Verizon tests the limits of net neutrality rules; FCC thinks about zero-rating

Discussion in 'Stock Market Forum' started by baudwalk, Feb 7, 2016.

  1. baudwalk

    baudwalk Senior Investor

    Joined:
    May 2015
    Posts:
    1,459
    Likes Received:
    13
    http://arstechnica.com/business/201...ont-count-against-data-caps-but-netflix-will/
    I haven't paid close attention to VZW's new "FreeBee Data 360" and "Go90" streaming video services as I don't normally stream video content on my phone or tablet, but it appears that Verizon is likely to collect some decent decent revenue from Netflix, YouTube and other competing streaming services. In December
    http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/12/comcast-att-and-t-mobile-must-explain-data-cap-exemptions-to-fcc/]the Federal Communications Commission has asked Comcast, AT&T, and T-Mobile USA to answer questions about their implementations of "zero-rating," a practice that exempts certain types of content from customers' data caps[/url]." In my opinion, the net neutrality rules adopted by the FCC have evolved into a Gordian knot of indeterminate size and complexity. I'm no lawyer, but my working career included several years managing the development of new state administrative code with all the attendant attention of the administration, legislature and the "victims" whose way of doing business changed. In retrospect, that seems easy compared to the discombobulated net neutrality business. For now, I'm content to collect the $VZ dividends and let others play Don Quixote tilting at windmills. I wouldn't surprised if the net neutrality rules were revisited if and when the current FCC commissioners change in 2017. Undoubtedly ferocious lobbying will be part of the game.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 8, 2016
  2. JR Ewing

    JR Ewing Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2014
    Posts:
    4,950
    Likes Received:
    39
    "Net Neutrality" - yet another bad idea.
     
  3. petesede

    petesede Guest

    Joined:
    Dec 2014
    Posts:
    991
    Likes Received:
    2
    you think net neutrality is a bad idea? i am not sure you understand what it means..

    But anyway.. back to the real discussion. The problem with Verizon and what has happened is that congress does not understand the technicalities, and so relies on lobbyists to actually write the laws, and so you end up with ´one liners´ added to big bills that allow these tiny loopholes that are then exploited by the internet providers to skirt net neutrality. The providers will never challenge net neutrality again in a big way because there is too much consumer backlash, instead they will stick to small ´death by a thousand papercuts´ loopholes in laws as they are created.
     
  4. JR Ewing

    JR Ewing Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2014
    Posts:
    4,950
    Likes Received:
    39
    I understand very well what it means, you shill. What did I say that made you think I don't?

    https://www.aclu.org/feature/what-net-neutrality

    It is a totally unnecessary regulation that tries to treat the internet the same way as utilities and telecom companies were treated many decades ago. Another power grab, another way to tax and regulate...

    I understand that you on the left and those who hire you to spread propaganda think that more regulation is a good thing - govt knows best, they need to protect us from whatever someone thinks might happen, and that Obama is god... but most of us free market small govt guys disagree.

     
  5. turt

    turt Guest

    Joined:
    May 2014
    Posts:
    282
    Likes Received:
    1
    If you believe in free market, why do you think it's a bad thing to allow equal access to all information on the web? Net neutrality has been in place, they just put more regulations on it recently to define ISPs as common carriers. Good and bad, I think we can agree that an ISP slowing down access to competitors is against a free market.

    The previous regulation prevented ISPs from block access to sites among other things. So Verizon can't block access to Comcast's website.

    Since Verizon controls a huge portion of American's data usage, do you believe it's fair that they can under cut Netflix by charging users unaffordable prices for Netflix, leaving only Verizon's option?

    If we start streaming 4K video and onto 8K, the data caps will be hit in days. Netflix could cost $1,000 a month. And since you only have a choice of Verizon and maybe one other company, you don't have a choice. Goodbye Youtube, Vimeo etc.
     
  6. JR Ewing

    JR Ewing Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2014
    Posts:
    4,950
    Likes Received:
    39
    There has already been "free" access to the internet for many years at places like public libraries. But you cannot do certain things such as download Netflix on the computers of any library I've been to. There are also certain websites and basic computer functions such as saving things to a pc hard drive that libraries generally choose to block in my experience with using them here and there in a few locales.

    Netflix was all for the act until they read the FINE PRINT and realized they were getting screwed like everyone else.

    Netflix is a privately owned company - if they want to charge $1k a month, that is their prerogative - no one has a "right" to a membership to Netflix, and not at a certain fixed price. If someone else wants to come along and offer the same or similar products and services at a better price, or at the same price with better service or whatever, that is also their prerogative - free markets.

    We need a governing body to make sure we have clean water, and to make sure that we aren't being unnecessarily gouged on things like electricity, medicines, water, and fuel. Not to tell an online movie provider (of all things) how much they can charge. And not to tell a securities broker-dealer that they cannot offer clients who are willing to pay more a special trading platform (that costs the BD more money to produce) that bypasses that BD as a 3rd party BD and allows the clients who will pay more to have direct access to exchanges - I have been paying extra for this exact service for my own business for years, and I don't mind at all - I do not think govt needs to step in and require the BD offer this service for free, especially since it costs them more and is useless as a tool for clients who have very little money.

    With govt in general, and especially with anything proposed by this administration, you need to read the fine print - the devil is in the details. This is yet another piece of huge legislation that will act as a tax on some, and that I believe will eventually be used to monitor and censor content.

    Competition, not excessive regulation should be the standard. I have a number of different providers I can use for tv and internet. I choose the ones I think are best for me. Excessive regulations will actually do the opposite of what they claim - they will lead to the little guys getting either gobbled up or put out of business, while the few giants will remain - usually bigger and better.

    If you like your internet, you can keep your internet.

    [video=youtube;qpa-5JdCnmo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpa-5JdCnmo[/video]
     
  7. anders

    anders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2015
    Posts:
    218
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm with you on the greater political principal here, but haven't the homosexuals and their lawsuits against innocent cake makers got the courts to recognize that a business does not have the right of free association, and must service anyone who comes to them so long as what they want to purchase is legal and within the remit of the business in question? I don't agree with that, but that seems to be the situation at the moment.
     
  8. JR Ewing

    JR Ewing Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2014
    Posts:
    4,950
    Likes Received:
    39
    The controversy about homosexuals being denied wedding-related service by Christians (and also muslims who the homosexuals DON'T choose to report and sue for whatever reasons) who don't believe in gay marriage on religious grounds is a civil rights issue.

    Gays believe that Christians (but apparently not muslims) must put aside their religious views and cater to their wedding-related needs - not saying I necessarily agree 100% with either side - but it is a civil rights issue.

    Since (so far), no one has the "civil right" or the Constitutional right or whatever to free internet in their home or even free of fixed-priced Netflix, I don't think such an argument would hold water in a court... but I'm not a lawyer & could be wrong.

    Of course I'm sure that's all coming on the progressive agenda - actual legally protected "rights" for all to homes, internet, cars, cell phones etc all at taxpayer expense as needed. I'm sure personal financial status will become some sort of protected class just as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, and sexual preference are - and that if someone wants some non-essential that they cannot afford, the govt will make it a "right" and have the taxpayer pay for it. :rolleyes:
     
  9. petesede

    petesede Guest

    Joined:
    Dec 2014
    Posts:
    991
    Likes Received:
    2
    Exactly, great understanding of what net-neutrality actually means.

    The internet is too important to have limited access to certain areas. The infrastructure to provide internet to rural areas is too expensive to have a real ´open market´.. There just are not enough companies who would be willing to serve rural areas to create real supply and demand and consumer choice for most of the USA. The gov´t has to step in and regulate and prevent providers from exploiting what are essentially monopolies in certain areas.

    This is no different than your electric company telling you that you cannot use their electricity on GE products. If there was a free market, yeah, we could tell those providers to take a hike and change companies... but because of the high cost of the infrastructure, in most cases there aren´t other options.
     
  10. turt

    turt Guest

    Joined:
    May 2014
    Posts:
    282
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't think you understand the OP or my post. Netflix won't be charging $1000 for their service, Verizon will charge it to access Netflix. But you can always use Verizon's movie service for free.

    For example, a 4K movie is around 9GB of data extremely compressed - probably up to 30GB with good quality. The article points out that Verizon wants to make its mobile service free. Verizon's largest mobile package for a single phone is 10GB a month and then $10/GB after.

    Let's not forget that the big telecoms received enormous amounts of tax payer money to provide fast internet through out the US. I think tax payers should should be angry that these companies took their tax money for a competitive advantage and want to create a monopoly on video content.
     

Share This Page