Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Basically what the companies want to do is to develop premium services not permitted under the rules.
|
So they can spend less money on the backbone and spend more money on skyscrapers, TV network, movie studios and theme parks, mobile phone companies, satellite companies, and other investments.
Then charge priority price increases because capital upgrades were withheld from the backbone. Why, in the early days, was the backbone so robust? Because companies had to provide more than sufficient bandband for lower prices. Net neutrality. Free market competition existed - created by net neutrality.
Why were we using 33K and 56K modems over a decade after 2 Mb service was possible? No net neutrality. Companies could even charge a premium for inferior priority service (ISDN, ATM, Sonet). UT wants to go back to those days because corporate spin says that was good.
UT's belief in priority surcharges says free market competition is bad. He even loves it that most everyone only has two internet providers - if they have any at all. He also loves the duopoly that created massive price increases for cable TV and internet. UT actually approves of American now falling to number 20 in the world. He ignored that reality with more corporate lies.
You don't need more internet bandwdith. You cannot be trusted with world standard speeds.
Let's make it even worse. Let's get rid of net neutrality so that Netflix, et al must pay for more Comcast Skyscrapers. Net neutrality means they must, instead, invest that money into their network.
They would have to invest in new innvotions? Investing and upgrading their networks (due to free market competition) would only hurt profits. OMG!