Quote:
Originally Posted by sarettah
T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon and AT&T phone services, as common carriers, are all regulated under title ii, the same as ISPs are currently. Title II regulation does not seem to have stifled competition among the phone carriers so why would anyone assume that it would stifle competition among ISPs. It has not (as I illustrated earlier).
The fact of the matter is that title II regulations do NOT stifle competition, they do however, protect consumers.
|
sarettah, you may be right. I honestly don't know.
But fair warning...
Just like everything else in politics, there are too many firebreathers on both sides of this issue. One side makes fiery end-of-the-world claims -- and then the other side makes completely different end-of-the-world claims.
You never know who to believe. NPR? Fox News? Maddow? Hannity? Or god forbid... Alex Jones? Every damn one of them has some kind of nutty spin on reality. Every one of them has their own brand of firebreathing and half-truths. And all it does is work people into a frenzy.
The actual, factual truth gets lost in the frenzy of it all.
Here's what I know...
- In a major Portland suburb, my inlaws have the choice of exactly ONE broadband cable provider. And they suck ass. Literally everyone in that town KNOWS they suck ass. Awful service. Sky high prices. Mediocre speed. If it were possible for some other company to be competing in that town, they would be. But I assume there's no other competitors because of some kind of Gov't regs -- but TBH, I don't know for sure.
- If there WERE a competitor in that market, then both companies would have to work hard to offer a better user experience (and price) than the other. That competition would be a good thing for the consumer.
- It's like the new, ongoing competition between YouTube TV, Playstation VUE, DirectTV NOW, HuluLive. Those companies are competing fiercely to earn new members. And the consumer wins. Because he's not locked into one. He's free to come and go as he pleases. He gets everything the cable companies were providing without a 2 year contract and at a much lower price. That's a very good thing. And it's a good example of how the industry is regulating itself. If YouTube TV suddenly introduced a 2 year contract, everyone would fuck off to PSVue or HuluLive. Plain and simple. I think this is a real-world picture of what could happen with ISPs if the regs were less stringent.
- I lived in a town where there was only one (shitty) broadband provider. They started imposing really low monthly data limits, overage charges, and throttling. It was so bad that the Municipality voted on BUILDING THEIR OWN ISP -- to be funded and operated by the city. I don't follow what happened because we moved away, but the point is... people want their porn. They want their Netflix. So they'll get it one way or another. I'm sure of it.
- As much as we all hate the idiot in the White House, I don't think anyone in his admin or anyone heading the Rep. party wants to have "I Destroyed the Internet" permanently attached to his/her legacy. They're stupid, but not that stupid.
- IMPORTANT: Republicans watch just as much porn and Netflix and YouTube as everyone else. So if someone (anyone) fucks that up, they're going to be just as pissed as the rest of us. And they will demand a fix.
- My gut on this is that Trump & co. really do want to foster more competition into the market. Cox, Comcast, xFinity, CenturyLink, etc, etc... they've had regional monopolies for a verrry long time. And I think Trump & co. would like to see those regional monopolies disappear. Whether or not repeal accomplishes that... I have no idea. But I can't imagine that they're interested in permanently harming the Internet -- it would be political suicide for an administration that already seems to be teetering on its last legs.
