As I was thinking about the very real possibility that we may lose net neutrality protections soon, it occurred to me that it may not necessarily mean the death of equal access for customers. Just because ISPs would have the ability to heavily influence or even completely determine what you can see and can't see, doesn't necessarily mean it's in their interest to do so. I imagine most people would want neutrality so I would think that would present an appealing opportunity for some current ISPs, or for new entrants into the business. Unless all ISPs are on board with imposing limitations, there's no way they can prevent people from getting equal access. Or, would the main carriers be able to limit ISPs who use their networks, thus making it easier for a small group of big companies to control the content we see?
Quote:
Quote:
Truly. Unless you really think cable companies have your best interest at heart.The internet is so essential it must be run like the utility that it is.
This is an area where all of us should be able to agree- whixh would feel really good for once.
seriously you would think that this is a no brainer - the internet has been open and net neutral since it's inception. Look at what has developed.
Why change a fundamental part of what makes internet so amazing ?
it isn't broke so don't fix it .
this should not be a partisan issue and yet it is .. SAD
Not true. Net neutrality was put in place about two years ago. They applied regulations written about telephone lines and applied it to the Internet.
As Section331 mentioned above, net neutrality existed as a default principle for most of the internet's history. With the increasing consolidation of ISPs, the FCC started down the path of enshrining the principle in its regulatory framework in 2005. The current system was created in 2015 in direct response to the DC Circuit Court's 2014 Verizon v. FCC decision that the FCC couldn't enforce network neutrality as long as ISPs weren't classified as "common carriers." So while the exact ruling that the FCC is planning to overturn was only put in place two years ago as you said, net neutrality as a guiding principle of the internet is much older.
Quote:
broadband is fairly young, comparatively speaking. Let's not say "well, why didn't they do it already," when technology has just caught us all up to the point where they could do it and, I'd like to point out, they STARTED doing it when net neutrality was put into place. Did you forget about Comcast and Time Warner throttling Netflix and other services?
I didn't forget at all. It lead to the way things work today. Netflix and the ISP's made a deal and created these peering agreements. Now that cost is built into the Netflix users monthly fee. I think this is much fairer than making the ISP pass the cost of all this added traffic along to all of their customers. Some that don't use Netflix. It solved both of their issues. Netflix has has much bandwidth as they need, the ISP doesn't incur the added cost for said bandwidth and the end customer gets what they need. And the end users that don't use Netflix don't see a degradation of their speeds and don't have to pay more to the ISP.
So you're saying 2 things here: 1) Hey, they haven't charged you extra before, why would they now? and 2) because Netflix and the cable companies were able to reach a deal where they installed special equipment that shifted the burden to Netflix rather than the cable company, there's no reason all of the new companies (Hulu, CBS, HBO Now, etc., etc. and about 1,000 smaller streaming services) couldn't strike up a deal to do the same.
Sorry, this kind of thinking doesn't fly. Net neutrality has actually fostered streaming competition. Now there are limitless options for streaming and we shouldn't have to accept that, if they don't make a deal with Comcast, they get throttled or turned away.
Keep net neutrality in place. Break up the cable monopolies or go with unbundled local loop.
In addition, when mostly major telecoms are behind such an initiative...does anyone seriously believe they are doing so in the best interests of the consumer?
We in the cable companies wouldn't charge you for functional access to specific content. Competition wouldn't allow that. Trust us...
Quote:
In comment 13701284 NorwoodWideRight said:
Quote:
broadband is fairly young, comparatively speaking. Let's not say "well, why didn't they do it already," when technology has just caught us all up to the point where they could do it and, I'd like to point out, they STARTED doing it when net neutrality was put into place. Did you forget about Comcast and Time Warner throttling Netflix and other services?
I didn't forget at all. It lead to the way things work today. Netflix and the ISP's made a deal and created these peering agreements. Now that cost is built into the Netflix users monthly fee. I think this is much fairer than making the ISP pass the cost of all this added traffic along to all of their customers. Some that don't use Netflix. It solved both of their issues. Netflix has has much bandwidth as they need, the ISP doesn't incur the added cost for said bandwidth and the end customer gets what they need. And the end users that don't use Netflix don't see a degradation of their speeds and don't have to pay more to the ISP.
So you're saying 2 things here: 1) Hey, they haven't charged you extra before, why would they now? and 2) because Netflix and the cable companies were able to reach a deal where they installed special equipment that shifted the burden to Netflix rather than the cable company, there's no reason all of the new companies (Hulu, CBS, HBO Now, etc., etc. and about 1,000 smaller streaming services) couldn't strike up a deal to do the same.
Sorry, this kind of thinking doesn't fly. Net neutrality has actually fostered streaming competition. Now there are limitless options for streaming and we shouldn't have to accept that, if they don't make a deal with Comcast, they get throttled or turned away.
Keep net neutrality in place. Break up the cable monopolies or go with unbundled local loop.
That's not what I'm saying. They didn't charge you before because it wasn't economically a smart move. Just as it isn't now. They would lose subscribers and they know it.
As to the other sites, yes they should negotiate with the ISP as all business do. The business that know and are involved in the technology should be the ones coming up with the solutions exactly like they did before net neutrality.
As to Comcast and others that are becoming owners of the content and the bandwidth, that's a whole other question. Maybe our government should be using laws already on the books to keep that from happening.
In addition, when mostly major telecoms are behind such an initiative...does anyone seriously believe they are doing so in the best interests of the consumer?
Doing my best not to get political here, but one side has spent a ton of effort for years drilling into folks heads that "regulation is bad." That exactly how the propaganda being put out is being worded in this case as well. Big government just trying to control the working man again. It's bullshit.
Quote:
why the world would be a better place for the consumer without NN. I'm totally open to suggestions.
In addition, when mostly major telecoms are behind such an initiative...does anyone seriously believe they are doing so in the best interests of the consumer?
Doing my best not to get political here, but one side has spent a ton of effort for years drilling into folks heads that "regulation is bad." That exactly how the propaganda being put out is being worded in this case as well. Big government just trying to control the working man again. It's bullshit.
How about they write regulations specific to the Internet and not use some written well before it was invented?
Comcast and other mega giants have us over a barrel and they know it. Repealing net neutrality will only justify and enforce their position.
Quote:
In comment 13701476 Knineteen said:
Quote:
why the world would be a better place for the consumer without NN. I'm totally open to suggestions.
In addition, when mostly major telecoms are behind such an initiative...does anyone seriously believe they are doing so in the best interests of the consumer?
Doing my best not to get political here, but one side has spent a ton of effort for years drilling into folks heads that "regulation is bad." That exactly how the propaganda being put out is being worded in this case as well. Big government just trying to control the working man again. It's bullshit.
How about they write regulations specific to the Internet and not use some written well before it was invented?
That would change nothing since regulation, no matter how it is written, is not what they actually have a problem with. This is simply meant to give money and power to the big ISP folks and nothing more. Very transparent.
Comcast and other mega giants have us over a barrel and they know it. Repealing net neutrality will only justify and enforce their position.
And as I stated above.....that's what we should be complaining about.
Quote:
This whole argument is stupid. Comcast is the only game in town where I live. Don't like it? Well, I guess you could always go back to DSL... As far as cable goes, it's Comcast or antenna.
Comcast and other mega giants have us over a barrel and they know it. Repealing net neutrality will only justify and enforce their position.
And as I stated above.....that's what we should be complaining about.
What's your preferred policy outcome to address the issue? Off the top of my head, I can think of three potential ways to foster ISP competition:
1. Regulate/legislate to force all infrastructure owners to carry all ISPs' traffic equally.
2. Regulate/legislate to force ISPs that own infrastructure to divest the infrastructure, then force the resulting entities to carry all ISPs' traffic equally.
3. Have government-owned infrastructure, either at the federal, state, or local level.
Schneiderman's letter continues: "Specifically, for six months my office has been investigating who perpetrated a massive scheme to corrupt the FCC’s notice and comment process through the misuse of enormous numbers of real New Yorkers’ and other Americans’ identities.
"Such conduct likely violates state law — yet the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence in its sole possession that is vital to permit that law enforcement investigation to proceed."
Schneiderman wrote that his office found tens of thousands of New Yorkers may have had their identities "misused."
NY AG probing ‘massive scheme’ to influence FCC with fake net neutrality comments - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13701507 NorwoodWideRight said:
Quote:
This whole argument is stupid. Comcast is the only game in town where I live. Don't like it? Well, I guess you could always go back to DSL... As far as cable goes, it's Comcast or antenna.
Comcast and other mega giants have us over a barrel and they know it. Repealing net neutrality will only justify and enforce their position.
And as I stated above.....that's what we should be complaining about.
What's your preferred policy outcome to address the issue? Off the top of my head, I can think of three potential ways to foster ISP competition:
1. Regulate/legislate to force all infrastructure owners to carry all ISPs' traffic equally.
2. Regulate/legislate to force ISPs that own infrastructure to divest the infrastructure, then force the resulting entities to carry all ISPs' traffic equally.
3. Have government-owned infrastructure, either at the federal, state, or local level.
Wireless will soon make this a moot point...
here is the explanation that anyone can understand .
Imagine the internet is a road - ISPs control this road now . . but there is a rule NET NEUTRALITY in place that says every car and truck on the road can have equal access and go the same speed limit as everyone else.
Some companies are very successful that used the road .. but you don't charge Walmart trucks more to use a road because they happen to be a truck from a successful multi billion dollar company.
Some of these successful companies realize they are using lot of the road so they have done deals with ISPs (road owners) to help alleviate the congestion that they are causing - making side roads or shorting the distance the truck has to travel on the road --- this isn't happening at the expense of other cars .. it actually helps other cars because it clears the main road for them to use.
Removing net neutrality will let ISP pick how much it will cost each individual truck or car to use the road.
and if it wants, the ISP can refuse to let a car or truck to use the road at all .. regardless of ability to pay .
As we all know, we Congress deregulates industry, good things happen!
Quote:
In comment 13701528 fireitup77 said:
Quote:
In comment 13701507 NorwoodWideRight said:
Quote:
This whole argument is stupid. Comcast is the only game in town where I live. Don't like it? Well, I guess you could always go back to DSL... As far as cable goes, it's Comcast or antenna.
Comcast and other mega giants have us over a barrel and they know it. Repealing net neutrality will only justify and enforce their position.
And as I stated above.....that's what we should be complaining about.
What's your preferred policy outcome to address the issue? Off the top of my head, I can think of three potential ways to foster ISP competition:
1. Regulate/legislate to force all infrastructure owners to carry all ISPs' traffic equally.
2. Regulate/legislate to force ISPs that own infrastructure to divest the infrastructure, then force the resulting entities to carry all ISPs' traffic equally.
3. Have government-owned infrastructure, either at the federal, state, or local level.
Wireless will soon make this a moot point...
Ok, so what prevents the existing large ISPs from buying up the "wireless" opponents that may or may not sprout up? Wouldn't the exact same situation exist if they do?
If you can't beat them, join them... ;)
The ISP industry has seemed ripe for antitrust action for some time. If NN does fall in spite of the public outcry, I suspect that the road toward anti-trust rulings will likely be accelerated.
Does anyone here actually view Comcast as a consumer-friendly organization?