5 Freedoms You'll Lose Without Net Neutrality

[Christopher1]

Competition would be a good start. Part of the problem is the local governments preventing competition, the other is inter company relations preventing competition. San Diego has the lines laid for 3 different ISPs running through an area and only 2 sections of the county have all three lines rented.
The problem is Time Warner Cable and Cox have an agreement on the areas they compete in with only 1 section of the county they compete. In that section its not even a competition as Cox is the best Cable Provider in the nation. If Cox did not maintain these agreements in order to get cable content, they would easily dominate the remaining sections of the city that are currently Time Warner.

Local governments are NOT preventing competition. What they are preventing is a 'fly-by-night' operation appearing and then disappearing less than 6 months later (leaving their customers high and dry) because they did not have enough cash to properly fund themselves.

THAT is why there are so many rules to get into these areas and those rules are reasonable and sane, in my opinion. The problem is that those rules have been manipulated in order to keep true competitors out and/or hamstring new competitors who have the proper funding.

 

[alextheblue]

You seem to be mistaken as to what the term "Net Neutrality" is. "Net Neutrality" is the concept of not biasing the information, regardless of the source. This means your internet runs at it's maximum capability all the time. This is how the internet currently works. We do not lack "net neutrality," but rather, currently have it; the internet was originally made with net neutrality in mind. These laws are actually laws that are being proposed to remove net neutrality to filter the internet to only what the ISP wants to give you. This article outlines what negative things may happen if proposed laws to mitigate or remove the current state of net neutrality passes.

No, that is incorrect. What we have now is no net neutrality laws. By attempting to pass net neutrality laws, they're trying to correct a problem that doesn't exist, and put the FCC in charge of slow/fast lanes instead of the ISPs.

To reiterate, we currently have no net neutrality laws. They haven't passed any yet - look it up. Everything works fine. If we have a problem at all, it's lack of competition in the cable industry. Multiple cable companies should be allowed to offer service in all areas. The few areas that DO allow such competition have much better pricing.

 

[joe nate]

No, that is incorrect. What we have now is no net neutrality laws. By attempting to pass net neutrality laws, they're trying to correct a problem that doesn't exist, and put the FCC in charge of slow/fast lanes instead of the ISPs.

To reiterate, we currently have no net neutrality laws. They haven't passed any yet - look it up. Everything works fine. If we have a problem at all, it's lack of competition in the cable industry. Multiple cable companies should be allowed to offer service in all areas. The few areas that DO allow such competition have much better pricing.

I said we currently have net neutrality, not that we have net neutrality laws, there's a huge difference, and you should not take me out of context. I know we have no such laws at the moment, but if the laws that have been being proposed pass (Instead of twisting my words, look at the tense) and don't actually support net neutrality, but rather attack it, then the internet that we're using now can be changed.

The current system works to an extent because when ISPs throttle and cut off websites, people complain to the FCC and the FCC puts pressure on ISPs to give customers the access to the internet that customers pay for.

If laws regarding net neutrality were to pass to change how things currently work, I would hope they would help support the concept of keeping an open internet that paying customers, who pay for a connection to the whole internet, can access the whole internet without being arbitrarily slowed down or cut off because they aren't accessing a partner who explicitly paid to be the only one to be accessible.

Sadly, the fact that these laws are being proposed (note: not passed but proposed; don't twist my words again or coddle me with "look it up") the way they are in the first place (actually explicitly allowing bias of one server over another) makes me feel very grim for the future of the internet.

 

[alextheblue]

I said we currently have net neutrality, not that we have net neutrality laws, there's a huge difference, and you should not take me out of context. I know we have no such laws at the moment, but if the laws that have been being proposed pass (Instead of twisting my words, look at the tense) and don't actually support net neutrality, but rather attack it, then the internet that we're using now can be changed.

So you agree that things are fine as they are. Then why pass new laws that (depending on how horrible written they are) at best maintain the status quo? More importantly, who is in charge with these new laws? Who determines who is allowed fast lanes (and under what circumstances), who the ISPs (private companies) can block, and who they must allow? Some unelected bureaucrat with an agenda? Some easily bribed public officials? Maybe we should keep things working as they are right now... by not screwing with it.

So yeah, we currently have no net neutrality laws, and we don't need them. What we do need is a more competitive field, but a lot of that is the fault of local governments. I understand that they are trying to prevent fly-by-night outfits from moving in, but they could allow at least a couple of the major providers to offer services.

 

[EdgeT]

I said we currently have net neutrality, not that we have net neutrality laws, there's a huge difference, and you should not take me out of context. I know we have no such laws at the moment, but if the laws that have been being proposed pass (Instead of twisting my words, look at the tense) and don't actually support net neutrality, but rather attack it, then the internet that we're using now can be changed.

So you agree that things are fine as they are. Then why pass new laws that (depending on how horrible written they are) at best maintain the status quo? More importantly, who is in charge with these new laws? Who determines who is allowed fast lanes (and under what circumstances), who the ISPs (private companies) can block, and who they must allow? Some unelected bureaucrat with an agenda? Some easily bribed public officials? Maybe we should keep things working as they are right now... by not screwing with it.

So yeah, we currently have no net neutrality laws, and we don't need them. What we do need is a more competitive field, but a lot of that is the fault of local governments. I understand that they are trying to prevent fly-by-night outfits from moving in, but they could allow at least a couple of the major providers to offer services.

Alex, you fail to grasp how companies work. Time and time again they have proven that they're incapable of competing. They simply do not deserve ANY trust. Just look at all the patents they file every damn year, for even the simplest of things.

Simply put, they are afraid of competition, because they know they're worthless. And so, every damn time they do all they can to squash the competition like a bug. They are basically evil incarnate. We have worthless laws that are of pretty much 0 benefit for the consumer. The law for ANY anti-competitive action should be immediate shutdown of the offending company and having all their cash taken away and reinvested in the nation's funds and tossing their CEO's and whatnot in jail for a very long time.

 

[EdgeT]

Sorry forgot to add: that way, we wouldn't need most of these shitty laws, including net neutrality.
Problem is, governments haven't been governments for a while, nowadays they're just huge powerful companies that we still insist on calling "governments". They're just frauds.

 

[aliensrhereguy]

you get what you voted for. and if you were eligible to vote and stayed at home, THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT.
so this is what Makes America Great Again.
hahahaha. yet again the rest of the world looks and laughs at america.

 

[lindasusanweeks]

Such biased BS! Do we really want more government regulation? No!

 

[lindasusanweeks]

What a bunch of biased BS! I don't want more government intervention. Obama's FCC wanted control. It was working fine and now the internet will still be fine. Stop trying to regulate everything!

 

[redbarronbookreviews]

This is not good for small companies the united states need. Sorry for any spelling or grammar mistakes.

 

[bgray175]

Government regulation leads to one thing........Government taxes. The free market will dictate performance requirements. ISP's who choose to unfairly regulate the traffic moving through their networks will be punished by the consumer through choice. The REAL power is wielded by consumers who have multiple choices for the providers they CHOOSE.

 

[arh33]

They've listed five things that ISPs *could* theoretically do... how many actually have? They gave one example of Verizon blocking pro-abortion texts, until their customers raised a stink and they stopped blocking. Practically every example has the the phrase, "they can do..." or "they could do...". Why have a government policy on something that ISPs *might* do? The market response to them misbehaving seemed pretty effective in 2007 and that was before the explosion of social media. Could you imagine the response on Twitter and Facebook if Verizon pulled that trick today?? Probably not a lot of the people here remember life before the breakup of AT&T when the phone company was de-regulated. If that de-regulation never happened, the cell phone industry and by progression, smart phones wouldn't exist today!! It was the free market and competition that created the cell phone industry, not government control. Net Neutrality squeezes out the small ISPs because they can't afford the regulatory costs, like the big players. How many small "Mom & Pop" car companies exist? Why is it so hard to start an automobile company? The licensing and regulatory expense is tremendous... that's just to get started! Do you want the same for the Internet? Your ISPs will eventually be whittled down to Comcast, AT&T & Verizon, under Net Neutrality. How free and "neutral" do you think it'll be then?

 

[thomas.manfredi]

Personally, with Netflix traffic consuming over 40% of the bandwidth of the internet during some periods, I don't think its outrageous that they pay a little more. What I do have a problem with is the ISPs are also allowed to own content that competes with Netflix. If the government has to regulate something, have it do some good old-fashion, anti-trust enforcement to break up these vertical monopolies.

 

[joe_in_arlington]

The article sounds like a bunch of theoretical scenarios that would not survive the free market. Is the author aware that the free market is typically the best and most organic regulator of unfair practices? I think we need to be more concerned with abuses of the giants monopoly giants Google and Facebook than we do of ISPs.

 

[daverwall]

i love how the article states "should a dozen ISPs be allowed to control thousands of other companies?"
compared to the one choice I have now, yes, i am happy that net neutrality was killed.
capitalism is a good thing. choices are a good thing. Any ISP that starts doing the things this article is scaring everyone about will not last long with no subscribers. smh

 

[roblov1]

Just recycle a 3 year old political article.

You're in favor of giving control of the internet over to a foreign governing body that supports censorship and punishing unpopular thought.

We see how deregulation works just fine with cell phone competition and how it encourages giving consumers better deals. Look at T-Mobile offering Netflix for free and others trying to match.

 

[tonyqclifton]

With NN gone, the industry will gain competition and choices, prices will fall. I can't believe how partisan and hacky this article is. Why didn't you mention that with the new law ISPs now HAVE to mention how they are throttling or limiting bandwidth to their customers? Getting rid of this burdensome regulation will allow tech companies to truly innovate.