After Comcast got investigated for skewing VoIP packets, then Skype stopped suffering periodic service problems. UT conveniently forgets, when suspected or caught, some internet providers stopped subverting internet traffic. Especially during the Obama years when FCC commissioners refused to subvert net neutrality.

We are now in a period where government works to enrich the rich. And lies daily. Even the mythical tax cut resulted in higher taxes to lower income taxpayers. Even FCC regulations to protect the internet in 2015 are now under challenge - to continue the slow subversion of net neutrality.

Why a sharp increase in robo calls? Protecting the public is contrary to an extremist agenda that wants to 'wreck shit'.

No problem. Comcast profits, due to no competition, are so extreme that it now buys SkyTV. And almost bought Fox. Why all this money? Without competition, Comcast charges 'content providers' while charging customers some of the highest internet rates in the industrial world. Plenty of money to invest elsewhere. Being both a 'content provider' and 'data transporter' further entrenches monopolistic strategies - harms free markets.

They got regulations changed to eliminate competition in 2001. Ten years later, that resulted in all but two companies eliminated. UT says that and contempt for free market competition is good. Duopolies now have a president who knows only what is good for him. So extremists are again threatening net neutrality. Encouraging robo calls. Even giving lip service to massive drug price increases. All part of a strategy that also attacks net neutrality. So UT wants to argue only about VoIP.

Narus software was purchased to subvert VoIP traffic here and in may other regions including Middle East nations. Once regulators started investigating, then suddenly Skype started working reliably. UT ignored that part to argue that internet providers never subverted internet traffic. Fox News did not say so. So it never happened?

Net Neutrality makes the internet work. UT refuses to admit that broadband was stifled for 15 years - until 1996 laws created net neutrality and free markets. Those regulations, that created free markets, resulted in massive internet growth for the past 23 years. But UT loves it when Comcast charges $50 for what is inferior to what is found in other industrial nations for $20. UT says those obscene profit margins are good.

He even disputes those prices by citing internet prices in countries such as Benin.

Thank god for monopolies and duopolies. Same extremist reasoning also created / encouraged drug prices in America that are over 40% higher than the rest of the world. Including sudden and sharp increases in insulin prices. Fox News and UT also give lip service that subverted free market. And tax cuts for the rich. UT also views that as acceptable.

As accurately predicted, destruction of net neutrality is a decade plus long strategy. It was halted in the Obama years. And it has now continued despite UT's glib humor.

Charges content providers? Whom?


He did? Where?


And don't forget my quarterly sewer bill went up almost $2, which has just as much bearing on net neutrality.

You're ranting like a Mississippi politician, poor defence, poor.:eyebrow:

NO news sources said so. If you had one single news source that said it happened, your charity would be at least $100 richer now.

But since you don't have any sources, ALL YOU HAVE IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY.

some folks got a skewed notion about what a free market is
 

mebbe in their lil orwellian worlds a free market isn't actually free

mebbe, in their neighborhood, 'free' means 'managed'

if so: they have my sympathy (I, as an austrian, have sympathy for all keynesians: johnny has them flummoxed)

in the world I live in: a free market is where I want X, X is available, I shop 'round till I find X at a price I can tolerate, I buy X

in the world I live in: a free market is where I have/make X, I offer X to customers at a price I can tolerate, I sell x

supply & demand, not 'fairness', rules

bad players (folks who cheat the customer, always an exercise in failing to live up to the terms of implicit or explicit voluntary contract) largely get punished through loss of profit

in egregious cases such bad players lose their livelihood and/or their freedom

this, of course, requires independent arbitration

mostly though, the market itself (customers, actual & potential) punishes the nogoodniks, or it would if folks were left alone to rebalance their individual scales

of course, a free market only operates when folks are free to transact, and -- sorry to say -- free to get bilked

if, instead of adressing breach of contract after the fact (individually) by way of a court of last resort, folks choose to cocoon themselves in prophylactica (protections against & and in advance of bilking) a free market becomes sumthin' other than 'free'

this is fine, if that's what folks want, but this managed market is not free and the competitive forces therein are managed (by someone other than those transacting)

so: what certain folks here argue for is managed markets, managed competition

their real beef is: the system of management is bein' circumvented

in essence: they're miffed cuz certain players wanna exercise a level of control over their product or service, a level of control that is prohibited not by freely entered into contract but by 'management'

ain't that right, tw?

Happy one year anniversary of the end of FCC regulations on net neutrality, everybody!

What happened?

Companies like Comcast no longer need invest in their network to provide upgraded service. They now charge Netflix, et al to pay for it.

As UT fails to grasp, such changes take many years or decades to be apparent to consumers.

A continued increase in prices will be paid for by the consumers who paying increased prices for Netflix. Comcast now has excessive cash to buy into more industries. (ie Universal Studios, sport teams, satellites, Fox, mobile phone companies, NBC, real estate (skyscrapers), retail industry).

Destruction of net neutrality massively enriches the data transporters. And protects a duopoly; making it impossible for innovative companies to get into the business. Resulting bad economic effects become obvious 10 and 20 years later. UT would have us believe it should happen in one.

Massively higher rates for internet today are a result of regulation changes in 2001 to enrich / entrench the duopoly. With free market competition, we would have 100 Mb internet for $20 per month. Better service for a lower price. Then Comcast would not be buying up sport teams and TV networks. Instead they would invest in their business.

Nothing!

Business school grads, and emotional children, and business-for-profit, oh my!!

That's what I thought.

Just because they can doesn't mean they should.
Just because they haven't doesn't mean they won't.
The reality is we don't know what they are actually doing.
We only know if they are found out, there is no consequences.

No consequences! What a perfect bogeyman.

Networks do not work like anything else we have generally encountered. All the models in our head are wrong.

The truth is, if we didn't find anything out, it means the network operated correctly.

A network is judged by whether it can deliver correct timely traffic or not. If there are fast and slow lanes in the network, for the purpose of shaping the network traffic, but the bits get to us on time, and are accurate -- excellent! That is the only measure of the network that matters.

One of the huge ironies of net neutrality that it is never practiced in large internal networks. If it makes sense for traffic to have a fast lane, we make sure it has a fast lane. Otherwise shit breaks!

How curious. That is exactly what Saddam had. So you finally learned that word.

AT&T once had this same problem. They did not install enough 'lanes'. So Mother's Day, especially, was once always a challenge. AT&T even kept using, for example, obsolete technology microwaves.

Once AT&T had competition, then suddenly plenty more lanes were added (ie Sprint's pin drop). Suddenly Mother's Day was never a problem. Then no more fast and slow lanes were required. And suddenly we discovered the price of a phone call from Philadelphia to NYC was same as the actual cost of a call from Philadelphia to Sydney Australia. (AT&T also wanted that reality hidden from us.)

A network is judged by whether it invests in its infrastructure. Fast and slow lanes are how 'bean counter' games are played. Then they need not invest in more lanes - to increase profits - and to add surcharges.

UT is reciting myths that exist today due to reduced competition (harm to net neutrality) almost 20 years ago. Back then, UT was also using the 'nothing' word. But ten years later, that nothing because increased costs. America's internet then dropped from #1 in the world.

Backbone providers are not making UT's mythical fears. Only companies that 'attack net neutrality to increase profits' are making claims so similar to the Saddam had WMD' myths and 'smoking cigarettes increase health' myths. Those myths also promoted only by those who would reap higher profits even at the expense of their customers / supporters.

Similar lies were also promoted to stifle the internet. Then net neutrality was created - free markets. Suddenly communication that was limited to 36k and 56k modems was replaced by technology that had been stifled for 15 years - 2000k modems. But it must be wrong. Net neutrality does not make good things happen. The duopolies say so. It must be true.

Back then, to not provide more lanes, then AT&T even silenced their chief scientist in the Bell Labs. He was also defining the only problem - lack of investment and lack of innovation.

Another example: Same people who stifled the internet also claimed COs were under threat from too many modems. We also had that discussion here. UT, back then, was also brainwashed by that telco myth. That 'easily swallowed myth' was created to justify price increases and surcharges. Deja Vue telephony.

Problems in a network only exist when a 'bean counter' mentality stifles investment in the infrastructure. Exactly what the duopolies need to increase profits - so as to even buy the backbone companies and further subvert net neutrality. Adding more lanes means less money to buy into sport teams and skyscrapers.

Shameful is how easily UT falls again for obvious lies. He said eliminating competition would decrease internet prices. Almost 20 years later and prices have now more than doubled. He forgets that only bean counter types and their brainwashed minions judge things only a year later.

Yes, telcos once demanded price increases due to so many modems. UT also believed that lie created by no free market competition and stifled innovation. Net neutrality also exposed and deleted that obvious lie. UT did not learn from that mistake. The problem was solved by net neutrality and resulting free market competition.

UT
(An unauthorized biography)

UT is reciting myths that exist today. Back then, UT was also using the 'nothing' word. Backbone providers are not making UT's mythical fears. UT, back then, was also brainwashed by that telco myth. Shameful is how easily UT falls again for obvious lies. UT also believed that lie created by no free market competition and stifled innovation. UT did not learn from that mistake.

The End