Skip to main content

View Diary: This Threat to Net Neutrality Makes FCC Fast Lanes Look Like Child's Play (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think we've been in one... (36+ / 0-)

    ...for a good long while.  Lots of industry consolidations, and the last hurrah of anti-trust action appears to have been the Microsoft browser wars of the '90s.

    There's no way you let Comcast purchase NBCUniversal in the first place in a sane regulatory environment.

    Everyday Magic

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
    -- Clarke's Third Law

    by The Technomancer on Thu May 01, 2014 at 07:49:03 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I can definitely see your point (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Technomancer, caul

      but then again the one that approved that deal was a commissioner for the 'republican seat' and everything that goes with that.

      Der Weg ist das Ziel

      by duhban on Thu May 01, 2014 at 08:35:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, I'm not laying blame on whose fault... (8+ / 0-)

        ...it was.  Even Microsoft was the first major action since the breakup of AT&T.  We've been going down this slope for a while, and in multiple industries.  It's been like this for decades.

        Everyday Magic

        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
        -- Clarke's Third Law

        by The Technomancer on Thu May 01, 2014 at 08:39:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  true and a lot of it comes from the legislative (2+ / 0-)

          side.

          That said I'm interested in Wheeler's recent actions against price alliances and his statement about invalidating bans on municipal broadband. But I'll talk more about that tomorrow. For now I get to go to a meeting......yay me

          Der Weg ist das Ziel

          by duhban on Thu May 01, 2014 at 08:50:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Break it up how? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pee dee fire ant, IL clb

            By region?  I've been really happy with AT&T's network.  My phone works from Hawaii to Key West to New York, I don't ever have to worry about roaming like in the old days, and my bill went down $600 this year.  What is a break up supposed to accomplish?

            •  It levels the playing field for others? (5+ / 0-)

              Seriously, I'm glad you're happy with AT&T. Just keep in mind that not everyone is, not by a long shot.

              This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

              by lunachickie on Fri May 02, 2014 at 11:58:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why not? (0+ / 0-)

                I remember paying $50 per month for something like 100 minutes for my wife's first phone. And no texting. I went without at that deal.

                Now $50 gets me unlimited talk, text and 1GB of data. And it's 14 years later. What's the complaint?

                •  For starters (3+ / 0-)

                  I can get a better deal from Virgin Mobile. 35 bucks a month gets me 300 nationwide minutes of talk (which I don't even come close to using, for a number of reasons); and unlimited text and data.

                  Do you really think that just because you're happy with AT&T that everyone else should be as well? Wow...

                  This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                  by lunachickie on Fri May 02, 2014 at 07:20:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You just proved competition works. (0+ / 0-)

                    If you can get a better deal elsewhere, then AT&T doesn't have a monopoly. What do you care then what they do.

                    •  We're not talking about phone monopolies, Norm. (0+ / 0-)

                      We're talking about cable monopolies.

                      I know, it's hard to keep it all straight for now. But see, when AT&T gets their way, this is what happens--they buy up everything. It's time for that to be stopped, else you'll never have to worry about who controls what, it'll be all AT&T.

                      THAT is why I care what they do, Norm.

                      Now, here's the question you were actually asked, Norm--how about answering it, already?

                      Do you really think that just because you're happy with AT&T that everyone else should be as well?

                      This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                      by lunachickie on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:25:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I thought it was Comcast buying everything? (0+ / 0-)

                        If you're talking about cable monopolies, that's Comcast.  AT&T just has that crappy Uverse.

                        And sure, I'll answer that ridiculous question.  No, I don't expect everyone to have the exact same opinion as me.  Everyone else can hate AT&T for all I care.  And I don't even like AT&T for everything.  I only get cell service from AT&T.  But like I said, I'm getting way more per dollar now than I ever was for a cell phone.

                        So you don't have to like them, but I also, on the cell phone side, don't see anything to hate.

                •  AT&T's been evil for a long long time and I have (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  The Technomancer

                  no desire to give up my grudge against them for their crummy monopoly days before the internet and cell phones, back when everybody had to have a landline run by AT&T. I'm not one to hold long grudges, but AT&T isn't winning me over so easy.

                  I'm glad you're happy with them, and clearly the legislation and not the company itself created the rules, written and unwritten that now motivate AT&T to give you the deal you like.

                  At this point, I hate Google more, and I'm not sure which other corps I hate more than AT&T but I'm sure there's a handful.

                  Rent this funny film from the late '60's: The President's Analyst. The use of AT&T as the ultimate spying powerhouse puppetmaster is quite hilarious comic genius in a terrific satire of who really pulls the strings behinds politicians and countries, even the fictional President's psychotherapist has his head spinning.

                •  What good is 1 GB of data (0+ / 0-)

                  on a smart phone?  By the way texting costs the carriers nothing. People don't talk on their phones as much anymore. Unlimited data plans are what convinced me the usefulness of smartphones vs simpler feature phones. Expensive data caps on powerful smartphones whose major selling point is data hungry media apps makes no sense for the consumer. Now that americans played along with paying more for less data (formally unlimited plans for $40 vs $50 for 4 GB) mobile phone carriers have people by the shorthairs. With zero rated apps the fix is in.
                  Step 1-Convince people of the usefulness of a smartphone by offering affordable unlimited data plans.
                  Step 2-After everyone is convinced they can't live without a smartphone get rid of unlimited data and replace it with more expensive capped data plans.
                  Step 3- Offer zero rate apps tied to the carrier or partners and push out any competition because data is capped.

                  I still have my grandfathered verizon unlimited data plan.  When Verizon eliminates the grandfathered plans entirely I will get rid of my smartphone and get a feature phone.

                  •  I can live without a smart phone. (0+ / 0-)

                    I have a router at home, and Internet at work. I hardly ever have a desire to surf the web when I'm out. Certainly not going to stream video. 1GB does just fine. I also could have kept my unlimited data plan, but I wasn't using it, so I switched and saved money.

                    I just love how "convince them they can't live without it" turns into an entitlement.

    •  For that matter... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Technomancer, coral, StrayCat

      ...I'm not even sure NBCUniversal would exist in a sane regulatory environment.

    •  Regulatory market failure (8+ / 0-)

      Currently I have a choice for Internet service from Comcast (via cable) or Verizon (via DSL). Comcast offers 25 M per second, while top speed for Verizon is 1.5 M per second.

      I think this is a monopoly situation, and Comcast is taking advantage by monopoly pricing. And Verizon is offering inferior service, but not a greatly lower price.

      I think we should have public internet service, with common carrier status, at a reasonable rate. The government could build new fiber-optic infrastructure. This would boost the economy--providing jobs, making business--especially small business--more efficient, and increasing the ability of people to access education, and work opportunities.

      If Comcast gets both the end of net neutrality, plus a Time-Warner merger approved, it would basically own nearly all the high-speed access to the Internet, and have unbreakable monopoly pricing power.

      Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

      by coral on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:38:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In SW Florida, the Verizon/Comcast (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coral, duhban

        partnership amounts to a duopoly.  Verizon has refused to cover North Port fully with FIOS, despite a promise to do so when they got the licensing, and do not offer DSL in parts of the city.  Comcast is the only cable provider, and advertises Verizon as a partner.  So, Verizon is the only readily available wireless provider, AT&T has no lines here, and the coverage of other wireless or land line companies is spotty to non existent.  Cable companies available a mile or two down the road say that they cannot provide service.  It appears to me that the country is being carved up into parts where monopoly conditions are being created by combinations of the largest providers, keeping prices very high, and variety of available programming at a low level.  Here, a basic Comcast offering has Fox News, but you have to go up 2 levels to a 20-30 dollar a month increase to access MSNBC.

        Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

        by StrayCat on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:35:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually it's more of a monopoly than you think (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Technomancer

        Why is it that only ONE cable company is allowed in each market? You never see COX and Comcast in the same market, for example. But DISH and DirecTV are allowed to compete directly. If these companies are so enamored with the marketplace, let's get rid of those multi-decade exclusive contracts. THEN let's see what some HONEST competition would do for service and rates.

        "Free your mind and the rest will follow...."

        by midknightryder13 on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:04:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's exactly why common carrier is needed. (0+ / 0-)

          Because we need the competition in cable, but we don't need our streets dug up and our poles overloaded with cabling every time a competitor wants to move into town, even if we overcome the municipal single-provider contracts.

          Everyday Magic

          Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
          -- Clarke's Third Law

          by The Technomancer on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:07:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site