Net Neutrality

[MTK]

Kind of a big F'ing deal, what do you guys think?

What You Need to Know Now

[Schneed10]

Doesn't register on my personal give-a-shit meter.

[CRedskinsRule]

Seems more like a debating with the enemy thread...

Net Neutrality is a continuation of the big evil corporations will ruin everything theme.
Capitalism is based on the idea of private companies engaging in business as a way to make profit (capital). No one is destroying the internet by applying capital markets to the internet. What should go away is local restrictions(governmental interference) that has created monopolies in internet markets. Then if Verizon or Comcast wants to charge outrageous fees for streaming media let other companies enter the fray.

It's no different then the breakup of ATT, or the rise of Tmobile as Verizon and ATT got more outrageously priced.

Fact is some internet data IS more important then others, and a hospital wanting real time access to critical data shouldn't see their data relegated behind some warpather watching the latest SNL skit.

Net Neutrality is like saying every car, even police and ambulances have the right to be in any lane and no one has priority over the other. It's not true but it sounds fair.

[MTK]

Funny, I thought this was an issue most, if not all could get behind. I thought we all liked our internet the way it is, free from potential censorship, free from potential price gouging relating to content, free from giving ISP's control over what we see and how much we'll have to pay to see it. Guess not.

I'm glad your concerned about public safety CR with your highway example, but ultimately this comes down to $$. Just like anything else. Paid prioritization. It will be more like if you want to drive in the left lane, you'll have to pay more. You'll definitely pay for your speed and freedom. If you want to drive in the middle lane, you'll have to pay too, not was much as the left lane, but still, you'll pay. If you don't want to pay anything extra, fine, stay in the right lane. But you can't go above 45 mph, and you'll be bombarded with billboards, stop signs, and traffic lights. You also won't have access to the same exits that the other two lanes have.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

Funny, I thought this was an issue most, if not all could get behind. I thought we all liked our internet the way it is, free from potential censorship, free from potential price gouging relating to content, free from giving ISP's control over what we see and how much we'll have to pay to see it. Guess not.

I'm glad your concerned about public safety CR with your highway example, but ultimately this comes down to $$. Just like anything else. Paid prioritization. It will be more like if you want to drive in the left lane, you'll have to pay more. You'll definitely pay for your speed and freedom. If you want to drive in the middle lane, you'll have to pay too, not was much as the left lane, but still, you'll pay. If you don't want to pay anything extra, fine, stay in the right lane. But you can't go above 45 mph, and you'll be bombarded with billboards, stop signs, and traffic lights. You also won't have access to the same exits that the other two lanes have.

Isn't that basically what an hov lane is. Should we say that all cars should have equal access to hov lanes for the sake of fairness?

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Isn't that basically what an hov lane is. Should we say that all cars should have equal access to hov lanes for the sake of fairness?

Nice. Rather than invest in alternative methods of transportation, it's "build roads that only affluent people can afford to drive on." You never see blue collar workers driving on toll roads, and there's a reason for that.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

Nice. Rather than invest in alternative methods of transportation, it's "build roads that only affluent people can afford to drive on." You never see blue collar workers driving on toll roads, and there's a reason for that.

Maybe not but if it wasn't for the hov lanes in the dc baltimore area the installers in my company would spend a ton more hours on the road and more gas too. It's not a perfect example but it's workable. In terms of alternatives no one is stopping companies from investing in new technologies. You only need to look at cell phone competition and how it drives better rates and better tech too.

[CRedskinsRule]

Just curious, is it wrong for Verizon to have price tiers for the speed of the service to households? Should everyone get 150upload and download speeds regardless of what service you pay for?
Or should ups charge the same rate for an overnight package as a ground delivery?

[Schneed10]

If I find that the sites I want to use are too slow on my ISP, I'll look to switch ISPs. Here I have a choice between Verizon, Comcast, and DirecTV/AT&T.

I don't anticipate it will get so slow that I'll experience a problem, but I have recourse in the event it does.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong Matty but I'm just more concerned about other issues than this. Issues of life and livelihood rank higher on my give a shit meter.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

If I find that the sites I want to use are too slow on my ISP, I'll look to switch ISPs. Here I have a choice between Verizon, Comcast, and DirecTV/AT&T.

I don't anticipate it will get so slow that I'll experience a problem, but I have recourse in the event it does.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong Matty but I'm just more concerned about other issues than this. Issues of life and livelihood rank higher on my give a shit meter.

One of the already existing problems is many people don't have a choice. Or they do have a choice, where one provider offers them 100 down/10 ups, and the other provider offers them 10 down/1 up. And the guy offering 100/10 literally pays to keep other providers out of the area. Google Fiber can't even expand to a lot of places because Comcast/Verizon pay a lot of money to keep them out. That's what happens when you have monopolies though, they take a lot of those profits and spend them on keeping the monopoly going.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by mooby

One of the already existing problems is many people don't have a choice. Or they do have a choice, where one provider offers them 100 down/10 ups, and the other provider offers them 10 down/1 up. And the guy offering 100/10 literally pays to keep other providers out of the area. Google Fiber can't even expand to a lot of places because Comcast/Verizon pay a lot of money to keep them out. That's what happens when you have monopolies though, they take a lot of those profits and spend them on keeping the monopoly going.

For them I understand why they’d care. Still, getting the circle while trying to watch Netflix strikes me as first world problems.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

One of the already existing problems is many people don't have a choice. Or they do have a choice, where one provider offers them 100 down/10 ups, and the other provider offers them 10 down/1 up. And the guy offering 100/10 literally pays to keep other providers out of the area. Google Fiber can't even expand to a lot of places because Comcast/Verizon pay a lot of money to keep them out. That's what happens when you have monopolies though, they take a lot of those profits and spend them on keeping the monopoly going.

Then break up the monopolies and loosen the regulations around entering the market. I would be all for those options.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Then break up the monopolies and loosen the regulations around entering the market. I would be all for those options.

You sure you want the government spending a big chunk of money to defeat a monopoly? Remember, the monopoly has monopoly money. In this land where money is power, that's a big war to fight. Besides, our current FCC Commisioner seems more in favor of the "rub and tug monopoly" strategy, where he scratches their backs now and they scratch his later.

[Giantone]

I'm not sure I really understand it enough to discuss it. My cable bill is too high right now and that is going to be addressed next month,I have Comcast and have it all including a land line with them. I do my bills,banking and surf on the internet,I don't need what a Hospital needs ,I just need my internet to work.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

One of the already existing problems is many people don't have a choice. Or they do have a choice, where one provider offers them 100 down/10 ups, and the other provider offers them 10 down/1 up. And the guy offering 100/10 literally pays to keep other providers out of the area. Google Fiber can't even expand to a lot of places because Comcast/Verizon pay a lot of money to keep them out. That's what happens when you have monopolies though, they take a lot of those profits and spend them on keeping the monopoly going.

I agree 100 percent here. That's where I support government intervention, and if others have a potential to make money they will lobby against the monopoly, but if they have no potential to differentiate themselves, they simply won't try.