Net Neutrality and Comcast/Netflix agreement

[Atmos Duality]

The Time Warner/Comcast merger makes a huge company that is able to call the shots of basically the majority of the telecom infrastructure of the country. This is dangerous.

Oh come now! A sanctioned monopoly that's not subject to regulation sounds like tons of fun!
Especially when one private company owns most of the home cable market!

What's the worst that could happen?
Rates going up? Content filtering in exchange for kickbacks?
Backroom deals with local gov to prohibit development of fiber infrastructure?

I mean, lets be reasonable here!
(if it wasn't clear, I'm being thoroughly sarcastic)

 

[Lillowh]

No, the FCC was not. They do not have statutory authority to regulate the Internet. That's out of their purview. That's why the FCC lost the case. And why so many on the right made a big stink last week about that "editorial bias" study the FCC wanted to conduct. As the FCC has zero authority over print media.

Actually, the FCC had every right to enforce and place net neutrality restrictions. After all, any government agency has the right to make rules and regulations due to the new deal era (NLRB V Jones & Laughlin Steel), and they were well within their rights to do so. The appeals court is in the wrong, because the practices of Comcast here place a burden on interstate commerce, and therefore allow the commerce clause to be referenced as a reason to put such restrictions in place.

 

[barbzilla]

No, the FCC was not. They do not have statutory authority to regulate the Internet. That's out of their purview. That's why the FCC lost the case. And why so many on the right made a big stink last week about that "editorial bias" study the FCC wanted to conduct. As the FCC has zero authority over print media.

Actually, the FCC had every right to enforce and place net neutrality restrictions. After all, any government agency has the right to make rules and regulations due to the new deal era (NLRB V Jones & Laughlin Steel), and they were well within their rights to do so. The appeals court is in the wrong, because the practices of Comcast here place a burden on interstate commerce, and therefore allow the commerce clause to be referenced as a reason to put such restrictions in place.

You should look into how the anti-trust laws were formatted prior to 1920, it was a whole different ball game back then, but unfortunately businesses make the one thing that the government wants... money. Well, I guess power is more accurate, but money = power in this day and age.

As for NLRB V Jones, that is a president, not law. By the law, the appeals court was in the right abolishing the FCC's power to enforce net neutrality. However, I do think that the law needs to be changed to allow someone to enforce net neutrality in some form or another. This country has slowly slipped down the slope towards a business controlled government over the past 90 years or so, and is in danger of becoming even more in trouble than we already are.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I just feel bad for Comcast. They bought the worst network from GE and have thus far done nothing to change that, at all. Now, they want to buy the worst customer service rated ISP. Why do they keep buying bad companies?

What world are you living in? Comcast is in such dire straights that they're buying anything and everything they can get their hands on, expanding their business model to more industries as quickly as possible, and bribing regulatory agencies with cushy post-approval job placement. They're operating at profit margins that positively dwarf successful businesses in any other industry. They're enjoying and expanding a natural monopoly with apparently no interference from the governing bodies designed to protect consumers. And they're doing all of this while offering the worst possible customer service and value - because they can.

"Protect citizens" from voluntary contracts they don't have to have makes no sense. I can understand the reasoning for protecting water basins and reservoirs. That makes sense. Protecting people from voluntary consumer interactions makes no sense. Do your own research before taking the plunge like any reasonable person. Netflix has become a streaming giant in the last few years with their insanely popular and all-dropped-at-once-seasons-of shows. They're chugging down data like it was a Jaeger Bomb. Comcast responded to what was probably screwing their bottom line like it was hot.

Except Netflix (and any similar service) is the primary reason people even shell out ridiculous sums of money to Comcast every month for what should be more-than-adequate DL rates. They are a service provider complaining about the popularity of the content that justifies large portions of their service. When something makes that little sense, the missing ingredient is money. They are leveraging a natural monopoly in order to (once again) increase profits at the expense of consumers who have nowhere else to turn. Unless you actually believe there are legitimate, equally functional alternatives to cable broadband in most areas.

And I'm guessing none of this has anything to do with a long-term goal to increase the price of Netflix, which has effectively replaced Cable Television for a large chunk of consumers on account of how unreasonably overpriced cable tv has become. Probably because there are no controlling factors in place since the industry was deregulated in the 90s, which is when profit margins jumped from 5-6% to ~30%. The recent decisions against net neutrality are functioning as a backdoor deregulation for service providers who are miffed that consumers abandoned their overpriced entertainment in favor of a better, cheaper alternative. Now Comcast can clog he pipes whenever they want to renegotiate the terms of their arrangement with Netflix, effectively siphoning money from the public through a company/product Comcast doesn't even fucking own.

The free market works until someone wins.

Sidebar: I'm totally confused as to how Comcast hasn't been dominating the "worst company in America" competition for 2-3 years running.

 

[Flutterguy]

I don't know wy people still use comcast. Unless you are poor and rarely use the internet or have literally no other options why get comcast? I have been hearing people complain about them often since 2008.

The phone line to my house was estimated 30+ years old by an electrician and I don't have problems using netflix with a cheap contract from bloody execulink.

 

[barbzilla]

Netflix recently "guaranteed" its new "superHD" service to all its customers. I think that's why it happened.

Read the actual op-ed. You clearly didn't read it, as I took that information from the op-ed you criticized.

No, I read the article, and pointing out one factor doesn't change the numbers from the past 8 years. You are either working for a large corporation and willfully want larger profit margins, or you have some further agenda here. There is no reasonable excuse for poor business ethics in a society that claims to be civil. This reeks of Ford buying up the rail car companies back in the 30s to drive up sales on their cars. Without a regulating body, capitalism doesn't work at the most fundamental level. It fails for the same reason that you claim to not want government interference, and that is corruption and greed.

I agree that most of the time, business and government shouldn't be involved, but when it comes to protecting citizens from outrageous profit margins, their either has to be a regulating body, or the economy turns into something akin to what China is experiencing. You can't have it all the way on either side, there has to be balance to bring any kind of reasonable result.

 

[Fireaxe]

Except it's not net neutrality if the government regulates it.

Net neutrality isn't the government controlling the content that appears on the internet, it's the government preventing the control of the internet by collusive business interests. So actually it is still neutral. You can have a contrary opinion but if you do it's very clear you don't know what net neutrality *IS*.

 

[Vausch]

I don't know wy people still use comcast. Unless you are poor and rarely use the internet or have literally no other options why get comcast? I have been hearing people complain about them often since 2008.

The phone line to my house was estimated 30+ years old by an electrician and I don't have problems using netflix with a cheap contract from bloody execulink.

You ever actually looked at your options? It's rare to have more than 1 cable company available in any given area. The big ISPs basically just make deals to stay out of each others' areas, thus giving no competition and meaning they never have to worry about pricing.

Spoiler: Or as South Park put it

 

[barbzilla]

No, I read the article, and pointing out one factor doesn't change the numbers from the past 8 years. You are either working for a large corporation and willfully want larger profit margins, or you have some further agenda here. There is no reasonable excuse for poor business ethics in a society that claims to be civil. This reeks of Ford buying up the rail car companies back in the 30s to drive up sales on their cars. Without a regulating body, capitalism doesn't work at the most fundamental level. It fails for the same reason that you claim to not want government interference, and that is corruption and greed.

I agree that most of the time, business and government shouldn't be involved, but when it comes to protecting citizens from outrageous profit margins, their either has to be a regulating body, or the economy turns into something akin to what China is experiencing. You can't have it all the way on either side, there has to be balance to bring any kind of reasonable result.

You're questioning my motives! You think I'm arguing in bad faith! Hilarious!

Ethics does not equal law. And if it did, probably 90% of politicians would get arrested. And almost all lawyers. And every life insurance salesman.

Except it does. Amazon is the store for everything. I have access to things at my fingertips my grandparents never dreamed of.

You're just upset that the reality of the economics here doesn't agree with your ideals. And I can't do anything to convince you otherwise.

Net neutrality isn't the government controlling the content that appears on the internet, it's the government preventing the control of the internet by collusive business interests. So actually it is still neutral. You can have a contrary opinion but if you do it's very clear you don't know what net neutrality *IS*.

Yes, because the federal government has such a good record on business collusion. Ha ha ha.

I'm not sure if that was supposed to sound as confrontational as it did, but I am done arguing with you. I'm happy you have an opinion, and I'd be happy to defend it, but I think I am through hearing it.

 

[SomeGuyOnHisComputer]

To be completely honest, I can't even believe this is an argument.
Net neutrality is important, especially in the US. For capitalism to function properly, information and communication must be be free. The internet is the biggest path for both, thus the internet must be free. And no, a single corporation deciding what you have access to is NOT free. It is corporate oppression, which is just as bad as government oppression (and arguably a little worse in my opinion). Without Net Neutrality, the flood gates open for anti-competitive, anti-consumer practices. I would go as as far as to say that being anti-Net neutrality, is basically anti-capitalism (at least in the form that actually fucking works).

 

[barbzilla]

I'm not sure if that was supposed to sound as confrontational as it did, but I am done arguing with you. I'm happy you have an opinion, and I'd be happy to defend it, but I think I am through hearing it.

That's rich. You said I was arguing in bad faith, that no person not bought and paid for by corporations could disagree with you on this. You sounded like a radical environmentalist pushing cap-and-trade!

I made an observation, and even added in that I could be wrong by saying or you have some other agenda, you are the one being confrontational and rude now, and I'm asking that you drop it before I report you.

 

[SomeGuyOnHisComputer]

It's an argument because the name "net neutrality" sounds nice (hey, Mr. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act!) but doesn't actually operate like that in practice.

Honestly, that sentence made no sense at all, and felt like an excuse to post anti-goverment rhetoric. Net Neutrality refers to a concept itself, not a governmental act. It can exist without the government doing anything, I mean it won't, but it can.

By definition, Net Neutrality can't be compromised, so there's that. As soon a company figures out how to smartass their way around it, it ceases to be Net Neutrality.

Also, like I said in my first post, you're basically giving companies complete control over what you read and watch, and thus giving them control over what you say and think. (I think I just completely demolished one of your earlier points with that sentence <_<)
So you're perfectly fine with that? Deregulation is so important that you're willing to sacrifice your own freedom for it?

 

[Parasondox]

I for one greatly enjoy my general internet package from Comcast (Yahoo, Google, Bing, Wikipedia, Vimeo) and am glad I sprung for the social media package as well (Myspace, google+). I just with I could afford the video gaming package (Gamespot, Kotaku) but I'm already pay 200 dollars a month to access 7 websites.

Wait wait wait. Are you telling me you have to pay for the internet which is split up? As in you pay for this General internet package, social media package and gaming package and you personally pay around $200 a month to access 7 websites?

What in the FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCKK!?!?!?

How the hell is that fair when other countries don't have that kind of bullshit? In the UK, it's mostly pay for the download speed you wish(from 10mbps to over 100mbps costing from £10 - £50 or so a month) and have unlimited data with no usage caps. No seperate packages just ONE broadband deal. Think that is cause of either UK or EU law not allowing companies mess with customers. I'd rather have the government in charge (public sector) than big companies holding something hostile unless you pay them more.

Sorry you have to deal with that nonsense in the US and I thought UK was bad.

 

[SargeSmash]

So why did Big_Willie_Styles get suspended for that post? I've seen much worse around these parts.

 

[Zontar]

I for one greatly enjoy my general internet package from Comcast (Yahoo, Google, Bing, Wikipedia, Vimeo) and am glad I sprung for the social media package as well (Myspace, google+). I just with I could afford the video gaming package (Gamespot, Kotaku) but I'm already pay 200 dollars a month to access 7 websites.

Wait wait wait. Are you telling me you have to pay for the internet which is split up? As in you pay for this General internet package, social media package and gaming package and you personally pay around $200 a month to access 7 websites?

What in the FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCKK!?!?!?

How the hell is that fair when other countries don't have that kind of bullshit? In the UK, it's mostly pay for the download speed you wish(from 10mbps to over 100mbps costing from £10 - £50 or so a month) and have unlimited data with no usage caps. No seperate packages just ONE broadband deal. Think that is cause of either UK or EU law not allowing companies mess with customers. I'd rather have the government in charge (public sector) than big companies holding something hostile unless you pay them more.

Sorry you have to deal with that nonsense in the US and I thought UK was bad.

Uh.... he was being sarcastic. The post was mostly a mockery of what could possibly happen without net neutrality existing, and was also a not-very-subtle joke at Big Willie Styles' expense.

 

[Parasondox]

Wait wait wait. Are you telling me you have to pay for the internet which is split up? As in you pay for this General internet package, social media package and gaming package and you personally pay around $200 a month to access 7 websites?

What in the FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCKK!?!?!?

How the hell is that fair when other countries don't have that kind of bullshit? In the UK, it's mostly pay for the download speed you wish(from 10mbps to over 100mbps costing from £10 - £50 or so a month) and have unlimited data with no usage caps. No seperate packages just ONE broadband deal. Think that is cause of either UK or EU law not allowing companies mess with customers. I'd rather have the government in charge (public sector) than big companies holding something hostile unless you pay them more.

Sorry you have to deal with that nonsense in the US and I thought UK was bad.

Uh.... he was being sarcastic. The post was mostly a mockery of what could possibly happen without net neutrality existing, and was also a not-very-subtle joke at Big Willie Styles' expense.

Ooooooh my bad. Silly friday for me and now I feel silly . Well Big Willie Styles' point didn't even make much sense and when he was mocking others POV in a condescending way, it didn't help his case either.