Ditching cable

[Loose Cannon]

So you work for the enemy! haha.
But actually though, This whole Net Neutrality thing is such ******* BS man. Just funny the ONLY people that want Net Neutrality to be repealed are the ISPs. What do you think about it? Would be interesting to hear from an actual engineer who works for one, though I'd bet you support Net Neutrality like the other 90%+ of the country..

Without getting too political on a sports board, I'm going to present the insider take while trying to remain as relevant to the topic at hand as possible. The proponents of net neutrality--horrible name by the way--would like for people to forget that Telcos were heavily regulated from 1934 to 1996.

This was what a telephone roughly looked like circa 1934. It came in one color and you rented it from the phone company.

This is what a phone looked like in 1996. You could get it in black or beige, but it still came from the telephone company and you had to rent it.

62 years and literally the only innovation was dual tone multi frequency technology that allowed for digital switching. Literally every innovation between what you see above and the iPhone in your hand has happened since the government regulation of the telecommunications industry ended in 1996.

Net Neutrality is a made up term to combat a problem that doesn't exist and it is pushed by the Telco giants like AT&T in order to stifle competition.

 

[g8rh8rMD]

Without getting too political on a sports board, I'm going to present the insider take while trying to remain as relevant to the topic at hand as possible. The proponents of net neutrality--horrible name by the way--would like for people to forget that Telcos were heavily regulated from 1934 to 1996.

This was what a telephone roughly looked like circa 1934. It came in one color and you rented it from the phone company.
View attachment 59346
This is what a phone looked like in 1996. You could get it in black or beige, but it still came from the telephone company and you had to rent it.
View attachment 59347

62 years and literally the only innovation was dual tone multi frequency technology that allowed for digital switching. Literally every innovation between what you see above and the iPhone in your hand has happened since the government regulation of the telecommunications industry ended in 1996.

Net Neutrality is a made up term to combat a problem that doesn't exist and it is pushed by the Telco giants like AT&T in order to stifle competition.

****. I am in awe of your ability to put your take on such a complex topic so simply and without emotion, yet in a way that is imminently understandable, meaningful, and unambiguous.

 

[Loose Cannon]

****. I am in awe of your ability to put your take on such a complex topic so simply and without emotion, yet in a way that is imminently understandable, meaningful, and unambiguous.

The boogeyman that the Net Neutrality crowd keep bring up, that ISPs will throttle and funnel web traffic only works when the consumer has limited options as a result of too little competition. Services like Google and Facebook are already funneling you and your data and your traffic to the highest bidders and they are the largest proponents for Net Neutrality regulations that would prevent ISPs from offering similar services and creating competition.

 

[Calinative]

Without getting too political on a sports board, I'm going to present the insider take while trying to remain as relevant to the topic at hand as possible. The proponents of net neutrality--horrible name by the way--would like for people to forget that Telcos were heavily regulated from 1934 to 1996.

62 years and literally the only innovation was dual tone multi frequency technology that allowed for digital switching. Literally every innovation between what you see above and the iPhone in your hand has happened since the government regulation of the telecommunications industry ended in 1996.

Net Neutrality is a made up term to combat a problem that doesn't exist and it is pushed by the Telco giants like AT&T in order to stifle competition.

Personally I think the Internet should be viewed as a Utility, and that no company should have any say in how I use my internet. I think the FCC should be protecting the public from these isps. All they should do is provide internet at whatever rate I chose to pay for, regardless if I'm streaming videos, working on google docs, or just browsing a sports forum. No throttling, blocking/censoring websites, or creating their own bs "fast lane".

Also, i'm pretty sure the Telecommunications act of 1996, came like a decade after the breakup of AT&T's "natural monopoly" occured. So I get what you're saying about Regulations AT THE TIME allowing AT&T to just own the market and not innovate. AT&T from 30s-80s owned like 80%+ of the market, And breaking them up created competition for long distance telcom. However the overall reason for the 1996 communications act was to promote competition in the local markets (I'm pretty sure) and because technology was increasing at a rapid pace (creation of the internet leading to VoIP, and other reasons the old regulations were outdated)....However, It didn't create competition at all (poor implementation), all it did was lead to mergers/consolidation creating larger corporations who owned larger market shares - big companies became more powerful to the point we're at today with 6 companies controlling 90% of all media, consolidated from like 50 in the 80s after AT&T was broken up and pre-deregulation in 96.....point is the FCC should absolutely protect the public and the internet as a utility from these media oligopolies.

 

[Tad Footeball]

Cordcutting- a fun idea in theory.....until your boys come over.

"Put on the game, dude."

"Uhhh, is it on Netflix, guyzz?"

The simplest solution (for now) is just threaten to quit DirecTV. They'll bend over backwards to keep you.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Personally I think the Internet should be viewed as a Utility, and that no company should have any say in how I use my internet. I think the FCC should be protecting the public from these isps. All they should do is provide internet at whatever rate I chose to pay for,

So your position is that government should force a private entity to provide a service to you at a price that you decide is fair while having no say what-so-ever what you do on THEIR--not your--network?

1929 called and Germany wants its fascism back. They called collect and you're paying by the minute, too, so you might want to make it quick.

You know who protects consumers in a free market economy that fosters competition? The consumer does. You don't like how Comcast is treating you? Try Cox or MediaCom or any number of other options. Don't have any other options? Complain to your local government. They control franchising an licensing.

There are already anti-trust laws that prevent the exact type of throttling you're talking about, but fortunately for everyone who isn't a ******, ISP's are allowed to prioritize traffic. On a packet switched network, if I don't give video or voice a higher priority than your email, there never would have been VoIP calling and video streaming because your video packets would be put in line with all other network traffic. Cord cutting would be a theory we talked about the same way we talk about colonizing Mars.

As for the AT&T break up occurring prior to deregulation, that's technically true. Divestiture occurred in 1984, but instead of correcting the problem, the AT&T monopoly, it multiplied the problem by dividing AT&T into 2 entities: AT&T the long distance toll calling provider, and the RBOC's (Regional Bell Operating Companies--think Pacific Bell and Bell South). It was still all under the same umbrella. Now instead of one monster, we had a 5 headed monster with a ****ed off mother. The 1996 deregulation act removed the restrictions that had been denying other companies the opportunity to come in and compete.

 

[g8rh8rMD]

Personally I think the Internet should be viewed as a Utility, and that no company should have any say in how I use my internet. I think the FCC should be protecting the public from these isps. All they should do is provide internet at whatever rate I chose to pay for, regardless if I'm streaming videos, working on google docs, or just browsing a sports forum. No throttling, blocking/censoring websites, or creating their own bs "fast lane".

Also, i'm pretty sure the Telecommunications act of 1996, came like a decade after the breakup of AT&T's "natural monopoly" occured. So I get what you're saying about Regulations AT THE TIME allowing AT&T to just own the market and not innovate. AT&T from 30s-80s owned like 80%+ of the market, And breaking them up created competition for long distance telcom. However the overall reason for the 1996 communications act was to promote competition in the local markets (I'm pretty sure) and because technology was increasing at a rapid pace (creation of the internet leading to VoIP, and other reasons the old regulations were outdated)....However, It didn't create competition at all (poor implementation), all it did was lead to mergers/consolidation creating larger corporations who owned larger market shares - big companies became more powerful to the point we're at today with 6 companies controlling 90% of all media, consolidated from like 50 in the 80s after AT&T was broken up and pre-deregulation in 96.....point is the FCC should absolutely protect the public and the internet as a utility from these media oligopolies.

I think the point you're missing is that, in spite of what many may want net neutrality to mean, rather than protecting the consumer from oligopolies, the government is just choosing which oligopolies to create and protect, and at whose expense. Google and Facebook aren't spending massive amounts of money lobbying to protect YOUR interests, as much as we all may wish that to be the case. Massive media companies are using government "regulation" to restrict competition, limiting your choices as a consumer, not increasing them.

It's an interesting topic, to some of us, but off point for the topic of the thread. Let's get back to learning how to ***** those cable companies out of business so that the streaming companies can overtake the market and start sticking it to us in just the same way the cable companies used to.

 

[Nomadiccane]

Firestick, mobdro. YouTube will teach you how

 

[Loose Cannon]

I think the point you're missing is that, in spite of what many may want net neutrality to mean, rather than protecting the consumer from oligopolies, the government is just choosing which oligopolies to create and protect, and at whose expense. Google and Facebook aren't spending massive amounts of money lobbying to protect YOUR interests, as much as we all may wish that to be the case. Massive media companies are using government "regulation" to restrict competition, limiting your choices as a consumer, not increasing them.

It's an interesting topic, to some of us, but off point for the topic of the thread. Let's get back to learning how to ***** those cable companies out of business so that the streaming companies can overtake the market and start sticking it to us in just the same way the cable companies used to.

If you have a Facebook or Google account, you are not a consumer of their services. You are THE PRODUCT. You are being sold. Your data is being sold. And advertisers are competing every day to try to gain a competitive edge and squeeze as much out of you as they can.

By the way, I have an account with both, but I think it's important that people know the score and what these giants are working so hard to protect: Their market share.

 

[Calinative]

So your position is that government should force a private entity to provide a service to you at a price that you decide is fair while having no say what-so-ever what you do on THEIR--not your--network?

1929 called and Germany wants its fascism back. They called collect and you're paying by the minute, too, so you might want to make it quick.

You know who protects consumers in a free market economy that fosters competition? The consumer does. You don't like how Comcast is treating you? Try Cox or MediaCom or any number of other options. Don't have any other options? Complain to your local government. They control franchising an licensing.

There are already anti-trust laws that prevent the exact type of throttling you're talking about, but fortunately for everyone who isn't a ******, ISP's are allowed to prioritize traffic. On a packet switched network, if I don't give video or voice a higher priority than your email, there never would have been VoIP calling and video streaming because your video packets would be put in line with all other network traffic. Cord cutting would be a theory we talked about the same way we talk about colonizing Mars.

As for the AT&T break up occurring prior to deregulation, that's technically true. Divestiture occurred in 1984, but instead of correcting the problem, the AT&T monopoly, it multiplied the problem by dividing AT&T into 2 entities: AT&T the long distance toll calling provider, and the RBOC's (Regional Bell Operating Companies--think Pacific Bell and Bell South). It was still all under the same umbrella. Now instead of one monster, we had a 5 headed monster with a ****ed off mother. The 1996 deregulation act removed the restrictions that had been denying other companies the opportunity to come in and compete.

It was DESIGNED with the intent to promote competition, yes. But that is not even close to the overall result since they promptly all merged and consolidated down to just 6 big companies owning 90% of the media which we have today. Secondly this repeal of Net Neutrality does nothing to promote competition like the 1996 act attempted and failed to do. That entire plan was Deregulate + Add Competition. This repeal of Net Neutrality simple deregulates the ISPs who already essentially have a monopoly in their market It does nothing to add competition.

So Yes ideally I totally agree that the competition and free market would win. The problem is the ISPs have little to no competition at all. So the way I see it, there are only 3 options that should even get any consideration:
Option A) Keep Net Neutrality regulations to protect the public, but begin the process of promoting competition so that IN THE FUTURE, the internet can be deregulated.
Option B) Keep Net Neutrality.
Option C) Repeal Net Neutrality and drastically increase competition in the local markets immediately, and be more successfully than the 1996 Act.

The fact is the ISPs want it both ways. They don't want the Internet to be viewed as a utility and want further de-regulation, but want to retain their monopoly on the market. So until there is a GOOD way to actually increase the competition in the markets, no way in **** the FCC should be de-regulating. Without any regulations, whats stopping Comcast from Charging me $75 for basic 250Mbps, then an extra $10 to have prioritized access to sites like Netflix, Youtube, etc OR going to Netlix, youtube, etc and charging THEM extra to prioritize their service over others - or both??

The Internet is a Utility and needs to be regulated as such the same way my Electricity, water, phone, and garbage are.

 

[deleted1998]

YouTube Tv.

 

[Calinative]

If you have a Facebook or Google account, you are not a consumer of their services. You are THE PRODUCT. You are being sold. Your data is being sold. And advertisers are competing every day to try to gain a competitive edge and squeeze as much out of you as they can.

By the way, I have an account with both, but I think it's important that people know the score and what these giants are working so hard to protect: Their market share.

Yeah idk why this recent facebook bs is really surprising. Any service that is free means you are the product.

Though I would not trust Facebook one ******* bit to keep my information private if they had a paid option.

 

[Calinative]

Google and Facebook aren't spending massive amounts of money lobbying to protect YOUR interests, as much as we all may wish that to be the case. Massive media companies are using government "regulation" to restrict competition, limiting your choices as a consumer, not increasing them.

It's an interesting topic, to some of us, but off point for the topic of the thread. Let's get back to learning how to ***** those cable companies out of business so that the streaming companies can overtake the market and start sticking it to us in just the same way the cable companies used to.

Yeah i mean thats obviously true. The companies that support it are the ones that could suffer/lose business because of it. same way the ones that benefit (ISPs) are the only ones that want it repealed. But the FCC's job is to protect the citizens, not the corporations. By just repealing net neutrality they are in fact just protecting the corporations, and not the people. Thats the problem.

I mean any discussion about cable/cable cutting, and streaming, leads to the internet. Its obvious internet based anything really is the future. That means the ISPs are the "big bad guys" right now. In 10-15 yrs cable is gunna be just like the landline. How many people still use a landline? I think a few yrs ago we officially crossed the >50% of the country as mobile-only. And out of the group that still uses landlines, u guarantee just about all of them are >40yrs old. I'm pretty sure many states are allowing AT&T to completely end landline services.

Streaming is well on the way to winning this battle over cable, But the big cable companies are all getting in the streaming game obviously. Good I guess because increased competition. Instead of just having those 6 cable companies, we're having a **** load of streaming options.. Comcast owns 30% of HULU, and is developing their own version of a streaming service (though they could just end up buying the other 60% of HULU from Disney?), Disney is creating their own, Direct TV (and AT&T) is doing well with DirectTVNow. Dish owns SlingTV. I think Charters Spectrum TV is out and apparently trash. Not sure what Cox has...Add that to Hulu (Disney currently), Netflix (not really a cable replacement), Playstation Vue by Sony, YoutubeTV by Google, Roku (I think is private?), Amazon Prime Video (Amazon), plus you have all the individual channels like NBC, CBS, ESPN, HBO, etc all having their own streaming service............So yeah lot of competition, and I don't think it'll ever get as bad as the 6 players in the Cable game.

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.

 

[MainLineCane]

That Paterno cult is something, isn’t it.

He’s like a religious figure. I just don’t get it.

Oh you mean Saint Joe who wore the thick glasses and orthopedic shoes; drove all the Lions, Common Sense and independent thinking people from the middle of the Commonwealth of PA; and then hand built Penn State University , the sound proof Sandusky showers, and their butt ugly stadium with rocks that he hand dug from the Nittany Mountain and carried over 20 miles using only a hand cart, over a road that....you guessed it, he built with his bare hands!

 

[Loose Cannon]

It was DESIGNED with the intent to promote competition, yes. But that is not even close to the overall result since they promptly all merged and consolidated down to just 6 big companies owning 90% of the media which we have today. Secondly this repeal of Net Neutrality does nothing to promote competition like the 1996 act attempted and failed to do. That entire plan was Deregulate + Add Competition. This repeal of Net Neutrality simple deregulates the ISPs who already essentially have a monopoly in their market It does nothing to add competition.

So Yes ideally I totally agree that the competition and free market would win. The problem is the ISPs have little to no competition at all. So the way I see it, there are only 3 options that should even get any consideration:
Option A) Keep Net Neutrality regulations to protect the public, but begin the process of promoting competition so that IN THE FUTURE, the internet can be deregulated.
Option B) Keep Net Neutrality.
Option C) Repeal Net Neutrality and drastically increase competition in the local markets immediately, and be more successfully than the 1996 Act.

The fact is the ISPs want it both ways. They don't want the Internet to be viewed as a utility and want further de-regulation, but want to retain their monopoly on the market. So until there is a GOOD way to actually increase the competition in the markets, no way in **** the FCC should be de-regulating. Without any regulations, whats stopping Comcast from Charging me $75 for basic 250Mbps, then an extra $10 to have prioritized access to sites like Netflix, Youtube, etc OR going to Netlix, youtube, etc and charging THEM extra to prioritize their service over others - or both??

The Internet is a Utility and needs to be regulated as such the same way my Electricity, water, phone, and garbage are.

Name one ISP that has ever charged extra to visit certain websites.

You can't. It has never happened. You want ISP's to not prioritize traffic for certain websites? Sounds to me like you're in favor of preventing ISP's from selling a 1gb service to YouTube and a 2gb service to Netflix. Why? Why shouldn't different consumers be able to pay different rates to support their different needs. You're in favor of massive new government regulation to solve a problem that does not exist. And the sad part is that government regulation is the reason you already have limited choices. Only one cable provider in your neighborhood? That's because your county or district collects a franchise licensing fee from that provider that allows them to operate and keeps competition out.

You say you want more competition to break up monopolies, but you're actually advocating for everyone to have a one-size-fits-all service regardless of their personal desire, business need, or ability to pay.

In short, what you want is for everyone to have one of these.

I mean, it's not fair that some people get to buy an iPhone while others can't afford one. Or should the government regulate that Telco's only be allowed to provide iPhones since it's a utility like basic sanitation?

 

[Calinative]

Name one ISP that has ever charged extra to visit certain websites.

You can't. It has never happened. You want ISP's to not prioritize traffic for certain websites? Sounds to me like you're in favor of preventing ISP's from selling a 1gb service to YouTube and a 2gb service to Netflix. Why? Why shouldn't different consumers be able to pay different rates to support their different needs. You're in favor of massive new government regulation to solve a problem that does not exist. And the sad part is that government regulation is the reason you already have limited choices. Only one cable provider in your neighborhood? That's because your county or district collects a franchise licensing fee from that provider that allows them to operate and keeps competition out.

You say you want more competition to break up monopolies, but you're actually advocating for everyone to have a one-size-fits-all service regardless of their personal desire, business need, or ability to pay.

In short, what you want is for everyone to have one of these.


I mean, it's not fair that some people get to buy an iPhone while others can't afford one. Or should the government regulate that Telco's only be allowed to provide iPhones since it's a utility like basic sanitation?

I am not saying an ISP has charged the consumer more for a certain site before - partially due to the regulations in place that literally make it against the law to do so. Though its not like ISPs don't have a **** load of hidden fees that you can easily just attribute to that. Like you said about Facebook and Google, they're out to make money. They'll sell whatever privacy/information they have on you to make their money. Yet you think an ISP isn't going to charge more (to the consumer or netflix) for priority or faster speeds? Come on now, these large corporations aren't our friends first and money makers second.

The point is that the PEOPLE don't trust the ISPs not to do that. Thats why having the regulations in place are important ESPECIALLY since these ISPs have a monopoly RIGHT NOW. Its the same reason Oil and electricity and every utility is regulated.
Should ISPs have monopolies? No. Is it the gov'ts fault these monopolies are in place? Yes. does that mean the FCC shouldn't protect the public, just because the Government is the one that entered these licensing fees? NO.... Basically Deregulation without the appropriate competition is just a terrible idea.. I think thats pretty reasonable? Dont you? To ask for regulation when the ISP (or ANY company selling any utility) has a de-facto monopoly?

Also, The phone itself is not the basic utility dude. The SERVICE is. And it is a fact that Telephones are considered a basic utility the same way water and electricity are. Your entire point about old *** phones and iphones is just weird, especially since I already pointed out that your whole argument about innovation and technology is just not true. AT&T broke up before 1996 when the deregulation happened. ****, Mobile Phones were invented in the 70s! The internet was invented in the early 90s! - again, ALL pre-deregulation. So you're talking about the lack of innovation, when the fact was all this innovation that led to the tech we had today, began PREderegulation. It wasn't the deregulation that promoted technological innovation, it was the breakup of the AT&T monopoly. Why? Because Monopolies are ******* horrible for everyone.

So because Monopolies are horrible, and TODAY ISPs essentially have regional monopolies, it just doesn't make sense to repeal Net Neutrality UNTIL Competition is vastly improved. This is my overall point with Net Netrality. It's been a solid discussion though.

 

[Canez1]

Did you get invited to beta 2.0? Having the DVR availability would probably make the difference for me as to whether I keep DirecTV Now or not. Thus far, the viewing experience has really been quite good with cable free streaming since I got the AppleTV and then just this past weekend got the base model 55" TCL with Roku. I'm pretty happy now with the viewing experience. If I can DVR my shows and watch commercial free without having to search through a bunch of different apps to find them, and then also be able to seamlessly pause, rewind and fast-forward live sports, then for $35/m I'm in, and there would be no reason that I can think of to go back to cable.

Would love to try out the beta if there is some way to get invited in.

Yeah it was an invite from being an original tester. Still pretty buggy but once they get everything right it’s going to be pretty sweet.

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

Oh you mean Saint Joe who wore the thick glasses and orthopedic shoes; drove all the Lions, Common Sense and independent thinking people from the middle of the Commonwealth of PA; and then hand built Penn State University , the sound proof Sandusky showers, and their butt ugly stadium with rocks that he hand dug from the Nittany Mountain and carried over 20 miles using only a hand cart, over a road that....you guessed it, he built with his bare hands?

I might have to start an OT HBO Paterno thread just for shlts and giggles. My cousin’s ex went to PSU (they’re from the NE) and a couple of other distant relatives. I’ve talked to them and other people and also seen the fans social media footprint and they’re beyond weird.

I mean even without the Sandusky stuff, they’re weird. No mortal human being should ever be worshipped like that. I’m not that religious but it’s crazy eyed delusional Jim Jones idolatry. Seriously fūcking bizarre. Unhealthy. No one person is that good. It’s just not possible or realistic, quite frankly, it’s almost anti-religious in the sense that they’ve made him a god on earth. It’s truly fūcking weird.

 

[Shogungts]

Cordcutting- a fun idea in theory.....until your boys come over.

"Put on the game, dude."

"Uhhh, is it on Netflix, guyzz?"

The simplest solution (for now) is just threaten to quit DirecTV. They'll bend over backwards to keep you.

So you either didn't read the thread or you are just going for the lulz. I cut the cord last summer and was able to watch every Miami game w/o any issues.

At least in my situation, I only have one 'cord' option as I live in a condo that does not allow satellite dishes and the only TV option is Comcast where I live so they really dont offer any great deals.

The only sporting event that I lost access to that I care about is Nationals' games as the Lerners refuse to offer a way to watch the games w/o cable for in market fans.