Net. Neutrality?

[Cofe]

Does this mean better prices for internet? New providers? Better technology? Trying to find out more information getting rid of the Internet neutrality law.

 

[GA_Boater]

No, no and no. Exactly the opposite in all three cases.

Also, it isn't a law, but a regulation.

That's as far I'll go politically.

 

[Scott Danforth]

it means that you pay one price now for the internet, plan on paying 3 different bills/prices for email, social media, streaming, etc.

you will be paying about 3X more than you do now.

 

[MTboatguy]

All I can say..

It is not a good thing

 

[bruceb58]

It would suck big time if they got rid of net neutrality.

 

[redneck joe]

If the big companies that provide internet want it gone, it is not a good thing.

 

[garbageguy]

All I can say..

It is not a good thing

+1 on that, IMHO

 

[redneck joe]

If there was a true choice in internet, which some of you may have in the city, I might be ok with it. Then free markets could prevail and while bumpy for a while in the end would be fine. My choice is my cable company, or back to DSL thru ATT. No one wants to come down my street with 11 houses on it.

Satellite internet is getting better, but would not consider it just yet. Some new birds going up so maybe soon. Plus ATT has a Wireless Local Loop which I know too much to share because I work for them so I have to keep my mouth shut, publicly.

 

[Scott Danforth]

look at it this way.

right now you pay one bill. doesnt matter if you use email, social media, streaming, search google, buy on amazon, spend time on forums, play on-line games, etc. its one bill, one speed, and you simply pay your ISP the one bill. lets assume $59/month. you have easy, unfettered access to the internet

without net neutrality regulation, you now have to pay the ISP a different rate for each function, and you will be paying a fee for things like gaming. your streaming will be throttled. you will pay $19 for email, $39 for a throttle streaming service, $39 for a throttled gaming package, $29 for social media, $19 for on-line shopping, $9 to access google.... your ISP may not like you surfing adult content, so it may prevent you from access. they may not like you driveling on social media for 20 hours a day, so they may limit your band-width and access during various hours. simple math says you pay more.....for less

 

[dingbat]

Here is my take... Not quite as simple, but you get the idea

Road Builder Corp. (RBC) builds a 3 lane toll road between X and Y and charges 50 cents a car to cover profits, repairs and improvements going forward.

Along comes Trucking Company B (TCB) who builds a distribution center in a location that requires the trucks to use RBC's toll road. RBC requests that all trucks stay in the slow lane and demands TCB pay an additional 25 cents per vehicle (75 cents) to help cover the infrastructure investments necessary to met the increasing demands of the road.

With the increased traffic comes mounting repair costs with more and bigger traffic jams. To keep up with demand, RCB plans to implement "Fast lanes" where customers can pay to drive on unrestricted, truck free lanes. TCB argues the restrictions would hurt consumers and lobbies the Government to declare eminent domain, demanding RCB abandon the "fast Lanes" so TCB to use all three lanes at no cost at all.

Over time, traffic becomes horrendous and falls into disrepair. People are livid because RCB is reluctant to add new lanes or make improvements....

 

[southkogs]

BUT ... in both of those analogies, market forces may have the opportunity to punch the cash-grabbers in the NET.

For example: your ISP begins really sticking it to you for all of the stuff you like to do online. But, your data plan for the cell phone is really not that much more expensive and you opt to tether. Perhaps you find out in a month or five that you actually get a better deal now from the data plan - which they figured out too and started promoting hard - and you dump your ISP. Rinse and repeat across a few dozen markets and that's a force to be reckoned with.

I'm actually still a little confused on the whole thing and don't have a clear opinion on it. But the free market tends to overcome things like that, and technology is making it much easier for innovators to gain wide scale market penetration. Look at Uber and the Tesla Model S: 10 years ago they would be nearly unimaginable as consumer products. But within less than 5 years both are reasonably stable consumer structures.

Additionally, free WiFi is so ubiquitous these days, that the ISPs are going to be up against a hard wall if the cash grab too hard. I know people who are unemployed and can't afford cellular phone service. But they can walk down the street a block, and rig their old inactive smart phone into the WiFi and surf the NET all day in a rural town of less than 1,500 people. That won't work for your gamers or big file movers (like me), but for many people who are just hitting social media and sending email and such it can work fine.

Honestly, I'm not arguing for or against - I truly don't know. But I'm not particularly afraid of either scenario.

 

[dingbat]

I’m guessing if you start turnng under rocks, you’ll find the 3rd party content suppliers like Netflix and Google, with no means to pipe content of their own, stomping their feet the loudest.

Of course, they could work a deal with an ISP to stream content at no cost to the consumer, but that would cut into profits.

Better to demonize ISPs in an attempt to sway public opinion to continue the free ride for third party providers

 

[GA_Boater]

Without 3rd party suppliers, there isn't much Internet left. No Netflix, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, premium cable streaming, 24/7 news, sports and opinion, forums, on-line sales - List goes on and on. And there is no free ride for 3rd partiers - they pay ISPs to connect to the Web, just like consumers only a lot more.

 

[roscoe]

I think some of you guys have got it wrong.
I wasn't paying 3 or 4 or 5 different bills a couple years ago, before these rules were put in place.
I don't think I will be in the future, after the regs are removed.

As always, its about power and control, which means money and influence.
Your isp is still your isp, and customers getting equal access to smaller companies' web sites will be ensured.
Giving the behemoth content providers preferential access to transmit their content, gives them stranglehold control over any upstarts or smaller companies that can't pay the premiums to get their content through the pipeline.

And then there is the other part of the regulations, that makes social media giants the arbitrators of content and redefines free speech and the free exchange of ideas.

These regs did nothing for the consumer.
Regulating isp's as utilities was not a good thing.

 

[bruceb58]

https://www.change.org/p/save-net-n...tial.combo_new_control_progress_110217winners

 

[dingbat]

https://www.change.org/p/save-net-ne..._110217winners

change.org....now there is a creditable “news” and information site...lol

 

[bruceb58]

change.org....now there is a creditable ?news? and information site...lol

Then maybe a professor of Biomedical Engineering, Computer Science, and Biostatistics at Johns Hopkins University would be better for you? Same message...different voice!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevens.../#67bc318a4c68

 

[southkogs]

Let's go easy y'all. I'm getting the vibe we could be headed down a bad path in this topic.

 

[fishrdan]

Net Neutrality is politics, nothing more, nothing less.

I won't comment further due to this....

 

[jkust]

I'm pleased these regs are being removed. We will judge in the next year to two if the free market does better what government tends to fail at. I tend to come down on the side of less regs not more where it makes sense.