It's pretty funny, still, that his "anti government" solution is, apparently, to have the Federal government "deregulate" local government land use controls.

A genuine free market > Net Neutrality T2 > Do Nothing > Any bull**** "hybrid" Wheeler peddles

ah, the free market: the only religion people can still believe in and not get laughed at

FiOS mail finally arrived that my building is eligible for FiOS.

Very same day Time Warner mailings arrived offering me like 30 bucks for TV+phone+internet... even after fees that would cut my monthly bill by half.

Competition is a beautiful thing.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...as-god/306397/

Should be required reading.

the irony of this post in this thread is off the charts

"the free market" didn't come up with the idea to throttle content. Particular market participants (who, in this case, are massively shielded from competition by (in some cases decades-old) government regulations) came up with the idea.

Speakest ye not against thine Savior The Market! Forthwith, the sins come verily from thine Devil, The State!

For shame! Question not the ways of The Market. It is pure, and holy, and unflenchingly perfect! It may err not! All True Evils are of The State-Devil!

swing and a miss

If you limit the maximum you can pay for 100 mbps to say $50. I still think you could still have innovation. There really is no competition, Time Warner owns the line and no one else is allowed in. Yes there is some competition from the phone line and satellite. But, generally I don't think these companies will go broke at $50 for 100 mbps and $0.10 per kilowatt hour. Thus if the companies can run a system for $11 per 100 mbps, they can keep the profit of $39. They might charge $30 for 10 mbps now.

It should also be against the law for providers to be involved in content. That way they don't have to worry about net neutrality. But overall the system is not running that badly. In fact cable and providers could be separated. As it is in the interest of these companies for you both to sign up for cable and tv and now even the phone. Thus, you can't get tv free over the internet yet. Site like ooma can replace voynage, the cable companies should not be allowed to be involved with voip.

what you want is if the long-term competitive market rate is $25 for 100 mbps, you want to allow them to keep $50 for 100 mbps thus to give them money to improve and if the union gets in there and they fail, then someone else can take them over. Or if they can only deliver at $30 per 100 mbps, they can still sell the comany to someone who could lower it to $25 or even lower.

Are you actually like, trying to platonically divine the optimal price for intertubes?

I bet the greedy teachers unions and Robert Reich are stealing mbps

They don't pay for any of it we do. They don't pay for property tax for their schools with 10 people doing the job of 1. They are probably hurt the economy because when the students get out it will take them a decade to prepare for the real world. Unless of course then end up in government.

====

I am not defining the price I am picking a price with some profit. It might be better to divide the internet into 1000s of different companies which control a certain geographic area. The government would technically own the system, thus if system grows corrupt we can get fire the maintainers and get new ones in that rate higher.

How do you make a system free market if there are only one or two lines?

Genuinely curious what channels you'd have gotten with that TV package and what Internet speed they were offering

I get similar mailings almost weekly from Brighthouse (and I've been a customer for like 5 years or more) and when I finally called and asked about it, it was like their ****tiest Internet speed and literally 13 channels

Oh and the offer was only available for "new" customers lol wtf do you keep mailing me this **** then?

Had HBO and ESPN. Didn't look beyond that

The FCC calling out AT&T on their fiber rollout hissy fit is pretty funny.

Here is a proposal basically for that:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/18/...ity-knockoffs/

Seems pretty good.

Yea that is pretty good

Definitely the best solution.

That seems like a good plan to help solve the problem with local monopolies, but I don't see how it solves the net neutrality issue. They are separate issues, unless you accept both of his apparent premises:

a) The current net neutrality proposal would create a monopoly.
b) Competition between providers would be enough to ensure that they follow net neutrality principles.

If either of those are false, then net neutrality regulations are still needed.

Is there a law that mail carriers can't discriminate against companies?

I'm not sure either of those premises are necessary. I think, to the extent NN can be defended at all, it's because many telecoms are not subject to effective competition. If there is competition, and some or all of the competitors don't follow NN principles, why should anyone care?

bump

An FCC commissioner's memo on the impact of the president's changes:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rele...C-331907A1.pdf

Thoughts? Just a republican shill or are the points valid and likely outcomes of more government regulation of the internet?

Either a shill or a rube that's internalized every made-up republican talking point ever

Edit

Nope, shill was correct

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matth...ry_(politician)