"Net Neutraility" Is Yes Or Is No Significant ?

I think this whole thread is missing the underlying point, i.e. what is good for big business vs what is in the best interest of consumers. The latter rarely carries the day. Net neutrality is just a side show although I am for it.

There is a reason Utilities are prominent in Monopoly, the game. There is big money in it because they are monopolies. Follow the money on all such issues.

garyemunson wrote:
How many of you are old enough to remember the uproar when cable TV was being given sweetheart right-of-way deals and the promise was "you'll have to pay for the cable but you won't have to put up with commercials anymore"...... You see where that went.

yes, but the orignal cable tv was all about movie channels. then innovation and the marketplace took over and the universe of cable networks exploded. TNT, USA, AMC and lots, lots more. the choices are numerous and that might not have happened had the feds intervened more than they have.

What most people fail to realize especially those who think nothing will change is how the demand for internet is exploding. The demand for the internet two years ago is a fraction of what it is today. Demand today is a fraction of what it will be two years from now.

Today through WIFI AKA the internet, we control clocks, doorbells, garage doors, gates, alarms, thermostats, lights and more. Many of these WIFI items came about very recently and who knows what else is around the corner. Internet providers are going to want a piece of the action and the government just gave them the green light to put both hands on your wallet. The internet is no longer just email, search engines and movies.

To those that think we are chicken little, explain why every and I mean every lawmaker that was promoting the repeal of net neutrality accepted donations of 5 and 6 digit figure from the telecoms?

rk911 wrote:

6door74 wrote:

rk911 wrote:

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.

Again, I'm not talking about supply and demand. I don't have any problem with heavy users paying more than those who aren't. I DO have a problem with paying more for netflix than hulu just because one is favored by my internet provider. If it takes up the same amount of bandwidth, why should my service provider choose to slow one down or charge me more? That's not supply and demand.

Again, I'm just using netflix and hulu to illustrate my point. There are other less known services who definitely wouldn't get a fair shake in a situation like that.

i disagree. it is a supply and demand. your ISP wants to charge you more for hulu than another ISP...make a change. the new ISP wants to charge more for Netflix than another ISP. another ISP will cut a deal with both or offer other incentives...Hulu, Netflix and others won't stand still. IF any of this happens it will all shake itself out. but because our political class believes the world is about to end i predict legislation will be introduced to regulate the net. THAT will be a disaster.

I don't know where you live, but not everyone has a choice of an internet service provider. Especially a high speed internet provider. I used to do sales for a cable company, i know. Not to mention where i live now, i only have 1 choice for high speed internet.

Let's look at this another way....

There's only 1 gas station in your town. If you drive a chevy, your 30 gallons of gas will cost more than if you were filling a ford with 30 gallons because ford partnered with that station. Is that fair? Who gets the short end of the stick? Is your answer to only put 15 gallons of gas or go buy a ford? If so, once again, who gets the short end of the stick?

(I'll be waiting for the chevy vs ford jokes:B)

How many of you are old enough to remember the uproar when cable TV was being given sweetheart right-of-way deals and the promise was "you'll have to pay for the cable but you won't have to put up with commercials anymore"...... You see where that went.

KrowNB wrote:
The last thing I want is to have government or big business deciding for me what site I can/can't visit; what information I can/cannot access. They do that in N. Korea. Next to that is making it difficult to access the data I want because my ISP slows connections to it while making sites THEY want me to view be lightning fast.

Without net neutrality you will see fewer startup streaming services - if you decide to teach guitar by sharing video but have little capital to pay the big providers, your streaming will possibly be too slow to make people want to watch it. Less traffic=less return. On the other hand, an established business with the money to pay for fast streaming can produce a sub-quality guitar instruction site that, because it's easier to find/access and lightening fast, won't have to worry about the little guy taking away their business.

What if your ISP doesn't agree with a political point of view that you have? Maybe they give preferential treatment to sites that stream video they want you to watch. Maybe they throttle the feed from the little guy that wants to share with the world a video which is contrary to the goody-goody feeling the ISP want you to have of a certain political persuasion?

It's about much more than just Netflix and Disney. It's about the guy across the street or in another country having equal access to reaching you as CNN or Fox News does.

JMHO

you and Bob E. make great points. I tried to keep it simple and relevant to the hard earned money in our pockets that could be affected.

6door74 wrote:

rk911 wrote:

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.

Again, I'm not talking about supply and demand. I don't have any problem with heavy users paying more than those who aren't. I DO have a problem with paying more for netflix than hulu just because one is favored by my internet provider. If it takes up the same amount of bandwidth, why should my service provider choose to slow one down or charge me more? That's not supply and demand.

Again, I'm just using netflix and hulu to illustrate my point. There are other less known services who definitely wouldn't get a fair shake in a situation like that.

i disagree. it is a supply and demand. your ISP wants to charge you more for hulu than another ISP...make a change. the new ISP wants to charge more for Netflix than another ISP. another ISP will cut a deal with both or offer other incentives...Hulu, Netflix and others won't stand still. IF any of this happens it will all shake itself out. but because our political class believes the world is about to end i predict legislation will be introduced to regulate the net. THAT will be a disaster.

The last thing I want is to have government or big business deciding for me what site I can/can't visit; what information I can/cannot access. They do that in N. Korea. Next to that is making it difficult to access the data I want because my ISP slows connections to it while making sites THEY want me to view be lightning fast.

Without net neutrality you will see fewer startup streaming services - if you decide to teach guitar by sharing video but have little capital to pay the big providers, your streaming will possibly be too slow to make people want to watch it. Less traffic=less return. On the other hand, an established business with the money to pay for fast streaming can produce a sub-quality guitar instruction site that, because it's easier to find/access and lightening fast, won't have to worry about the little guy taking away their business.

What if your ISP doesn't agree with a political point of view that you have? Maybe they give preferential treatment to sites that stream video they want you to watch. Maybe they throttle the feed from the little guy that wants to share with the world a video which is contrary to the goody-goody feeling the ISP want you to have of a certain political persuasion?

It's about much more than just Netflix and Disney. It's about the guy across the street or in another country having equal access to reaching you as CNN or Fox News does.

JMHO

rk911 wrote:

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.

Again, I'm not talking about supply and demand. I don't have any problem with heavy users paying more than those who aren't. I DO have a problem with paying more for netflix than hulu just because one is favored by my internet provider. If it takes up the same amount of bandwidth, why should my service provider choose to slow one down or charge me more? That's not supply and demand.

Again, I'm just using netflix and hulu to illustrate my point. There are other less known services who definitely wouldn't get a fair shake in a situation like that.

Just google AT&T Facetime Net Neutrality to see exactly why the net neutrality rule was enacted in the first place. AT&T wanted to block access to facetime because it was a competitor. The example of Netflix versus Hulu above is correct. This is what you will start to see happen over the coming months unless congress acts. And I'm not holding my breath for that.

Additionally, it also opens the door to an ISP flexing their ideological muscles and blocking content that differs from that ideology. If you thought Facebook was skewing their content, just wait until you see what will start to happen next.