FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[Telconi]

Those numbers somehow prove that AT&T operates in collusion with competitors? Care to say how?

No, they prove the financial claims that I made. That they don't compete with each other (note that I didn't say it's collusion: simply deciding not to compete is not collusion) is evident by simply looking at the services that they provide, and where they provide them.

Every service provided has competition. In every place, or virtually every place they are provided.

[Salandriagado]

No, they prove the financial claims that I made. That they don't compete with each other (note that I didn't say it's collusion: simply deciding not to compete is not collusion) is evident by simply looking at the services that they provide, and where they provide them.

Every service provided has competition. In every place, or virtually every place they are provided.

No, in most places they have more than one option. And yet they are all charging about the same for about the same service, when clearly they could charge less without making a loss. If they were competing with each other, then they would have done so, to take businesses from their competitors. Having more than one option is not competition. Competition requires those options to actually compete with each other, to work down prices, and such.

[Telconi]

Every service provided has competition. In every place, or virtually every place they are provided.

No, in most places they have more than one option. And yet they are all charging about the same for about the same service, when clearly they could charge less without making a loss. If they were competing with each other, then they would have done so, to take businesses from their competitors. Having more than one option is not competition. Competition requires those options to actually compete with each other, to work down prices, and such.

They do compete with one another. The company turning a profit doesn't mean it isn't competing...

[Independant Nations and Guilds]

Every service provided has competition. In every place, or virtually every place they are provided.

No, in most places they have more than one option. And yet they are all charging about the same for about the same service, when clearly they could charge less without making a loss. If they were competing with each other, then they would have done so, to take businesses from their competitors. Having more than one option is not competition. Competition requires those options to actually compete with each other, to work down prices, and such.

I would beg to differ. A lot of places do not, in fact, have more than one option.

[Telconi]

No, in most places they have more than one option. And yet they are all charging about the same for about the same service, when clearly they could charge less without making a loss. If they were competing with each other, then they would have done so, to take businesses from their competitors. Having more than one option is not competition. Competition requires those options to actually compete with each other, to work down prices, and such.

I would beg to differ. A lot of places do not, in fact, have more than one option.

How do you figure?

[Independant Nations and Guilds]

I would beg to differ. A lot of places do not, in fact, have more than one option.

How do you figure?

Oh, I dunno... maybe that I live in the country and have moved a lot?

[Telconi]

How do you figure?

Oh, I dunno... maybe that I live in the country and have moved a lot?

Okay... So have I, and the least options for Internet I've ever had was four... So Iunno what awful backwoods you've lived in, but there's like three satellite providers that each cover 99%+ of americans, and that isn't even starting to enter into stationary OTAs, or wirelines.

[Independant Nations and Guilds]

Oh, I dunno... maybe that I live in the country and have moved a lot?

Okay... So have I, and the least options for Internet I've ever had was four... So Iunno what awful backwoods you've lived in, but there's like three satellite providers that each cover 99%+ of americans, and that isn't even starting to enter into stationary OTAs, or wirelines.

The MOST options that I've had is 2. And that was at MOST.

It wasn't backwoods. It was suburbs most of the time.

Wasn't talking satellite. I was talking cable. Which would be both for television and ISP. And seeing as the thread is talking about Net Neutrality, which would be concerning ISPs...

[Telconi]

Okay... So have I, and the least options for Internet I've ever had was four... So Iunno what awful backwoods you've lived in, but there's like three satellite providers that each cover 99%+ of americans, and that isn't even starting to enter into stationary OTAs, or wirelines.

The MOST options that I've had is 2. And that was at MOST.

It wasn't backwoods. It was suburbs most of the time.

Wasn't talking satellite. I was talking cable. Which would be both for television and ISP. And seeing as the thread is talking about Net Neutrality, which would be concerning ISPs...

Okay, that's like me saying I am forced to buy a car from a monopoly because I refuse to drive anything other than a Ferrari... Cherry pick more, and telcos exist.

[Independant Nations and Guilds]

The MOST options that I've had is 2. And that was at MOST.

It wasn't backwoods. It was suburbs most of the time.

Wasn't talking satellite. I was talking cable. Which would be both for television and ISP. And seeing as the thread is talking about Net Neutrality, which would be concerning ISPs...

Okay, that's like me saying I am forced to buy a car from a monopoly because I refuse to drive anything other than a Ferrari... Cherry pick more, and telcos exist.

No, it's not. It's about the fucking INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER, which you DO NOT HAVE MUCH OF A CHOICE FOR.

You're not listening... and I'm not going to waste time with someone who won't listen.

[Telconi]

Okay, that's like me saying I am forced to buy a car from a monopoly because I refuse to drive anything other than a Ferrari... Cherry pick more, and telcos exist.

No, it's not. It's about the fucking INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER, which you DO NOT HAVE MUCH OF A CHOICE FOR.

You're not listening... and I'm not going to waste time with someone who won't listen.

Pro tip, satellite ISPs, and stationary OTA ISPs, and telco ISPs are all ISPs too...

[Saiwania]

Pro tip, satellite ISPs, and stationary OTA ISPs, and telco ISPs are all ISPs too...

You can technically speaking, get satellite internet anywhere on Earth, assuming a satellite in orbit is within range of you, but that doesn't necessarily mean that your geographical location will have a satellite internet provider available to deliver that type of service.

Satellite internet has higher latency compared to other internet connection methods and there is a relatively high upfront cost in terms of equipment before you even get that type of internet service activated. Another downside is that satellite signals are impacted by weather conditions. If there isn't a clear enough "line of sight" you won't get internet. Will be slower than cable or DSL, generally speaking.

Where I live, I know for a fact that there are only two major ISPs to choose from. I can maybe go with CenturyLink's DSL or Cox Communications' cable internet service. CenturyLink has far less presence and bandwidth where I'm at. I'm too far away from a Central Office, so Cox is unfortunately, a functional monopoly for all intents and purposes.

Cox almost does whatever the hell they want, they increase their pricing every year and do all sorts of shenanigans because they know they're the only big name in town. It would be a dream come true if Google went in or if municipal broadband was introduced as competition.

[Telconi]

Pro tip, satellite ISPs, and stationary OTA ISPs, and telco ISPs are all ISPs too...

You can technically speaking, get satellite internet anywhere on Earth, assuming a satellite in orbit is within range of you, but that doesn't necessarily mean that your geographical location will have a satellite internet provider available to deliver that type of service.

Satellite internet has higher latency compared to other internet connection methods and there is a relatively high upfront cost in terms of equipment before you even get that type of internet service activated. Another downside is that satellite signals are impacted by weather conditions. If there isn't a clear enough "line of sight" you won't get internet. Will be slower than cable or DSL, generally speaking.

Where I live, I know for a fact that there are only two major ISPs to choose from. I can maybe go with CenturyLink's DSL or Cox Communications' cable internet service. CenturyLink has far less presence and bandwidth where I'm at. I'm too far away from a Central Office, so Cox is unfortunately, a functional monopoly for all intents and purposes.

Cox almost does whatever the hell they want, they increase their pricing every year and do all sorts of shenanigans because they know they're the only big name in town. It would be a dream come true if Google went in or if municipal broadband was introduced as competition.

I'm fully aware of the limitations of the various ISP systems. I work with and around them for a living.

As for Cox having a monopoly in your area, they don't. They are the only offering that meets your desires. Which is the point I was making with the whole Ferrari analogy. If you insist on having the best, then whichever provider is the best is going to be the "functional monopoly". This phenomenon has less to do with regulation or government oversight, and more to do with your own desired level of product.

[Saiwania]

I'm fully aware of the limitations of the various ISP systems. I work with and around them for a living.

As for Cox having a monopoly in your area, they don't. They are the only offering that meets your desires. Which is the point I was making with the whole Ferrari analogy. If you insist on having the best, then whichever provider is the best is going to be the "functional monopoly". This phenomenon has less to do with regulation or government oversight, and more to do with your own desired level of product.

If I want CenturyLink's DSL service, I'd have to practically move to the other side of my city. I would think it is fair to conclude that my ISP doesn't have enough competition. It is just a fact that for giant swaths of my geographic location, Cox effectively has a captive market.

[Telconi]

I'm fully aware of the limitations of the various ISP systems. I work with and around them for a living.

As for Cox having a monopoly in your area, they don't. They are the only offering that meets your desires. Which is the point I was making with the whole Ferrari analogy. If you insist on having the best, then whichever provider is the best is going to be the "functional monopoly". This phenomenon has less to do with regulation or government oversight, and more to do with your own desired level of product.

If I want CenturyLink's DSL service, I'd have to practically move to the other side of my city. I would think it is fair to conclude that my ISP doesn't have enough competition. It is just a fact that for giant swaths of my geographic location, Cox effectively has a captive market.

Well, not enough competition is a relative idea, I don't need more than one. But the point stands, "only one option that I like" isn't the same as "only one option"
"Only one option that fits my desires"

[Aggicificicerous]

If I want CenturyLink's DSL service, I'd have to practically move to the other side of my city. I would think it is fair to conclude that my ISP doesn't have enough competition. It is just a fact that for giant swaths of my geographic location, Cox effectively has a captive market.

Well, not enough competition is a relative idea, I don't need more than one. But the point stands, "only one option that I like" isn't the same as "only one option"
"Only one option that fits my desires"

Of course. The other option being "no internet". What's the definition of a monopoly again?

[The Flutterlands]

If I want CenturyLink's DSL service, I'd have to practically move to the other side of my city. I would think it is fair to conclude that my ISP doesn't have enough competition. It is just a fact that for giant swaths of my geographic location, Cox effectively has a captive market.

Well, not enough competition is a relative idea, I don't need more than one. But the point stands, "only one option that I like" isn't the same as "only one option"
"Only one option that fits my desires"

Oh my fucking God. When you have Cox as your only option you only have ether Cox or nothing

[Uiiop]

They literally agree not to compete with each other. They make huge profit margins, and raise prices in excess of the growth in their costs. They function, in every way, as a monopoly.

Well the ISPs in your fantasy land sound awful...

Don't take my word for it but i have a relative who works for a ISP and they do view themselves more as allies/friends more than rivals.

[Major-Tom]

Well, not enough competition is a relative idea, I don't need more than one. But the point stands, "only one option that I like" isn't the same as "only one option"
"Only one option that fits my desires"

Oh my fucking God. When you have Cox as your only option you only have ether Cox or nothing

Cox is literally the fucking worst, that's about all I can say.

[Vassenor]

Net neutrality was not stifling competition.

You know what is stifling competition? ISPs lobbying to overturn one-touch-make-ready laws that would otherwise stop them blocking competitors from creating their own broadband infrastructure, or them blocking municipal broadband projects that would open the existing infrastructure to anyone.

[Telconi]

Well, not enough competition is a relative idea, I don't need more than one. But the point stands, "only one option that I like" isn't the same as "only one option"
"Only one option that fits my desires"

Of course. The other option being "no internet". What's the definition of a monopoly again?

Except that isn't the case except for a rediculously small percentage of the country.

[Telconi]

Well, not enough competition is a relative idea, I don't need more than one. But the point stands, "only one option that I like" isn't the same as "only one option"
"Only one option that fits my desires"

Oh my fucking God. When you have Cox as your only option you only have ether Cox or nothing

No shit...

[Telconi]

Well the ISPs in your fantasy land sound awful...

Don't take my word for it but i have a relative who works for a ISP and they do view themselves more as allies/friends more than rivals.

I don't intend to.
Because the anecdote of your 'relative' I'd hardly more relevant than my personal experiences.

[Aggicificicerous]

Of course. The other option being "no internet". What's the definition of a monopoly again?

Except that isn't the case except for a rediculously small percentage of the country.

Really? Where I grew up in Canada, there was only 1 service provider: Telus. Eventually we moved to a new city where there was another provider, but it didn't work in many places, so we were still stuck with Telus. When I moved to the big city, I then had the choice of two providers: Telus and Shaw. They charged the same monthly fee and offered the same speeds. I had two choices, but they were the same. In practice, I had no more choice than the person who is stuck with one option. Now you may think that that is a ridiculously small percentage of the country, but it's not uncommon in Canada, and I doubt it's uncommon in the US.

When you have two companies offering the same service, why would they compete? That only loses them money. It's much easier to coordinate, allowing them to set their own prices, creating another monopoly. The current system discourages competition and reduces consumer choice.

[Salandriagado]

No, in most places they have more than one option. And yet they are all charging about the same for about the same service, when clearly they could charge less without making a loss. If they were competing with each other, then they would have done so, to take businesses from their competitors. Having more than one option is not competition. Competition requires those options to actually compete with each other, to work down prices, and such.

They do compete with one another. The company turning a profit doesn't mean it isn't competing...

A company artificially inflating its prices drastically above provision costs does, however.