Timeline for Has there ever been a documented instance of the problem that net neutrality purports to solve?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 11, 2017 at 16:23 | comment | added | Jetrois | There is no real choice. When I lived in Miami there was an effective duopoly ATT and Comcast had split up Miami between them. there was one other major telecom provider but that was only to a segment of Miami beach. so your choices were Comcast with its traffic shaping and caps or att u verse which was not available in lets call them non affluent areas of Miami. U verse and Comcast were about what you could expect 100mbs or greater only in certain areas att locked down some areas but only had DSL service at 7mbps. So tell us how this is a great option for teleworkers? Or anyone in general? | |
| Dec 6, 2017 at 17:38 | comment | added | Taryn | @TupeloThistlehead While the rules currently being dismantled may not have successfully prevented the delivery of uncapped 'preferred' streams alongside capped plain-old-internet, it's clear that what comcast is doing is exactly "cable companies [...] favoring their own business partners [by penalizing customers for choosing non-partner websites.]", exactly as you postulated. | |
| Dec 5, 2017 at 14:17 | comment | added | Tupelo Thistlehead | @Tarryn However hated cable providers are, or how much you deplore their internet/video bundling deals, this is not relevant to my question - Unless you think that such bundling deals would be illegal under NN regs, which I doubt. | |
| Nov 29, 2017 at 18:39 | comment | added | Doktor J | @FrankCedeno I do not live in the mountains, and have reliable electricity, yet only have one ISP available in my area that offers anything over 5mbps, not counting satellite, which costs as much for 30GB/month (my household easily burns through about 1-3GB per DAY) at 25mbps as I'm paying Comcast for 250GB/month at 150mbps. Beofett's analogy is apt here; there is no EQUIVALENT competition: my choices are buy an overpriced car, or buy a moped for the same price as the car. | |
| Nov 29, 2017 at 17:39 | comment | added | Beofett | @FrankCedeno That argument is like saying "don't like that there's only one option for buying a car? It's not a monopoly, because you can buy bicycles elsewhere, or walk!" | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 21:22 | comment | added | KRyan | @FrankCedeno None of those provide adequate service, or reasonable rates. I would not be able to do my job with those services, and then I wouldn’t be able to afford them. And finally, perhaps most importantly, having 5, 6, 7 options? Even if they all provide comparable service? For a necessary utility? That still isn’t a real, thriving, competitive retail market. The assumptions made in capitalist theory aren’t met by such a market. The free market will never “regulate” such a market; it cannot, even in theory. The government must do so, because no other option is available. | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 21:18 | comment | added | Frank Cedeno | @KRyan, unless you live in the mountains without electricity, there are more ISPs out there, cell, satellite, telecom. That is why NN is a solution looking for a problem | |
| Nov 25, 2017 at 2:31 | comment | added | KRyan | Can confirm that I have Comcast cable+internet solely because it’s cheaper for me than just internet alone, and I have no other option for internet. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 2:10 | history | edited | Taryn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added prooflinks, and clarified argument.
|
| Nov 23, 2017 at 0:12 | review | First posts | |||
| Nov 23, 2017 at 1:14 | |||||
| Nov 23, 2017 at 0:10 | history | answered | Taryn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |