What is Net Neutrality

Status
Not open for further replies.

Onus

Distinguished
Moderator
Jan 27, 2006
724
0
19,210
64
Follow the money. Sooner or later, the "right" parasites will have been paid, and Net Neutrality will die. After all, they can't have the sheeple getting unfettered access to uncontrolled (i.e. unbiased) alternate news sources, but they need a way to get around First Amendment protections on freedom of speech and of the press.
 

skit75

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2008
243
0
18,860
20
I know I get a monthly internet bill. I am pretty sure Netflix also gets a monthly/quarterly bill. So how does the ISP get to double-dip my content provider for even more money after we have both payed our bill for this traffic? I've never quite understood that part of the equation.
 

Krisk7

Honorable
May 26, 2013
6
0
10,510
0
"Arguing against net neutrality are ISPs, which want the power to charge additional rates to users or companies that use an increasingly large amount of data. Net neutrality hinders the ability to respond to market demand and inhibits the ability to capitalize on new and highly profitable revenue streams, they say. Partnering with large content providers, or charging users a premium to access certain content, would bring in significant amounts of money and give content providers the ability to ensure a minimum level of quality to their users, the ISPs say."

So in other words: we don't care that you already payed for the bandwith dear customer. We will be constrolling your traffic and charging not only you, but also the web services you visit. The ISPs are not even trying to hide they do it for money, they will then use to buy other ISPs, reduce competition and ask us (customers) to pay even more.
 

house70

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2010
1,465
0
19,310
100
Don't think for a second that the increased fee for fast lane will be supported by any corporation. No, it will go full circle and hit the consumer right in the pockets.
Just hope and pray to the Internet Gods that we won't have to pay once the ISP for allowing us the privilege of using their speedy bandwidth and then again pay the content provider an increased fee (because they have to buy fast lane access as well to send us the content, and like I said, corporations love their bottom line to keep going up, hence they'll shift any and all additional cost to us).
As far as the FCC's role as a supervisor of honest transactions, don't get your hopes up; usually the terms of these transactions are between companies that like to keep them secret, and FCC can't be everywhere at the same time.
Basically, we're screwed; we either pony up whatever corporations want us to pay to access content at decent speed, or we just move to another country.
 

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
640
0
18,930
0
So in other words: we don't care that you already payed for the bandwith dear customer. We will be constrolling your traffic and charging not only you, but also the web services you visit.
Someone has to pay. As streaming traffic increases, and the quality (bandwidth) of the streaming videos continues to increase, networks will be increasingly taxed. Do you honestly think average data usage can spiral up and up (exponentially more customers streaming HD and UHD content) and ISPs won't raise prices? We've really got two choices: ISPs can either raise prices across the board, or negotiate with the content providers responsible for gobbling up all this bandwidth. That in turn will cause those content providers to hike prices (slightly) but this only affects those using said content service(s).

In other words so-called net neutrality is really just more government progressive regulation, designed to pass the pricing burden along to everyone, not just those who use the services in question. I don't know about you, but the free market has done pretty darn well for me so far, in terms of internet access. The bottom line is that the article has it backwards: the internet as we know it exists without net neutrality.
 

skit75

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2008
243
0
18,860
20
"The bottom line is that the article has it backwards: the internet as we know it exists without net neutrality."

When Netflix secures a back-end bandwidth connection as they just did, they pretty much eliminated ever having a direct competitor. What start-up could ever compete with that? That doesn't sound neutral to me.
 

Nilo BP

Honorable
Aug 24, 2013
3
0
10,510
0
Right. Let's give the politicians and bureaucrats more power to regulate the Internet. What could go wrong? It's not like they turn everything under their care into a stiffened lawyer- and lobby-fest. That's such tinfoil-hat thinking. And abuse? Why they would never! The evil corporations are the enemy, I tell you!
 

thor220

Distinguished
Dec 15, 2009
252
0
19,010
40
So in other words: we don't care that you already payed for the bandwith dear customer. We will be constrolling your traffic and charging not only you, but also the web services you visit.
Someone has to pay. As streaming traffic increases, and the quality (bandwidth) of the streaming videos continues to increase, networks will be increasingly taxed. Do you honestly think average data usage can spiral up and up (exponentially more customers streaming HD and UHD content) and ISPs won't raise prices? We've really got two choices: ISPs can either raise prices across the board, or negotiate with the content providers responsible for gobbling up all this bandwidth. That in turn will cause those content providers to hike prices (slightly) but this only affects those using said content service(s).

In other words so-called net neutrality is really just more government progressive regulation, designed to pass the pricing burden along to everyone, not just those who use the services in question. I don't know about you, but the free market has done pretty darn well for me so far, in terms of internet access. The bottom line is that the article has it backwards: the internet as we know it exists without net neutrality.
You argument is based on the fact that isp's can't increase speed quick enough to keep up with demand but that isn't the case. The united states ranks pretty darn low compared to other countries internet access. Not only do we have to pay more but we get slower speeds. It's not that the technology isn't there, it's that these companies would rather use their local monopolies to gouge customers.

When you want to decongest a road, what do you do? Build a highway of course. It's should be well within time warner's and comcast's budget to be able upgrade vital infrastructure. Considering it costs $10 per internet user, the rest is profit. If your customers demand faster access to a service, you should cater to them. The real problem is that they have no incentive to.
 

stridervm

Distinguished
Jan 28, 2008
61
0
18,580
0
Technically this has already happened in our country (But for totally different reasons) . And I think it is not pretty. Wanna play a specific local online game? Better use this ISP unless you wanna ping @ 300ms. Wanna have a bufferless Youtube? Better use this ISP then. Want good Steam download speed? Use this ISP instead.
 

jasonelmore

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2008
47
0
18,580
0
Excellent piece. I think things have got to get bad before they get better. If this starts being widespread, i hope to see big companies like Amazon and Google just start laying fiber everywhere, effectively giving consumers a 3rd option, along with DSL and cable..
 

jabliese

Distinguished
Apr 25, 2006
108
0
18,630
0
Once upon a time, in the land of Internet, some ISP's tried to charge more for access to their speedy, 56k modems. It was soon discovered, however, that people who connected via 56k modems would complete their internet tasks much more quickly, and would spend much less time connected, allowing for many more people to connect to a 56k line per day. In turn, this led ISP's to earn more money per line if they encouraged the use of their 56k modems. Ergo, it is ALWAYS in the ISP's best interest to upgrade their internet speeds, regardless of the amount of data their customers are grabbing, as faster speeds lead to more customers serviced per line. Nothing but smoke and mirrors from the ISP's, claiming customer use is driving their upgrade path.

Gotta say, this article misses the mark on Net Neutrality. Lot's of points of view from the companies side of thing, little from the customer/smaller business aspect. And, I'm not sure how Facebook working toward a dial tone for the internet would be considered a violation of net neutrality. Yes, FB would be the only thing you could access on a free connection, but you are also talking about a network connection that would not exist without FB sponsorship.
 

vipboy28

Distinguished
Jan 24, 2007
18
0
18,560
0
When companies like Comcast (an ISP and TV provider) are posting 19.1 Billion in profit, How can you justify them imposing a fee on other companies like Netflix. They need to upgrade their infrastructure with their profit and keep up with the demand, they are a SERVICE provider, they are here to provide a service. Has everyone forgotten what the definition of a service provider means?

To be honest, these companies just want to maximize profits and reduce costs and I cant blame them to a degree, but their logic and actions are just completely unjustifiable. Also it should be completely ILLEGAL for be a former Cable Lobbyist and now hold a position like Tom Wheeler has... Anyone want to get a lawyer and sue on grounds of conflict of interest?
 

Osmin

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2012
49
0
18,580
0
Didn't Netflix just recently raise their prices by $2 per month for new users and is expected to do the same for their existing customers in two years? Didn't Amazon just recently raise their Prime membership by $20 per year for all users? I guess they have the money now to pay the ransoms the ISP's want to remove the roadblocks they placed in their traffic lanes. The consumer has paid more and we are beginning to lose Net Neutrality since the ISP's were crippling traffic instead of upgrading their infrastructure. Our monthly ISP charges are to upkeep/improve the infrastructure as more people join and pay their monthly charges. The ISP's want the same business plan that cell carriers and the Oil Companies follow. AT&T and Verizon got rid of unlimited data plans instead of upgrading their infrastructure as new customers purchased smartphones and started to pay more for their data plans. Oil Companies create artificial demand by making sure there are no backup refineries so when one goes down for repair/maintenance, the whole country pays more and their profits skyrocket while selling less oil. They also have Wall Street, with the help of their crystal ball, making excuses of why the price fixed OPEC wholesale price of crude oil is too low after they purchase it.
 

ethanolson

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2009
125
0
18,630
0
Net Neutrality is an example of shifting oppression from one place to another by those who view oppression as a constant companion of anything the government has stake in.

It doesn't help... but not having it doesn't help either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS