Sorry for spamming multiple replies, hard to multiquote on a tablet.
I hardly think it’s the end of the world, but the “investment, competition, innovation” argument is egregiously myopic. See my post a few replies up. There is so little competition in broadband at the micro level (where it really matters) that there is almost no incentive for investment and innovation. This is a far cry from the amount of competition we’ve seen in the wireless industry, for example, because the vast majority of wireless users in the US actually have multiple options available to them.
Now, in a perfect world, yes, you are absolutely correct, but it takes a company with an absurd amount of money in the bank to start something like that. And that company is not going to be any of the “traditional” ISPs. In my city’s case, it was Google. Their announcement that Google Fiber was coming here definitely sent shivers up the spines of AT&T (who announced their own gigabit fiber plans for our area the next day) and Time Warner Cable (who, also the next day, announced plans for area-wide bandwidth tier upgrades at no additional cost in the coming months). They made a huge impact on our area three years before they ever even signed up a customer.
Of course, the irony here is that this seismic shift in pricing and offerings was spurred on by a loss-leading, almost beta project run by a company who has historically been pro-net neutrality, and the net neutrality regs didn’t do anything to threaten them as an ISP. And once it became obvious how much of a shitshow Google’s rollout would be (and still is, almost five years later), our other providers went back to the same old tricks. AT&T hiked their rates, and when TWC was bought by Charter and became Spectrum all of the bandwidth tiers got downgraded immediately.
My point here is that Google has spent billions in our area to carve out a tiny footprint and subscriber base, and doesn’t bat an eye because they are one of the richest companies in the world and can afford to tinker. If they wanted to, tomorrow they could decide to pull the plug on the entire Google Fiber project (as they are wont to do sometimes with their products/services) and say “Well, that was fun, now let’s try something else”. Most ISPs simply don’t have that kind of money to throw around on a whim, and they don’t have the time or patience (or money) to work through the bullshit delays and numerous inherent obstacles to actually see their project through to completion. AT&T may be the only one that can, but they seem hellbent on directing their money toward buying up content (e.g. Time Warner) and diversifying their portfolio (e.g. DirecTV) instead of expanding into new territory or making radical technological leaps at the micro level. More often than not it simply isn’t profitable for them.
(December 16, 2017, 4:50 pm)BrookeL There is literally no way for me, or anyone else to convince someone that ending Net Neutrality was good, or even just not the end of the world. Anything said will fall on deaf ears, or I'll be forced to play an infinate game of whack-a-mole. It's like Antivax people or anti-GMO people.
I could mention investment, competition, innovation, and all I would get is "but ISPs are evil, the world is ending." It's why I don't even try to reason with people; I'm tired of being told I'm a stupid bitch or that I should either kill myself or be raped.
They read an article on TechCrunch or ArsTechnica, and have made up their minds.
I hardly think it’s the end of the world, but the “investment, competition, innovation” argument is egregiously myopic. See my post a few replies up. There is so little competition in broadband at the micro level (where it really matters) that there is almost no incentive for investment and innovation. This is a far cry from the amount of competition we’ve seen in the wireless industry, for example, because the vast majority of wireless users in the US actually have multiple options available to them.
Now, in a perfect world, yes, you are absolutely correct, but it takes a company with an absurd amount of money in the bank to start something like that. And that company is not going to be any of the “traditional” ISPs. In my city’s case, it was Google. Their announcement that Google Fiber was coming here definitely sent shivers up the spines of AT&T (who announced their own gigabit fiber plans for our area the next day) and Time Warner Cable (who, also the next day, announced plans for area-wide bandwidth tier upgrades at no additional cost in the coming months). They made a huge impact on our area three years before they ever even signed up a customer.
Of course, the irony here is that this seismic shift in pricing and offerings was spurred on by a loss-leading, almost beta project run by a company who has historically been pro-net neutrality, and the net neutrality regs didn’t do anything to threaten them as an ISP. And once it became obvious how much of a shitshow Google’s rollout would be (and still is, almost five years later), our other providers went back to the same old tricks. AT&T hiked their rates, and when TWC was bought by Charter and became Spectrum all of the bandwidth tiers got downgraded immediately.
My point here is that Google has spent billions in our area to carve out a tiny footprint and subscriber base, and doesn’t bat an eye because they are one of the richest companies in the world and can afford to tinker. If they wanted to, tomorrow they could decide to pull the plug on the entire Google Fiber project (as they are wont to do sometimes with their products/services) and say “Well, that was fun, now let’s try something else”. Most ISPs simply don’t have that kind of money to throw around on a whim, and they don’t have the time or patience (or money) to work through the bullshit delays and numerous inherent obstacles to actually see their project through to completion. AT&T may be the only one that can, but they seem hellbent on directing their money toward buying up content (e.g. Time Warner) and diversifying their portfolio (e.g. DirecTV) instead of expanding into new territory or making radical technological leaps at the micro level. More often than not it simply isn’t profitable for them.
