Net neutrality update

[xoxoxoBruce]

In a couple of years they won't be able to launch Falcon-9 or any rocket without hitting some of this crap orbiting Earth.

[tw]

From Consumer Reports:

Cord cutters are buying antennas to save money by cutting their monthly pay-TV services—and they’re doing it in large numbers. Consumer research from Parks Associates shows that the percentage of U.S. broadband households that use digital antennas in their home has steadily increased, reaching 20 percent by the end of 2017, up from 16 percent in early 2015.

So why are Comcast profits increasing when number of customers is decreasing? Harm to net neutrality has increases profits of the duopolies. Consumers typically only have two choices for internet service. So internet prices have slowly increased. And profits from internet services has increased significantly thanks to less free market competition.

Comcast had 22 million customers in 2018. Down from 24 million in 2016. And now down to 21.8 million in 2019. So profits should be dropping. Nope. Harm to net neutrality and the resulting increase in prices as well as now changing the content providers have caused profits from their internet business to increase by 10% to 4.4 billion. Did profits increase because they provided better service or more innovation? Nope. As net neutrality is undermined, then the duopoly (ie Comcast) realize increased profits.

Just another example of why harm to free market competition is bad for consumers; good for the corporate elites.

[henry quirk]

A free market is good for everyone: too bad we don't have one (and can't have one as long as state capitalism chokes out free enterprise).

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

So why are Comcast profits increasing when number of customers is decreasing?

Maybe because, during the quarter, for the first time, Comcast added the profits of the Sky network to their financial statements?

no! that couldn't be it! they made money from some kind of net neutrality thing that nobody has reported on and I can't exactly explain because I don't understand it!!

[Undertoad]

T-mobile.

Why would Vimeo limit their ability to build their channel? Why would any smaller website?

[Undertoad]

But then how come I have to have Hulu to get some of my shows?

That is the limited game in limiting the audience: in things that are already monetized by intellectual property and already limited in that way.

[henry quirk]

Market forces: either they are designed to "provide better stuff," or to "make money."

In an unrestrained market (nuthin' more than you and me and him and her transacting) you provide better stuff to make money. If you make with the shoddy, you shaft yourself.

Unfortunately we don't have an unrestrained (Austrian) market: we got (Keynesian) state capitalism.

As things stand: net neutrality/no net neutrality amounts to the same thing.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Market forces happen instantly. The government reaction happens months lAter.
xoxoxoBruce

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Market forces happen instantly.

Obviously not true. In the 1990s, we stopped buying crap Fords. So Nasser was replaced by William Clay Ford. William Clay started fixing problems in 2000. In 2007, Ford had never lost more money - because of what Nasser did. In 2008 and 2010, the work started by William Clay in 2000 resulted in massive profits. Where is this instant response? Never happens.

Kennedy created tax cuts in the early 1960s. So a recession resulted in the mid 1960s.

Obama administration in 2008 started fixing economic disasters created by George Jr (ie tax cuts, massive government debts) after 2000. As a result, four and ten years later (which includes now), we reaped one of a most robust economy.

Anyone can learn from history. Nixon spent money we did not have on Vietnam. When did that create a recession? Mid 1970s. Ford refused to fix this problem. Carter did at the end of the 1970s )ie 20% interest rates). Economic recovery then occured in mid 1980s.

Market forces only occur instantly when one is indoctrinated by myths and lies from business school graduates. History suggests that changes today appear in economic report four and ten years later.

GE was stifling innovation 20 years ago in most divisions. Economic reports (GE's spread sheets) are now reporting the resulting destruction. It takes that long for the money to finally report what happened.

Michael Powell's 2002 attack on net neutrality meant on the largest internet provider could survive. The last of free market competitors dies around 2010. That is when internet that should have been $20 per month for 100 Mb instead became $50+ per month for 20 Mb.

New FCC rules will only entrench the duopoly. Economic numbers should start reporting the resulting damage in four or more years.

Whereas it takes at least four years for economic growth to be reported, sometimes gross economic mismanagement can start appearing earlier - in a year.

With the 1929 stock market crash, Hoover made things worse by putting up restrictions (like Trump is doing) and tightening the money supply. As a result, massive job losses were in 1933.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Those are not markets forces, they are reactions to market forces.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Why would Vimeo limit their ability to build their channel? Why would any smaller website?

Because they can actually make money from distributors who pay for content, and not the people watching for free with adblockers installed.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Because they can actually make money from distributors who pay for content, and not the people watching for free with adblockers installed.

We killed the music industry by distributing the content ourselves. We'll do it again. Witness, the complete American Hot Wax!

[Undertoad]

Not ETA: I do see some value in monetizing by limiting things with a limited time-frame: fresh content that is not already widely distributed, like news, shows, etc. Otherwise: we killed the music industry for a full decade and a half when they were too greedy.

[Happy Monkey]

And AT&T doesn't have to overtly charge their customers to watch Vimeo, they can charge Vimeo for access to AT&T customers, or for a fast lane, or AT&T can not charge their customers for data on AT&T's streaming site, but demand that Vimeo pay if they want to be part of that deal. Then it's up to Vimeo to decide whether they want to lose a third of their customers, or pay the extortion.

[Clodfobble]

(Oh shit, check that out! Thanks!)