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]

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.

[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?

[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?

[mooby]

If you're a Verizon/Comcast/ATT stockholder, do away with these profit-killing internet regulations! If you're 90% of anyone else, and you understood your prices are only going to up as a result of this, you'd probably be mad. Then there's the 5% like Schneed/Cred where money is no object and they are perfectly fine paying whatever the free market asks them to pay, so they are completely comfortable with NN being repealed.

Also, the problem with Cred's post is the idea that the hospital's data has to lag behind the Warpath's. I'm pretty sure most hospitals already pay their companies whatever the premium is to have high speed data, which means in theory that they should be getting the upload/download rate that is agreed on in the contract.

Really the worst part of all this is all the government money big media has already gotten to deliver high speed internet that they failed on. But nah, you don't see Cred crying about gov't accountability there. If you give a grant to a company and tell them to deliver results you need to follow up on it. Now they're trying to take away the concept that they must treat all internet traffic the same. Well, the only reason I'm looking forward to it is so we can see Cred bitching when his provider tries to charge him an extra $5.99 a month for the "right wing" package that includes Fox News access at the same speeds as whatever liberal media outlet his provider owns.

Don't forget this website, Matty is gonna have to start soliciting bi-weekly donations because his provider is gonna try to charge him more money to keep this place running. But hey, free market capitalism works baby!

[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.

[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.

[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.