Smart TV

[Brute 23]

I don't like it either but if you believe in free market its not really fair to those companies. Technically if AT&T owns that gateway and you choose to do business with them you should have to play by their rules. If enough people get upset with At&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc for these package deals some one will come in and offer an alternative. That's how Netflix, Hulu, etc were all born.

 

[bball]

I don't like it either but if you believe in free market its not really fair to those companies. Technically if AT&T owns that gateway and you choose to do business with them you should have to play by their rules. If enough people get upset with At&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc for these package deals some one will come in and offer an alternative. That's how Netflix, Hulu, etc were all born.

Forgive me if I don't feel sorry for AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and all the other big dogs...i prefer not having them dictate what I have access to on the internet, or the worse case scenario, the insane price gouging that could be on the way.
Your point about free market is a fair and valid one. Its a challenging proposition attempting to manage something as fluid and intangible as the web, especially on a global scale such as it is. I'm paying $100/mo for internet at home, on top of the AT&T bill for the cells. It's already insanely priced. I can't imagine what will happen to prices when net neutrality is overturned on the 14th.

 

[Brute 23]

I don't like it either but if you believe in free market its not really fair to those companies. Technically if AT&T owns that gateway and you choose to do business with them you should have to play by their rules. If enough people get upset with At&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc for these package deals some one will come in and offer an alternative. That's how Netflix, Hulu, etc were all born.

Forgive me if I don't feel sorry for AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and all the other big dogs...i prefer not having them dictate what I have access to on the internet, or the worse case scenario, the insane price gouging that could be on the way.
Your point about free market is a fair and valid one. Its a challenging proposition attempting to manage something as fluid and intangible as the web, especially on a global scale such as it is. I'm paying $100/mo for internet at home, on top of the AT&T bill for the cells. It's already insanely priced. I can't imagine what will happen to prices when net neutrality is overturned on the 14th.

Every time you give the government the ability to make things "fair" its always at a cost.

There is a lot of discussion on here about how much things cost and if it is fair or not. AT&T and the companies put up a lot of money to build the infrastructure we all enjoy. They should reap the rewards. If you don't like it... by all means start your own company. I don't want the government showing up one day and saying beef can only cost $X. That's not how a free market works.

Enet is a luxury that the government took control of. I think if you had designed a product or did a service and the government stepped in like that you would not feel the same way.

Un-doing this should actually help the small start up get in and it should work out better in the long term for the customer.

 

[bball]

I don't like it either but if you believe in free market its not really fair to those companies. Technically if AT&T owns that gateway and you choose to do business with them you should have to play by their rules. If enough people get upset with At&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc for these package deals some one will come in and offer an alternative. That's how Netflix, Hulu, etc were all born.

Forgive me if I don't feel sorry for AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and all the other big dogs...i prefer not having them dictate what I have access to on the internet, or the worse case scenario, the insane price gouging that could be on the way.
Your point about free market is a fair and valid one. Its a challenging proposition attempting to manage something as fluid and intangible as the web, especially on a global scale such as it is. I'm paying $100/mo for internet at home, on top of the AT&T bill for the cells. It's already insanely priced. I can't imagine what will happen to prices when net neutrality is overturned on the 14th.

Every time you give the government the ability to make things "fair" its always at a cost.

There is a lot of discussion on here about how much things cost and if it is fair or not. AT&T and the companies put up a lot of money to build the infrastructure we all enjoy. They should reap the rewards. If you don't like it... by all means start your own company. I don't want the government showing up one day and saying beef can only cost $X. That's not how a free market works.

Enet is a luxury that the government took control of. I think if you had designed a product or did a service and the government stepped in like that you would not feel the same way.

Un-doing this should actually help the small start up get in and it should work out better in the long term for the customer.

The govt already dictates the price of beef, beans, corn and other commodities through trade agreements, import, export, and tariffs.
I truly am not one for govt interference. I am for free market (as much as that fantasy is allowed to exist). It will be repealed on the 14th, and if the providers go nuts with pricing, be prepared for 'we the people' to cry out on high to govt to save us from the monsters. Its what we have been conditioned as a people to do. Thought it was interesting that Comcast removed (from their website) their promise not to increase prices after the vote for the 14th was announced.

 

[bball]

One more thing to consider Brute: AT&T, Verizon and several other providers accepted over 1.5 billion in govt dollars to help create 'their' infrastructure to provide services to rural areas.. we know where that govt money came from don't we.

 

[Brute 23]

I know, but that is our fault for voting those people in that give them that money. Don't blame the companies for taking advantage of that. I feel the same way about illegals. We elect the people that allow that stuff to go on, don't be mad at the illegal for taking advantage of it.

Prior to 2015 there was no regulation and we survived. Have faith in the market to fix itself with out govt intervention.

 

[Craig Miller]

Well I have read up on it. I dont know what's gonna happen but I do know that if prices get crazy or if I have to buy certain packages to use the net the I'll just quit using it. Same as I did cable

 

[melking]

I like being able to throw things from my computer up onto my "big screen" I watch some youtube blacksmith videos and the like and it is good to have them bigger.

 

[pdfangus]

One more thing to consider Brute: AT&T, Verizon and several other providers accepted over 1.5 billion in govt dollars to help create 'their' infrastructure to provide services to rural areas.. we know where that govt money came from don't we.

Yet here I sit...

About forty miles from not one but three good sized metropolitan areas in three differennt directions....using my phone with two bars ...because we do not have reliable internet in the house

 

[SmokinM]

They will fix this just like they did healthcare. :bang: :bang: :bang: They gave the insurance companies a monopoly on that by eliminating an open market. Don't know why they call it a marketplace when you can only buy from one provider. They have a reason they want more control over the internet and companies to run it. They have your best interest at heart ask any Indian.

I hear you Pdfangus I sit 500' from a tower with one bar on my phone. 10 minutes to Richmond and right off the main drag and it will take five minutes for this to post.

 

[slick4591]

Voted to undo 3-2. Sorry , no link.

 

[SmokinM]

Yep it's done, welcome to the reservation folks. Your provider now controls what you see and how fast you see it.

 

[slick4591]

You don't think this will increase the competition? Guy sent me a link to another programming option today called MyLifeTV. I'm thinking the market will see an increase in this kind of programming options.

 

[Jogeephus]

You don't think this will increase the competition? Guy sent me a link to another programming option today called MyLifeTV. I'm thinking the market will see an increase in this kind of programming options.

I doubt it now. Just envision what car racing would be like if you gave Dale Earnhardt Jr. control over the accelerators of all his competitors.

 

[Carpenter2n]

I don't know, seems like most of the stuff the opponents of repeal are worried about, is still illegal under other existing laws.....

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/m...rality-debate-with-former-fcc-chairman-video/

 

[Jogeephus]

I don't know, seems like most of the stuff the opponents of repeal are worried about, is still illegal under other existing laws.....

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/m...rality-debate-with-former-fcc-chairman-video/

I don't know either but if we are already protected then why all the fuss over getting rid of this added protection?

As to the link showing the MSNBC anchor losing the debate I have to wonder whether he lost the debate or did he simply accomplish his objective? Afterall, MSNBC is owned by Comcast which is one of the main beneficiaries of the removal of net neutrality. Of course some will say MSNBC is a completely neutral news agency and would never put out fake news or try and rig elections nor would they ever do anything that would give them an unfair advantage delivering their message especially if it kept competition out. But like I say, I don't know and only time will tell.

 

[Carpenter2n]

I too am suspicious of agendas...only on both sides of the equation.

I confess I've never watched MSNBC, but they seem quite proud about their leftist proclivities.
(disclosure: I don't actually have broadcast or cable television service. Internet only)

I think the primary concern amongst [non corporate] supporters of repeal has to do with innovation and capitalization within the industry and the effect the excessive burden the new regulations have had on potential competition. They were trying to regulate a problem and that didn't actually exist but (perhaps unintended) threw up all kinds of barriers to innovation and competition. We haven't seen any new providers on the horizon in the past 3 years. For many consumers (maybe most?) prices have gone up, speeds have slowed or remained stagnant, and throttling has become the norm. As cited in the article above, the kind of site and content blocking they're getting hysterical about is still illegal. But at the same time, does anyone believe that Google, for example (an opponent of repeal) doesn't already filter and block content on their sites according to their own interests? The repeal of existing regulations doesn't preclude regulations in the future that are less convoluted but more market and consumer driven. :2cents: