'Net Neutrality'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: hatt
Netflix should be paying the ISPs to help speed up their content. Their extremely network taxing service is only possible because of ISP investment. Has nothing to do with "neutrality" and the end user.


On the other hand, TW, Verizon, Comcast could upgrade their networks to support Netflix without going broke ... or even realizing much cost.

Why would they? The faster they make their network the faster they'll need an even faster network. Companies are in business to make themselves money too.


Also, there are billions of dollars in companies that rely on the internet to reach their customers. And they wouldn't exist without fast high speed internet. Amazon, Netflix. Newegg, and tens of thousands of others. How conveniently people forget about them. We wouldn't have access to the things we do now, if ISPs never upgraded beyond Dial up. And there will be things that we never will have if we don't get access to even higher speeds.
 
I am amazed at anyone who imagines that the Net needs regulation, and that the Government can fix it.

It would seem different in the case of almost anything else the govt runs. Seems to be a pattern here, I wonder who else sees it.

The VA comes to mind as an excellent preview of Govt run healthcare, there are dozens more examples. If they touch it they will likely screw it up...
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Nick R


I don't think you really understand how this works. WE the customers pay our ISP a fee monthly so they provide us service. It shouldn't matter WHAT I'm using that service for. PERIOD. I expect to get full speed on everything, beceause that is what I pay them for. I don't pay Time Warner Cable $65/mo to only get good speeds from a select few sites and services.
The internet works like a gym. If everyone shows up one day there will be problems. Just like if everyone decides to watch an HD movies one night there will be problems. If huge companies which take up significant network capacity want to keep everything running smooth they need to help. Or the ISPs could simple drop everyone's speed. Can't have it both ways.


So you are saying that I pay Time Warner Cable $65/mo to do what? Oh right, give it to their shareholders. I forgot. What millions of customers are paying outrageous fees for shouldn't go to upgrading the infrastructure they are paying to use, it should go to paying CEOs millions of dollars, while companies like netflix and amazon who RELY on the internet for their business, have to foot the bill for the ISP. What twisted logic you have.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
I am amazed at anyone who imagines that the Net needs regulation, and that the Government can fix it.

It would seem different in the case of almost anything else the govt runs. Seems to be a pattern here, I wonder who else sees it.

The VA comes to mind as an excellent preview of Govt run healthcare, there are dozens more examples. If they touch it they will likely screw it up...



The internet DOES need regulation, because ISPs are starting to figure out just how much they can get away with screwing over their customers. The answer is-- as much as they want, because we are a "captive audience" we don't have a choice. If I want high speed internet, my only choice is Time Warner Cable. If I don't like how they are treating me, I can't just switch to someone else. And that means without basic regulation, ISPs are going to start even more doing things to pad their own bottom lines. Make you pay extra to get to certain sites. Make services that compete with theirs a worse experience so you are more likely to buy THEIR service. [censored] like this. It's started to happen already, and if the FCC is not allowed to pass net neutrality regulation, we might as well kiss new technology and development of the internet goodbye. Or rather, our ISP overlords will be the ones who will tell us what we are allowed to use.
 
They are a private entity. They exist to provide profit to the shareholders. Same as National Greed (someone I love to complain about).

Whether or not that is right - who knows.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R


So you are saying that I pay Time Warner Cable $65/mo to do what? Oh right, give it to their shareholders. I forgot. What millions of customers are paying outrageous fees for shouldn't go to upgrading the infrastructure they are paying to use, it should go to paying CEOs millions of dollars, while companies like netflix and amazon who RELY on the internet for their business, have to foot the bill for the ISP. What twisted logic you have.
I'm just telling you the reality of the situation. BTW, Netflix and Amazon pay their CEO millions too. And the shareholders, they get money too.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Miller88
They are a private entity. They exist to provide profit to the shareholders. Same as National Greed (someone I love to complain about).

Whether or not that is right - who knows.


And that is why regulation exists. To prevent companies from getting so greedy that their customers suffer for it. Especially in an industry where there is no such thing as competition, so the argumenet that you simply switch to another carrier doesn't work in most areas.

Personally I want more municipal provided internet. The places that have it experience fantastic service, at low cost. More towns and cities should invest in it. But the likes of Time Warner and Comcast will spend billions of dollars in lobbying (and guess which party they donate the MOST money too, guess what it starts with a big red R) so states pass laws preventing local municipalities from doing just that. So they can protect their precious multi billion dollar profits.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Nick R


So you are saying that I pay Time Warner Cable $65/mo to do what? Oh right, give it to their shareholders. I forgot. What millions of customers are paying outrageous fees for shouldn't go to upgrading the infrastructure they are paying to use, it should go to paying CEOs millions of dollars, while companies like netflix and amazon who RELY on the internet for their business, have to foot the bill for the ISP. What twisted logic you have.
I'm just telling you the reality of the situation. BTW, Netflix and Amazon pay their CEO millions too. And the shareholders, they get money too.


whose money is more important? shareholders of google, netflix, amazon. or shareholders of comcast, ATT, verizon. hmmm. who will settle the dispute? this is destined to be a court fight all the way with appeals
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Nick R


So you are saying that I pay Time Warner Cable $65/mo to do what? Oh right, give it to their shareholders. I forgot. What millions of customers are paying outrageous fees for shouldn't go to upgrading the infrastructure they are paying to use, it should go to paying CEOs millions of dollars, while companies like netflix and amazon who RELY on the internet for their business, have to foot the bill for the ISP. What twisted logic you have.
I'm just telling you the reality of the situation. BTW, Netflix and Amazon pay their CEO millions too. And the shareholders, they get money too.


Yup, but the differnece is those companies provide very good service. And they aren't gateways to millions of other services that in some cases provide COMPETING services. Why do you think comcast and TWC have a vested interest in killing netflix and others like it? Because they are losing CABLE customers to them. It's a competing service. That THEY are the gateway for. If there is no net neturality, there is nothing stopping them from dropping the speeds for netflix down to minimum speeds, in an effort to get you to try to buy their service. It's call anti-trust, learn what it means.
 
funny story, the other day. My daughter was live streaming Disney Junior. I was on youtube watching videos. Google sent me a note on their youtube page. I clicked on the "Important message from Google about your internet speed" I clicked it and said Comcast was throttling my speeds.
 
Originally Posted By: Cutehumor
funny story, the other day. My daughter was live streaming Disney Junior. I was on youtube watching videos. Google sent me a note on their youtube page. I clicked on the "Important message from Google about your internet speed" I clicked it and said Comcast was throttling my speeds.


I get that a lot on my Time Warner connection too.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R


Yup, but the differnece is those companies provide very good service. And they aren't gateways to millions of other services that in some cases provide COMPETING services. Why do you think comcast and TWC have a vested interest in killing netflix and others like it? Because they are losing CABLE customers to them. It's a competing service. That THEY are the gateway for. If there is no net neturality, there is nothing stopping them from dropping the speeds for netflix down to minimum speeds, in an effort to get you to try to buy their service. It's call anti-trust, learn what it means.
LOL. Those companies provide "very good service" because of the efforts of the ISPs. But for some reason they get no credit. Here something. Netflix can start providing internet service.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Nick R


Yup, but the differnece is those companies provide very good service. And they aren't gateways to millions of other services that in some cases provide COMPETING services. Why do you think comcast and TWC have a vested interest in killing netflix and others like it? Because they are losing CABLE customers to them. It's a competing service. That THEY are the gateway for. If there is no net neturality, there is nothing stopping them from dropping the speeds for netflix down to minimum speeds, in an effort to get you to try to buy their service. It's call anti-trust, learn what it means.
LOL. Those companies provide "very good service" because of the efforts of the ISPs. But for some reason they get no credit. Here something. Netflix can start providing internet service.


So every website is supposed to start their own internet service?
 
I think a large, recurring problem w/ things like this, is that it almost always devolves into a liberal vs. conservative mud-throwing contest. That's often a false dichotomy. There are times when you stick to your guns, but you have to pick your battles. The country is roughly divided in half, ~50% conservative, ~50% liberal. I think we could make more progress if we worked together on some issues like this.

But we're all afraid of the slippery slope, so we back into our respective corners, and fear either the right wing tendency for less govt, stronger corporations, or left wing strong central govt.


My personal opinion, fwiw, is that although I can understand not having too controlling a government, if we don't have some regulations in place, there's nothing to stop large corporations from doing whatever they want. They can essentially hold consumers hostage.

So, what would be a solution to keep ISP's in check, while at the same time avoiding the concerns of having a strong central government getting too involved?

My concerns are things like this:
- ISP's or other entities, govt or corp, censoring citizens
- ISP's turning the internet into pay more, get more, as in, you start paying to see YouTube in HD, or your connection speed is cut back unless you pay a higher premium, etc.
 
Think of it this way, I've had cable internet for 15 years, and paid for 3 Mbits/sec (+/-), and used 1/100 of that, maybe. I turn it on, get data I need, it rests. It's been waiting for that "killer app" and they've been taking my money and we've been happy.

Now that "killer app" is out and everyone wants blood.

In the 1970s and 80s when "community antenna TV" came out, they did franchise agreements with local towns as to the terms of how they'd hook up. At some point since then the cable TV guys lobbied the FCC to REGULATE them on a broader playing field, so they don't have to kowtow to each individual town and their "silly" politics.

Suddenly, now, this regulation is a bad thing.

It's kinda like the US automakers lobbying for those "foreign content" labels on new cars then, ten years later, being burned by having to wear such labels.

Who knows, though, maybe neutrality will be enforced by a class action lawsuit, where a subscriber was promised "internet" and got a subsection of said product and sues for false advertising.
 
Im being serious and not a smart a** but what has the govt gotten their hands on that they have made better? They lose money on everything I know of. They do military well but other than that.....the post office? Amtrak? Amtrak has never made a profit. Their rules are ridiculous. Im just saying the govt is not who I would look to for help with a commodity.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R

No. Just, no. Please stop. You are making me want to break my computer screen with my face. .... I see. That is why the government is donating TONS of money to make sure MORE Americans can get high speed internet access. .....


The government has nothing to donate, unless it first takes from someone else.

Use more, pay more? How is that in any way unfair? Why should the people who could not care less about Netflix and YouTube pull the freight for those who can't live without it?

If the FCC pulls off this power grab, who in their right mind thinks regulated internet service will be any different than any other regulated public utility? I use more electricity, I pay more. I use more water, I pay more. I use more natural gas, I pay more than people who don't. The internet is going to be some kind of sacred exception?

The end game here is for government to tax and take over the internet, and once government moves in, the end result will be anything but neutral in content. It will cost more and you can kiss free speech and thought goodbye with this daft idea.
 
Originally Posted By: Win

The end game here is for government to tax and take over the internet, and once government moves in, the end result will be anything but neutral in content. It will cost more and you can kiss free speech and thought goodbye with this daft idea.


And that is exactly what's going to happen and why the government wants their hand in it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top