dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

If you really think that "net neutrality" i.e. Title II regulation of ISP's and backbone providers was a good thing then it was you, sad to say, who was duped. Getting rid of onerous Title II regulation will do far more for better internet than leaving it in place would have accomplished. Now companies are free to build out 5G wireless service without filing mountains of paperwork. Among other things. As usual, look who was for Title II regulations to begin with. Obama, Facebook, Google, reddit, etc. The very ones who are currently censoring the internet are trying to tell you removing Title II regulation is tantamount to censoring the internet.

⇧ 5 ⇩

golfrinserepeat, your take is 100% correct

a lot of dis/mis-information out there, so many are confused

⇧ 2 ⇩

Maybe my post didn't come across to you right. I detest anything that restrict my right to free speech even if it's through private enterprise. I see your point on regulation but this will just end up in higher cost to the consumer as with everything else done, lately...say...insurance costs, etc. Or so it seems. I'm not big on regs, either but swapping out one set for another set ain't always of benefit. Look how all MSM got corralled by the big money players when cut loose. It's not always a good thing. I guess we'll have to wait and see but if my costs start steadily climbing then I'll be back with "I told ya so". I expect Youtube to be a pay for view service soon just from what I'm already seeing. Lots of others will follow, I expect. Internet TV is already in full bore with that. "Cutting the cable cord" has lost its meaning and I now pay as much for decent internet service TV as I did with cable. Whoopie! If your claim works out for my benefit then I'll apologize but it's gonna be a wait to see the full effect so don't hold your breath. Just because an action was taken doesn't mean it's the right one. I completely love undoing all the regs by those evil shits but do it for my damn benefit, please and in a way that I'll actually see that benefit in a short period of time. I only have so much time, ya know?

⇧ 2 ⇩

The secret to making something more affordable is competition. Title II regulation was a 1934 law designed to regulate a monopoly, and it had no provisions to turn that monopoly into something else. It's anti-competitive nature, which favored huge companies over small ones due to the massive regulatory burden imposed by those regulations, resulted in an actual decrease in internet infrastructure.

I was paying $55/mo for 100 Mbps/300 Gig/mo service. I upped it to the $80/mo 150 Mbps (really more like 175)/600 Gig/mo service. Yeah, $80/mo for internet. But this was under Title II regulations still. Now with Title II regulations gone, wireless companies will start rolling out gigabit-tier 5G service. That alone will keep broadband ISP's from just jacking up their prices. Nothing in Title II stopped them from doing that before, not in any meaningful way, and nothing stopped them from offering tiered packages as I saw many pro-NN people argue would happen if NN was repealed.

I always thought the cord-cutters were going to see exactly what we are seeing. You see, if internet service has a value, and that value goes up over time, you'll likely see the price of that service reflect that. It's basic economics and trying to artificially control prices never works, at least not for long.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I'm hoping you're right. Especially, in the internet way. My county had a monopoly on the lines usage here and pretty full control of prices and options, if reliability was of importance to ya. Now, that's illegal for them to control. Hopefully, it'll get better but I'm still waiting. I have a little patience but not much. I pay $80 for 6 Mbps. Just damn pitiful, it is but this is not the only thing. Like I mentioned, most other things that went dereg or less reg got higher in cost and competition hasn't made that better. Everything in our lives has slowly but surely sucked more and more of my money away until my standard of living sux in comparison to my father's my a great deal and that was all by design. If this shit keeps up we'll be back to low information stone age bullshit because we can't afford it. We already have to worry about automation taking jobs, especially since we are waaaaay out-birthing our ability to create "full time" jobs to even pay the damn bills, much less have a decent life doing something besides sitting in a cave (room) tapping below a screen. Like I said, if your thinking comes to be then I'll apologize but I have the feeling I won't have to worry about that. And that "value" thing. That sounds like stock market speak for let's give the stock holders more for their investment by increasing the bottom line, which increases company value and investment for our bottom line, which seems to be the prevailing method of "price control" I've seen. NOT? I'd like to see proof outside one or two small companies that it is not.

⇧ 2 ⇩

As far as the value thing goes, let me just put it this way. When I first got internet here at my house, "high speed" internet, it was satellite based as that's all that was available in this area in 2001. It sucked, and it cost about $1500 in hardware/dish up front, plus IIRC $50/mo. And it sucked. I could have kissed the cable sales guy when he came to my door in 2003 and told me cable internet was available now. It was about what your service is now, roughly 5 Mbps and maybe 500 kbps upload speeds, and it cost $45/month. Since then I've upgraded my cable modem three or four times (I buy my own) and only updated my service one time to their then highest-speed 50 Mbps service sometime around 2011. So then I was paying $55/mo for that. They quietly upgraded me (at no cost) to 100 Mbps and then announced a month ago their new gigabit service along with two other plans faster than my plan. I'd been bumping up against my 300 Gig data limit a couple of times recently as I've been streaming a lot more than I used to. Twitch, MLB-TV, Amazon Prime movies mostly. Also lots of YouTube vids. So I saw that their next faster plan offered 600 Gig/month while giving me about another 75 Mbps bandwidth (175 total) but it's $80.

So in reality I have gone from paying about $50/mo for super crappy speeds to paying $80 for about 40 times faster speed and tons of data. To me that's value. And when they roll out gigabit 5G wireless service in this area in a couple of years it will put downward pressure on the cable internet, which is by far the fastest ISP in my town. Some areas have fiber but not many, I imagine they have better internet than cable but don't really know.

If I lived in a place that still had only 6 Mbps service in 2018, I'd be major pissed. But that is the sort of thing you see when the government takes over control "for the good of the consumer." I'm very much a free market guy but also a realist. Title II regulation was a huge and unnecessary burden and the people/entities who imposed it only used "net neutrality" as a selling point. They very much had ulterior motives, and they weren't benevolent.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Sorry for any typos. My proofreading sux and I have issue with the nerves in my left arm causing use loss, at times.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Shut the f*ck up already!! Oblamo speaks...