[olug] Net neutrality wins! (for now, anyway)

[T. J. Brumfield]

That is a false comparison with public utilities. Those are intentionally
created monopolies because it doesn't make sense to have 4 electric
companies in one town.

Title II opened up phone competition. Was it Dan who brought up earlier how
phone companies used to charge ridiculous rates per minute for long
distance? Title II allowed phone companies to compete, eventually lowering
rates to 10 cents a minute before paving the way for many to offer
unlimited long distance minutes.

Title II as applied to ISPs is not the same type of regulation as applied
to other public utilities. This is literally opening the door for Google
Fiber to suddenly have access to public poles to roll out to more cities.

The FCC also yesterday struck down two state laws that literally blocked
broadband competition. They have to strip those laws state by state when
people bring them up in complains, but many states (Nebraska included) have
laws preventing cities from offering a municipal broadband.

The ISPs saw cities like Chatanooga suddenly offer gigabit to everyone in
the city on the cheap, and they freaked out. So they bribed law-makers
around the country to make it illegal to compete. You're saying to trust
the people who admitted in court to illegally colluding not to compete and
actively block competition with these laws?

Why? There is no proof the FCC is blocking competition. The letter of the
law says the exact opposite. You're saying to trust the people who've
demonstrated clearly and repeatedly they're blocking competition and
screwing you over?

Again, I don't like big government, but I'd rather focus on demonstrable
facts rather than a presumption that all government is always bad.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Bill Brush <bbrush at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry TJ,  however bad Comcast and TW are, the FCC being in control
> will be worse.
>
> 40% don't have choice today?  How many people have a choice in
> electric company?  In phone company (land line)?  Hell most people
> don't have a choice in cable tv provider.  These are all utilities,
> why isn't there more competition?  Simple answer, there isn't enough
> profit there to make it worth the entry cost.
>
> Dig into the proposed rules, look at the "rule" that covers "bad
> stuff" other than throttling and such.  Essentially they can step in
> if someone is doing something they don't like, even if it's not one of
> the defined "issues".
>
> Sorry if you think that the tier 1 ISP's are being evil, but inviting
> a bunch of bureaucrats who probably couldn't tell you the difference
> between DSL and cable modems to "fix it" is unlikely to have a
> positive impact.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:32 AM, T. J. Brumfield <enderandrew at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Less choice in ISPs?
> >
> > You do realize that currently 40% of Americans only have one choice in
> > broadband currently? And for people who have a choice, often it isn't
> one.
> > My currently choices are CenturyLink at 3 Mb top speed or Cox. That
> > technically counts as a choice, but it isn't.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> https://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>



-- 
"I'm questioning my education
Rewind and what does it show?
Could be, the truth it becomes you
I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
-- Pearl Jam, Education