Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
And on that day, Net Neutrality died (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter FreeBaGeL
- Start date
AhrnCityPahnder
Yinz-o-riffic
That will be changing as 5G wireless starts to spread.Rich Conway said:
I mean, of course, Montana will always have slower average internet than NYC, but the speeds that are soon to open up on the wireless spectrum are silly.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I doubt it will change much. The issue in rural areas is less about speed and more about lack of competition.
AhrnCityPahnder
Yinz-o-riffic
A large part of the barrier to competition is the last mile problem, which is exacerbated in rural areas. There's also collusion between the ISPs.
Wireless doesn't solve those issues completely, but it makes each of them significantly less painful from the providers POV. There will always be places in EBF that get crap internet and is a black hole of cell coverage, and this won't change that. But the areas on the cusp should be more accommodated.
Wireless doesn't solve those issues completely, but it makes each of them significantly less painful from the providers POV. There will always be places in EBF that get crap internet and is a black hole of cell coverage, and this won't change that. But the areas on the cusp should be more accommodated.
I don't think they're worried about ISPs charging their customers a whole lot for faster internet. You can always change to a different ISP, so competition will keep your bill down.
What they're worried about is that if ComCast is your ISP, they can charge companies like Google, MicroSoft, Netflix, etc. money for how much bandwidth their customers get. So maybe Hulu and Amazon pay ComCast extra to get more bandwidth than Netflix. For you, this means that when you watch something on Amazon or Hulu, you get it with better quality and less buffering than if you watch something from Netflix.
But if Hulu and Amazon have to pay more to get the better speed, then they pass that cost on to you in higher subscription fees. But you'll be willing to pay those higher fees to get the better video quality.
And there are cases where ISPs have products or services that they offer that are accessed via the Internet and in competition with other companies, especially those that may be newly started. The ISPs won't have to charge themselves for the higher speed access that they can charge their competitors for, which can reduce the amount of competition that those other business can bring to the marketplace.
What they're worried about is that if ComCast is your ISP, they can charge companies like Google, MicroSoft, Netflix, etc. money for how much bandwidth their customers get. So maybe Hulu and Amazon pay ComCast extra to get more bandwidth than Netflix. For you, this means that when you watch something on Amazon or Hulu, you get it with better quality and less buffering than if you watch something from Netflix.
But if Hulu and Amazon have to pay more to get the better speed, then they pass that cost on to you in higher subscription fees. But you'll be willing to pay those higher fees to get the better video quality.
And there are cases where ISPs have products or services that they offer that are accessed via the Internet and in competition with other companies, especially those that may be newly started. The ISPs won't have to charge themselves for the higher speed access that they can charge their competitors for, which can reduce the amount of competition that those other business can bring to the marketplace.
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
LAUNCH
Footballguy
You can change to something, but there really isn't apples to apples competition, in most places DSL speeds are a lot slower than cable speeds.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Exactly. Even in suburban areas, there are often only one or two choices for broadband. I get two choices, and both charge exorbitant rates because there's no real competition.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
can we simply stipulate that any bill which gets past committee does so because it benefits multis (who mostly write them anymore) and save several threadsworth of peoples' time for pornhumormusic?
Last edited by a moderator:
Jobber
Footballguy
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
F### the Republican Party.
TwinTurbo
Footballguy
The wireless operators and cable companies stifle innovation time and time again in order to protect their backwards business models. It's why net neutrality is such an important issue.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
It's like watching the music and movie industries with Napster. Instead of themselves innovating, they sue and sit idly by while Apple brings out iTunes. We now also have Netflix, Amazon Tv, Hulu, and others while music/movie are relativly using the backwards model. Google wifi or whatever needs to be in more cities. Is it any wonder why cable companies are always the most disliked companies?
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
This is where i wish some Starbucksy billionaire would step in and bankroll an attempt at balanced media reporting on the nation and the world. We all know there's a voice out there for most of us, and it aint the cartoonnazis of Fox and it aint the fey wokesters who ruined The Daily Show. It's as John Stewart warned in his final Daily Show, which will one day be viewed as as prescient as Eisenhower's M-IC statement, "Beware the bull####" because a lot of money which has forgotten about its customers is hiding behind that bull####.
It's news that either tries to be fair or pauses for composed commentary from trusted parties; wake-up calls on things that are going down NOW and need everyone's attention, like Oliver's gofccyourself; talkshows that periscope the days events with groups of differing views but who actually have training in something other than wearing tight clothes & professional camera-smiling; documentaries and, most of all, comedy, cuz comedy is truth with timing. Now the Right is going to have trouble with the last two cats, as they always have, but i'd shonuff watch stories on the troubles of small business, abandoned company towns, union corruption and how the teachers unions have ruined education, immigrant overrun etc etc if good conservative fimmakers took the time. The comedy i cant help with, because you have to have an imagination to be funny and that's why they're righties in the 1st place, but......
TwinTurbo
Footballguy
Yes there are countless examples. One example is Verizon passing on the first iPhone because Apple wanted to control the user experience and distribution. People need to understand it's not just about accessing content, its about hardware and user experience controls too. It would be like Comcast forcing you to only use a TV that they certified.Mario Kart said:
fatness
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Mario Kart
Footballguy
So, the "fake news" advocates are using fake data to promote their agenda? Seems fake unless it wasn't. How can anyone be in favor of this crap?
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
If anything the internet freedom act is what would stifle innovation. That's one of the biggest problems with it.
Why do Facebook or Twitter need to innovate and improve their product when instead they can just throw some cash at Verizon to block/throttle any startup social media platforms?
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
This isn't an option for a majority of Americans. The way the ISP infrastructure was built there just aren't multiple choices in a lot of areas, and even in areas where there are there is often a massive difference between the two.
We only have Comcast here, and that's true for just about everyone I know in town. I suppose we could probably dig up some terrible satellite option, but they aren't really in the same class of internet. And that's the problem. Most of these ISPs essentially have a monopoly on their users, and they're starting to get ideas about how to better take advantage of those monopolies.
I think it is. You're only thinking of your cable company as an ISP. You can also use AT&T in most places. And that's only for cable or DSL internet access. You can get internet access from most wireless companies for your mobile devices.
Like you said, there's often a big difference in the kind of service you can get, but you can still change to a different provider. And AT&T is always trying to get business away from the cable companies - in my area, every time the cable company bumps up their speed, AT&T comes out with something new to provide faster service. Near me they are even rolling out a fiber service to try and compete with Google Fiber coming into that area.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Your experience isn't the norm for most of rural and suburban America. I live in a very suburban area, not even rural, and have exactly one choice that meets the federal criteria for high-speed internet.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Or poorer urban areas. Verizon has deemed that the city of Baltimore is not worthy of vios while the surrounding, suburban counties with lower population density are worth the infrastructure cost.
I'm using a small independent ISP right now. Other choices are slow Verizon DSL or Comcast (who I hate).
Chaka
Footballguy
Yup.
Sure I have options as well, but that doesn't mean they are equal.
I have one provider who can offer cable internet (Cox), the other three providers are all DSL, the best of which (AT&T) can offer only half the theoretical maximum DL speeds (75 Mbps) of the cable provider (150 Mbps). And it has the same cost.
75 Mbps should be more than enough for even the biggest cord cutting MMORPG gamers out ther, if they live alone or with others who aren't heavy users. Make it two or three televisions plus multiple devices with HD streaming and you are going to want the more reliable provider. DSL hits theoretical max far less frequently than cable and you don't save any money going with the lesser options, so I fail to see it as being much of a competition. It's like putting the Patriots in the MAC.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
I have lived in 3 placed the last 6 years, none of them particularly small (Gainesville FL, Chattanooga TN, Ogden UT (basically a Salt Lake City suburb)). All of my houses have been in the burbs. You know the type, rows and rows of houses.
In none of the 3 was ATT UVerse or Verizon FIOS available. Yeah, you can get cell service there and use it as your internet, but at 8GB of data or whatever that's going to last you a couple days on a computer each month. Heck I can't even get ATT's old ADSL service that is capped at a maximum of 6mbps depending on the area and doesn't really even qualify as a competitor any more.
I don't think most people have the options you do. ATT Uverse isn't even offered in 30 states. That's 30 ENTIRE STATES. Not to mention the fairly sparse coverage maps in the states it actually is in.
And even if we do one point finally get to a saturation point where people have real choices, do we really want ISPs buying up exclusivity against each other as a marketing point? IE Verizon pays Netflix a bunch of money so you can only stream it on a Verizon connection, Amazon Prime streaming is only available on Comcast, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
According to FCC data, just under 90% of homes in the country have access to 2 or more wired ISPs, and almost 100% have access to 2 or more wireless ISPs. Yes, the service offered will be different, but you still have options.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
Sure but those options often don't play fair when it comes to offering people a product at a reasonable price given what we know about these companies in question. To think these companies will play fair or do what's right is insane if this is returned to the old ways. And, it might sound funny to say "the old way" but the internet was a lot different just 5 years ago. So much more happens on the net now.
Jobber
Footballguy
Kanil
Footballguy
But my "option" is to pay more, for less. There's not 1 person in the world who would say that is a good thing.
Chaka
Footballguy
Again, this is technically correct, which allows ISPs to dot the "I"s and cross the "T"s to avoid anti-trust laws (if those are still even a thing) but it doesn't work out to real competition in practice.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Chaka
Footballguy
It was the FCC, under the previous administration, who supported net neutrality under Title II in the first place.
So which one are you upset with? That administration or this one?
Last edited by a moderator:
My point was that ISPs aren't going to be looking to charge their private consumers more for the same services they get now once net neutrality is gone. They could do it now if they wanted, but competition reins that in to some extent and that would not change. Also, having more people using their services means they will have more leverage when they start charging content providers more for more bandwidth to serve their content to the ISPs customers. Because while you would have the option to change which ISP you use to get your content, the content providers can only serve it to you on the ISP you've chosen.
You'll still have to pay more when the content providers increase their fees to pay for greater bandwidth, but it won't be an increase in the bill you get from your ISP. This also makes it more difficult for a new ISP to start up in your area as they will be less likely to get content providers to pay for more bandwidth when they have fewer customers to serve it to and they can't charge the customers more to make up for that loss of revenue.
You'll still have to pay more when the content providers increase their fees to pay for greater bandwidth, but it won't be an increase in the bill you get from your ISP. This also makes it more difficult for a new ISP to start up in your area as they will be less likely to get content providers to pay for more bandwidth when they have fewer customers to serve it to and they can't charge the customers more to make up for that loss of revenue.
Kanil
Footballguy
It's still the ISPs fault that I'm paying more though. It's their gouging of the content providers that's going to make me spend more money for the same service level I have today.
fatness
Footballguy
That is inaccurate data. It is from 2014, and includes speeds that are not called "broadband" speeds today. The FCC changed the definition of broadband because those stats misled people about how much of the country had fast internet access.
https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-definition-broadband-25mbps
Last edited by a moderator:
Mario Kart
Footballguy
SHIZNITTTT
Footballguy
I want to know where all of this competition is located? I live in Tulsa, you can use COX internet or satellite. No other choice, in certain parts of the city they have a small company called Windstream that from what I hear absolutely sucks and is always down.
http://www.speedtest.net/awards/us/tulsa-ok
Cox is fastest, but AT&T is available. There are also several wireless ISPs.
SHIZNITTTT
Footballguy
Kanil
Footballguy
Do you work for a big cable company? You seem to be toting a lot of their talking points that are beyond ridiculous.
Statorama
gangster
Thanks for being a cool head when everyone else is running around with their hair on fire.
No. Actually, I have an internet connection at my home in the 20-25 mps range. I could switch to cable internet and get much faster, but I'm getting all the speed I need now, so I see no reason to. I consider the two to be comparable options since the faster connection isn't going to give me any appreciable increase in satisfaction of service.
But, apparently, I'm in the minority. You guys don't think they're comparable, so be it.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Amused to Death
Footballguy
And that's why I think people are genuinely upset. All of the benefit (appears to) favor the big companies - again. The middle class at best remains status quo and most likely will end up paying more as a result of this.Amused to Death said:
Unless anyone else has a good reason the middle class should be happy about.
Similar threads
![[icon]](/data/avatars/s/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
