Net neutrality update

[Undertoad]

quashing net neutrality is eliminating free market choices

Wow, that's moving the goalposts to another stadium! How does it do that, exactly?

[Undertoad]

something else struck me just now. the vice versa of the above is actually true: eliminating free market choices should actually permit net neutrality violations!

If Comcast and Verizon believe that they have a competitive "lock-in" condition with their customers -- then they have no reason not to implement actual blocking and filtering for their own profits, right now.

If customers can't leave, there is no reason not to charge them for access to sections of the Internet. If customers can't leave, there is no reason not to block competitors.

We're close to the one year anniversary of the end of net neutrality rules. Comcast charges its customers for telephone services. tw, why is Comcast NOT blocking other voice services? We know they have the ability. They now have the legislative conditions, AND, according to you, the market conditions, where they could do that at any time.

So why haven't they?







Hint: SpaceX's test launch did not fail and did successfully launch their first 60 low-orbit satellites.

[tw]

We keep having to discuss the same reality repeatedly. When destructive economic behavior throughout the 1920s eventually created a stock market crash in 1929, then when did fact (maasive job losses) eventually appear in nation? 1933. Stupid behavior such tariffs created a massive recession throughout in the next decade. Not one year. One year might as well be a minute - when discussing economics.

When Clinton finally liberated 1981 broadband technology in 1996, when did it finally become defacto standard in the economy? 2000s. It takes that long for markets to respond.

When George Jr created a tax cut in 2001, when did the resulting recession occur. 2006/7.

When William Clay Ford finally let engineers start designing the cars in 2001, when did profits finally happen? 2009.

We know Comcast et al tried and were eventually caught trynig to subvert internet traffic. We know. IEEE Spectrum said it was happening. The FCC exposed and censured Comcast for doing that.

So the duopoly learned to do subversion slower. Resulting degradation to American internet, that started under George Jr (Micheal Powell), created these duopolies. America fell from the top internet provider to somewhere in or below the top ten. They will now continue the subversion now that Obama is gone.

It will not happen in a microsecond as UT would have us believe. But already rates have climbed so high that a strong movement has resulted in less Comcast customers (numbers provided previously) and a surge in antenna sales.

Funny how UT constantly ignores the constant price increases and obscene profit margins. Somehow inferior service justifies that increasing prices and profits.

Consumers have TV options. So the every increasing cable prices are creating less customers. The market of internet providers, once maybe 20, has been whittled down to two by a central committee to enrich the rich and to increase campaign contributions. UT (and Fox News) says this is good.

He always see economics in terms of microsecond results. Under the 'we have contempt for the consumer' administration, even Robo calls have increaes massively - by hundreds of percents. Apparently UT also thinks this is good. Or foolishly assumes a 'woe is me - we cannot do anything' mantra.

Just like George Jr's tax cut and as I predicted by learning from history. His 2001 tax cut created the resulting recession five or six years later.

How long does it take an innovation to finally result in profits? At least four years. For cars (example cited above), closer to ten. Only a bean counter thinks what he does today results in profits this year. One should learn from history.

When Nixon wasted all that money on Nam in and after 1968, when did the resulting recession occur? Mid and later 70s. We have not yet seen and should not expect to see yet the damage created by subverting the net. As UT is constantly told even back when he just knew George Jr's 2001 Tax Cut would be a good thing.

Have we seen the massive economic damage from The Don's destruction to trade? Obviously not. That resulting recession is coming - many years later. This is still an Obama economy - where net neutrality was not being subverted.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

When Nixon wasted all that money on Nam in and after 1968, when did the resulting recession occur? Mid and later 70s.

The oil embargo might have had a little effect there.

[Undertoad]

Do you know what they're going to do with those low-orbit satellites?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Do you know what they're going to do with those low-orbit satellites?

So you know it must be a solution because it never worked previously. And since innovation means maybe nine failures until something finally is successful, then this one solution must work right the first time.

Previous satellite solutions came with similar promises and did not succeed. Irridium was only one of many - that also used low earth orbit satellites.

So the magic solution means we should continue subverting free markets by entrenching and enriching the duopoly? Maybe finally admit that destructive of net neutrality has always been a bad thing.

Why did we finally get broadband after it remains stifled and unavailable for 15 years? Because Federal Laws were created that made it possible for competition to enter the market. Including net neutrality. Suddenly restricting markets to only two providers is now better - according to UT reasoning? Even when the numbers say otherwise.

UT feels we can protect harm to free market competition by launching LEO satellites - even though that did not work previously.

Eventually it may work. But UT knows it is a solution so as to deny harm to free markets by destroying net neutrality.

Its called fixing the problem. Protect and restore net neutrality and other provisions from 1996 that made free market internet successful, innovative, and growing.

Data transporters only transport data. Without any regard for that data content. Then congestion even does not exist. Content providers are a separate industry that innovates when it does not service (is part of) the data transporter industry. Then free markets, innovation, lower prices, and better service all thrive.

[fargon]

Eventually world wide satellite internet. I'll see if I can find the story.

[fargon]

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-...524-story.html
I found it.

[Undertoad]

Yeeah. Land a rocket right on its launching pad? Impossible.

Tunnel under LA and Las Vegas? Impossible.

Build an electric car that does 0-60 in under 3 seconds and sells for five figures? Impossible.

Test launch 60 satellites at once, without a hitch? Totally impossible. (Even Musk expected it to fail first time.)

It's not needed to prevent net neutrality problems - because obviously, we don't have any of those right now, as you admit when claiming it would take time to implement.

But bet against Elon Musk? That, sir, is a losing proposition.

[Undertoad]

Now, again, why is Comcast NOT blocking other voice services? You certainly believe they've had the software to do it for 7 years.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Looking back at the big successes in business there was quite often others on the market with the same service who failed or were struggling along. Then one company offering pretty much the same service suddenly takes off because people believed it would. They believed the face of that company, in this case a man with a track record of making ideas come to life and the money to get it going.

When Musk makes an offhand casual remark there are enough people who will take that as gospel and are willing to put up money, become early adopters, and spread the word to friends. So when Musk makes a firm commitment people listen. That's often the difference between and idea becoming a successful business, or dying on the vine.

After the Musk satellite network captures 90% of the internet market and Comcast et al file for bankruptcy, he can strangle HBO and Netflix providing his own content. Why? Because there is no net neutrality.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Now, again, why is Comcast NOT blocking other voice services?

Comcast was skewing packets and got caught. That does not change no matter how many times Fox News says otherwise.

Tunnels under LA or Las Vegas? Been there. Done that thousands of times elsewhere. Two because water sources for NYC over 100 years ago.

60 satellites at once? It has been done repeatedly previously. Only difference - a few more satellites. That is not the technical challenge. That is simply an upgrade of existing technology.

Land a rocket on a launch pad? How many times was it attempted both before SpaceX and by Spacex? Multiple times before they were able to do what was being done on a smaller scale successfully elsewhere.

You are rationalizing to deny a reality. Hatred of net neutrality apparently comes from spending too much time being educated by Fox News and other extremists. Over a generation ago, hatred for destruction of net neutrality would have been the other UT.

Net neutrality made the internet successful (forced the entrenched communication companies to innovate) and created free market competition. Attacks on the free market eventually caused the demise of all but the entrenched two providers - who just happen to be the bigger campaign donors.

Nobody said wireless would make wired disappear. Due to 3G wireless, the business school graduates in Verizon finally conceded to and let fiber optics be installed. AT&T even sold the nations biggest ntwork to Comcast by sell it for half the price they paid for it.

Wireless did result in the demise of obsolete technology wired devices such as 56k modems and the hatred of packet switched technology. And forced the wired networks to start replacing obsolete circuit switched with packet switched.

Before 3G, even the chief scientist in the Bell Labs was ordered to be silent because he kept saying the smart network must be replaced by the dumb network. Wireless even resulted in those neanderthals to be replaced or concede.

We have been over this again and again. You just refuse to hear or remember it.

Satellites do not justify or make acceptable the destruction of free markets and net neutrality; as you keep trying to claim.

Gotta love everything that Musk attempts. We do need more like him. And, of course, he is an immigrant. So he must be evil - according to Fox News, et al

[Undertoad]

Just like the wireless networks did not cause the wired network to disappear, so it will be with the satellites.

The wired network will still be useful. There are advantages to a wired network. The signal doesn't have to travel off into space and back again, so wired is always lower latency. The low-earth orbits will bring that way down from what satellite internet does for us today, but still. They will have bandwidth limitations as well, I expect... and more importantly, they will have competition.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Jesus H Christ, I can make a fortune charging these satellites using my airspace(spacespace?) rent. If they don't pay, shoot 'em down.

[sexobon]

Come and listen to a story about a man named Musk
A rich entrepreneur, giving man in space some thrust
He says a satellite network is the way it ought to be
Who's going to run a cable to a Martian colony⸮

The Red Planet that is. Stay a spell. Take your spacesuit off.
Y'all come back now, y'hear?