Call your legislators! Bill to force fair pricing for data plans and semi-ban caps!

[Deleted member 4644]

http://www.wired.com/epicenter...lans-even-for-mobiles/

American consumers don't need ever increasing data bills right now. In my opinion, ultra-expensive data plans are a form of government taxation that should not be allowed.

The govt has created and/or allowed monopolies where only one or two companies in any given city can provide broadband. The government has also allowed the broadband companies to kill local providers by making it very hard for the locals to piggy back on the big networks.

Thus, this bill merely keeps the monopoly in check. It is the best and most fair way to deal with a government created monopoly like the telecoms.

Libertarian or liberal, you should like this bill. It is good for the consumer, and that is good for the economy and for innovation on the internet.

This thread has deteriorated into a personal pissing match, OP feel free to restart the topic with a clean slate.

-Schadenfroh (AT Mod)

 

[StageLeft]

Internet is in many ways an essential utility. That's why I find it easier to condone some heavy handed regulation to enforce certain pricing (even if it ultimately cost a few gov bucks) unlike, say, satellite TV.

Also I'm in one of the few cities that Time Warner was recently going to try their tiers on--because Rochester has no real competition, so they were going to leverage that to put us into a corner. PR was a nightmare, so they dropped it for now.

 

[techs]

In for 3. Contacted my two Senators and one Representitive to encourage them to support this bill.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
http://www.wired.com/epicenter...lans-even-for-mobiles/

American consumers don't need ever increasing data bills right now. In my opinion, ultra-expensive data plans are a form of government taxation that should not be allowed.

The govt has created and/or allowed monopolies where only one or two companies in any given city can provide broadband. The government has also allowed the broadband companies to kill local providers by making it very hard for the locals to piggy back on the big networks.

Thus, this bill merely keeps the monopoly in check. It is the best and most fair way to deal with a government created monopoly like the telecoms.

Libertarian or liberal, you should like this bill. It is good for the consumer, and that is good for the economy and for innovation on the internet.

Does this mean that me, as a conservative, wouldn't like this bill?

?Cable providers want to stifle the internet so they can rake in advertiser dollars by keeping consumers from watching video on the Internet,? Massa said. ?Charging based on a bandwidth usage is a flawed model when the cost of usage is totally out of line with the price.?

I am in agreement with this statement. Tiered Internet prices are just a money-grab by the big telecoms who have a virtual monopoly in areas.

However...

If passed, Massa?s bill would force major ISPs that want to keep or impose caps or tiered billing plans to justify them in detailed filings to the feds, which will scrutinize them to make sure they are fair.

This basically takes away any thunder from this proposed bill. All it would accomplish is forcing the telecoms to dish out more lobbying bucks, and probably pass that increase on to the consumer as well!

So overall, good idea, but no bite behind the bark.

 

[spidey07]

It's terrible for the consumer as it would do nothing but drive up prices and lead to even poorer service. Those that don't understand technology should not be legislating it.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: spidey07
It's terrible for the consumer as it would do nothing but drive up prices and lead to even poorer service. Those that don't understand technology should not be legislating it.

Not necessarily. Here my service is superb and my speeds are great and price is what it is. With the new approach they wanted I would have paid substantially more. It was clearly a cash grab. TW is doing just fine for me now and would have been later, but at much higher cost. I agree with massa that this is all about trying to create more money now but also get people away from internet video, which despite TW's claim in this article, has to have them up at night. It's going to decimate cable subscriptions--indeed, it has already for me and some others who have found that the internet can increasingly replace cable tv.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
http://www.wired.com/epicenter...lans-even-for-mobiles/

American consumers don't need ever increasing data bills right now. In my opinion, ultra-expensive data plans are a form of government taxation that should not be allowed.

The govt has created and/or allowed monopolies where only one or two companies in any given city can provide broadband. The government has also allowed the broadband companies to kill local providers by making it very hard for the locals to piggy back on the big networks.

Thus, this bill merely keeps the monopoly in check. It is the best and most fair way to deal with a government created monopoly like the telecoms.

Libertarian or liberal, you should like this bill. It is good for the consumer, and that is good for the economy and for innovation on the internet.

Does this mean that me, as a conservative, wouldn't like this bill?

?Cable providers want to stifle the internet so they can rake in advertiser dollars by keeping consumers from watching video on the Internet,? Massa said. ?Charging based on a bandwidth usage is a flawed model when the cost of usage is totally out of line with the price.?

I am in agreement with this statement. Tiered Internet prices are just a money-grab by the big telecoms who have a virtual monopoly in areas.

However...

If passed, Massa?s bill would force major ISPs that want to keep or impose caps or tiered billing plans to justify them in detailed filings to the feds, which will scrutinize them to make sure they are fair.

This basically takes away any thunder from this proposed bill. All it would accomplish is forcing the telecoms to dish out more lobbying bucks, and probably pass that increase on to the consumer as well!

So overall, good idea, but no bite behind the bark.

A good idea? you sound like a c-c-c-c-c-ommunist!

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: spidey07
It's terrible for the consumer as it would do nothing but drive up prices and lead to even poorer service. Those that don't understand technology should not be legislating it.

And here i thought you learned your lesson over the TWC debacle. I love how the article includes the graphs of TWC financials showing the increase of customers, increase of revnue, and decrease of costs... pretty much the same graph we used to slap you around with.

Spidey.txt

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: spidey07
It's terrible for the consumer as it would do nothing but drive up prices and lead to even poorer service. Those that don't understand technology should not be legislating it.

You may or may not understand technology, but you CLEARLY don't understand economics or the politics of the internet.

This is 100% about video.

The cable monopolies have DEMANDED and PAID OFF our Congress to allow them to be the ONLY provider of digital video in our homes for years. They were shocked by youtube and P2P other new innovations and want them destroyed before their video-to-the-home monopoly is seriously threatened. THAT is what caps and increased prices are all about for data.

You, sir, are the ignorant one.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: spidey07
It's terrible for the consumer as it would do nothing but drive up prices and lead to even poorer service. Those that don't understand technology should not be legislating it.

Sorry, but when I read

For instance, Time Warner Cable pulled in over $1 billion in revenues from broadband subscribers in the first quarter this year, while spending less than $35 million to transport the bytes.

then see that they aren't doing any major network upgrades with it, provide piss poor service (customer service, and actual internet service), it makes me back bills like this. Or, when Verizon charges their data plan at $40 minimum for unlimited, and then $15 additional for tethering to a laptop (which doesn't change anything) with up to 4 gb useage (just checked this b/c I added it for a month) I call bullshit. Verizon at least is fairly good about their network, but seriously that's a bit overpriced.

 

[spidey07]

Stop using TWC as an example. They are doing it wrong. Look at all the other cable MSOs like comcast that are massively doing huge upgrades to DOCSIS 3.0. And of course it's about video because video takes tremendous capacity which takes a lot of money.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Are you suggesting I move? Bc TWC is the only game in this town.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Stop using TWC as an example. They are doing it wrong. Look at all the other cable MSOs like comcast that are massively doing huge upgrades to DOCSIS 3.0. And of course it's about video because video takes tremendous capacity which takes a lot of money.

How does your head not explode typing that? YOU are the one who bitched at the rest of us for badgering TWC over it's retarded tiered plans, even though it was an obvious cash grab and didn't have anything to do with upgrades. And it has nothing to do with cost... people who have comcast don't have any problem with their cap. They can comfortably do netflix and hulu. It's all about making sure internet tv doesn't entice customers to drop cable tv.

 

[AreaCode707]

The government should NOT legislate simply for our convenience. The role of the government is only to maintain a stable and orderly society. This is not a threat to a stable and orderly society.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Area code, the cable companies are a monopoly bc of govt laws already. Don't you get that? They bought congress, this bill at least helps real people a bit.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
Area code, the cable companies are a monopoly bc of govt laws already. Don't you get that? They bought congress, this bill at least helps real people a bit.

Which is the real problem to begin with. Due to real world physical constraints of running lines to every household in America, the lines themselves should be government owned. That's a perfectly reasonable use of government power. The providers however should be able to lease space on those lines and resell service to any customer they choose. That would be real competition and would truly give us a good product at a good price.

Government mandates to government sponsored monopolies only ends up with mediocre prices for bad service.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
Area code, the cable companies are a monopoly bc of govt laws already. Don't you get that? They bought congress, this bill at least helps real people a bit.

Which is the real problem to begin with. Due to real world physical constraints of running lines to every household in America, the lines themselves should be government owned. That's a perfectly reasonable use of government power. The providers however should be able to lease space on those lines and resell service to any customer they choose. That would be real competition and would truly give us a good product at a good price.

Government mandates to government sponsored monopolies only ends up with mediocre prices for bad service.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

I agree. Having problems posting.

 

[her209]

See my sig

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
Area code, the cable companies are a monopoly bc of govt laws already. Don't you get that? They bought congress, this bill at least helps real people a bit.

Which is the real problem to begin with. Due to real world physical constraints of running lines to every household in America, the lines themselves should be government owned. That's a perfectly reasonable use of government power. The providers however should be able to lease space on those lines and resell service to any customer they choose. That would be real competition and would truly give us a good product at a good price.

Government mandates to government sponsored monopolies only ends up with mediocre prices for bad service.

Precisely. Thank you.

The problem with government ensuring fair and equal access to luxuries to all is that you have words without definition.

What's fair? What's a luxury?


I make $45k a year; the government's data plan caps put a data plan within my reach, hooray!

Uh oh, I make $12k a year; that data plan is still out of my reach. Not fair! Not equal! Government subsidizes me or forces prices down into my range.

Wait a sec, I make $150k a year but if you're considering this a government provided service I want mine free/cheap too!

Cell company struggles and starts failing but guess what? Now they're providing an "essential service". Government can't let that fail!
---------------------------------------------------

You can get online at any library; it is NOT a necessity to have high speed internet at home. Sucks if you don't but it doesn't harm you in any way, just inconveniences you because you need to go elsewhere to accomplish what you otherwise would have.

If we rely on the government to remove every inconvenience from our lives then we are not owning our own lives and freedom.

 

[AreaCode707]

Oh, and I used to work for a wireless provider. Guess where they make profit? Data plans, ringtone sales and other "extras". They run in the red for the first 9-11 months of a basic phone/voice contract.

You restrict the data plan prices to cost and you WILL drive the wireless providers out of business.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Areacode, that does not address reality. The current, living reality is that we are overcharged by a monopoly that has been breed and strengthed for 100 years.

It ain't going away, so we gotta reign it in.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
Area code, the cable companies are a monopoly bc of govt laws already. Don't you get that? They bought congress, this bill at least helps real people a bit.

Which is the real problem to begin with. Due to real world physical constraints of running lines to every household in America, the lines themselves should be government owned. That's a perfectly reasonable use of government power. The providers however should be able to lease space on those lines and resell service to any customer they choose. That would be real competition and would truly give us a good product at a good price.

Government mandates to government sponsored monopolies only ends up with mediocre prices for bad service.

I'm quite happy with the service and cost of my government sponsored/regulated electricity and water utilities.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
Areacode, that does not address reality. The current, living reality is that we are overcharged by a monopoly that has been breed and strengthed for 100 years.

It ain't going away, so we gotta reign it in.

Actually you are being undercharged, that's the problem.

 

[frostedflakes]

I'd rather have legislation that encourages competition as opposed to regulating the oligopolies, but oh well, this doesn't seem too bad either. I would like to see more reasonable caps for mobile data plans, because I have to use this as my primary connection since there's no cable or DSL where I live. Alltel didn't have any caps (or at least never got upset with my usage, probably about 30GB/mo on average), but now that Verizon bought them out I may end up getting stuck with their 5GB/mo cap that is strictly enforced. It's hard for me to accept that a 5GB/mo cap is necessary when I've been using about 30GB/mo for the last 2.5 years and my service through Alltel has always been pretty good.