"The Federal Communications Commission's recently proposed rules on the Competitive Availability of Navigation Devices, if adopted, will jeopardize the incredible evolution of video distribution services enabled by generally reasonable regulation."
Solid point except for that entire sentence being total bullshit.
"To all you "Pro Regulation" people. This is how regulation ALWAYS goes. There is no exception, there is no "other outcome". Regulation only provides one stop shopping for government corruption where businesses can show up and buy what they need to screw the little guy."
Like when the FCC and DOJ blocked the AT&T and T-Mobile merger, resulting in T-Mobile becoming more competitive than ever before, resulting in huge, cross industry benefits for consumers on all wireless carriers?
They never take action on broadband pricing or false advertising. Which is why you'll see ISPs consistently crow about how this sort of thing should be left to the FCC. But as the FCC has noted they do have some rate regulation authority under Title II.
Correct. On a per household level (streaming, patches, steam game downloads) we're not talking a huge allotment.
And one also needs to ask if ISPs will grow those caps alongside usage, or if they'll squeeze to make more profit from more people. As companies that need improved quarterly earnings bumps, I think the answer to that should be pretty obvious.
Brain fart, sorry. Was thinking "former Verizon regulatory lawyer" and wrote former commissioner instead. Or maybe it's wishful thinking, since I think the guy's an absolute revolving door regulation embarrassment.
"With what Netflix did, isn't that they did it, it's that they allegedly did it without notifying the customers, or giving them a choice."
Yep! And you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody that disagrees with that.
The problem is with O'Rielly pointing that out, but insisting that a generation of anti-competitive behavior by incumbent telecom operators is some kind of mass hallucination.
With a few exceptions where their hand has been forced by muni or other operations (parts of North Carolina), they're primarily offering gigabit speeds to places where fiber was already in the ground and no real cost or work is involved. Read: housing developments, campus condos.
I think they'll probably hang on to these customers for a while, but by and large they're just cherry picking the places where there's minimal effort and expense involved.
They want the public to believe they're engaging in full city builds, they're just not.
Plus they're fighting to keep the rules alive in the courts, I imagine they're not keen to begin too many proceedings only to find the bedrock under their feet has turned to sand.
Re: Re: You are not helping yourself or your message
"One thing Karl always talks about is the benefit of developing a formal, businesslike sterility with the widest consumer appeal possible, at the expense of an active and involved reader community."
Sorry about that, quite honestly thought I'd plugged in a link. Added. It's the No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act tabled by Representative Adam Kinzinger:
The assault on net neutrality is however largely a GOP baby, though yes I've noted time and time again the fact this is even a partisan debate is idiotic.
Re: Re: 'Competition' means more than one viable choice
"Is that a truly honest play?"
Raising the definition of broadband from a pathetic 4 Mbps is dishonesty? I think it makes perfect sense, and it's not the FCC's fault that AT&T refuses to upgrade technology operating on roughly half of the company's network after receiving billions in subsidies to build and maintain it.
On the post: Congress Scolds The FCC For Making The Cable Set Top Box Market More Competitive
Re: This is Regulation
Solid point except for that entire sentence being total bullshit.
"To all you "Pro Regulation" people. This is how regulation ALWAYS goes. There is no exception, there is no "other outcome". Regulation only provides one stop shopping for government corruption where businesses can show up and buy what they need to screw the little guy."
Like when the FCC and DOJ blocked the AT&T and T-Mobile merger, resulting in T-Mobile becoming more competitive than ever before, resulting in huge, cross industry benefits for consumers on all wireless carriers?
On the post: As Broadband Usage Caps Expand, Complaints To The FCC Skyrocket
Re:
On the post: As ISPs Push Harder On Usage Caps, House Pushes Bill Preventing The FCC From Doing Anything About It
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: As ISPs Push Harder On Usage Caps, House Pushes Bill Preventing The FCC From Doing Anything About It
Re: Re:
On the post: ISPs Now Charging Broadband Users A Steep Premium If They Want To Avoid Usage Caps
Re: Re: Re: Flimsy excuses
And one also needs to ask if ISPs will grow those caps alongside usage, or if they'll squeeze to make more profit from more people. As companies that need improved quarterly earnings bumps, I think the answer to that should be pretty obvious.
On the post: AT&T Tries To Claim That Charging Users More For Privacy Is A 'Discount'
Re: Re:
On the post: FCC Commissioner: Gov't Should Never Interfere In Private Markets...Unless ISPs Have A Chance To Mock Netflix
Re: Re:
On the post: FCC Commissioner: Gov't Should Never Interfere In Private Markets...Unless ISPs Have A Chance To Mock Netflix
Re:
On the post: FCC Commissioner: Gov't Should Never Interfere In Private Markets...Unless ISPs Have A Chance To Mock Netflix
Re: The problem...
Yep! And you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody that disagrees with that.
The problem is with O'Rielly pointing that out, but insisting that a generation of anti-competitive behavior by incumbent telecom operators is some kind of mass hallucination.
On the post: 5G Wireless Hype Overshadows Fact Nobody Actually Knows What 5G Is Yet
Re: Verizon's Magical Beans?
On the post: No, Virtual Reality Won't Make Us Fat, Stupid Slaves Of Mark Zuckerberg
Re:
On the post: No, Virtual Reality Won't Make Us Fat, Stupid Slaves Of Mark Zuckerberg
Re: Re: Meh. This is a revolution?
I'm not sure how this works, exactly.
On the post: AT&T Makes It Clear: It Bought DirecTV So It Doesn't Have To Upgrade Its Lagging Networks
Re: But AT&T is actively laying fiber now
I think they'll probably hang on to these customers for a while, but by and large they're just cherry picking the places where there's minimal effort and expense involved.
They want the public to believe they're engaging in full city builds, they're just not.
On the post: AT&T Makes It Clear: It Bought DirecTV So It Doesn't Have To Upgrade Its Lagging Networks
Re: AT&T's "New" Product
On the post: The Cable Industry Is Absolutely Terrified Of Set Top Box Competition
Re: Re:
The concerns about security, privacy, piracy and diversity are quite simply bullshit cover for captive revenue protection.
On the post: House Rushes To Gut FCC Authority To Prevent Inquiry Into Comcast Broadband Caps
Re: You are not helping yourself or your message
On the post: House Rushes To Gut FCC Authority To Prevent Inquiry Into Comcast Broadband Caps
Re:
On the post: House Rushes To Gut FCC Authority To Prevent Inquiry Into Comcast Broadband Caps
Re: Re: You are not helping yourself or your message
I do say this. ALL THE TIME. So true.
On the post: House Rushes To Gut FCC Authority To Prevent Inquiry Into Comcast Broadband Caps
Re: And who are the sponsors of the bill?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2666/text
The assault on net neutrality is however largely a GOP baby, though yes I've noted time and time again the fact this is even a partisan debate is idiotic.
On the post: AT&T Whines That FCC Report Highlights Broadband Coverage Gaps Company Helped Create
Re: Re: 'Competition' means more than one viable choice
Raising the definition of broadband from a pathetic 4 Mbps is dishonesty? I think it makes perfect sense, and it's not the FCC's fault that AT&T refuses to upgrade technology operating on roughly half of the company's network after receiving billions in subsidies to build and maintain it.