Eliminating Net Neutrality Rules Will Favor Carriers Over Internet Content Providers

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 hours ago, GG said:

 

Why can't it be both?

 

BTW, why do you think all you can eat data plans went the way of the do do bird?

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Both my cell and my land cable connection lack any kind of data caps.

 

I can't understand how anyone has any sympathy for the likes of Verizon, Comcast/Xfinity, Time Warner and the like here. They're certainly not above reproach.

 

[Paulus]

11 hours ago, GG said:

 

Do you think that a highly competitive and innovative industry in the 21st century should be regulated like a 1870's railroad monopoly?

Competitive? Like 50% of households only have 1 ISP as an option...

 

I guess, Id have to side with 83% of the American people and simply stand against this repeal.

[B-Man]

2 minutes ago, Paulus said:

Competitive? Like 50% of households only have 1 ISP as an option...

 

I guess, Id have to side with 83% of the American people and simply stand against this repeal.

 

I'll have to agree with Ted.................

 

Quote

 

Ted Cruz

✔ @tedcruz

Snowflake, believing online propaganda: "OMG w/o net neutrality, the Internet is gone!"

Informed observer: "You know, the FCC issued that rule in 2015. The Internet grew up wonderfully free from govt regulation & this restores the status quo ante."

Snowflake: "Uh, never mind..."

9:06 PM - Dec 14, 2017

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

I'll have to agree with Ted.................

 

 

 

I think ol' ted is neglecting the change in internet traffic that's happened since the mid 2010s.

 

[GG]

4 minutes ago, Paulus said:

Competitive? Like 50% of households only have 1 ISP as an option...

 

I guess, Id have to side with 83% of the American people and simply stand against this repeal.

 

50%, huh?  Link for that dubious stat?

 

12 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Both my cell and my land cable connection lack any kind of data caps.

 

I can't understand how anyone has any sympathy for the likes of Verizon, Comcast/Xfinity, Time Warner and the like here. They're certainly not above reproach.

 

 

Never took you for a Bernie Bro.  How about not sympathy, but understanding that every company should be allowed to earn a return on its investment without the gov't distorting the market, especially in favor of companies who don't pay for content or transit?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, GG said:

 

50%, huh?  Link for that dubious stat?

 

 

Never took you for a Bernie Bro.  How about not sympathy, but understanding that every company should be allowed to earn a return on its investment without the gov't distorting the market, especially in favor of companies who don't pay for content or transit?

 

Again, I think this has less to do with Netflix and Google, and more to do with non-corporate and below-board streamers.

 

And if you think Verizon and Comcast/Xfinity aren't earning a return, you're clearly not paying attention.

 

[Paulus]

11 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

Look no further than this very thread:

 

 

 

 

 

 

And this article in particular is good:

 

 

Thanks, still doesn't change my mind much, outside of the argument that removing the regulations will for localities to allow more ISPs. This is a YUGE problem, IMHO. I really don't know why localities prevent new ISPs from entering the market. I find it disgusting, really. The question is, "why do localities do such things?"

 

If removing NN forces localities to allow more infrastructure building, then a compelling argument has been made, for me at least. 

[GG]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

Again, I think this has less to do with Netflix and Google, and more to do with non-corporate and below-board streamers.

 

And if you think Verizon and Comcast/Xfinity aren't earning a return, you're clearly not paying attention.

 

 

It has to do with both, as has been discussed over the years if you've been paying attention.

 

You're right, I know absolutely nothing about the financial condition of TMT companies.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, GG said:

 

It has to do with both, as has been discussed over the years if you've been paying attention.

 

You're right, I know absolutely nothing about the financial condition of TMT companies.

So then you're ok with ISPs essentially having the ability to block whatever packets they wish on their networks. Got it.

 

[Paulus]

4 minutes ago, GG said:

 

50%, huh?  Link for that dubious stat?

I heard this on the radio.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/%3famp=1

 

The article states differently, but still a high enough percentage to question this repeal.

[B-Man]

MATTHEW WALTHER: Net neutrality is dead. Good riddance.

Even if there were no other compelling arguments in favor of killing net neutrality (though there are), the end of net neutrality would be welcome because it will frustrate the hopes of the largest group temper tantrum thrown by non-toddlers in recent American history.

 

Has this country ever seen a more simperingly childish mob than the one responsible for the outcry over this boring prudential question concerning the allocation of hertz? Has so much canned emotion ever been spilled over so bland and technocratic and uniquely prudential an issue? Having strong feelings about net neutrality — which essentially mandates that your internet service provider treats all internet traffic and data equally — is like getting upset over a public-access TV debate on the generic ballot or the proceedings of the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs.

 

If nothing else, ludicrous statements like the one from the heads of the New York, Brooklyn, and Queens Public Library systems calling the proposed change “appalling” and the gravest threat to education this country faces do the helpful work of reminding us that, like public schools, libraries in this country are now little more than transmission centers for digital entertainment.

 

Meanwhile, Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has received death threats against his children.

 

 

The choreographed temper tantrum has been… sadly typical.

[GG]

1 minute ago, Paulus said:

I heard this on the radio.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/%3famp=1

 

The article states differently, but still a high enough percentage to question this repeal.

 

Wired high speed as of June 2015.  Nice how everyone ignores wireless, where LTE provides north of 15 Mbps to over 90% of population across 4 carriers, and big data packages available.  Also convenient to ignore that pending 5G investments which can deliver over 100Mbps speeds are directly influenced by net neutrality regs.

 

But go on carrying water for the impoverished Google.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

5 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Wired high speed as of June 2015.  Nice how everyone ignores wireless, where LTE provides north of 15 Mbps to over 90% of population across 4 carriers, and big data packages available.  Also convenient to ignore that pending 5G investments which can deliver over 100Mbps speeds are directly influenced by net neutrality regs.

 

But go on carrying water for the impoverished Google.

 

I could care less about Google, or even Netflix. What I do care about is now both ends of the spectrum are going to charge me MORE for the same service I have today while actually providing me with less simply because they now can. I also care that now they'll have greater controls over my being able to work around their greed.

 

Not good for any consumer, sorry. Great for corporations though. Their accounts will undoubtedly fatten.

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by joesixpack

[GG]

4 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

I could care less about Google, or even Netflix. What I do care about is now both ends of the spectrum are going to charge me MORE for the same service I have today while actually providing me with less simply because they now can. I also care that now they'll have greater controls over my being able to work around their greed.

 

Not good for any consumer, sorry. Great for corporations though. Their accounts will undoubtedly fatten.

 

 

That is utter crap, Bernie.  

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, GG said:

 

That is utter crap, Bernie.  

 

So, then, enlightened one...tell me again how netflix fees won't increase and how they'll just absorb higher costs without passing them on to consumers.

 

Also, while you're at it, you can illustrate how this will somehow make my ISP bills cheaper too, thanks.

 

Oh and as a bonus, maybe you could demonstrate how they're not going to make it harder to stream content off-the-books.

 

[GG]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

So, then, enlightened one...tell me again how netflix fees won't increase and how they'll just absorb higher costs without passing them on to consumers.

 

Also, while you're at it, you can illustrate how this will somehow make my ISP bills cheaper too, thanks.

 

Oh and as a bonus, maybe you could demonstrate how they're not going to make it harder to stream content off-the-books.

 

 

Holy hell, can you misunderstand the concept any more?

 

Of course Netflix fees will increase because they won't be getting a cheap ride anymore.  And that's the point.  As a non-Netflix subscriber, why should my broadband cost subsidize you?

 

Your ISP bill may not go down, but it surely won't go up as much because ISPs won't be passing the costs to all consumers, because now they can appropriately charge the bandwidth hogs.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

30 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

So then you're ok with ISPs essentially having the ability to block whatever packets they wish on their networks. Got it.

 

All other arguments aside, what in the world makes you think you have the right and moral authority to tell an individual or private entity what they have to allow within their own networks?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

All other arguments aside, what in the world makes you think you have the right and moral authority to tell an individual or private entity what they have to allow within their own networks?

 

 

I wasn't aware I needed moral authority to deal with an amoral corporation. Who knew?

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

I wasn't aware I needed moral authority to deal with an amoral corporation. Who knew?

Typically those who don't know are those who lack a fundamental understanding of rights.

 

What gives you the right?

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Typically those who don't know are those who lack a fundamental understanding of rights.

 

What gives you the right?

 

 

 

Other than the fact that I'm a paying customer, you mean? I should have access to any content I please.

 

If i have a telephone, I can call whoever I want, can I not? Why should THIS kind of communication be any different?