"Net Neutraility" Is Yes Or Is No Significant ?

6door74 wrote:

rk911 wrote:
even IF some of the bandwidth providers do establish a “fast lane” for high bandwidth users like streamers and gamers why shouldn’t that type of access cost more? supply and demand. and what makes the objectors believe that an economy lane for low bandwidth users wouldn’t be created? marketing.

The issue is without the net neutrality, the internet provider can give you slower speeds if you want to stream from netflix as opposed to their partner, hulu (just using those as an example). So you're forced to use hulu or potentially deal with a slower speed and/or pay more for higher speed, to watch your preferred content on netflix. That's more the issue than paying extra for being a heavy bandwidth user.

ok, so? there was no indication that providers were about to do that two years ago. if some do then supply and demand will come into play. there is no ‘right’ to the internet and no reason for the feds to get involved.

Lots of Chicken Littles out there.
Life was livable a couple of years ago, I'm sure it will be livable post net neutrality.
Yes, things may change but I'm sure I can live just fine with whatever happens. If I watch less TV and spend less time on the internet, that's probably a good thing in my opinion.

wildtoad wrote:
Hulu may then need to up their game and work harder to get the isp to give them equal time. Me thinks this whole issue is “much ado about nothing”. Sounds like some want everything someone else has but are unwilling to pay for it.

I think you missed my point. In the end, you as the consumer may end up having no choice or be forced to spend more money to watch a movie on one site vs watching it on another site. I'm not talking about just watching movies either. It can be basic surfing as well. And if hulu/netflix/whoever has to pay more for that elite speed status, who do they pass the cost to?

We'll see what happens. Whatever it is, it won't be overnight. But i'm sure the providers are going to be all about making it work for them, not us.

Hulu may then need to up their game and work harder to get the isp to give them equal time. Me thinks this whole issue is “much ado about nothing”. Sounds like some want everything someone else has but are unwilling to pay for it.

rk911 wrote:
even IF some of the bandwidth providers do establish a “fast lane” for high bandwidth users like streamers and gamers why shouldn’t that type of access cost more? supply and demand. and what makes the objectors believe that an economy lane for low bandwidth users wouldn’t be created? marketing.

The issue is without the net neutrality, the internet provider can give you slower speeds if you want to stream from netflix as opposed to their partner, hulu (just using those as an example). So you're forced to use hulu or potentially deal with a slower speed and/or pay more for higher speed, to watch your preferred content on netflix. That's more the issue than paying extra for being a heavy bandwidth user.

even IF some of the bandwidth providers do establish a “fast lane” for high bandwidth users like streamers and gamers why shouldn’t that type of access cost more? supply and demand. and what makes the objectors believe that an economy lane for low bandwidth users wouldn’t be created? marketing.

babock wrote:
Sorry but getting rid of net neutrality is a bad thing for consumers.

If you want to pay more to your ISP for using a service like Netflix to stream your movies, then you will like getting rid of net neutrality.

Let me give you an example. Getting rid of net neutrality is like having every road a toll road with the faster roads costing more. If you don't mind driving and paying tolls to drive faster, then getting rid of net neutrality is what you would like.

I am an EE for a company that makes test equipment for companies like Cisco, ISPs, cloud services.... If anything getting rid of net neutrality actually helps a company like mine.

Have you seen the new EZ pass lanes in VA!

$44 TOLL!

What is going to happen:
Currently the Internet is one giant system. All traffic is processed at priority 2 save for some very select stuff which is P-1 (IE: Pacemaker to hospital)

all are processed at one rate

Soon, when/if the new rule goes into effect (it can still be stopped) there will be additional priority codes. So depending on how much you pay for E-mail, For Video files, for _____ you may only be able to do a very small amount of it as WWW becomes World Wide Wait.

It also means that ISP's may even refuse selected traffic.

Sorry but getting rid of net neutrality is a bad thing for consumers.

If you want to pay more to your ISP for using a service like Netflix to stream your movies, then you will like getting rid of net neutrality.

Let me give you an example. Getting rid of net neutrality is like having every road a toll road with the faster roads costing more. If you don't mind driving and paying tolls to drive faster, then getting rid of net neutrality is what you would like.

I am an EE for a company that makes test equipment for companies like Cisco, ISPs, cloud services.... If anything getting rid of net neutrality actually helps a company like mine.

“Besides being detrimental, it is unconstitutional.”

Why unconstitutional, Zig? Clearly used for interstate commerce.