4 ms·

Isn't is also clear, in fact more clear, that none of the doomsday scenarios of killing net neutrality were real either?

tabtab 8y ago
Because states were threatening local versions of NN. But many lawmakers want to take away states rights for that.
- BoorishBears 8y ago
  >Because states were threatening local versions of NN. Not even a little bit. Do you really believe that? It's because those scenarios were just as outlandish and uninformed as those against net neutrality. Premium tweets were never going to be a thing, blocking Netflix unless you pay extra wasn't going to be a thing. It was just drivel. I honestly feel like half these things started as satire, but the larger public (that has no idea how this stuff works ) adopted it as their rhetoric.
  - fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
    The question I always had amid the doomsayers predictions was "Why would I buy that service?" Double the monthly bill for access to a limited number of websites that I probably don't care about, no thanks. I'm sure many people feel the same way. Seems like a bad move business wise. Looks like I was right.
    - tabtab 8y ago
      Forced bundling is a common sign of monopolies-gone-awry. Most consumers want a-la-carte selection of shows, services, and sites; but are forced into bundled deals because the big providers make a-la-care far too expensive.
  - tabtab 8y ago
    Re: It's because those scenarios were just as outlandish and uninformed as those against net neutrality. Both "sides" often exaggerate their points; that's politics 101. That doesn't mean that all of their predictions will be entirely wrong. Re: blocking Netflix unless you pay extra wasn't going to be a thing How do you know they wouldn't eventually do that? If they have competing content, it would be profitable for them to charge more for competitor content. Do I need to make a spreadsheet for you to show you why? Why would they otherwise skip profits?
    - BoorishBears 8y ago
      > Why would they otherwise skip profits? If all you had to do to make profits was impose whatever outlandish pricing models pop into your head, everyone would do it and internet would cost infinity dollars. No one would actually pay this. There'd be mass outrage and as much as the memes like to imply Ajit Pai works for Comcast, the FCC would easily be forced to step in (no blanket net neutrality law doesn't mean the FCC isn't allowed to step in when needed). It's in the best interests of the ISP to not do egregious things that force the FCCs hand or stir up public outrage.
      - tabtab 8y ago
        Re: "If all you had to do to make profits was impose whatever outlandish pricing models pop into your head, everyone would do it and internet would cost infinity dollars." No, because everybody can and do make short cat videos such that they are a dime a dozen, and thus can rarely demand a premium. But sitcoms are social events such that everyone wants to see what everyone is talking about, giving them the ability to charge a premium over garage-made sitcoms. Nor can Joe YouTube form his own regional sports team; franchises such as NFL would sue. (A few break-out YouTube stars can charge or add more ads due to this social networking premium.) Re: "No one would actually pay this." - Historically people have and do pay a premium when they have no other realistic choice. Sorry, but the long history of oligopolies and monopolies shows you are wrong. Re: "It's in the best interests of the ISP to not do egregious things that force the FCCs hand or stir up public outrage." Too many CEO's think short-term: get mine now, the future is somebody else's problem. The cable industry has a customer satisfaction record second worse of ALL industries, just behind airlines. It took crying babies and lost luggage to not be 1st.

tabtab 8y ago

Because states were threatening local versions of NN. But many lawmakers want to take away states rights for that.

BoorishBears 8y ago
>Because states were threatening local versions of NN. Not even a little bit. Do you really believe that? It's because those scenarios were just as outlandish and uninformed as those against net neutrality. Premium tweets were never going to be a thing, blocking Netflix unless you pay extra wasn't going to be a thing. It was just drivel. I honestly feel like half these things started as satire, but the larger public (that has no idea how this stuff works ) adopted it as their rhetoric.
- fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
  The question I always had amid the doomsayers predictions was "Why would I buy that service?" Double the monthly bill for access to a limited number of websites that I probably don't care about, no thanks. I'm sure many people feel the same way. Seems like a bad move business wise. Looks like I was right.
  - tabtab 8y ago
    Forced bundling is a common sign of monopolies-gone-awry. Most consumers want a-la-carte selection of shows, services, and sites; but are forced into bundled deals because the big providers make a-la-care far too expensive.
- tabtab 8y ago
  Re: It's because those scenarios were just as outlandish and uninformed as those against net neutrality. Both "sides" often exaggerate their points; that's politics 101. That doesn't mean that all of their predictions will be entirely wrong. Re: blocking Netflix unless you pay extra wasn't going to be a thing How do you know they wouldn't eventually do that? If they have competing content, it would be profitable for them to charge more for competitor content. Do I need to make a spreadsheet for you to show you why? Why would they otherwise skip profits?
  - BoorishBears 8y ago
    > Why would they otherwise skip profits? If all you had to do to make profits was impose whatever outlandish pricing models pop into your head, everyone would do it and internet would cost infinity dollars. No one would actually pay this. There'd be mass outrage and as much as the memes like to imply Ajit Pai works for Comcast, the FCC would easily be forced to step in (no blanket net neutrality law doesn't mean the FCC isn't allowed to step in when needed). It's in the best interests of the ISP to not do egregious things that force the FCCs hand or stir up public outrage.
    - tabtab 8y ago
      Re: "If all you had to do to make profits was impose whatever outlandish pricing models pop into your head, everyone would do it and internet would cost infinity dollars." No, because everybody can and do make short cat videos such that they are a dime a dozen, and thus can rarely demand a premium. But sitcoms are social events such that everyone wants to see what everyone is talking about, giving them the ability to charge a premium over garage-made sitcoms. Nor can Joe YouTube form his own regional sports team; franchises such as NFL would sue. (A few break-out YouTube stars can charge or add more ads due to this social networking premium.) Re: "No one would actually pay this." - Historically people have and do pay a premium when they have no other realistic choice. Sorry, but the long history of oligopolies and monopolies shows you are wrong. Re: "It's in the best interests of the ISP to not do egregious things that force the FCCs hand or stir up public outrage." Too many CEO's think short-term: get mine now, the future is somebody else's problem. The cable industry has a customer satisfaction record second worse of ALL industries, just behind airlines. It took crying babies and lost luggage to not be 1st.