Is porn DVD really on it's way out?

[desslock]

True, there's an impressive endorsement line there..... isn't Vinton Cerf supporting it?

I'm still skeptical. I would even suggest that Net Neutrality creates an environment where ISP's are limited from charging for things, so the end result will be a world with fewer ISPs. Which is certainly the wrong way to go.

(We lived with regulated phone monoplies for decades... now let's make it a point to turn the Internet into this?)

The US's banking system is far less regulated then in other countries. That is why if you live in France or Canada, sure customers will probably enjoy lower interest rates and transaction fees, but there are a much smaller number of banks, meaning it will be more difficult to get an account that fits your needs. (we hear about this on GWW often) Then the system propogates an environment where even more government protective bank oversight is needed, because there's such a small number of banks from which people can choose.

And you suggest that the Big 4 ISPs are colluding..... that's strange to me. Have you found a business area that does not have any backstabbing or undercutting??? I guess I could never see anything like that in this industry, so something like that in telecommunications is easy to envision. (wisecrack joke)

I still hear that red alert. I think Lt. Reily has taken over the Enterprise's engine room and he's singing I'll Take You Home Again, Kathleen over the intercom. But maybe I'm just hearing things....



Steve

[jIgG]

So you are saying that it's OK for someone like AT&T who have one of the largest internet backbones in the US and provideo DSL for which consumers pay and for which ATT makes about $20 profit per customer. Then they also charge Network Operations Centers and Hosting facilities for the connectivity

AND

without net neutrality, the will charge AGAIN the high trafficked sites, which can be any site!


What if when ATT is done with their UVerse service, and creates their content portal, they tell you your site receives too many ATT DSL users and it's taking from the already paltry 25Mbps bandwith for UVERSE, so you have to pay AT&T for every ATT DSL users that comes to your site.

If you don't pay we'll just block you or make available 10kbps bandwith for it, dial up speeds.

Doesn't matter that your hosting facility has an ATT 10gigE pipe in the back yard and it's included in your price you have to pay again!?!

[desslock]

So you are saying that it's OK for someone like AT&T who have one of the largest internet backbones in the US and provideo DSL for which consumers pay and for which ATT makes about $20 profit per customer. Then they also charge Network Operations Centers and Hosting facilities for the connectivity

AND

without net neutrality, the will charge AGAIN the high trafficked sites, which can be any site!

What if scenarios.

What if the handful of airlines who flew from the US Mid-West into San Diego colluded together, raising the price of their round trip tickets $100? It can't be that hard, right? Heck, if the "Big 4" ISPs, can collude, why aren't groups of 4 airlines colluding for big fat profilts to mid sized American cities?

The answer to all nightmare what if scenarios is that for prices to stay high, all the participating conpanies must stick with it. With airfares, they don't. If American Airlines raises its fares, they all have to follow, else the rate hike dissapears.

I don't understand why it is unthinkable for AT&T to want to gain market share with MCI or Verizon.

Once again, if you basiclly feel the market has "imperfections" which must be "corrected" by the government, you are probably comfortable with Net Neutrality. If you think the market eventually works out its flaws, and adding government meddling only makes thing worse, then you probably oppose it.

Steve

[gaybucks_chip]

True, there's an impressive endorsement line there..... isn't Vinton Cerf supporting it?

Yes, he and a lot of the other major "fathers" of the Net.

I guess perhaps we just have a difference of perspective. I'm not in favor of a ton of regulation, but, for example, I would be willing to wager that the banking industry in Canada is a hell of a lot less corrupt than the one in the US.

It absolutely floors me what Chase has been able to get away with in fucking over their 10,000,000 cardholders. I read somewhere that up to 60% of their cardholders have gotten screwed over through constant "updates" to Chase's terms of service that basically have the effect of ensuring that very few cardholders actually get the rates or benefits they were promised. The sort of thing where making one late payment to any creditor who reports to your credit entitles Chase to increase your interest rate, sometimes by 3 times what the contracted rate was. (There's a class action against them for this, apparently.) And things like saying "Your payment has to arrive by 10am in order to be counted as having arrived that day" which are intentionally rigged to make people who pay at the last minute get screwed over.

Of course, people like me who obsess over their credit reports and watch everything like a hawk are generally not screwed, but that's a small percentage of the population, and it shouldn't be necessary to do that.

In an environment where big business is less and less ethical, I think that some level of governmental regulation to at least ensure a reasonably level playing field and encourage competition is a good thing. But of course, government in the US is *also* corrupt as hell, so the likelihood of getting anything much of any consequence isn't so great.

I seriously doubt we'd ever get a Fair Collection Practices Act or a Fair Credit Reporting Act, or any other legislation that meaningfully protects consumers passed in 2006, and I think that's pretty sad.