But it’s so easy! Anyone can do it! Look at Google 
Found wandering about the web:
Emails sent by me…
If I could get proper DSL service, I would have told you. Did you think I was lying just to try and make a point about net neutrality?
First, the Time-Warner (spectrum) option listed on your linked site is not available in my region of San Diego, as I said quite clearly in my previous post. Even if i were willing to pay $1000 a month, it simply is not offered.
Second, whatever your linked site says, the fastest service that AT&T offers to my building is 1.5Mbps. Just to satisfy myself of this, I just got on a web chat with an AT&T rep and asked about service, and the rep confirmed that the best package they can offer me is 1.5Mbps. As i said, in this day and age, that might as well be dial-up. I have no idea why their service here is so shitty, but i’m smack in the middle of a city neighborhood, so i imagine that i’m not the only one in this situation.
Thirdly, the New Edge Networks DSL site on your linked page no longer exists. Clicking on it got me redirected to Earthlink. Out of curiosity, I had a web chat with an Earthlink rep, and they offer no DSL service at all to my location. All they could offer was a HughesNet satellite internet service, which is also one of the options listed on your linked site.
Leave aside the fact that i don’t even want a satellite service, because for internet it’s a pretty unreliable technology. The HughesNet service offers 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up (about half what i’m getting now), but full speed is only available for the first 20GB of traffic per month. After that, speeds are throttled to 1 Mbps — again, might as well be dial-up.
Under my current Cox cable plan, i nominally get 50 Mbps down and 10 Mbps up (in practice, usually about 36 down/8 up) and 1024 GB (1 terabyte) of traffic. So, twice the speed and 50 times the data. I get more data per day from Cox than i would get per month from HughesNet.
The HughesNet plan is not only about the same price as my Cox plan, for a vastly inferior service, but it requires a clear view of the southern sky (don’t think my balcony would really meet this requirement), would require the set-up of a satellite dish on my balcony, and would also require me to pay another $15 per month for modem rental, and a 2-year commitment with a $400 early termination fee.
I guess that if all that qualifies as competition, then yeah, i got competition out the wazoo here in one of America’s largest and most prosperous cites.
ISPs don’t need a repeal of nn to make their service shit. They could just stop investing in their network and pocket that money instead. Why haven’t they done that?
Ummm…
So, there’s no legitimate reason for overturning net neutrality, then?
Making shit tons of money is a very legitimate reason… It’s a stinky reason, but it’s certainly legitimate.
Only for values of “win” which are meaningless and absurd. That nonsense might fly in the self-denying philosophy of an ascetic of some bizarre Eastern religion, but we are talking about economics. And even the most Pollyannish believer in Pareto-efficiency and anarcho-capitalism should be able to understand that a scenario in which winners are losers are described in explicit fashion is not an “everyone wins” scenario.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Okay, if anyone needed proof there was no point in continuing to debate this issue with you…
Will you be able to get a VPN so you can internet freely?
What I’ve been wondering is whether the ISPs will choose to IP-ban VPN services. Of course, even if they don’t, we’re still talking an extra $10 a month or more paid to the VPN simply to keep something close to the quality you already have (I say close to because even the best VPN will be slightly slower than connecting to services without one).
At that point - banning VPNs - surely it would be censorship?
Yes, but with net neutrality axed, they’ll argue it’s their right to do so. Nay, their duty - they have to block VPNs to prevent piracy! Heck, they even heard people are transmitting child pornography over VPNs. You don’t support child pornography, do you?
Of course it has nothing to do with wanting to be able to see what services their customers are using so they can throttle the connections or charge more…
Your point was that Google Fiber proves there’s competition. I demonstrated that it failed, so your point also fails.
Whenever you raise a point, I offer a rebuttal, which you ignore and then bring back some other weak point. After a half dozen rounds of this, you return to the first point like we never talked about it at all.
It’s clear you aren’t familiar with the technology, or the laws, or the markets, or the economic concepts that are in play here, so you don’t understand how the market forces work. It would appear you’re not a very discriminating consumer of digital products, so you are unaware or unconcerned of all the different ways you could possibly get screwed by a company. It basically looks like you’re reading pages out of Ayn Rand’s Book of Magical Things, so I think we’re done here. Or at least I am. Have a nice day.
I don’t think that ISPs are necessarily interested in micromanaging every website you visit. I think it’s more likely that they want to protect their turf, particularly since some of these companies are invested now in the production side of entertainment. Even to that extent, there’s the production side of a media/telecom conglomerate and then there’s the rest of the business. The might put Netflix at a disadvantage in some ways but they wouldn’t want to piss off all of their subscribers, for fear that somewhere down the line Netflix can figure out another method of distribution or another tactic to get around them, meanwhile alienating lots of subscribers and putting pressure on congress to do something to stop them from abusing their powers.
It’s the other concern that you mentioned that worries me more. What if Trump wants to lean on these companies to get a particular message across? That’s now a very distinct possibility that media and other companies have to think about. We’re already witnessing a sitting president – a Republican no less – using the office of the presidency to block a media merger in an overt attempt to punish the CNN network. He has also threatened MSNBC - with a different type of action but still a threat nonetheless. This president is not above using presidential power to reward corporate friends and punish corporate enemies, particularly as it applies to media. That’s something companies, particularly large ones that are concerned with mergers and acquisitions, can’t just ignore. Moreover, while we’re having a fit over net neutrality’s demise, there’s another action that potentially even more ominous, which is the move to allow more consolidation of traditional media.
Combined with more traditional media consolidation, the real problem with Net Neutrality is that it concentrates power, which could conceivably allow the president to concentrate his own power. And that’s a huge problem given the state of affairs we have now.
Folks, please remember, it isn’t just the end of line ISP serving you that will be affected.
When you are streaming from Amazon, or Netflix, or any other high volume streaming service, there isn’t a wire that connects you to them. Or a wire that connects your ISP to them. The stream passes through many many many many different providers.
With the abandonment of NN, it doesn’t even matter if 20 providers in the chain do nothing; only one has to be the holdup. Like a traffic accident on a highway. One lane gets blocked off, but traffic comes to a standstill.
Dumping NN is a completely asinine move, that only serves to generate more telecom money to flow towards campaigns to keep the crooks in office longer.
It’s simple ABC’s baby…no wizard needed.
You might want to actually read my post, though…I didn’t offer this as a rationale to abolish NN, in fact, I said it was a mistake. What I did say is that if the ISPs push things they are going to find out something that you might want to think about as well…which is that their current land-based technology is out of date and there are alternatives out there that could easily replace the current system if someone thought it worthwhile to invest in them.
Here, have this balloon…
Well, DSL is based on the old telco infrastructure, so I guess if you have very old infrastructure that would explain it. You basically have worst service than my own in a small town in New Mexico. Hard to believe but there you go.
No, I figured you had a thing for broadband and didn’t want to look into the DSL options. I know some people who won’t even talk about DSL, so figured it was something like that. I just did a quick Google search and it SEEMED like there were other options. If you really say there aren’t any that are better than 1.5mb/s then I believe you. It’s just hard to believe in a modern Californian city that you still have such shitty service when I have more options for better service in a small New Mexican town. We are usually light years behind even rural California.
No, it wasn’t.
There’s a pretty good chance that it’s the building’s wiring that prevents the higher DSL speeds.