Seeking Alpha

Appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules

  • A federal appeals court has struck down the FCC's net neutrality rule, which prohibits wireline (but not wireless) service providers from discriminating against or providing preferential treatment for certain types of data traffic.
  • Though the ruling is likely to be appealed further, it represents a major win for AT&T (T -0.3%) and Verizon (VZ -0.5%), who have been lobbying hard to do away with net neutrality. It's a loss for Netflix (NFLX -0.1%), whose heavy bandwidth consumption has drawn the ire of numerous ISPs (many of whom it directly or indirectly competes with), as well as other major Web traffic sources.
  • The ruling comes a week after AT&T's mobile unit triggered an uproar by launching its Sponsored Data program.
Comments (78)
  • Gary Jakacky
    , contributor
    Comments (2522) | Send Message
     
    Excellent! Death to NET neutrality. And if it kills Netflix so much the better.
    14 Jan, 10:23 AM Reply Like
  • fanebrp
    , contributor
    Comments (278) | Send Message
     
    OMG.... the death squader. You need a name change... Gary J.
    14 Jan, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • Gary Jakacky
    , contributor
    Comments (2522) | Send Message
     
    Death squader? Or death squatter? :)

     

    We charge big trucks on the highway more. And we restrict them to certain lanes, days, and times.

     

    Much the same with data hogs on the internet? Or is my analogy incorrect? I am sick and tired of having to get data more slowly at night because some neighbor is watching porn on Netflix.
    14 Jan, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (748) | Send Message
     
    The solution here is for your provider to honor what he promised you. If your neighbor is down loading, I am sure that his down load speed is not exceeding the max that he is paying for. In other words - your service provider is ripping you off, not your neighbor. The solution really lies in technology - the current system on the internet is comparable to the old "party line" system for phones (for those old enough to remember these) you had shared lines. Eventually technology improved to the point that it was no longer an issue and everyone could talk as much as they wanted at the same time. Blame the big communication companies - They Are The Problem!!
    JMO
    14 Jan, 11:45 AM Reply Like
  • Philip Marlowe
    , contributor
    Comments (1045) | Send Message
     
    Your analogy is very much incorrect. We charge big trucks more because they damage the freeways much more than cars.

     

    Regarding Netflix, net neutrality allows carriers to charge per byte. Thus if netflix sends much more bytes than another website, carriers are perfectly free to charge them a higher total. Thus, the issue of data hogs is completely irrelevant for net neutrality.
    14 Jan, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • Slick E
    , contributor
    Comments (128) | Send Message
     
    I'm curious how you think this will benefit you. When your neighbor has to pay an extra $5/month to get Netflix to stream decently, how is that going to improve your data speed?

     

    Or how about when what you want to access goes slower than it is now because your provider decides to throttle it? Wouldn't simply upgrading the pipeline be the obvious better solution that makes everyone happy? It's more work for the telecoms, but isn't that their job?

     

    I can stream a movie on Netflix in one room while my son watches a cartoon on Netflix in another room and my data speeds are fine, and I live in a row of townhouses. It's not impossible to make everyone happy here, but it is cheaper for the telecoms to just remove the incentive to improve, I suppose.
    14 Jan, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4277) | Send Message
     
    So what exactly is your problem with Netflix?
    14 Jan, 01:32 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4277) | Send Message
     
    BTW, where is this porn on Netflix.. I have been searching for hours and cannot find it...
    14 Jan, 01:34 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3417) | Send Message
     
    "We charge big trucks on the highway more. And we restrict them to certain lanes, days, and times. "

     

    Silly analogy. We are using thin mud roads a la third world when other countries like S Korea have multi-lane paved interstates.

     

    This is just an excuse by the oligopolies providing broadband to continue to provide crap service and make us pay more for it
    14 Jan, 02:41 PM Reply Like
  • skibimamex
    , contributor
    Comments (442) | Send Message
     
    it's not really on Netflix but it is on HBO GO (called "Late Night Features") and on CinemaxGo -- same formula that worked on pay cable television the last 30 years to educate multiple generations of 15 year olds -- "I know that, we have cable".
    14 Jan, 03:10 PM Reply Like
  • DanoX
    , contributor
    Comments (2668) | Send Message
     
    The only thing we agree on!!
    14 Jan, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (748) | Send Message
     
    You are 100% correct - the service providers need to provide people what they are paying for and not blame other users. the analogy to trucks on the road makes no sense at all!
    20 Jan, 06:48 PM Reply Like
  • MEKhoury
    , contributor
    Comments (246) | Send Message
     
    boo
    14 Jan, 10:27 AM Reply Like
  • fanebrp
    , contributor
    Comments (278) | Send Message
     
    - hoo
    14 Jan, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • jbfriedm
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    You must be joking. Ending net neutrality is the beginning of the end for the Internet. Providers being able to restrict content based on what you pay is horrible.
    14 Jan, 10:54 AM Reply Like
  • PendragonY
    , contributor
    Comments (6641) | Send Message
     
    jbfriedm,

     

    No having the government tell private companies how they must set up their fee structures is the begining of the end of the internet. This is a big win for the continuation of the internet.
    14 Jan, 12:24 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4277) | Send Message
     
    Net Neutrality is just one more way that the government is "fixing" the marketplace by imposing rules that ignore common sense. If I drive more, I pay more for gas. If I stream more, I pay more for bytes. Please tell me what is the basic flaw in that line of reasoning?
    14 Jan, 01:38 PM Reply Like
  • Slick E
    , contributor
    Comments (128) | Send Message
     
    The flaw is that what you're talking about has nothing to do with net neutrality. Think about it. Don't cable companies offer different tier speeds? Don't phone companies offer different data size packages? The things you're saying make sense, but they're completely irrelevant to this discussion.
    14 Jan, 01:48 PM Reply Like
  • Philip Marlowe
    , contributor
    Comments (1045) | Send Message
     
    Windsun, your reasoning is correct but completely and utterly irrelevant to the net neutrality discussion. Net neutrality does not prevent any one from charging more for transmitting more data. And I guarantee you that large companies like google and netflix etc. already pay more when they transmit more.

     

    Net neutrality requires carriers to treat all clients the same. This if they want to charge $x per gigabyte, they have to charge all their clients $x per gigabyte for all data. They cannot say "well we will charge $x per gigabyte for most data, but if your data is a movie, then we will charge 10x per gigabyte, because we do not like competition for our cable services." This is what carriers want to do now.
    14 Jan, 01:53 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4277) | Send Message
     
    You're right - I replied to the wrong post, so my comments in this context don't make much sense.
    14 Jan, 01:58 PM Reply Like
  • Dividend Watcher
    , contributor
    Comments (413) | Send Message
     
    Philip Marlowe, excellent boiled down explanation. Thanks.
    14 Jan, 03:27 PM Reply Like
  • Deep Time
    , contributor
    Comments (63) | Send Message
     
    There is a very basic flaw in your reasoning.

     

    "If I drive more, I pay more for gas."

     

    Um, no.

     

    If you drive more you don't pay more for gas. If you drive more you buy more gas. Your price does not change based on consumption.
    15 Jan, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • labas112
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    I feel like this is typical behavior for large corporations. Rather than reinvesting their money into improved performance to keep up with the changing times, they spend it on buybacks and other junk. So now that ATT and Verizon cannot keep up, they will throw a ton of money for litigation and lobbying so that they never have to reform and thus passing the buck to someone else.
    14 Jan, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • carl2591
    , contributor
    Comments (53) | Send Message
     
    you got that right.. I wonder how much money was spend on and by Verzion and ATT lobbyist on this one item.. i bet enough to completely upgrade the system to get speeds that are a 1/10 of what you can get in South Korea for $15.00 month.

     

    Just a bunch of GREEDY pigs..

     

    Elimination of net neutrality only works if there is competition .. In the US there are only one internet provider in most cities.. some like mine have 2. You don't get competition with 2 you need 5 or more min.
    15 Jan, 07:44 PM Reply Like
  • Ron Reed
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    Wait a minute, this sounds like the same debate that was listed for online music, is everyone trying to say that regardless of what amount of bandwidth you use you should pay the same? Why should I get to pay X and you pay X but I download gigs of data and slow you down? If you want or need more bandwidth then pay for it, it is a simple solution in my book.

     

    While I see the possibility for abuse by the corporations there is also abuse by the customers on the other side of the debate. I see more potential for abuse by customers than by the corporations. I do not see this as a big business debate, I see this as a good overall fair way to put the cost on those who use it most.
    14 Jan, 11:41 AM Reply Like
  • Slick E
    , contributor
    Comments (128) | Send Message
     
    I don't think you're talking about net neutrality, are you? The telecoms already charge more for more volume of data and for the speed of access, that's not the question here.

     

    The issue is being able to decide who gets to see what and at what speed. Everyone was on a level playing field before. Now the telecoms get to decide that for you, which will inevitably lead to someone (either the content provider or the end user) having to pay extra for the privilege of not being throttled.
    14 Jan, 12:10 PM Reply Like
  • Philip Marlowe
    , contributor
    Comments (1045) | Send Message
     
    ", is everyone trying to say that regardless of what amount of bandwidth you use you should pay the same?"

     

    Nobody is trying to say that. Cable companies and isps are completely free to charge you depending on the bandwidth you use. The fact that they are charging a flat fee right now is a business decision on their part and has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality.

     

    Net neutrality means that the telecom companies have to have the same rules for all their clients. Thus, they cannot differentiate from a byte that carries a movie and a byte that carries a webpage (for example). What they want to do is look inside the data you are sending and receiving and charge you more for certain types of data, if they decide this data is so valuable for you, they can get more money out of you. Or they charge Netflix more so that they can destroy netflix and force you to buy a $100/month cable package.
    14 Jan, 12:13 PM Reply Like
  • AMChi25
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    You are confusing the issue. The issue Net Neutrality is trying to head off is the providers restricting the content you can see or get over the Internet. For example, a big company like say Disney, would pay AT&T so that when you access their content it would download faster, come up quicker, come up first, as just some of the ways it could be impacted. Start up A on the other hand, does not have the money and so is put on the bottom.

     

    Wikipedia has lots of crap definitions, but for Net Neutrality, the top part at least gives a good, but very basic overview of the entire thing. http://bit.ly/1eQEzaA
    14 Jan, 12:39 PM Reply Like
  • Ongyou
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    From a business delivery perspective, pushing one's own services and hindering competition is great for revenue- especially when there are no alternate choices. From business creation perspective, knowing you might have to pay more to have your content delivered as desired or even facing the threat of needing to pay for your service to be accessible is poor for everyone else. Tech startups shouldn't need to take "random ISP throttle charge" into account when planning. The potential for abuse is too great and Congress is so slow that by the time it does get fixed, it will be after years of problems :(
    14 Jan, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • dalascby12
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    This is outrageous, it's going to result in higher prices for everyone. Once again we have right wing judges and politicians choosing corporations over the people. Their legislation is, as usual, for sale to the highest bidder. Sellouts!
    14 Jan, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • SoCalNative
    , contributor
    Comments (488) | Send Message
     
    dalas, you're insane.
    14 Jan, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • Ron Reed
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    That is a rather silly reaction I think. You want lower prices, go to another service provider. I do not find that the prices are too high, I think there is plenty of competition to keep prices low. In fact you can get unlimited still on a plan for about 75.00 a month, that is very low in my book.

     

    in fact, getting an FCC rule dropped is exactly what any judge should do, get the Gov't out of the free market and stop over regulation. I'd much rather a company spend money on services rather than compliance with Gov't regulations. I don't think a lot of folks realize just how expensive it is to keep up with all the changes much less all the compliance cost.

     

    Guess you think we should just let the Gov't run it all and make it free huh?
    14 Jan, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • Philip Marlowe
    , contributor
    Comments (1045) | Send Message
     
    "In fact you can get unlimited still on a plan for about 75.00 a month, that is very low in my book. "

     

    Currently we have net neutrality. So if you think that current prices are low, that is probably thanks to net neutrality. If net neutrality is repealed for good, in the near future you can expect to pay the usual $75 per month to have a connection and then to have to pay additional fees to use various internet services. You might have to pay an additional fee to use netflix another fee to use music, another to use social networking, etc.

     

    It will become more expensive for certain. Cable companies are not spending tens of millions to lobby against net neutrality for the fun of it.

     

    And no I do not expect the government to run everything, but I do expect the government to protect the consumer in the case of natural monopolies.
    14 Jan, 12:25 PM Reply Like
  • Slick E
    , contributor
    Comments (128) | Send Message
     
    Holy straw man, Batman!

     

    First, who said anything about lower prices? Nobody's complaining about current prices, but we are noting that prices are going to go up now, both directly (example: pay extra to access Netflix at full speed) and indirectly (example: Netflix has to pay telecoms to stream at full speed, cost is passed on to users).

     

    The "complicated" government regulation: don't discriminate. Very complex indeed. It'll be much less complex when each corporation gets to decide individually who gets to see what at what speed.

     

    The providers were simply the door to the internet, now they're the doormen...deciding who gets to come in and out. They shouldn't have that right.
    14 Jan, 12:26 PM Reply Like
  • User 6707651
    , contributor
    Comments (993) | Send Message
     
    "That is a rather silly reaction I think. You want lower prices, go to another service provider. "

     

    That works pretty well as long as you actually have a competitive market. I guess an oligopoly isn't quite a monopoly, but it's pretty close.

     

    "in fact, getting an FCC rule dropped is exactly what any judge should do, get the Gov't out of the free market and stop over regulation. I'd much rather a company spend money on services rather than compliance with Gov't regulations. I don't think a lot of folks realize just how expensive it is to keep up with all the changes much less all the compliance cost. "

     

    you mean I can start charging Cox for running a line across my property? Or are the enforced easements, eminent domain, extensive use of public land and local subsidies not "over regulation"?
    14 Jan, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4277) | Send Message
     
    How do you know it was a "right wing judge"? Right wingers complain about big government, yet when the judge tells the government to get out of the free market, you complain. You cannot have it both ways.
    14 Jan, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4277) | Send Message
     
    You are totally ignoring the fact that competition exists. If Verizon raises prices, then I have several options to change to.
    14 Jan, 01:47 PM Reply Like
  • Slick E
    , contributor
    Comments (128) | Send Message
     
    True of cell providers, not true of cable providers in many locations. For me, it's Comcast or nothing for broadband internet.

     

    Not to mention that they are all working together on this. AT&T isn't supporting this so that Verizon can raise prices while AT&T doesn't.
    14 Jan, 01:51 PM Reply Like
  • User 6707651
    , contributor
    Comments (993) | Send Message
     
    "You are totally ignoring the fact that competition exists. If Verizon raises prices, then I have several options to change to."

     

    then you're lucky. I currently have three who all charge basically the same. My last house was comcast or nothing. Maybe some place have enough participants to actually be considered a market, but not many
    14 Jan, 01:53 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4277) | Send Message
     
    You are probably correct. In my area I have a choice of three providers for high speed, but I am sure that many only have one.
    14 Jan, 02:00 PM Reply Like
  • Ron Reed
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    I don't think so. In fact I bet not, IF that happens I will switch providers or drop it entirely. I can assure you that more regulation only increases prices. Remember the regulations that were lifted off long distance and all of a sudden you had companies come in and compete and the prices dropped due to it.
    14 Jan, 02:35 PM Reply Like
  • Ron Reed
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    You are bringing a different subject into the matter, but, when you buy property you are given free use of extra property called easements, if/when that area is needed for use by public utilities they pay the local government and gain use. So you are not at a loss there, in fact you are at a gain since you were given free use of the area the whole time. As far as eminent domain, I think it is a crock for most applications, it is in effect a last ditch strong arm by the government.
    14 Jan, 02:38 PM Reply Like
  • Slick E
    , contributor
    Comments (128) | Send Message
     
    You keep mentioning regulations as if they're undoing some tangled web of rules and bylaws. They're not. The regulation was "don't discriminate". Now they can.

     

    I don't have the luxury of switching providers or dropping it. I need high speed internet in my home for several reasons, and Comcast is the only game in town here. Removing this law isn't increasing competition or making it easier to compete. It's simply giving editorial power to the providers. That's it.
    14 Jan, 02:40 PM Reply Like
  • Ron Reed
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    Chances are in fact you have several other options, you may or may not realize they exist. Even in the SE part of the state here where you may or may not have electricity, you always have two satellite companies for coverage. They are more expensive than the cell towers, but in fact there are options. They also offer much faster download speeds, although upload is about the same as DSL. Hand pump for water, generator for electricity, propane for fuel, and 15M download for entertainment. Odd priorities but everyone to his/her own.
    14 Jan, 02:42 PM Reply Like
  • patriot_invstr
    , contributor
    Comments (38) | Send Message
     
    An ignorant comment and 5 people "like" it without checking the facts. A simple search shows the judges in the D.C. appellate court. Two of them (Rogers and Tatel) appointed by Clinton, and the senior judge (Silberman) by Reagan (who partially dissented with the majority opinion). But don't let facts get in your way.
    This will allow the ISP's to play gatekeeper and charge the content producers (such as Netflix) more, as well as the content consumers. If I could get a "decent" ISP other than Comcast, I would. This shows that the ISP would rather spend $ on court cases than provide a better product to their consumers (aka hostages).
    14 Jan, 03:36 PM Reply Like
  • User 6707651
    , contributor
    Comments (993) | Send Message
     
    "You are bringing a different subject into the matter, but, when you buy property you are given free use of extra property called easements, if/when that area is needed for use by public utilities they pay the local government and gain use. So you are not at a loss there, in fact you are at a gain since you were given free use of the area the whole time. "

     

    Either you slept through real property class or you just have no idea what you're talking about. Property subject to an easement is still yours- - easements can be anything from below ground pipe to above ground cable to a neighbor just having the right to use your property to access a near by road. If you don't think the property is yours try arguing about your parcel size with a county accessor. If Dominion Elextric decides they need a more direct route to my neighbor, they can use eminent domain (most utilities have that power) to either create a new easement and string some wire, or they can use eminent domain to actually take title to the land in which case, they pay me (the property owner) not the government.
    14 Jan, 04:41 PM Reply Like
  • Deep Time
    , contributor
    Comments (63) | Send Message
     
    OK, so when Netflix gets jacked up by the telecoms to pay more to stream their content then guess what - your $7.99 a month streaming subscription jumps to $25 a month.

     

    In the end we the consumers get screwed and the telecoms make off like bandits. Again.
    15 Jan, 11:05 AM Reply Like
  • Ron Reed
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    And if that happens then you don't subscribe to NFLX and it solves the issue. Enough folks feel that 25.00 is too high and they will lower the price. It looks like everyone's argument is that they want low prices even if the Gov't has to step in to make them low. Guess what, that is socialist.
    15 Jan, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • Slick E
    , contributor
    Comments (128) | Send Message
     
    That makes a lot of sense. Netflix, in the case where they are forced by the providers to raise their prices to exist as a functioning company, should just lower their prices. How could we not see it before? I feel so dumb for not thinking of that.

     

    You're being willfully ignorant and leaving out entire portions of the argument and basically saying government = bad, therefore if government wants it, it is bad.

     

    How about if Comcast wants Netflix dead and won't allow it through its pipelines at any price? What then? They have the legal right to do that now. Does that seem right when there are regions where they are effectively a monopoly?

     

    The government isn't keeping prices artificially low, they're preventing the providers from being able to extort other companies, and in effect, control who sees what on the internet.

     

    By the way, Verizon didn't build the internet. Neither did AT&T or Comcast. The government did. So yes, they should be able to regulate it. This is the equivalent of letting Exxon Mobil or Ford decide which roads you get to drive on and how much you have to pay for each road.
    15 Jan, 11:50 AM Reply Like
  • Ron Reed
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    Not so. If the providers are creating a position that something is not available or due to cost is too high to be available, provided there is enough interest, someone will take advantage of that and make it available. My argument is not that the Gov't is bad, my argument is that Gov't interference in private markets is not good nor does it lower prices. If Comcast raises the rates for NFLX to transmit on their BW, and there are a bunch of customers that want that service, another provided will come in and sell it. In the regions where there is only one low cost company available (in fact there are others available, they are just more expensive), they only exist there and no others have moved in due to low usage in that area. There is no reason for another company to move in and set up shop. If Comcast is the only available carrier in an area, and they block NFLX, and lots of folks want NFLX, then ATT or another comapny will take advantage of that want and come in an compete.

     

    How do you come to the conclusion that it is okay for customers to all pay one price and stream high data use at the cost of the carrier? Sounds more like you just want to whine and have the gov't step in a force a private industry to offer you a service at a lower price. As far as I'm concerned, Comcast, or any other provider can allow or disallow any content it wants on its lines since they are the operator. This is not like the oil or car companies charging you for which road you use, this is like them dictating what fuel you have to use in the car from them or offering a grade of fuel at the Exxon gas station. Don't like it? Don't buy it. If you don't like the terms or rates of a given carrier, then either get another carrier or find a different way to get what you want. And please don't tell me you don't have another carrier option, you do, you just don't want to pay for it.

     

    On the internet build, you are a little off base. The Gov't did not build the internet, DARPA did all the basic research and first testing on it for military communications. Once it became open technology, various private industries began setting up networks and they built the internet. What the Gov't did is not what you know as the internet today, I've used that system and grew up on it. But they did not build it, nor did they provide much of the technology that exists today as the internet, in fact, had they not done it it most likely would have happened anyhow just a few years later as Bell labs was the first to begin the ideas, got DARPA grants and thus begun, they would have gotten private money has the Gov't not stepped in.
    15 Jan, 12:19 PM Reply Like
  • Slick E
    , contributor
    Comments (128) | Send Message
     
    First off, stop pretending you know my situation. I currently pay for the most expensive internet package that Comcast provides. So save me your theorizing on me wanting handouts or being too cheap to pay for better options. Where I live, it's either Comcast or a very very poor DSL line. I know because I tried using it and it was too slow. So no, I have no other options for my needs, thank you for guessing though.

     

    I'm perfectly willing to pay for what I use. In fact, I do right now. Paying by volume of usage or speed is perfectly fine. I have no problems with that and don't want a free ride. Nobody is asking for that. However, I don't want Comcast to have the power to decide what I can or cannot access. It's that simple. The providers are the doorway to the internet. If they want to charge me for how often I walk through that door or how wide the doorway is, great. But what did they do to earn the right to tell me what I can and can't look at once I walk through that door?

     

    Also, my point on the creation of the internet is that Comcast didn't invent it. That they now have the right to decide how I use and access it is unacceptable.
    15 Jan, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • Ron Reed
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    "First off, ....for guessing though." - Wrong, you can get a satellite connection, you just have to pay about 120.00 a month for it for 15M down and 3M up. Besides that, you do have another option for a low cost and you said it, a DSL line, you just did not like the speed it had.

     

    "I'm perfectly willing to pay for ....me what I can and can't look at once I walk through that door?" - They have the right to limit those services that take the most bandwidth and bog the system down the most. Do you get angry when your power company will not allow you to pull more than 60amps from the circuit? Do you want the Gov't or some one else to come in and tell the power company how much electricity you can use? (They do, and no I don't like that either). They have the right because they pay for the lines, they pay for the switch, they pay for all the infrastructure that supports it.

     

    "Also, my point on the cre...s unacceptable." - They have the right to do so because it is their equipment. You on pay a small fee to use that equipment. Do you expect that because you pay a fee you can do anything with it?
    15 Jan, 01:14 PM Reply Like
  • Deep Time
    , contributor
    Comments (63) | Send Message
     
    Funny that Ron Reed is all for competition and free markets, yet he is arguing against a policy that would guarantee a free market for all competitors.

     

    And if you look at history you had companies like Standard Oil that were vertically integrated and as such could force any competition out since they not only owned the oil wells (i.e. content) but also the railroads and oil delivery firms (i.e. internet access). Government had to step in to prevent monopolies like this from crowding out competition and ensuring consumers were being treated fairly.

     

    Free markets can only exist if they are kept free, otherwise they devolve into monopolies or oligarchies. Companies have absolutely zero interest in maintaining free markets so it falls to the government to enforce it. What Ron is arguing for is pretty much the opposite of a free market system.

     

    But, I bet if George Bush were president and he and the Republicans were clamoring for Net Neutrality Ron would be all for it.
    15 Jan, 03:26 PM Reply Like
  • sop2510
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    If the Obama administration would embark on a program to put fiber optic in every home we wouldn't have this bandwidth problem. Hell, the govt. built a transcontintental railroad in 1865 why not transcontinental fiber optics?
    14 Jan, 12:23 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4277) | Send Message
     
    And if you look at the amount of corruption - including in the government - in the railroad industry at that time, you might want to have a second thought about it. And why does the government have to do everything?
    14 Jan, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • Ron Reed
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    Oh boy! Yeah, lets get the Government involved that will make the prices lower, speed service, and make it all more streamlined (all in jest). No, the Gov't has never streamlined or lowered the cost on anything. Spread the bill around for sure, but heck if you want that, just go into a poor neighborhood and pay to connect a block on your dime. The cost would likely be lower and you would help more people per dollar than the Gov't could. In fact, dollar for dollar, direct philanthropy and involvement is the most efficient way to do so. Because when it is your money you make sure it goes for good reason.

     

    I hit that note because that is the only reason I can see why you would make the argument, as folks with money will simply buy what they want/need and it only leaves the poor at a disadvantage. If I'm totally off base correct me please.
    14 Jan, 02:48 PM Reply Like
  • Deep Time
    , contributor
    Comments (63) | Send Message
     
    Yes, it is clearly the Obama administration to blame here for not investing in infrastructure. The GOP controlled house has been trying to increase infrastructure spending for years only to be stymied by Obama /sarcasm.
    15 Jan, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • Ron Reed
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    -zackly :) Lets blame the Gov't! Let's call on the Gov't to do something! ra-ra-ra Let's make the price lower by the Gov't paying for it, they are the endless stream of money and our taxes will never go up, just listen to them talk on the news..

     

    So many people need to think for themselves, but that is just too hard.
    15 Jan, 11:26 AM Reply Like
  • Alan1967
    , contributor
    Comments (238) | Send Message
     
    This is a terrible decision!! In practice consumers don't have enough "options" to have a true choice of ISP provider and ISPs all have the same incentive to destroy net-neutrality and become censors of their network. And only give access to big companies (over new start-ups) which can afford to pay-to-play.

     

    I've never liked the expensive bundled packages that Comcast has that makes me pay for channels I don't want. I want a world were consumers have a choice in what TV programs/movies (i.e. where I pay someone do download only the TV I want and just pay Comcast for the bandwidth to get it). I think that possibility of that world is going to die.

     

    Terrible decision.
    14 Jan, 12:23 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4277) | Send Message
     
    I don't see where any of your complaints - though valid - have anything to do with net neutrality.
    14 Jan, 01:51 PM Reply Like
  • Slick E
    , contributor
    Comments (128) | Send Message
     
    Stop and read the responses to your questions. His first paragraph is the exact reason so many are for net neutrality and is a large part of the danger of eliminating it.
    14 Jan, 01:53 PM Reply Like
  • CerpherJoe
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    Yay. Someone in Philadelphia run over and ring that Liberty bell nice and loud!
    14 Jan, 01:25 PM Reply Like
  • Ta0
    , contributor
    Comments (382) | Send Message
     
    Unfortunately, it got cracked when they tried to ring it the first time. :-(
    14 Jan, 03:41 PM Reply Like
  • Ron Reed
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    Oooh good one, I think I may have to steal that line.
    14 Jan, 04:06 PM Reply Like
  • 6269751
    , contributor
    Comments (630) | Send Message
     
    Slick E is correct. People will be streaming videos no matter what. Do you have piles of CD's sitting around your house? Right. People aren't going to have stacks of DVD's or Blu Rays. People will be streaming video. Right now most of us are future third-world equipped, on some crummy LAN like you would see in an office building and worrying about what a neighbor is doing on the network. Wake up, this decision is about where the money goes for the time being, and nothing else.
    14 Jan, 01:32 PM Reply Like
  • Hank890
    , contributor
    Comments (1104) | Send Message
     
    It is true that Netflix success depends on preferential treatment by the FCC. Because they are so big, with such large FCF, the wireline companies have better access to debt capital than do start-ups. But if the FCC stops the wireline firms from charging appropriately for bandwith hogging start-ups, such as Netflix,...then, essentially, the FCC is forcing the wireline firms to finance their customer's business plan ambitions. How is that sensible or fair ? So called Net Neutrality is not neutral at all. It never was. It just treats wireline assets like they were nationalized railway tracks.
    14 Jan, 02:27 PM Reply Like
  • Slick E
    , contributor
    Comments (128) | Send Message
     
    The wireline firms aren't financing anything. They are providing me access to the internet and everything on it. Which I pay handsomely for. They're not doing anybody any favors.

     

    If they want to have a data cap or base their rates on data usage (as the phone companies do), then they are well within their rights to do so. Now, however, Comcast is within their rights to kill Netflix in my house. Maybe the exercise that right, maybe they don't, but the fact that they have the ability to do so without facing any competition is pretty much giving them the unfair powers of a local monopoly.
    14 Jan, 02:37 PM Reply Like
  • sarichter
    , contributor
    Comments (297) | Send Message
     
    @Hank890,

     

    Not even close. If the wireline companies want to cap data and start charging companies like Netflix more money over a certain threshold, they have the right to do so. That extra money should (but probably won't) go towards increase bandwidth and speed. However, what the wireline companies want to do is cut off services Netflix because it eats into their revenue stream.

     

    One of the largest problems here is wireline companies have a physical monopoly on the areas they have built out. It is very cost prohibitive for other wireline companies to come in and provide service. That being said, the wireline companies should have to follow rules that does not allow monopoly of data use because they already have the physical monopoly.
    14 Jan, 09:50 PM Reply Like
  • Ta0
    , contributor
    Comments (382) | Send Message
     
    This is bad. The only winners are those who own shares in the big telecoms but don't use the internet. Everyone else loses. Sadly, I own some VZ. Perhaps it is time to rebalance my portfolio.
    14 Jan, 02:31 PM Reply Like
  • diadochi
    , contributor
    Comments (223) | Send Message
     
    I own and operate an ISP and Netflix/Amazon/Hulu have been getting rich riding on my pipes...which I am in the process of dumping large sums of cash into upgrade to attempt to stay float in this torrent of currently unpaid for video data. I welcome the ability to single out video and charge for it, especially in the evening "rush hours" time frame when those users are destroying the economics on which the ISP business is based on (ie ; that not everyone would want their plan bandwidth all at the same time). The alternative was either sharply higher prices on everyone to pay for the significant capex necessary to get the network to support this new paradigm or just horrible service during the evening hours that would never change because ISPs couldn't justify the investment to their stockholders or bondholders. Now we can see a potential payback in a new business model where those that want the performance out of their connection during peak hours can just pay for it, instead of socializing their costs.
    14 Jan, 10:59 PM Reply Like
  • Ta0
    , contributor
    Comments (382) | Send Message
     
    I cut cable ties because I did not want to pay the sharply higher prices of cable TV just to support all those sports channels which I don't watch at all. I got Netflix because I was then actually able to watch the things I wanted to watch without having to socialize the cost of cable for the sports fans. I guess I'm stuck with whatever's available now that the telecoms will allow through.

     

    On that note, I also have a tiny little website that I do a bit of writing on. Since I can't afford to pay anything to the big telecoms so that my website can be accessed, I guess I should shut that down as well. It's just a sad day.
    15 Jan, 12:48 PM Reply Like
  • sarichter
    , contributor
    Comments (297) | Send Message
     
    I find it funny that these companies are lobbying to try and regain control of the internet (charging more for different types of data). Don't they realize that people will just change their habits if something starts to increase in price? That's what we have been seeing during this recovery anyway... less and less people want to spend their hard-earned dollars so retail sales have slumped.
    14 Jan, 02:33 PM Reply Like
  • Sakelaris
    , contributor
    Comments (1403) | Send Message
     
    Saricher: I stream from Netflix and am saddened by the decision. Nevertheless, one habit I am holding on to is my Netflix DVD subscription. The DVD coming to my mailbox in a couple of days does not care about my bandwidth.
    15 Jan, 12:50 AM Reply Like
  • edmallinak
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    The real analogy to highway use would be if the oil companies charged you $14.00 per gallon for gas if you were driving to Disney World, but only $3.00 per gallon if you were driving to Myrtle Beach. Is that really the way you want your Internet access to work?
    14 Jan, 04:33 PM Reply Like
  • novotnyh
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    When I recently switched from FIOS to Cablevision, suddenly my Netflix was operating at full HD, I wonder why, I guess this ruling could make it worse
    14 Jan, 05:12 PM Reply Like
  • User 11433201
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    T owns the network. It is their greatest asset and they should be compensated for its use.
    15 Jan, 05:50 PM Reply Like
  • 6269751
    , contributor
    Comments (630) | Send Message
     
    I only recently bought my first flat screen television. Nothing so far I can get off the web from any source matches the resolution of broadcast TV. Yes we all "need" internet feeds, but we don't need streaming video if it becomes overpriced. If you aren't streaming video, you can use any service, like satellite. So the internet pipes (AT&T, Verizon) would be cutting off their own noses if they got too greedy charging for bandwidth. I say this court decision is over-hyped. It matters a lot to some parties, but not a whole lot to consumers and investors in general.
    27 Feb, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • Sakelaris
    , contributor
    Comments (1403) | Send Message
     
    If you are concerned about the quality of streaming video, do not forget that you have the option of also using the Netflix disc rental service for DVDs and Blu-rays. Many still swear by the Blu-ray picture quality.
    27 Feb, 01:10 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector