CDZ Net neutrality....why the decision and whats the goal?

[Toronado3800]

I'm for a few modifications to the internet but being conservative I like to have a reason.

So now we've rolled back net neutrality. I believe I'm against this. What's the dream effect rolling it back will have and are you for it?

Help me find the silver lining or explain it better...maybe Facebook and Amazon getting throttled for the benefit of Comcast will spread the clicks around? Or maybe it will work in favor of Facebook because they are big enough to pay to play? Will Charter be able to charge xxx sites more and limit my/our porn access? I guess they could charge the RNC and DNC different rates?

 

[Indeependent]

Profit and hoping people are hooked enough to pay anything.

 

[Norman]

Here is what I am guessing is the end result:

Absolutely nothing of relevance will change.

But we will get a lot of leftist tears, since their favorite international mega-corporations support the policy. This is good news.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Here is what I am guessing is the end result:

Absolutely nothing of relevance will change.

But we will get a lot of leftist tears, since their favorite international mega-corporations support the policy. This is good news.

When they passed NN a couple of years ago, the right was screaming that the internet would end, people would be getting charged out the butt for faster lanes, that it was all going to be just awful.

I didn't notice a damn difference.

Shoe is on the other foot and my prediction is the end result will be the same.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm for a few modifications to the internet but being conservative I like to have a reason.

So now we've rolled back net neutrality. I believe I'm against this. What's the dream effect rolling it back will have and are you for it?

Help me find the silver lining or explain it better...maybe Facebook and Amazon getting throttled for the benefit of Comcast will spread the clicks around? Or maybe it will work in favor of Facebook because they are big enough to pay to play? Will Charter be able to charge xxx sites more and limit my/our porn access? I guess they could charge the RNC and DNC different rates?

There really is not much or a 'silver lining.' I don't think much is going to change at all to be perfectly honest. A few companies will pay for priority service like netflix and other major media vendors but, for the most part, no one will notice anything at all.

The real issue is if we want the government deciding how ISPs manage overall network traffic. They have screwed the market up enough with the variable monopolies that they have established, I have no desire to have the government any more involved in internet usage.

The question that should be asked is not (and should never be) what we hope to achieve by removing a regulation. The question should be what effect we want to achieve and/or are achieving with that regulation. There is nothing showing that net neutrality had any real positive effects on internet traffic to begin with.

 

[Toronado3800]

I'm for a few modifications to the internet but being conservative I like to have a reason.

So now we've rolled back net neutrality. I believe I'm against this. What's the dream effect rolling it back will have and are you for it?

Help me find the silver lining or explain it better...maybe Facebook and Amazon getting throttled for the benefit of Comcast will spread the clicks around? Or maybe it will work in favor of Facebook because they are big enough to pay to play? Will Charter be able to charge xxx sites more and limit my/our porn access? I guess they could charge the RNC and DNC different rates?

There really is not much or a 'silver lining.' I don't think much is going to change at all to be perfectly honest. A few companies will pay for priority service like netflix and other major media vendors but, for the most part, no one will notice anything at all.

The real issue is if we want the government deciding how ISPs manage overall network traffic. They have screwed the market up enough with the variable monopolies that they have established, I have no desire to have the government any more involved in internet usage.

The question that should be asked is not (and should never be) what we hope to achieve by removing a regulation. The question should be what effect we want to achieve and/or are achieving with that regulation. There is nothing showing that net neutrality had any real positive effects on internet traffic to begin with.

What did the government do to establish provider monopolies?

In the big non political sense we have been given regulations ever since Moses went up the Mountain. Those weren't detailed enough and the punishment too abstract so we get more and more.

Are you saying though the Neutrality regulations came before any providers had non-neutral bandwidth or tried to sell off bandwidth?

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm for a few modifications to the internet but being conservative I like to have a reason.

So now we've rolled back net neutrality. I believe I'm against this. What's the dream effect rolling it back will have and are you for it?

Help me find the silver lining or explain it better...maybe Facebook and Amazon getting throttled for the benefit of Comcast will spread the clicks around? Or maybe it will work in favor of Facebook because they are big enough to pay to play? Will Charter be able to charge xxx sites more and limit my/our porn access? I guess they could charge the RNC and DNC different rates?

There really is not much or a 'silver lining.' I don't think much is going to change at all to be perfectly honest. A few companies will pay for priority service like netflix and other major media vendors but, for the most part, no one will notice anything at all.

The real issue is if we want the government deciding how ISPs manage overall network traffic. They have screwed the market up enough with the variable monopolies that they have established, I have no desire to have the government any more involved in internet usage.

The question that should be asked is not (and should never be) what we hope to achieve by removing a regulation. The question should be what effect we want to achieve and/or are achieving with that regulation. There is nothing showing that net neutrality had any real positive effects on internet traffic to begin with.

What did the government do to establish provider monopolies?

It, of course, starts with a good intention. The government wanted to entice more development of cable lines to more of the country so they divided the nation up into areas where only a single cable provider is legally allowed to provide services. That way, if a cable provider installs cable lines they know they are the only ones that will have access to them and the only company that is able to do so.

Cable companies like Charter, Comcast, Hughes Net and others are not actual competitors.

In effect, there is a monopoly on cable service. You have one choice if you want cable service. Technology has been working hard to overcome this limitation - enter Dish, century link and the like but they are still ill equipped to compete. Anyone that actually uses the internet for more than browsing and has used their cable provider and century like attest to the limitations of DSL. Interestingly enough, your cable internet is capable of at least 3-5 times what the max your cable company is offering in speed. The only reason that they do not offer those speeds is the competition does not have anything available that comes close.

In the big non political sense we have been given regulations ever since Moses went up the Mountain. Those weren't detailed enough and the punishment too abstract so we get more and more.

Are you saying though the Neutrality regulations came before any providers had non-neutral bandwidth or tried to sell off bandwidth?

Essentially, yes. There were no major problems with providers giving anyone preferential treatment before net neutrality. There was talk about the large amount of video and download volume and possible throttling of those so that you did not slow down the rest of your block. That was back when traffic loads actually affected the internet speeds for other users. This is really no longer true for a standard customer anymore.

 

[Zoom-boing]

All internet traffic isn't equal. Why should it be forced to be treated equally?

 

[Toronado3800]

All internet traffic isn't equal. Why should it be forced to be treated equally?

I feel the obvious retort is: Bob feels you aren't his equal. Why should he be forced to treat you so.

First we'd say military and 911 service internet is obviously more important. After that it gets fuzzy and left to the powers that be to decide. Then commercial over recreational? Or him with more dollars over her with fewer bucks?

 

[2aguy]

Here is what I am guessing is the end result:

Absolutely nothing of relevance will change.

But we will get a lot of leftist tears, since their favorite international mega-corporations support the policy. This is good news.

When they passed NN a couple of years ago, the right was screaming that the internet would end, people would be getting charged out the butt for faster lanes, that it was all going to be just awful.

I didn't notice a damn difference.

Shoe is on the other foot and my prediction is the end result will be the same.

They were waiting for hilary to get into office.....the left thinks long term, they put it in place, then slowly take away the freedoms...

 

[Toronado3800]

Here is what I am guessing is the end result:

Absolutely nothing of relevance will change.

But we will get a lot of leftist tears, since their favorite international mega-corporations support the policy. This is good news.

When they passed NN a couple of years ago, the right was screaming that the internet would end, people would be getting charged out the butt for faster lanes, that it was all going to be just awful.

I didn't notice a damn difference.

Shoe is on the other foot and my prediction is the end result will be the same.

They were waiting for hilary to get into office.....the left thinks long term, they put it in place, then slowly take away the freedoms...

Be more detailed please sir.

What freedoms are you talking about? The freedoms of internet providers to charge as they see fit? That is a statement I agree with as if I understand the regulations were on internet providers.

This is the CDZ remember.

 

[2aguy]

Here is what I am guessing is the end result:

Absolutely nothing of relevance will change.

But we will get a lot of leftist tears, since their favorite international mega-corporations support the policy. This is good news.

When they passed NN a couple of years ago, the right was screaming that the internet would end, people would be getting charged out the butt for faster lanes, that it was all going to be just awful.

I didn't notice a damn difference.

Shoe is on the other foot and my prediction is the end result will be the same.

They were waiting for hilary to get into office.....the left thinks long term, they put it in place, then slowly take away the freedoms...

Be more detailed please sir.

What freedoms are you talking about? The freedoms of internet providers to charge as they see fit? That is a statement I agree with as if I understand the regulations were on internet providers.

This is the CDZ remember.

Competition is going to reduce prices...did you ever wonder why all those big companies supported Net Neutrality? They did so because they have the money and leverage to control the people who will make the regulations under Net Neutrality......now, they will actually have to compete...which means lower prices, better quality, faster speeds and more access, not less......

 

[Toronado3800]

Here is what I am guessing is the end result:

Absolutely nothing of relevance will change.

But we will get a lot of leftist tears, since their favorite international mega-corporations support the policy. This is good news.

When they passed NN a couple of years ago, the right was screaming that the internet would end, people would be getting charged out the butt for faster lanes, that it was all going to be just awful.

I didn't notice a damn difference.

Shoe is on the other foot and my prediction is the end result will be the same.

They were waiting for hilary to get into office.....the left thinks long term, they put it in place, then slowly take away the freedoms...

Be more detailed please sir.

What freedoms are you talking about? The freedoms of internet providers to charge as they see fit? That is a statement I agree with as if I understand the regulations were on internet providers.

This is the CDZ remember.

Competition is going to reduce prices...did you ever wonder why all those big companies supported Net Neutrality? They did so because they have the money and leverage to control the people who will make the regulations under Net Neutrality......now, they will actually have to compete...which means lower prices, better quality, faster speeds and more access, not less......

Competition does reduce price. I agree 100%

You bring up two points.

What big companies support Net Neutrality? Amazon, Google, Facebook and the like? And what is their position? Every Centurytel and Charter Cable in the world could threaten to charge them whatever for bandwidth?

How is Net Neutrality going to increase competition? Is there something hiding in the regulation limiting who can bury cable?

 

[Sunni Man]

I listened to a bunch of pro's and con's about NN and still didn't understand.

So I went to my trusted fall back position, "if Obama and the liberal Dem's are all for it.....then it means more big government control, ....and that can't be good for me the taxpayer". ....

 

[Toronado3800]

I listened to a bunch of pro's and con's about NN and still didn't understand.

So I went to my trusted fall back position, "if Obama and the liberal Dem's are all for it.....then it means more big government control, ....and that can't be good for me the taxpayer". ....

That is not a well thought out position IMO sir unless you are somehow a party cheerleader. Every D & R in Congress doesn't even vote on team lines every time. Also consider D's feel you were created equal and want to defend that. Now you are saying you are not equal to everyone else.

I'm simple so I'll try to explain it (to my limited understanding).

The biggest part of Net Neutrality is that our internet providers have to give all websites, Amazon, USMessageBoard, Google, Bob's Bait & Tackle.com, whoever the same access to maximum speed and bandwidth.

The THINK the situation is new. I'm searching for a proper analogy to ancient Greece because I don't believe all modern problems are really that modern. As of yet I haven't found it though.

-One thinking is, it costs your internet provider more server time to play all them Netflix movies than it does to show small business websites or message boards so of course Netflix should pay more. If this was the case in the (unregulated but idealistic) 90's folks say the internet would not have evolved because bandwidth was soo limited your provider would have charged Netflix or some gal's porn livestream site soo much to stream it would not have been profitable.

-Another is, Amazon and Facebook have the money to pay for priority service. The company I work for, well, we don't make big money. Also what if your area has one good provider, Toronado's Internet company, and one that sucks, say Centurytel (who I do not like). What if Toronado's Internet company decides to charge the Republican and Democratic Parties different amounts for their web traffic? Doesn't sound fair does it?

This started about a decade ago I gather when some internet companies started giving their programs preferential treatment online vs others.

Did I explain right? I have not read the 2015 bill and suspect there are some ghosts hiding on page 1010101 which may or may not swing our opinions.

 

[Leo123]

Government regulations always cost $$$$ and freedom.

 

[Toronado3800]

Government regulations always cost $$$$ and freedom.

Ok. Explain in more detail how this one did/will. I have mixed feelings on it but don't feel its a bumper sticker opinion issue.

 

[Bezukhov]

Do you have complaints?

FCC Chair Unveils Premium Comment Line To Fast-Track Net Neutrality Complaints For $49.99 Per Month
Satire

https://www.theonion.com/fcc-chair-unveils-premium-comment-line-to-fast-track-ne-1820986235

 

[Sunni Man]

Net Neutrality = Internet at the speed of Government .....

 

[Zoom-boing]

All internet traffic isn't equal. Why should it be forced to be treated equally?

I feel the obvious retort is: Bob feels you aren't his equal. Why should he be forced to treat you so.

First we'd say military and 911 service internet is obviously more important. After that it gets fuzzy and left to the powers that be to decide. Then commercial over recreational? Or him with more dollars over her with fewer bucks?

Feels? Huh? That's no comparison.

Netflix uses more bandwidth than say Deb's Cat Store website. Under NN, Netflix can't say "hey users, if you want super duper fast streaming with zero buffering you can pay a bit more and access that". With NN everyone gets to have the same speed even though everything doesn't consume the same amount of bandwidth. On its face that doesn't make sense. Shouldn't those consuming more have the ability to charge more? Now by comparison, Deb's Cat Store website speed will be 'slower' but that's relative. 10 seconds to load vs instantaneous. If you don't want the 'super duper fast' lane, don't pay for it. If companies decide to ridiculously jack prices for internet, people will find alternative sources and/or leave. Or someone will come up with something else. They always do. WE are the powers that be, as WE decide what we will or will not tolerate in the market.

The internet has worked perfectly fine since the early 90's. Rolling back NN will ensure that it stays that way.