• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Is YOUR ISP throttling or blocking high-bandwidth websites who refuse payola?

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
All ya gotta do is go without interwebz service until another company shows up as a option. So, everybody boycott the only game in town until it is no longer the only game in town.

The feds made them the only game in town and now we want the feds to...

treadmill.gif
If there is another game in town, switch.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
To be clear I am saying those who want the government to enforce net neutrality are asking for more government and more government is always more violence and coercion.

The government helps create the monopoly and the problem the solution isn't more government.

People concentrate on the seen not the unseen. The free market can and will provide other options than worrying about digging and laying millions of dollars of lines when there could be other options is missing the larger picture.
What other option? Satellite? That's not a real option. Neither is mobile providers. You're still speaking in abstract ideals and hypotheticals.

You claim you say all that's needed, that government created the monopolies and that deregulation will bust them up. Yet, I have mentioned various reasons why competition is not a reality and can not be a reality without regulation.

You have exhibited vast ignorance regarding the complexities of an ISP and holding fast to your mantra that government is always evil. Still, you have yet to show how the regulations applied to cell carriers have harmed the cellphone market. Those are the very same regulations we want applied to ISPs. Those regulations have increased competition in the cellphone market and have helped to improve reception for smaller carriers by forcing cheaper roaming rates.

So again, tell me why you oppose reclassifying ISPs as common carriers and why you support deregulation. This time please use facts backed up by reputable sources. I'll do the same.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
What other option? Satellite? That's not a real option. Neither is mobile providers. You're still speaking in abstract ideals and hypotheticals.

You claim you say all that's needed, that government created the monopolies and that deregulation will bust them up. Yet, I have mentioned various reasons why competition is not a reality and can not be a reality without regulation.

You have exhibited vast ignorance regarding the complexities of an ISP and holding fast to your mantra that government is always evil. Still, you have yet to show how the regulations applied to cell carriers have harmed the cellphone market. Those are the very same regulations we want applied to ISPs. Those regulations have increased competition in the cellphone market and have helped to improve reception for smaller carriers by forcing cheaper roaming rates.

So again, tell me why you oppose reclassifying ISPs as common carriers and why you support deregulation. This time please use facts backed up by reputable sources. I'll do the same.

NO I have not declared to be an expert or even very knowledgeable in ISP's. I may be speaking in "abstract ideals and hypotheticals" at least I am not relying on the same fallacy the statist rely on to push government into all the other intrusions of a free market.

The personal attacks is noted.

I always support deregulation and a free market over government interference.

I never declared what you are claiming.

Just because you or I can't imagine other options doesn't mean they wouldn't exist without government interference. Read Bastiat's What is Seen and What is not Seen. Now that the government is involved it will defintiley slow down other options.Please tell me what constitutional authority does the government have to involve itself in ISP's?
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
NO I have not declared to be an expert or even very knowledgeable in ISP's. I may be speaking in "abstract ideals and hypotheticals" at least I am not relying on the same fallacy the statist rely on to push government into all the other intrusions of a free market.

The personal attacks is noted.

I always support deregulation and a free market over government interference.

I never declared what you are claiming.

Just because you or I can't imagine other options doesn't mean they wouldn't exist without government interference. Read Bastiat's What is Seen and What is not Seen. Now that the government is involved it will defintiley slow down other options.Please tell me what constitutional authority does the government have to involve itself in ISP's?

sooner or later the gov will just claim the internet is a utility and exercise complete control over it.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
sooner or later the gov will just claim the internet is a utility and exercise complete control over it.

Yep.

Some were screaming how the deregulation of the airlines , were going to lead to huge monopolies and outrageous airfares, and hurt all us common folk. Yet many many moons later I can fly to Hawaii round trip for cheaper than the previous deregulated airfair one way, now that is in dollars not adjusted for inflation if we count inflation in the savings are tremendous. Of course the government regulation and monopolization of money has destroyed that too.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
NO I have not declared to be an expert or even very knowledgeable in ISP's. I may be speaking in "abstract ideals and hypotheticals" at least I am not relying on the same fallacy the statist rely on to push government into all the other intrusions of a free market.
And what fallacy is that? And if you don't really understand what you are talking about(in this case the internet), then how can you declare it a fallacy? How can you say it's wrong?

Is this a religion for you where Ma Bell = Jesus Christ and government = Satan?

The personal attacks is noted.
What personal attack? You mean me pointing out that you have very little understanding of the infrastructure that carries the internet? A fact you yourself agreed with?

sudden valley gunner;2077679I always support deregulation and a free market over government interference./QUOTE said:
Always? No matter what? Even when it can be conclusively shown that a completely deregulated market is bad for the country, bad for the economy and bad for you and I?

I suppose then you also oppose copyright and trademark laws. I should be allowed to follow you around, filming you and sell it online?

Just because you or I can't imagine other options doesn't mean they wouldn't exist without government interference. Read Bastiat's What is Seen and What is not Seen. Now that the government is involved it will defintiley slow down other options.
The government has been involved with the internet. Ever since the DoD developed it and opened it up for public use.

Please tell me what constitutional authority does the government have to involve itself in ISP's?
The Commerce Clause. If there is anything at all the commerce clause could apply to fully, it is the internet.

But hey, you're all about property rights. The internet is (or was) property of the DoD.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
And what fallacy is that? And if you don't really understand what you are talking about(in this case the internet), then how can you declare it a fallacy? How can you say it's wrong?

I pointed the fallacy out.

Is this a religion for you where Ma Bell = Jesus Christ and government = Satan?

Did you suddenly loose your ability to argue rationally? No where did I declare that big business equal Jesus, Saints, or angels. So more fallacy.
Government is evil, you are not even attempting to contradict what I say.


What personal attack? You mean me pointing out that you have very little understanding of the infrastructure that carries the internet? A fact you yourself agreed with?

Since that isn't the crux of my argument at all yes it is a personal attack and a fallacious ad hominem. I don't have to understand the infrastructure of the internet to want government out of it. Just like I don't have to understand medicine to want government out of it.

sudden valley gunner;2077679I always support deregulation and a free market over government interference./QUOTE said:
Always? No matter what? Even when it can be conclusively shown that a completely deregulated market is bad for the country, bad for the economy and bad for you and I?

The exact opposite has been shown time and time again.

I suppose then you also oppose copyright and trademark laws. I should be allowed to follow you around, filming you and sell it online?

Ummmmm your argument here doesn't even make sense. Following me around has nothing to do with copy right or trademark. But yes I have grown to desire government out of that area too, they cause more harm than good. If you rip me off common law court shall be good enough.


The government has been involved with the internet. Ever since the DoD developed it and opened it up for public use.

So? Again the fallacy. This is the way it is and has been so let's not change it.


The Commerce Clause. If there is anything at all the commerce clause could apply to fully, it is the internet.

NO it doesn't. Commerce Clause is still to be restricted by the 18 enumerated powers. Commerce also simply means trade. The clause was meant to create a large free trade zone among the states, that is it, not impose restriction upon trade or tell people how to trade.

But hey, you're all about property rights. The internet is (or was) property of the DoD.

Wrong again, the government doesn't have property it doesn't steal from someone else and the government doesn't have rights even if the government "invented the internet".

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-myth-that-government-created-the-internet/


So I will state again, I do not need to know Jack shite about the infrastructure of the internet to desire the state out of it. Why should this be the one thing that is different than every other thing the state decided to stick their dirty hands in?

Your argument appears to be a socialistic one. You want and desire something to be a certain way. So you want and desire the coercive violence of the government to steal from others to enforce what you want.
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Just sent a letter to my Congressman:

Would you like to pay $50 MORE per month for Internet/TV than you already are? That question is up for grabs this year as Congress considers waiving Net Neutrality.

This really is a HUGE deal folks. If you don't pay attention, it will cost you BOATLOADS of money over the next ten years. In fact, enough to buy a small boat.

Dear Congressman X:

Comcast is ripping off its customers in Colorado Springs BIG TIME. I am writing you because I strongly suspect they're ripping off their customers all over the United States.

Because it's an oligarchy, with huge barriers to entry, they're getting away with what's known as "covert collusion." No, they don't get together with Verizon or Centurylink officers over a cup of coffee and set prices. They do, however, engage in a visual arbitrage, where both companies know that if they engage in a price war, both will loose.

So, they do the opposite: If a competitor raises prices, they'll raise prices to match. If a competitor offers more deals, they'll do the same. But if a competitor lowers prices...

Therein lies the problem. Even though Moore's law holds true today, in that advances in technology results either twice the bandwidth or half the price every 1.5 years, Comcast, Verizon, and Centurylink NEVER lower prices.

Furthermore, they DO engage in collusion; just not in a manner which can be detected.

Here's an example:

2009: 25 Mbps Internet + IP Phone cost me $45 a month

2014: 25 Mbps Internet + NOTHING costs $70 a month

According to the U.S. Government's Bureau of Labor and Statistics, $45 in 2009 had the same buying power as $49.99 does today.

That's inflation.

Given both Moore's law and inflation, I should be paying $50 a month for 100 Mbps.

That's what they're paying in Houston, Texas. Then again, with 12 ISPs to choose from, the market structure is one of monopolistic competition, not one of oligarchy with covert collusion sucking the life blood out of anyone who wants to remain connected.

And yes, that $70 per month is for BASIC Internet; nothing else.

The 55% price jack Comcast implemented is NOT inflation. It's a RIPOFF.

Now, Comcast/Xfinity, Verizon, Centurylink, AT&T, and the other ISPs are pressuring Congress to throw Net Neutrality out the window.

Are they stark, raving mad? Do they have any idea what that'll do to competition? Minor sites will be choked, all right - TO DEATH. They won't be able to get through AT ALL.

Congressman X, I am asking you to please support Net Neutrality to the fullest. Force the ISPs to compete on a level playing field. They're already making massive profits at the expense of the people, particularly for those of us living in near-monopolistic markets. They do NOT own the Internet. They only only the last couple of miles. The Internet was paid for by OUR tax dollars.

We the People expect and deserve the Internet to remain free from manipulative data-throttling tactics employed by those who're already filthy rich by overcharging us in near-monopoly environments.

Sincerely...
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Op wants net neutrality thinking its going to solve his bandwidth issues .... clearly does not know what "net neutrality" means.

Clearly you don't. From the FCC: "The principle of the Open Internet is sometimes referred to as "net neutrality." Under this principle, consumers can make their own choices about what applications and services to use and are free to decide what lawful content they want to access, create, or share with others. This openness promotes competition and enables investment and innovation."

That's precisely what it means, and that's precisely what the ISPs are trying to destroy.

No educated freedom loving person is pro-net neutrality.

Are you completely out of your gourd?

As an educated, freedom loving person, I fully support net neutrality.

Thank you, Jack. :)

Net neutrality is a really simple issue. It boils down to the ISPs failing to deliver the service expected by throttling various types of traffic. Now the EFF and a bunch of consumer groups are demanding that the FCC reclassifies ISPs as common carriers and prohibit their throttling policies.

Good synopsis. I'd like to hear more about which groups are joining forces to keep the playing field level.

Its the governments that have helped create the monopolies the ISP's have.

I disagree. Here in Colorado Springs, Comcast installed the cable infrastructure, while Qwest and Verizon installed the phone (DSL/ADSL) infrastructure. The government had nothing to do with it. Installing that infrastructure requires deep pockets, and only a few companies had such deep pockets. That's why there are only two main ISPs from which people can choose, the one which delivers Internet service via cable modems, and the one which delivers it via the phone lines (DSL/ADSL).

Its the same in fields like health care, take care of special interests in the medical/drug field and then save the day by the problems created by their interference.

I think you're comparing apples and oranges.

More government interference will create more problems then they are claiming to solve which will lead to ........

Nearly all monopolies are heavily regulated, for obvious reasons, the principle one being he monopoly provides much-needed services, like electricity, or water, but left unchecked, they'd gouge customers to the point of destroying entire cities. In most such monopolies, due to the high cost of infrastructure, such as a nuclear power plant, or the fact there's only one river to damn with a hydroelectric plant, there literally is no room for competition. In the case of a nuclear power plant, you'd then have two power plants operating at half capacity and electricity rates would be double what they are for one.

Oligopolies like the ISPs often require at least some oversight for the same reasons, namely, discouraging collusion and providing a fair price to the people.

Once you get into market structures like monopolistic competition (mostly pure competition, but with some product differentiation) and pure competition (gas stations), it's best to let the markets run themselves. The only regulations are to ensure companies don't fleece the customers by selling 80 octane gas as 90 octane, for example.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
the only good answer is for the Feds to seize the internet and dole it out how they see fit.

although a good market experiment may be to find out what keeps competition out of this market and see if there might be something that can be done about it.

I'm having a hard time finding a firm position when it comes to net neutrality because of it's complexities. But it certainly SOUNDS like gov telling private companies how to run their business which I generally appose.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I think you're comparing apples and oranges.

Nope.



Nearly all monopolies are heavily regulated, for obvious reasons, the principle one being he monopoly provides much-needed services, like electricity, or water, but left unchecked, they'd gouge customers to the point of destroying entire cities. In most such monopolies, due to the high cost of infrastructure, such as a nuclear power plant, or the fact there's only one river to damn with a hydroelectric plant, there literally is no room for competition. In the case of a nuclear power plant, you'd then have two power plants operating at half capacity and electricity rates would be double what they are for one.

Not necessarily this leaves out that competitors will find other resources and other methods to meet the demands.

There really is no existing examples where monopolies have lasted without government protection.
Roosevelt's anti-trust law was a way to protect from competition, and those politically connected.

Oligopolies like the ISPs often require at least some oversight for the same reasons, namely, discouraging collusion and providing a fair price to the people.

So socialism of a private service? Allow them to be outrageous so that entrepreneurs will find other methods of providing what the market demands.



Once you get into market structures like monopolistic competition (mostly pure competition, but with some product differentiation) and pure competition (gas stations), it's best to let the markets run themselves. The only regulations are to ensure companies don't fleece the customers by selling 80 octane gas as 90 octane, for example.

Yet the state has a horrible record and private market has a stellar one.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
SVG your lack of knowledge does not have to be the crux of your argument to be the reason it falls flat on it's face.

You are arguing that the government created the monopolies and that deregulation would create competition. But this is patently false, yet you lack the requisite knowledge to understand why.

I tried to explain it to you, yet you responded there will be ways for people to compete. I've asked for examples of ways other companies could compete. You could not list any, instead opting to fall back to your government is always evil mantra. Such blind adherence to a belief is faith. Faith is often associated with religion. Especially when adherence to the mantra borders zealotry.

You expect free market competition in a market with a long history of monopolies.

Ma Bell is an excellent example. They had a nigh on complete monopoly for telephone service over nearly the entire country.

That is until government stepped in and broke them up.

Cellphone carriers are another great example. You want deregulation, I'm going to assume that also means that you want the government enforced monopoly over frequencies the carriers have to be destroyed by removing those regulations.

Problem with that is if a bunch of companies started blasting signals on the same frequencies, interference will render those frequencies inoperable.

Government regulation is CRUCIAL to ensure the level of interference is tolerable at least and they do a great job of that.

This issues with ISPs is no different. You can't have ten different companies burying 10,000 miles of cable each in the same city. That would cause all kinds of problems as well.

Can't use WiFi to saturate a city with internet access, too many hotspots causes severe interference.

I think I'm going to stop there.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
SVG your lack of knowledge does not have to be the crux of your argument to be the reason it falls flat on it's face.

You are arguing that the government created the monopolies and that deregulation would create competition. But this is patently false, yet you lack the requisite knowledge to understand why.

I tried to explain it to you, yet you responded there will be ways for people to compete. I've asked for examples of ways other companies could compete. You could not list any, instead opting to fall back to your government is always evil mantra. Such blind adherence to a belief is faith. Faith is often associated with religion. Especially when adherence to the mantra borders zealotry.

You expect free market competition in a market with a long history of monopolies.

Ma Bell is an excellent example. They had a nigh on complete monopoly for telephone service over nearly the entire country.

That is until government stepped in and broke them up.

Cellphone carriers are another great example. You want deregulation, I'm going to assume that also means that you want the government enforced monopoly over frequencies the carriers have to be destroyed by removing those regulations.

Problem with that is if a bunch of companies started blasting signals on the same frequencies, interference will render those frequencies inoperable.

Government regulation is CRUCIAL to ensure the level of interference is tolerable at least and they do a great job of that.

This issues with ISPs is no different. You can't have ten different companies burying 10,000 miles of cable each in the same city. That would cause all kinds of problems as well.

Can't use WiFi to saturate a city with internet access, too many hotspots causes severe interference.

I think I'm going to stop there.

LOL.....and no one saw a different mode of mass transportation of trains at one time.....:rolleyes:

You admitted they helped create the monopolies. Your answer is now to have them regulate what they helped create. Welcome to fascism. I say no thank you.

You go on and on and on about how unfair it would be or how expensive it would be. All of that is a huge red herring to my statement that had nothing to do with any of that.

Your insistence that I show you other options is the fallacy argument. Just as it wasn't the obligation of the anti nationalization of trains to show other options.

So if you invent a new technology that everyone suddenly desires, the government should come in and split you up force you to do business one way because hey its for the "common good"?

It is absolutely an absurdity to want a competitive free market and then ask for government force to regulate it for fairness.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Its funny you mention Ma Bell, another situation where a monopoly was helped by the state, and then kept in place by the state regulations, and yet the state is given credit for "breaking it up".
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Monopolies: Monopolies are partially the fault of local governments and not at all the fault of the federal government.

Lies.

The Federal government helped engender the very first telecommunications monopoly, when it granted patent rights to Bell, which AT&T aggressively used to limit competition while the industry was still young, and before it had a stranglehold.

Federal (and, yes, state) subsidies for copper (and today, fiber) have been around since the 19th century, and have always gone disproportionately to the largest providers.

This is still ongoing:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/07/att_verizon_get_most_federal_a.html

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Takes-100-Million-in-DSL-Subsidies-125474

Please don't do that.
 
Last edited:
Top