Net neutrality

P

ProdigalHorn

10,000+ Posts
The Link

OK I'm breaking my self-imposed ban to ask for everyone's thoughts on this subject because I confess I see both sides of it, and I go back and forth. For those more knowledgeable than I, are the issues this is supposed to address already going on to any great extent or is this a pre-emptive thing? When Obama is saying "nobody should be in the slow lane unless they pay a fee", I assume he's talking about ISPs providing services for higher speed/bandwidth at a premium (which they're obviously doing now.) Are the ISPs really rerouting content away from certain websites and denying access now?

Just looking to hear the different arguments on this.
 
Is the internet broken? Why must there be any changes? I'm for as free and open an internet as can be with the minimalist approach to keeping it as normal as possible.

What my former paragraph has to do with so called net neutrality I don't know. I'm interested in hearing about both sides of the topic of the OP as well.
 
Our junior senator seems to think net neutrality is evil like obamacare. Telecom and cable companies need a way to exert more control since they are losing to those that control content.
 
Seems like the ISPs are becoming more of a commodity or utility (“dumb pipe”) while companies like Netflix, HBO, ESPN, Disney and other content creators are the real draw.
 
The risk of doing nothing is that the ISP's start charging the consumer (you) more for higher speed access to services like Netflix. So, they charge both sides of the business relationship extra. And if either side decides it won't pay? They throttle the relationship.
Google, Netflix and other would obviously be able to pay. You know who couldn't? The next Netflix or Google. Oh...the poorer customers too would be challenged to afford the internet.

Why would they do this? Because they monopolize the pipes that run the internet. This has nothing to do with customer service in the form of more investment in the infrastructure. Rather, this is about control and maximizing profits. Outside of the Wireless telcoms, the broadband into the home is a decided game. The cable companies already own the copper thanks to decades old local monopolies.

For the quarter ending Sept. '14, Comcast had it's 3rd best quarter since 2002 with a 15.44% profit margin. Net neutrality locks in those profits or increases them in the future.
The Link
 
It is no different than the Tollway, if you want to drive on the non-toll roads you can, if you want to pay extra for a better, faster more efficient route....you can.

Keep the government out, they will screw it up one way or another. Hell Obama will want to put the Post Office in charge of regulating the Net........
 
The tollway cant force you to drive slower or block you if you are going to a destination it doesnt like. I would agree with you if this was only about internet speed but its not.
 
From my understanding, the only thing that has been done now is a reclassification of who controls the internet
in this country. The real underlying fear is "What comes next in the control by the Feds?" Right now, the
government is using every little phrase in the current laws to make new laws without the approval of the Congress.
If you read in between the lines, the next obvious step is to align the internet with control by the international
body of rules. There are more changes to come in the use of the internet.
 
Distorting the market with government controls doesn't usually help anything. I would rather the market play out and let consumers choose. If the current ISPs don't offer a good service, someone will find another route to provide internet service.
 
The fundamental theories of capitalism assume ideal conditions. One of these conditions is zero barriers to entry. Under ideal conditions, competition takes care of problems and we all come out ahead. But where ideal conditions do not exist, such as where there are significant barriers to entry, the free market doesn't work and government regulation is necessary.

This theory was at play over a century ago when "big business" was conspiring to monopolize the use of the railroad system. If you weren't shipping by the trainload, cross-country carriers wouldn't sell space to you at the same rate as the big boys were paying. This allowed big companies to squeeze out their competition, hurting consumers. The Federal government stepped in, and we are all better off for that.

Something similar is now happening with the internet. Big companies are fighting over bandwith. The "little guy" can't even begin to compete. If you open a streaming-movie company and ask the local ISP to give you the same rate as they give to Netflix, they'd laugh at you. Netflix has the market muscle to demand better rates than anyone else gets. The result is an ever-dwindling range of choices for consumers.

Net neutrality would require ISPs to sell bandwith to everyone at the same rate. That will support competition, not undercut it.
 
The question is where do you want the competition to occur? Do you want it to occur with the content providers by creating an equal playing field or with those who control the infrastructure, the ISPs? Who is most likely to spur innovation? The company closer to the consumer. Which one is more poised to stifle innovation? The one with monopoly power.

I think the electric market in Texas provides a good analogy. The T&D companies, who control the infrastructure, are regulated and forced to treat all customers of similar class the same. Competition occurs at the retail level, and guess what? That is where the innovation is occurring though new product offerings to the consumer.
 
Found this simplified version of the net neutrality debate:http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality Checkout Comcast throttling of customers USING Netflix during their negotiations with them.

Some in this thread need to read up on WHO is on which side of this debate. The diatribe above will seem very silly when they understand the difference between Sen. Cruz and the Obama Admin. (Hint: Sen. Cruz who is near the top in telecom/cable company funding would like to give them the power to set the rates.)
 
SHusker, the companies who invested the money to lay the lines and provide the service are the ones who should set the price. It is their company and their business. If their business does a poor job of serving their market, competitors will come in and displace them. That is the way innovation works.

The attempts of government to lower or raise prices based on their sense of moral superiority usually causes problems more serious than the original price and sometimes even has no effect on the price themselves.

If you want to point to Cruz because he has received money from telecoms, great that should be known but it doesn't negate the facts of the issue. Plus, if we looked close enough I am reasonably sure telecoms donated to those on the other side of the debate too. I would be surprised if Obama hasn't received any financing from telecom or internet companies, and I would be doubly surprised if "net neutrality" resulted in allowing greater access to new companies to compete in the market. The words in a speech and the words in a law are 2 different things.
 
That Monopoly was taken away in 1984 and 1996, it is no longer a monopoly.

You pay for a pipe you get a pipe, speed is never guaranteed, if you want a guarantee pay for the SLA otherwise sit down and shut up.
 
Excuse me SH but I believe every Obama policy introduced is claimed to eventually reduce the cost to the American public, including his pitch for Obamacare. The only exception being his admission on his energy policy which would necessarily result in dramatic cost increases.
 
Those companies would gladly let someone else come in and maintain that copper, that is a loss leader for them.

Nobody else and it has been proven time and time again can maintain the fiber in the ground like the fiber certified technicians of telco's.

Copper, are you serious?

In Austin ATT and Google have Austin Energy putting up Fiber and knowing a dozen guys on the job doing it, they have no clue as to what they are doing......Net Neutrality, is just another Government money grab, keep them out of my pockets, give it to the corporations that employ hundreds of thousands of people that provide a service to everyone!!!!!

So sad.......that anyone would even consider Net Neutrality, the next thing they are going to do is tax every email you send......

The other thing is you are going to slow down innovation, who is going to want to innovate something when you can't use it?

Bell Labs, BNR, all telco research facilities have paid for the research done that has the internet where it is today, so some johnny come lately can just come out and steal their patents?

Man you guys are just wrong, just plain wolves in cotton pants...
 
Imagine that, the scare tactic talking points were already prepared.
What started the net neutrality movement? A few years back former CEO of AT&T Ed Whittaker said "my pipes are being used for free and I'm not going to let them".

The anti-net neutrality crowd has done a tremendous job of clouding the issue making this look like a government takeover. When in fact, it's the telecom's and ISP's that are advocating for change. They are explicitly lobbying to be able to charge the content providers for more than simply their bandwidth usage which they already pay for.

Again, remember that Comcast already throttled Netflix speeds during their negotiations with them forcing Netflix to succomb to higher rates.

The internet is already changing. Net Neutrality is trying to keep the fundamental ideals in place that has made it so successful.

Don't succumb to the propaganda.
 
Okay SH. I won't succumb to government propaganda. I won't even read your post next time.
wink.gif
 
Naive question: why can't the market take car of this? If I have U-Verse and they are slowing content, I can easily switch to Comcast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top