Net Neutrality Going Going Gone? (Sir Robert's Free Enterprise Capitalism Going, Going, Gone?)

[GlockSpock]

Hopefully the free market will keep the internet as is, but a Federal Court supposedly struck down a 2010 ruling by the FCC.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/01/14/court-strikes-down-fccs-net-neutrality-rule/

 

For those unfamiliar, "net neutrality" is essentially the thought that you pay your provider (Comcast, Charter, etc) a set amount and can access any of the internet. Without it, they could theoretically charge $9.99 to let you access Youtube, $5 for "Blogs", $10 for "Forums", etc. Sorta like "channels" on TV. If it ever sets in that way, I suppose I'll just cancel it all.

Edited January 17, 2014 by CZ9MM

[maroonandwhite]

As bad as it hurt I cut DirecTV. I suppose I could cut out the internet but it would hurt a whole lot more. I guess I could learn some useful skills with all that free time though. :rofl:

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Cable TV's strategy is to charge a rather large "lump sum" for a package consisting of 98 percent crap stations no sensible person would want to view. Wheras if the monthly price were divided by 100 mostly-useless channels and the user allowed to pay for only the channels he likes, the typical person's cable bill would fall drastically.

 

So I don't know if internet providers would ever want to piecemeal out the services, because in that case many people would get exactly what they want, for a much lower price?

 

Anyhoo, service providers who respect not their customers, would tend to lose when the customers respect not such service providers. :)

[RC3]

I seen this before and they want to start charging us for what they want and cutting us off on what we want. Watching too many internet shows or movies? We are going to slow you down. Want faster internet? Pay more, but we have the right to screw you out of your paying service on a whim.

[runco]

I have about gave up on TV all together.  I cut dish about 6 mos ago.  I have saved over $500 so far.  I can live without TV, but likely not my internet at this stage of my comfort living.  Maybe the internet providers know this, and are trying to squeeze me for my dough!  Everybody wants your money, everybody!

Edited January 15, 2014 by Runco

[JayC]

FCC will probably go back and reclassify cable/telephone and cell companies internet service as 'common carrier' which would have the exact same effect - ie de facto net neutrality.

 

I'm all for the free market, but until we break these companies up to separate the lines from the service, there won't be a free market.

[Sam1]

I have mixed feelings about this.  Understandably this could cause an issue of being so expensive that the big boys come in and the little guy can't get his foot in the door, but on the opposite side, this is a free market and if people or businesses don't want to pay for it, they won't and the service provider will not make any money from it and would have to drop the concept.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

For instance, if my ISP decided to charge extra for facebook, twitter, google, etc-- There is a limit how much blood can be extracted from a turnip so the "big package" couldn't cost much more than current ISP fees. Therefore if I opt out of all those services I don't give a hoot about, my bill should be much lower than it is today.

[Raoul]

Here's my favorite part...

 

Rashad Robinson, Executive Director of ColorOfChange.org, went a step further, saying the ruling could even be a blow to civil rights.

“Black folks' ability to be heard is now in real danger,” she said in a statement. “Today's ruling … is a serious blow to the millions of Americans who count on the free and open Internet to go about the essentials of our daily lives.”

 

WTF...over

Edited January 15, 2014 by Raoul

[Troutburger]

If they do that I'll just start fishing again...

[Dane]

Not worried if the carriers had that intention they would have done it 20 years ago. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Sam1]

Here's my favorite part...

Rashad Robinson, Executive Director of ColorOfChange.org, went a step further, saying the ruling could even be a blow to civil rights.
“Black folks' ability to be heard is now in real danger,” she said in a statement. “Today's ruling … is a serious blow to the millions of Americans who count on the free and open Internet to go about the essentials of our daily lives.”

WTF...over

Everything is racist to someone that profits from it being that way.

[JayC]

What free market?  These are all government back monopolies and duopolies...  How many cable providers do you have where you live?  I have 1.  How many Telephone companies can provide you copper/fiber to your door?  I have 1. 

 

1 or 2 government selected choices does not make a free market.

 

I have mixed feelings about this.  Understandably this could cause an issue of being so expensive that the big boys come in and the little guy can't get his foot in the door, but on the opposite side, this is a free market and if people or businesses don't want to pay for it, they won't and the service provider will not make any money from it and would have to drop the concept.

[Jonnin]

Here's my favorite part...

 

Rashad Robinson, Executive Director of ColorOfChange.org, went a step further, saying the ruling could even be a blow to civil rights.

“Black folks' ability to be heard is now in real danger,” she said in a statement. “Today's ruling … is a serious blow to the millions of Americans who count on the free and open Internet to go about the essentials of our daily lives.”

 

WTF...over

 

Well, motives are screwy but he is on the right side and the black movement has power in this country.   Let them turn all that energy toward a positive goal for once.

[RobertNashville]

"Net Neutrality" is a bad idea and not the way the free market is supposed to work.

 

Those who use the internet more/use more bandwidth (such as for watching movies, etc) should be paying for that bandwidth.

 

Of course, we all know that Obama and his ilk think internet access is a constitutional right...it's probably included in Obamacare somewhere.

[Sam1]

It's not about the quantity of bandwidth, it's about the level of importance that certain companies can have over another.

That's why I'm mixed on it, I understand that it creates an environment for monopolizing, but also that none of has happened yet and this is a preemptive action.

[brent_strong]

This would give ISPs the capability to decide what content to deliver to you.  Comcast has a streaming service competing with Netflix?  Then they might not deliver Netflix.  DirectTV anti-gun?  Filters out access to gun sites.  

[Sam1]

it's not necessarily going to block anything, just give priority at peak times... sort of like having first class mail or normal postage, both will work fine, just one works faster than the other.

[BryanP]

"Net Neutrality" is a bad idea and not the way the free market is supposed to work.

 

Those who use the internet more/use more bandwidth (such as for watching movies, etc) should be paying for that bandwidth.

 

Those two sentences have nothing to do with one another.  Net Neutrality is about quality of service delivered, not quantity of bandwidth.  Here's a better example using real work possibilities.

 

Let's say you have Comcast internet.  RIght now, if you have Hulu and Netflix, they get the same priority from Comcast when you request one starts sending you information.  Comcast can't discriminate one over the other.  Now let's toss the concept of Net Neutrality out the window.  Oh hey, Comcast owns a 1/3 stake in Hulu.  They have a vested interest in Hulu doing better than Netflix.  If they choose to do so they could set up a rule that says a request to Hulu gets higher priority (meaning more bandwidth, better response time,) and Netflix gets reduced priority.  The end result is a customer who says "Man, Hulu works great, but when I try to watch Netflix streaming video it keeps pausing and buffering.  This sucks.  Guess I'll go watch some Hulu."

Edited January 16, 2014 by BryanP

[RobertNashville]

Those two sentences have nothing to do with one another.  Net Neutrality is about quality of service delivered, not quantity of bandwidth.  Here's a better example using real work possibilities.

 

Let's say you have Comcast internet.  RIght now, if you have Hulu and Netflix, they get the same priority from Comcast when you request one starts sending you information.  Comcast can't discriminate one over the other.  Now let's toss the concept of Net Neutrality out the window.  Oh hey, Comcast owns a 1/3 stake in Hulu.  They have a vested interest in Hulu doing better than Netflix.  If they choose to do so they could set up a rule that says a request to Hulu gets higher priority (meaning more bandwidth, better response time,) and Netflix gets reduced priority.  The end result is a customer who says "Man, Hulu works great, but when I try to watch Netflix streaming video it keeps pausing and buffering.  This sucks.  Guess I'll go watch some Hulu."

It is about bandwidth and who gets it and who pays for it.

 

Comcast and other ISPs should be free to establish the business models they believe are best for THEM without the federal government dictating it to them...if that means that Comcast give Hulu priority over Netflix or Amazon video so be it; customers will then make the decisions that are best for them which may mean leaving Comcast or going back to DirectTV or Dish or whatever.

[Daniel]

"Net Neutrality" is a bad idea and not the way the free market is supposed to work.

 

Those who use the internet more/use more bandwidth (such as for watching movies, etc) should be paying for that bandwidth.

 

Of course, we all know that Obama and his ilk think internet access is a constitutional right...it's probably included in Obamacare somewhere.

 

 

It is about bandwidth and who gets it and who pays for it.

 

Comcast and other ISPs should be free to establish the business models they believe are best for THEM without the federal government dictating it to them...if that means that Comcast give Hulu priority over Netflix or Amazon video so be it; customers will then make the decisions that are best for them which may mean leaving Comcast or going back to DirectTV or Dish or whatever.

You continue to demonstrate your ignorance of this issue. If I want broadband I have no choice but Comcast.

 

To answer your first comment which is not related to Net Neutrality at all, we aren't talking about cable television, we are talking about data that I pay for every month. I am already capped at 300 GB. So If I use 300 GB as fast as possible or use less than 1 GB in a month it doesnt matter because I paid for it.

 

To reply to your second post, we arent talking about mere ISPs. These are multifaceted companies who not only provide internet connectivity but create content that they profit from customers using. They have vested interest in steering you to their commercial ventures. How can they do that most effectively without you even knowing? Just throttle all traffic to competition. Comcast  owns not just the internet service but also content producing companies and can provide preferential (read NOT neutral) traffic flow to their own content thus increasing traffic to their properties and increasing their advertising profits and I have no choice but to use them if I want broadband.

 

If we had real choice it would maybe be reduced but most people in this country have no choice.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Daniel

[RobertNashville]

You continue to demonstrate your ignorance of this issue...

I see no reason for you to insult me.

So this decision, MAYBE will impact you or other Comcast customers negatively. Is that sufficient reason for the government to dictate to an ISP...to ALL ISPs how it/they must operate?

 

I don't think so. Three are many times that certain businesses make decisions about what they offer and how that I don't happen to like...that doesn't mean I want the government to swoop in and tell them how to operate their business.

This is a very simple issue for me...people either believe that businesses should be able to conduct their business freely or have their business models dictated to them by the federal government. I happen to believe that businesses should be free to design their own business models and either succeed or fail on those decisions.
 
Have a nice day.

Edited January 16, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Daniel]

I'm not insulting you. I am letting you know that you don't understand the topic at hand.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Daniel

[JayC]

Then revoke all the giveme's comcast and at&t get from the citizens...  no more free right of ways... force them to negotiate with each property owner to get access to their land...  don't allow exclusive contracts that prevent others from entering the market place.

 

Robert, if we had a free market I'd agree with you...  you know how much I hate government interference...  but these are government backed monopolies and duopolies...  until you end that and make them pay back the government money they used to lay the cables end the ground, it's not a free market and they should be heavily regulated...

 

BTW, the FCC will just re-issue the rule making ISP's common carriers, which would treat them the same as telephone companies for the last 100 years, and as common carrier's they can't priorities any customers traffic over others.

 

I see no reason for you to insult me.

So this decision, MAYBE will impact you or other Comcast customers negatively. Is that sufficient reason for the government to dictate to an ISP...to ALL ISPs how it/they must operate?

 

I don't think so. Three are many times that certain businesses make decisions about what they offer and how that I don't happen to like...that doesn't mean I want the government to swoop in and tell them how to operate their business.

This is a very simple issue for me...people either believe that businesses should be able to conduct their business freely or have their business models dictated to them by the federal government. I happen to believe that businesses should be free to design their own business models and either succeed or fail on those decisions.
 
Have a nice day.

 

[RobertNashville]

I'm not insulting you. I am letting you know that you don't understand the topic at hand.

It's been my experience that most people, when they call someone "ignorant" don't use it in its proper form but merely as a substitute for the clearly insulting word "stupid".

 

I'm not at all "ignorant" of the issue and in fact, I have a very good and comprehensive understanding of the topic...we simply don't agree (and we clearly aren't going to agree) on the real issues or their broader implications.

Edited January 16, 2014 by RobertNashville