Net Neutrality

[Geeto67]

I think Government has it's place. Providing security for our country is definitely one of them, probably at the top. It's a 100% for or against. I'm against unnecessary Govt regulation where I think the private sector will provide a better service for the citizens of the country.

 

The government paying for your education, or disability, pension, or literally anything past your term of service is not related to national security. That was their position till the 1950's when Eisenhower started to change the conversation. It is still the defense they use when someone else brings up that the government should be doing "x" for soldiers.

 

 

 

Obviously, as stated by everyone here I'm an ignorant bafoon and I know nothing...

 

Why are ISPs essentially a monopoly? Can they become a free market?

 

Good, ask more questions - make less statements.

 

 

since there are a lot of tech industry people on here that know way more than me I know I am going to get at least some things wrong in simplifying, but:

 

ISP's are a monopoly because they physically own the network. Remember "the internet is a series of tubes"? it's not an unfair analogy, the hardware to physically transmit the data has to be owned by someone. The ISPs are that someone.

 

think of it like the phone lines (because some of them are, or at least used to be phone lines) - see those telephone poles with cables on them on the side of every road? has to be owned by someone - the phone company was that someone. And you can't put up competing phone lines because that physical space is already taken.

 

It's actually more complicated than that when you get into ISPs that are community owned and non-profit, plus the cable companies and the rest but the basics of it is that ISPs owns the physical network that connects you with the internet. that's why so many of them are telephone companies or cable companies, or the like.

 

If you wanted to establish competition, you would need to to take all the networks away from the private companies - treat it like a utility (like electricity or water) and then evenly distribute the rights of access to the ISPs. What the 2015 NN rules did: instead of taking away the networks, it told the ISPs they were utility providers and as such had to offer equal access to everyone. They didn't like that.

[87GT]

Everyone is going to pissed when the internet is changed back into dial up speeds. That is unless you buy our special $25.99 per month package to give you "super fast"* speeds. And for all those speed freaks out there we have the $59.99 package for "mega fast"* speeds. Sure you can change your ISP all you want no worries friends. They will all have similar packages.

 

 

 

 

 

[Geeto67]

Everyone is going to pissed when the internet is changed back into dial up speeds. That is unless you buy our special $25.99 per month package to give you "super fast"* speeds. And for all those speed freaks out there we have the $59.99 package for "mega fast"* speeds. Sure you can change your ISP all you want no worries friends. They will all have similar packages.

 

But what good is that going to do if everyone gets pissed? The overwhelming majority of people were pissed at the FCC decision and it still went through. They tried to put it as a law through congress twice and that failed. When the telephone companies were broken up - it still took 30 years for long distance calls to get cheap, now that this has happened it may take us another 30 years to get us back to were we just were on Monday.

[Brandon]

Let it play out a little. I think its a bit knee jerk like everything in this hyper sensitive planet. I am still willing to bet there will be no effects moving forward.

 

End of the day, some regulation is okay, too little can be bad and too much can be equally as bad.

[CRed05]

Everyone is going to pissed when the internet is changed back into dial up speeds. That is unless you buy our special $25.99 per month package to give you "super fast"* speeds. And for all those speed freaks out there we have the $59.99 package for "mega fast"* speeds. Sure you can change your ISP all you want no worries friends. They will all have similar packages.

 

I know where you were going with this but I think you missed it lol. This is fine, this is exactly how it works today. You're paying for a pipe, the more you pay, the bigger pipe you get *gigity*.

 

Now if you want Hulu, but Spectrum has a deal with Netflix...sorry pal, you're SOL...that's gonna cost you.

[CRed05]

Let it play out a little. I think its a bit knee jerk like everything in this hyper sensitive planet. I am still willing to bet there will be no effects moving forward. .

 

Probably. I think it's the slippery slope idea that someone mentioned earlier that's the problem. I read somewhere that there are countries that do not have NN, and the worst that happens there is speed throttling if they notice you streaming more than average. Still, I don't think anyone wants that.

[87GT]

But what good is that going to do if everyone gets pissed?

 

Probably cause more online heated debates on the subject

 

No I get it honestly. Almost every website I read sits on a .com domain. It is all about profit. That is just how it is in this county. Just because it can be that way doesn't mean it should be that way.

[10phone2]

The government paying for your education, or disability, pension, or literally anything past your term of service is not related to national security. That was their position till the 1950's when Eisenhower started to change the conversation. It is still the defense they use when someone else brings up that the government should be doing "x" for soldiers.

 

 

 

 

 

Good, ask more questions - make less statements.

 

 

since there are a lot of tech industry people on here that know way more than me I know I am going to get at least some things wrong in simplifying, but:

 

ISP's are a monopoly because they physically own the network. Remember "the internet is a series of tubes"? it's not an unfair analogy, the hardware to physically transmit the data has to be owned by someone. The ISPs are that someone.

 

think of it like the phone lines (because some of them are, or at least used to be phone lines) - see those telephone poles with cables on them on the side of every road? has to be owned by someone - the phone company was that someone. And you can't put up competing phone lines because that physical space is already taken.

 

It's actually more complicated than that when you get into ISPs that are community owned and non-profit, plus the cable companies and the rest but the basics of it is that ISPs owns the physical network that connects you with the internet. that's why so many of them are telephone companies or cable companies, or the like.

 

If you wanted to establish competition, you would need to to take all the networks away from the private companies - treat it like a utility (like electricity or water) and then evenly distribute the rights of access to the ISPs. What the 2015 NN rules did: instead of taking away the networks, it told the ISPs they were utility providers and as such had to offer equal access to everyone. They didn't like that.

 

Honest question for you or anyone that wants to chime in. What is wrong with a cable company or utility company selling what they want since they own the network? To me that is like telling a store that you have to carry certain merchandise, but I honestly could be dead wrong.

[turbospec29]

I'm not worried. I have 10000 minutes of AOL I've be waiting to use.

[Geeto67]

Probably. I think it's the slippery slope idea that someone mentioned earlier that's the problem. I read somewhere that there are countries that do not have NN, and the worst that happens there is speed throttling if they notice you streaming more than average. Still, I don't think anyone wants that.

 

I'm pretty sure the worst that happens is rampant censorship of a China like proportion.

[Draco-REX]

Honest question for you or anyone that wants to chime in. What is wrong with a cable company or utility company selling what they want since they own the network? To me that is like telling a store that you have to carry certain merchandise, but I honestly could be dead wrong.

 

They own the lines that carry the data to your house. But they do not own the data that goes over those lines. Additionally, a packet of data from Netflix has the exact same load on those lines as a packet of data from columbusracing.com. Deciding what packets they can charge you more for isn't based on network load, but only on what they think they can squeeze out of you. You're NOT getting better service, you're paying more to get the service you already have.

 

It's like the water company charging you one rate per gallon, but then putting a restrictor on your shower unless you pay more for full water pressure. Except to be more accurate, the water company doesn't even OWN the water they're selling you.

 

So the way this will go if there are no NN rules is this: You pay your ISP for a connection to the internet. You pay more for streaming services. The streaming services pay more to get their data to you. And THAT added expense gets handed to you when you pay for the streaming service. You get fucked twice, and the ISP gets paid twice.

 

And anyone who thinks a "Free Market" can self-regulate with only a couple players in a market is delusional.

[10phone2]

Great explanation and well thought out. thanks Edited December 16, 2017 by 10phone2

[cdk 4219]

Well if the government improves something they don't "get out" so.....your challenge is false on it's face.

 

But to answer the first part of your question:

 

Employment, environment, The telecommunications industry, shipping, Aviation, Nuclear Power, Electric Power...I mean, there are a lot. But you will argue because "better" is subjective and for you it is probably only focused on revenue and excludes public benefit or human cost.

 

I will openly agree that there are regulations that overshot, and not "everything" has to be regulated, but this position that nothing should be regulated is just nonsense.

 

It’s a shame your parents weren’t regulated before they bumped uglies,and your were hatched,

[Not Brian]

[CRed05]

[zeitgeist57]

Thank you. That video did more for helping my understanding of Net Neutrality than Kerry’s interpretations of the law ever will.

[Richard Cranium]

Thank you. That video did more for helping my understanding of Net Neutrality than Kerry’s interpretations of the law ever will.

 

No matter how you slice this it is a win for the ISPs and a loss for the consumer. What they have now is a much higher degree of control of how we as customers use the internet. I'm really curious long term how this will play out, but my inclination right now is that my internet consumption will decline sharply when I don't have the same choices I have now. For me personally that's probably not the worst thing in the world. I just don't much care for being dictated to.

[RedRocket1647545505]

What's to keep it from being reversed again? I feel like if it heads south, people will really start screaming, their elected representatives will (or should) hear it, and it'll be fixed should it need to be. Give it time, folks. Let it play out.

[Draco-REX]

Before the vote:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140827112657/http://corporate.comcast.com/openinternet/open-net-neutrality

 

After the vote:

http://corporate.comcast.com/openinternet/open-net-neutrality

[Richard Cranium]

Before the vote:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140827112657/http://corporate.comcast.com/openinternet/open-net-neutrality

 

After the vote:

http://corporate.comcast.com/openinternet/open-net-neutrality

 

Talk is cheap. Right now all the ISPs are going to be gun shy about making any sudden moves. They are in the spotlight right now and everyone is staring at them waiting for them to do something. They aren't stupid. They are not going to do anything negative. Honestly, they'll probably eat some profits and do what they can to make things better. Then they can sit back and say "See? The world didn't end. Things got better." They'll wait till this all blows over and then start testing the waters in little ways that don't effect most people.

 

Corporations are motivated by profit, simple as that. I have no problem with any entity working for a profit. That's simple business and capitalism at it's best. ISPs demonstrated that they could not be trusted to support a free and open internet. NN did not come about because they played well with others and didn't take advantage of their position. They absolutely did, it's been well documented. I don't have a problem with a company coming out with a better product and beating their competition fair and square. I have an issue with a company who can't beat the competition shutting them down. This is a car forum. We should all know the story of "Tucker". That's a perfect example of big business taking advantage of their situation to squash the little guy. At that time the automotive industry was the big deal. Now it's a digital world, and there are still little guys out there with good ideas. The repeal of NN will allow the ISPs to quietly shut those guys down, and we'll never hear about it.

 

History is full of stories where companies chose profit over the good of their customers. Ford decided it was cheaper to defend the lawsuits over exploding gas tanks than it was to fix the problem. If corporations will choose profit over human lives then you better believe they will choose profit over consumer freedom.

[Jackson1647545504]

If corporations will choose profit over human lives then you better believe they will choose profit over consumer freedom.

 

[Draco-REX]

The reason why this upsets me so much is that it threatens the future of the internet. I'm not saying it'll collapse or go away. What I mean is that the internet, a global information network, has so much potential for the future. We're just now touching on what it could someday become. Yes there are issues we need to work out. But we can work them out. However, if companies can partition and manipulate the internet then it will become simplified and stagnant.

 

My only hope, if the worst comes to pass, is that this might encourage the development of a successor to the internet of today with superior capabilities and protections that will keep this from happening again.

[SpaceGhost]

not sure what AT&T is gonna do, I am locked in (in writing) 1000mB/s for $70 for life....

[Geeto67]

Honest question for you or anyone that wants to chime in. What is wrong with a cable company or utility company selling what they want since they own the network? To me that is like telling a store that you have to carry certain merchandise, but I honestly could be dead wrong.

 

Missed this before.

 

Really it depends on the product and its role to society. The core question that this turns on is whether the Internet is a fungible good like a can of coca-cola, or a utility, like the street in front of your house.

 

The Net Neutrailty laws had treated the Internet like the public road system, open access to anyone, and the ISPs like utility companies. Overturning it means they can treat it like a can of coke, except you can only buy your coke from one store and nowhere else, and they determine what size you get for you, how much is inside the can, and how much you can drink per sip. Would you buy a can of coke with those restrictions? Probably not, but the world has progressed to the point where there are some things that can only be accessed by Internet, so you have to buy the can of coke.

 

Make sense?

 

There are a whole host of ways where treating a utility like a competitive good fucks with the free market, if you want to get into it.

[Sledhead36]

I think people should stop overthinking things they have no control over.......and should focus on what they can control.....just sayin.