot and some would argue it has not all benefited the consumer. But it sure is a lot more consumer friendly and cost effective than back in the days of regulation. When I was a kid, airline travel was perceived as the luxury of rich or well off people. Now, everyone flies for far lower fares than decades past.
On the post: Jesse Jackson Insists He's Lobbying For Weaker Net Neutrality Rules To Help Protect The Poor
Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
On the post: Jesse Jackson Insists He's Lobbying For Weaker Net Neutrality Rules To Help Protect The Poor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
On the post: Jesse Jackson Insists He's Lobbying For Weaker Net Neutrality Rules To Help Protect The Poor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
It may be best that infrastructure be cheap but that should be driven by the market - and ultimately will if there are not barriers to competition and innovation - rather than trying to be forced into that market by the government. It would be one thing if net neutrality regulations fostered competition in the ISP space, but there is no rational reason to see that occurring, not as the regulations are proposed.
On the post: Jesse Jackson Insists He's Lobbying For Weaker Net Neutrality Rules To Help Protect The Poor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
On the post: Jesse Jackson Insists He's Lobbying For Weaker Net Neutrality Rules To Help Protect The Poor
Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
On the post: Jesse Jackson Insists He's Lobbying For Weaker Net Neutrality Rules To Help Protect The Poor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
As for antitrust, if Microsoft's was not ruled a monopoly, there is no way Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc. would meet the definition. They are hardly the old AT&T (pre-breakup) or Standard Oil. Those markets may be oligopolistic, but those are not illegal. And if those markets are legal, then it is not the place of government to regulate business models.
On the post: Jesse Jackson Insists He's Lobbying For Weaker Net Neutrality Rules To Help Protect The Poor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
Networks slow down when under congestion. The fast lane Comcast offered - and was accepted by Netflix - provided additional service over and above the slow natural state. There was no throttling undertaken by Comcast. The enhanced service got around that natural state.
Consumerist: Netflix Agrees To Pay Comcast To End Slowdown
Note, ceasing to perform services that were previously done as a courtesy is not throttling. It is allowing the natural state under congestion to take its course.
On the post: Jesse Jackson Insists He's Lobbying For Weaker Net Neutrality Rules To Help Protect The Poor
Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
You say "where there are insufficient resources to transmit the full capacity, then capacity has to be expanded, that's part of the cost of doing business as a backbone operator."
Do you understand how investment decisions like these are made? They look at the financial return on these projects. Now, under your scenario of net neutrality, where they cannot offer premium services to web companies, services that generate higher margins (i.e. profits) that makes achieving those hurdle rates that much more difficult. Sure, they could pass on those costs to the individual end user, but how much do you want to pay per month for service? Granted, it is not that simple, but you get the gist of market economics. And all that aside...why should the government go in and interfere with doing business? How does that encourage innovative market value propositions? Scoff at that all you want, but that is basic business.
Finally, please tell me where my ISP is telling anyone what they can and cannot say? Prove that because that is a ridiculous claim.
It's laughable that you want to silence a voice that disagrees with you when you base your arguments on ludicrous agenda-fueled talking points of "criminality." I know such people do not like to be called out and challenged, but that's too bad. I will not stop speaking out against attacks on free markets and voices advocating infringing on freedom with government regulation.
On the post: Jesse Jackson Insists He's Lobbying For Weaker Net Neutrality Rules To Help Protect The Poor
Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
As for protecting competitors that is the argument that pro-net neutrality advocates provide: smaller web company cannot afford the "fast lanes" that Netflix can. Maybe, maybe not, but it is not the government's place to protect those competitors who cannot via net neutrality.
On the post: Jesse Jackson Insists He's Lobbying For Weaker Net Neutrality Rules To Help Protect The Poor
Re: Re: Jesse Jackson finally got something right
On the post: Jesse Jackson Insists He's Lobbying For Weaker Net Neutrality Rules To Help Protect The Poor
Jesse Jackson finally got something right
Next >>