Net Neutrality

[kshymkiw83]

Are you that much of a paranoid, 1 dimensional (politically) person who really thinks every government regulation will be a bad thing? We simply want things to stay the way they basically are right now.

 

If the Gov't regulates how we as operators are allowed to sell our service, then the next thing they will be controlling is what is acceptable content.

 

An operator has a vested interest in running the last mile connections to every home, it is a HUGE expense. An operator has a vested interest in providing large capacity links, it is a HUGE expense.

 

What we need from Net Neutrality isn't a regulation pricing, use, etc... it can be summed up by saying operators must treat all traffic equally. That is what you want. Gov't involved in Internet Communications, never works well (see Australia, China, etc...)

[wnaplay1647545503]

If the Gov't regulates how we as operators are allowed to sell our service, then the next thing they will be controlling is what is acceptable content.

 

An operator has a vested interest in running the last mile connections to every home, it is a HUGE expense. An operator has a vested interest in providing large capacity links, it is a HUGE expense.

 

What we need from Net Neutrality isn't a regulation pricing, use, etc... it can be summed up by saying operators must treat all traffic equally. That is what you want. Gov't involved in Internet Communications, never works well (see Australia, China, etc...)

They arent controlling content now. When providers can prove they are losing money I would feel differnetly about charging more. You cant complain about an expense soley because its an expense. There has to be a limit on how much reimbursement you are entitled to for that expense and so far its what people are willing to pay. Much like when other services are created and are highly depended upon by the public there has to be some entity to help ensure that this need isnt grossly capitalized on by the supplier. It has been good thus far so why does it need to change unless the provider is merely seeking higher compensation for less service(the new american way). Deny it but these providers have already benefitted from the infrastructure payed for by tax dollars. No not necessarily as much now as they have grown and needs have increased, but at their inception they have used public utility services over and over again.

[kshymkiw83]

They arent controlling content now. When providers can prove they are losing money I would feel differnetly about charging more. You cant complain about an expense soley because its an expense. There has to be a limit on how much reimbursement you are entitled to for that expense and so far its what people are willing to pay. Much like when other services are created and are highly depended upon by the public there has to be some entity to help ensure that this need isnt grossly capitalized on by the supplier. It has been good thus far so why does it need to change unless the provider is merely seeking higher compensation for less service(the new american way). Deny it but these providers have already benefitted from the infrastructure payed for by tax dollars. No not necessarily as much now as they have grown and needs have increased, but at their inception they have used public utility services over and over again.

 

I don't understand why people think a company isn't entitled to charge for installing, running, and maintaining an asset.

 

So your saying, since at TWC we have invested BILLIONS into infrastructure, we shouldn't be entitled to make any more money than what we spent to install and run it? You can't let a central body regulate communications between multiple entities. The Internet isn't some physical thing anyone can control.

 

The only thing Net Neutrality should state, is providers can not influence traffic based on type (protocol or port). That is it, nothing more needs to be said. That puts the blame on the operator, because if the operator doesn't provide the service, the consumer can go elsewhere.

[Trouble Maker]

If the Gov't regulates how we as operators are allowed to sell our service, then the next thing they will be controlling is what is acceptable content.

 

An operator has a vested interest in running the last mile connections to every home, it is a HUGE expense. An operator has a vested interest in providing large capacity links, it is a HUGE expense.

 

What we need from Net Neutrality isn't a regulation pricing, use, etc... it can be summed up by saying operators must treat all traffic equally. That is what you want. Gov't involved in Internet Communications, never works well (see Australia, China, etc...)

 

Yes, that is what I want.

 

I think you mis-interpreted what I was trying to say. By regulation I mean any rule that the government imposes on industry. In this case I'm wanting the regulation to state that 'operators must treat all traffic equally', not (at this point) dictate pricing, use, etc. I think we are on the same page here if I'm reading what you wrote correctly.

[Trouble Maker]

The only thing Net Neutrality should state, is providers can not influence traffic based on type (protocol or port). That is it, nothing more needs to be said. That puts the blame on the operator, because if the operator doesn't provide the service, the consumer can go elsewhere.

 

Wow, maybe we are not on the same page. You are drinking the company koolaid if you think that's what will happen. If left to their own biding the companies will strangle this service for every cent it's worn (right now) until there is nothing left for the consumer and we are vastly being overcharged and taken advantage of by every company in the industry. People who think a purely free market works are fools, the free market proves this over and over again by big companies fucking over little consumers every chance they get.

[wnaplay1647545503]

Why each of these companies were starting out they did not use their own infrastucture, I know this for a fact because I have worked on 100's if not 1000's of projects altering public utilities to allow for their use. Only now they have the financial backing to finance their projects. So what should the tax payers do get nothing in return for aiding in making them rich? What if it hadnt worked, would they have still made an attempt to reimburse us? As far as compensating for their portion of the infrastucture, they promoted the use of their product to a point where it has become almost a necessity to our society. At this point the game would have to again be rewritten if it all went away. So now that we are all hooked should they jump up rates because they have us by the balls and they know we cant do nothing about it? How is that any different than a oil company that knows they can charge what they want because due to our own fault we have become dependent on it? Should an oil company charge what they want or should our govt step in and help regulate things on behalf of the public? This argument can also be made for why there are regulations on how much other utilities are allowed to charge us for things they know we need. So in turn these companies dont appear to be in dire need of financial help. they appear to be prospering if anything. what they should do is take a note from the Henry Ford book of business and self mandate the amount of profits they truly need and are deserving of getting. Instead they have taken their cues from others who prey on people. When a drug dealer enters a new community his prices are low as well. But guess what happens when people are hooked. By know means am I saying they should break even but they shouldnt become super rich neither. A fair product for a fair price. I dont feel this way just on this, I think every form of business should work this way. Its not all a business fault neither, people need to start approaching these things with their eyes open at somepoint.

[kshymkiw83]

Wow, maybe we are not on the same page. You are drinking the company koolaid if you think that's what will happen. If left to their own biding the companies will strangle this service for every cent it's worn (right now) until there is nothing left for the consumer and we are vastly being overcharged and taken advantage of by every company in the industry. People who think a purely free market works are fools, the free market proves this over and over again by big companies fucking over little consumers every chance they get.

 

I am not saying that is what will happen, that is what should happen. I don't see how the consumer is being overcharged and taken advantage of.... I know how much it costs us to provide RR Service to each subscriber. I don't understand why you think we shouldn't charge what we can for the service. If you don't like the service, or don't want to pay our price there are other options.

 

If you let the Gov't regulate what we can charge for, then expect to see Consumption Based Billing. Sometimes you don't know how good you have until you lose it. With the Gov't stepping into our business, it will be a cluster. Just wait until they want a site shut down for objectionable content, we can't say no now. You as the consumer lose more in Net Neutrality than you think, including your rights