Thoughts on The Revocation of Net Neutrality

[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

[Hoyt]

Not an expert, but with what I know, I think it's a mistake to revoke protections. I get that there are certain groups/companies that might benefit and perhaps enhance dissemination of their content, but it might hurt the majority of users.

[1neeto]

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

[D. Shelton]

Like almost all important subjects, it's too complicated for me to fully understand, given the amount of time I have for learning about complicated , important issues. Therefore, I can't exactly say I have any sort of informed or
even worthwhile opinion, so "depends". I mean, there's good and bad things about it, but neutrality seemed to be working fine for the users . But legislation these days is often more about benefitting providers of things (they have lobbying power) instead of the end users and consumers of things. Overstating the obvious again...

[Mr. Jelly]

So does this mean that at some point the large companies with the most market share will have faster service than the smaller companies?

[HHP]

The internet is not "free". Your access is dependent on billions, if not trillions, of dollars of infrastructure that has been built and maintained by private companies.

[Song Writer]

Originally Posted by HHP

The internet is not "free". Your access is dependent on billions, if not trillions, of dollars of infrastructure that has been built and maintained by private companies.

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

[HHP]

Originally Posted by Song Writer

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

"Enough" that they can invest in the infrastructure you want to have available in 10 years? My old company is deploying "neighborhood wi-fi" access to allow high bandwidths at low costs. The costs have to be incurred before one dime of revenue comes in to offset those costs.

[RedJoker]

I think you guys are confusing infrastructure with content. Those are two separate things. Repeal of Net neutrality is like the electric company telling you what brand of refrigerator they'll power. Net neutrality would be that you pay for power to use as you wish.

[HHP]

Originally Posted by RedJoker

I think you guys are confusing infrastructure with content. Those are two separate things. Repeal of Net neutrality is like the electric company telling you what brand of refrigerator they'll power. Net neutrality would be that you pay for power to use as you wish.

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".

[Silurian]

Originally Posted by Mr. Jelly

So does this mean that at some point the large companies with the most market share will have faster service than the smaller companies?

Yes, bigger companies may have the option to pay for faster service.

From the consumers point of view your access may change from a traditional telecomms model, ie you pay for your phone line and call anyone you wish, to one that resembles a cable tv model, ie you buy 'bundles' of different services.

[Gitfiddlemann]

I understand and empathize with both sides of the argument.
But after considering it further, I fall on the side of maintaining net neutrality. Why?
Because now that the internet is becoming more and more entrenched in people's daily lives, well-being, and overall sense of belonging/need to connect in society, losing net neutrality would unduly hurt those that are not as fortunate and financially well off as others. It could stifle the hopes and aspirations of those who are trying to improve their lives.
It's much more than just an "entertainment" issue.
We have to start thinking more and more about uniting ourselves for the greater good, so polarizing the haves and the haves not even further than they are today, especially in an area that is becoming more and more relevant to quality of life, doesn't seem to me to be the prudent way to go.

[srick]

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but I know a small amount about the history of government regulation regarding communications. The basics were laid down in the Communications Act of 1934 which deemed the airwaves to be public property, and hence, allowed to be regulated and doled out as the government saw fit.

In this case, the government regulated cable franchises back in the 1980s allowing limited monopolies per region in order to better serve the public. As the small cable companies got bought up, we have ended up with two or three major players who control access to the internet and its streaming capabilities. At what point do we change the status of these companes from entertainment providers and into public utilities? It could easily be argued that we are at that juncture as the internet is now essential for running the country and its infrastructure.

My guess is that this will play out in the next five to ten years in the courts as an anti-trust issue. I sincerely doubt that our rates will go down anytime soon and am pretty sure that you will see even more tier pricing. Ultimately, the people end up on the short end of the stick (again). I don't see competition here, I see collusion and price fixing. In our area, it's remarkable how similar the providers plans and pricing are. Because we don't get the television part of the cable package (internet only), we cannot obtain many network shows by streaming.

So fellow AGF'ers, it's a good argument for shutting off the television and playing your guitar! (But don't throttle my internet!)

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Rick

[chitz]

No matter what happens, expect to pay more.

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by RedJoker

I think you guys are confusing infrastructure with content. Those are two separate things. Repeal of Net neutrality is like the electric company telling you what brand of refrigerator they'll power. Net neutrality would be that you pay for power to use as you wish.

Yep....lots of confusion manifest in this thread already.

Doing away with net neutrality is seen by most as anti-competitive (the big providers can treat content providers differently, this favoring content providers that they own, or who pay them; smaller content providers,much as those mentioned in OP, can be assigned to worse/slower service).

One of the early FCC rulings that established the trend towards net neutrality was a ruling against a big telecom provider who wouldn't allow their customers (essentially, the customers who used their wires) to subscribe to Vonage to provide long distance service (at a lower cost to the customers than the telecom was charging for long distance).

The big players don't want to just charge you for infrastructure...they also want to have you use their other services (and make mine for providing those other services, because they make a profit on each thing you obtain from them. For example, if your internet provider is Comcast, and the movies you download from Netflix have interruptions due to slow speeds (which will almost certainly happen if Comcast is no longer required by the "net neutrality" regulations to provide equally fast service to all content providers), you are more likely to order your movies from Comcast On Demand, even if Comcast charges slightly more, and even if certain movies are not available on Comcast On Demand. Comcast is happy and makes more money. Netflix is unhappy, and makes less money. The customer does not benefit at all, unless they own Comcast stock, or short Netflix stock.

I am opposed to the reversal of net neutrality.