Net Neutrality

[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.

[Chico23231]

I’m for net neutrality 100%. I think it could leak into a free speech issue..so I’m hoping this won’t move into a states rights, but a federal policy.

[over the mountain]

Would sites like the warpath get slowed down while sites like ES (which is tied to redskins org) get the fast lane?

Will my firms website get slowed down or have google SEO position dropped bc we are not one of the firms that spend millions on internet advertising/organic search engines etc?

If netflix has to pay extra, wont they just pass the cost onto us?

[Schneed10]

Matty I do sympathize with you as the owner of a web-based operation.

I will say, if I experience slow speeds trying to access the warpath, then that would definitely register on my give a shit meter!

Good thing for you specifically is that this site isn't pumping out videos and large amounts of data - it's just spitting out webpages with text. Luckily I don't think it would hurt you much one way or another.

For those who've got a business that streams music or video content, big concern for sure.

[mooby]

I'm gonna take a stab at today's vote, the 3 Repubs are going to vote yes to repeal and the 2 Dems are going to vote no.

[over the mountain]

Still not sure how a former Verizon lawyer/exec can be chosen to lead the FCC .. thanks Trump.

Thats like a guy who doesnt believe in carbon emissions being selected to lead the branch that regulates carbon emissions.

Or a lady who doesnt believe in supporting public schools chosen to lead public schools.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

CR, what do you think you’ll stand to gain if net neutrality goes away? Will this be a win for consumers in any way?

As with most capitalistic intentions, IF there is competition for the high end, and also to provide the best low end levels of internet traffic, I would hope we see more innovative packaging, and more providers striving to offer better services at lower prices. Now all this also requires that we don't feed monopolies. That's the biggest risk.

I will say, much like Ma Bell had her place in laying groundwork, or as NASA had it's place in space exploration, Net Neutrality had a place at the early onset of commercial internet. There was big investment required with a very possible Bust of the market. That needs a government lift. But at this point the internet is a flourishing environment, and there are several potentials for startups to advance both the tech and packaging related to it.

[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.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

Still not sure how a former Verizon lawyer/exec can be chosen to lead the FCC .. thanks Trump.

Thats like a guy who doesnt believe in carbon emissions being selected to lead the branch that regulates carbon emissions.

Or a lady who doesnt believe in supporting public schools chosen to lead public schools.

I agree on the last two, but IIRC Pai wasn't a Trump decision. So really, thanks Obama?

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

I just don't see this administration or FCC insisting that the Comcast/Verizon monopolies be broken up. I think it would require something so egregious on the companies' part that the gov't would have no choice but to break them up.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

I just don't see this administration or FCC insisting that the Comcast/Verizon monopolies be broken up. I think it would require something so egregious on the companies' part that the gov't would have no choice but to break them up.

Isn't it more about local governments allowing consumers access? Seems like there are places that allow more ISP competition and some that allow less.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Isn't it more about local governments allowing consumers access? Seems like there are places that allow more ISP competition and some that allow less.

I know there are some places where local government is trying to offer people another alternative, but big ISP's are also trying to shut that down through lobbyists. I get what you're saying and it sounds nice, but everything I read seems like big ISP money doesn't go towards offering a better product or improving infrastructure, it's mostly spent on lobbying big and small gov't to make laws and eliminate competition.

For example, approx. 100 or so Congressmen sent the FCC a letter of support for the repeal a little while ago, and the majority of them all have varying levels of donations from big ISP to their campaigns.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...ess-fcc-letter

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by mooby

I agree on the last two, but IIRC Pai wasn't a Trump decision. So really, thanks Obama?

https://www.politico.com/blogs/donal...hairman-233905

trump appointment.

[CRedskinsRule]

Here is a good opinion article from Tom's Hardware, I don't think it's a political inspired piece, that goes thru net neutrality from a "hey it's not the best thing since ice cream point of view"

Net Neutrality Won't Save the Internet. Competition Will

Judging by what you might have read online, you'd think the world was about to end with the imminent rollback of existing net neutrality rules, due for a vote by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) on Dec. 14.

The reversal would give "major corporations — like Verizon and Comcast — the power to block mobile apps, slow websites and even control which news outlets we can access," according to the ACLU.

"Comcast, Verizon and AT&T ... want to gut FCC rules and then pass bad legislation that allows extra fees, throttling & censorship," said the digital-activist group Fight for the Future.

The rule change "paves the way for an internet that works more like cable television, where wealthy insiders decide which speakers can reach a broad audience," warned the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Oh please. I oppose the FCC's proposal to reserve its 2015 decision reclassifying broadband as a utility, but the major internet service providers (ISPs) are not likely to change the way they do business as a result. They make tons of money under the existing rules, and they also made plenty of money before the rules were changed.

"If the internet was not a terrible dystopia in 2014, there's not a ton of reasons to think that companies are going to do any of these awful things that they didn't seem to have any reason to do before," said Julian Sanchez, an analyst with the libertarian Cato Institute, on Wisconsin Public Radio last month.
...

(emphasis mine) The rest of the article is really good.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

https://www.politico.com/blogs/donal...hairman-233905

trump appointment.

Well I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification.