Thoughts on The Revocation of Net Neutrality

[TBman]

Originally Posted by LarryVe

The FCC plans to vote next month against an order that is currently in effect which allows for net neutrality. Without net neutrality, Internet Service Providers would charge extra or slow down access to premium content such as Youtube, Netflix, Hulu, Twitter etc.

Currently, the internet is free and open allowing all data to be equally accessible. If this rule goes into effect, it would negatively affect most people's browsing experience.

I seriously do not see a benefit in this other than fattening up the pockets of those who own these ISP's.

America and Net Neutrality

What would happen if they threw a party and no one showed up..... Books, family time, enjoying life untethered to a computer or phone. I think it will backfire as more and more people will just say "forget it" and grab a newspaper...

[Gasworker]

https://goo.gl/images/8cGJjp

[RedJoker]

Originally Posted by HHP

And how would you really do that when your access point is limited? The electric company doesn't charge you a flat rate for refrigeration, if you have a big double door commercial unit, you pay for the additional electricity it demands. The free content is only accessible via the costly infrastructure. Think "filling your swimming pool with a garden hose".

Agreed. If I use more power, I pay more, just like internet.

But that's not what this is about. What this is about is that the internet providers can decide what data they'll allow me to have. As said earlier in this thread, I only have one provider, a cable company. Without net neutrality, they could decide whether I could use that connection for Netflix or Hulu or any streaming service but their own, even though I've paid for that access. And there's nothing I could do about it. I don't have an alternative. With net neutrality, they would have to actually compete with a better product and treat all the bits the same.

[Kerbie]

Guys, let's keep this discussion within the rules.

[imwjl]

Originally Posted by 1neeto

It could also stimulate competition. More often than not, the market does better when the government gets out of the way.

How is that going to work when the giants also have local monopolies?

Forgetting about traffic shaping or QoS, the "last mile" issue alone makes things tough.

This is a time when a lot of people should read Tim Wu's Master Switch book, and get a better understanding of monopoly power, last mile issues, and then the traffic shaping and other businesses the communication giants own.

[srick]

Originally Posted by imwjl

How is that going to work when the giants also have local monopolies?

Forgetting about traffic shaping or QoS, the "last mile" issue alone makes things tough.

In that vein, keep your eyes open as to the big players taking over the cellular business and who has taken over the satellite business. This has been in the works for quite awhile!

[imwjl]

Originally Posted by RedJoker

Agreed. If I use more power, I pay more, just like internet.

But that's not what this is about. What this is about is that the internet providers can decide what data they'll allow me to have. As said earlier in this thread, I only have one provider, a cable company. Without net neutrality, they could decide whether I could use that connection for Netflix or Hulu or any streaming service but their own, even though I've paid for that access. And there's nothing I could do about it. I don't have an alternative. With net neutrality, they would have to actually compete with a better product and treat all the bits the same.

Thanks for pointing our your not being where there's true or good competition.

A guy who volunteers in a same organization I do works for a health care software startup that is promising but a threat if your area in health and insurance holds a lot of market share or some monopoly power. He pointed out their office move done this year was a total defensive move to place where a few hundred feet form a boulevard where AT&T, Charter, Verizon and city fiber are but they still have risks because their product itself is about making health care providers more competitive. They were only able to make that move because of the speculating angel investors they have. I doubt some smaller business doing something like making the local food movement more competitive could do that.

My work requires following advanced tech reading and by hobby or personal interest I read some of the top newspapers and journals. Comparing their description to what pop news has or the way the giants spin this makes me think everyone needs a crib sheet on logical fallacies.

[imwjl]

This small social media business doesn't appear to be in the portfolio of the telecom giants, nor does it appear to be a niche where the other giants - Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft - might make an offer to buy them out next week. Thus, net neutrality is important to the AGF owners.

I would be really bummed out if businesses like this lost their fair chance of their packets traveling with others.

I really enjoy the work of some independently funded groups and think tanks that study economics, taxation, and health where that independence means their conclusions and topics are all over the place. Add enjoy the content of not so mainstream publications like The Economist. I also subscribe to the Wall St. Journal that's part of a giant. I really want fair access to all of it.

With this topic back in the news I suggest reading Tim Wu's book Master Switch ASAP. It's probably a few years old now but will still give you very important bits of history, where we've been, where we are, and let you make decisions with all that in mind.

[srick]

Originally Posted by HHP

And how would you really do that when your access point is limited? The electric company doesn't charge you a flat rate for refrigeration, if you have a big double door commercial unit, you pay for the additional electricity it demands. The free content is only accessible via the costly infrastructure. Think "filling your swimming pool with a garden hose".

Howver in this case, the water flow (bit rate) can be shut on or off periodically and the quality of the water (access to websites and content) can be changed without your permission.

To my earlier point, we have to decide whether the internet has evolved to become a public utility. Analogies to spotty and variable telephone service in the 1920s and the electrical grid during the same era abound. At a certain point, the public interest will supersede the corporation's financial interest.

[Mr. Jelly]

You have to ask yourself "Why would the government want to change something that isn't a problem with anyone but the big companies?"

Makes you want to go Hmmmmm?

[Otterhound]

Those that cannot or refuse to adapt will fall behind . Choose wisely .
Please excuse me while I adjust my TV antenna . You see , this 1 station requires it .
My sympathy to those that are either tethered to or believe themselves to be tethered to the internet . It used to be said that debt is the worst form of slavery ........

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by Song Writer

Who all appear to be making enough money right now prior to the division of spoils.

That's capitalism for ya'
I have no problem with it. Neither do the tax collectors.

[HHP]

Originally Posted by RedJoker

Agreed. If I use more power, I pay more, just like internet.

But that's not what this is about. What this is about is that the internet providers can decide what data they'll allow me to have. As said earlier in this thread, I only have one provider, a cable company. Without net neutrality, they could decide whether I could use that connection for Netflix or Hulu or any streaming service but their own, even though I've paid for that access. And there's nothing I could do about it. I don't have an alternative. With net neutrality, they would have to actually compete with a better product and treat all the bits the same.

Then you have a lousy deal on internet. It is not a metered service. You contract for a port, decide if you want "best effort" or SLA based service, and you pay the same regardless of how many bytes you put through that port. Your ultimate speed is determined by how large a port you bought and, in the case of "best effort", how much data others using the shared LDC might be using.

Comcast is not a tier 1 provider but you won't encourage others to build out an access network to compete with them. That's why telephone, cable, and mobile companies were granted MTA's. It was the only viable means to get the investment made based on the long term payback from users.

[M19]

The biggest champion for Net Neutrality is likely NetFlix, who has built their business model utilizing for "free" another's infrastructure investment.

[Silurian]

Originally Posted by rokdog49

That's capitalism for ya'
I have no problem with it. Neither do the tax collectors.

You've never heard of offshore tax havens then?