Net Neutrality for Dummies?

[Rickster71]

Of course, as the internet exists today with 2 dominant companies working as a duopoly, the free market won't make the internet more free. The FCC ruling hardly creates a govt. "takeover", it marks out the internet as a public utility much the same as radio/TV air waves or telephone networks.

The NSA already had it's bandwidth many years ago .

I get the distinct impression we're being misdirected, that what is being sold to us consumers as 'Freedom' and 'Neutrality' will ultimately end up as Control for someone else.
Now I understand more than ever why people are virtually killing each other to run for political offices. Anyone care to look up the donations and PAC money spent by Google, Netflix and others?

 

[Swerd]

I get the distinct impression we're being misdirected, that what is being sold to us consumers as 'Freedom' and 'Neutrality' will ultimately end up as Control for someone else.

I see it as a question of who do I distrust more?

The major ISPs, such as AT&T or Verizon, who clearly act out of their own self interest. They seem to prefer that rules be determined by whoever swings the biggest club.

Or the FCC, which is also capable, at times, of being influenced by political interests, or their financial supporters.

Yesterday's decision came down against the big ISPs. Stay tuned while the lawsuits play out.

Now I understand more than ever why people are virtually killing each other to run for political offices. Anyone care to look up the donations and PAC money spent by Google, Netflix and others?

I can't argue with that!

 

[Rickster71]

I see it as a question of who do I distrust more?

I agree.
We always seem to fall for the Good Cop(Government) vs Bad Cop(Big Business)... never realizing, behind the scenes they're on the same side.

The major ISPs, such as AT&T or Verizon, who clearly act out of their own self interest. They seem to prefer that rules be determined by whoever swings the biggest club.

Or the FCC, which is also capable, at times, of being influenced by political interests, or their financial supporters.

The FCC does such a great job making sure radio stations announce their call letters frequently and make sure no one curses on air..... All while not having an issue that ABC, CBS and NBC are all corporate owned, spewing propaganda (as all news does) and are not even close to being neutral and only stating facts.

Yesterday's decision came down against the big ISPs. Stay tuned while the lawsuits play out.
I can't argue with that!

That's where the big money is going to be made.

 

[Ponzio]

yep, the next thing u know the government will be in ur living room going on a date with your wife and walkin' ur dog.

 

[herbu]

Interesting discussion. I don't understand how content and speed merged. It still seems right that big users pay more. Today, don't the ISPs charge Netflix more for streaming movies than they charge me for writing a note in a forum?

I agree that content should be irrelevant. Period. I'm OK with a law for that.
I'm not sure that speed and bandwidth aren't commodities that are fair game for tiered rates. If I'm the provider, and Joe's usage costs me more than your usage, can't I charge Joe more?

And it's hard for me to understand arguments that say, "The little guy can't afford the things a big guy can afford". Of course. It is by definition. It was true when Steve Jobs started in his garage. It was true when IBM shot down Bill Gates. It was true for Mark Zuckerberg in his dorm room.

I get real nervous when the govt steps into the business world and says, "I'm gonna help"... regardless of which party is in charge.

 

[Ponzio]

I get real nervous when the govt steps into the business world and says, "I'm gonna help"... regardless of which party is in charge.

I guess it comes down to whether u believe the ISP's should be treated like a utility (gas, electric, etc.) or a commercial business (Wall-Mart, Lowe's, etc.).

 

[shadyJ]

Interesting discussion. I don't understand how content and speed merged. It still seems right that big users pay more. Today, don't the ISPs charge Netflix more for streaming movies than they charge me for writing a note in a forum?

I agree that content should be irrelevant. Period. I'm OK with a law for that.
I'm not sure that speed and bandwidth aren't commodities that are fair game for tiered rates. If I'm the provider, and Joe's usage costs me more than your usage, can't I charge Joe more?

And it's hard for me to understand arguments that say, "The little guy can't afford the things a big guy can afford". Of course. It is by definition. It was true when Steve Jobs started in his garage. It was true when IBM shot down Bill Gates. It was true for Mark Zuckerberg in his dorm room.

I get real nervous when the govt steps into the business world and says, "I'm gonna help"... regardless of which party is in charge.

This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the issue. If Joe's usage costs more than Jane's usage, of course an ISP should charge more for Joe's service. But what if Joe and Jane are on the same $40/month 30/5 mb dl/ul speed? Without net neutrality, the ISP punishes what Jane for using more popular bandwidth activities than Joe. The ISP also punishes Netflix because the ISPs user like to use Netflix. In my opinion, Net Neutrality is a timid measure. I think the ISPs should be threatened with nationalization leaving their shareholders in the dust. Maybe these people will be compelled to act responsibly when their money is threatened.

 

[jinjuku]

I get the distinct impression we're being misdirected, that what is being sold to us consumers as 'Freedom' and 'Neutrality' will ultimately end up as Control for someone else.
Now I understand more than ever why people are virtually killing each other to run for political offices. Anyone care to look up the donations and PAC money spent by Google, Netflix and others?

The wording for Title II has been public since 1934. Any addendum is also public. Where as the internal policies and behind the scene wink and nod from major ISP's is not.

I'll take my chances.

More transparency makes for a better internet for all of us.

I pay TWC for 50/5. That is at 5MByte a second I pay for unmetered. That is 12656 GB per month.

I pay Netflix $16 a month for DVD and 2 concurrent streams.

I should be able to get what I pay for and not an ounce of either more. PERIOD.

What some ISP's were doing and I believe when I had InSight they were doing just this until I threatened legal action... Is throttling the connection. It's in breach of my contract.

The way I knew Insight was doing this is I could hop on my neighbors wi-fi and magically the resolution shot up and the play back ceased to stall.

I'm all for the reclassification.

 

[KEW]

AT&T only donates $10 million more to Republicans($35,115,427) than they do to Democrats($25,081,523). Seems like everyone has their hands in the trough

We really don't have a 2 party system in this country. If it were two party and they were as upset about the opposing party blocking them from doing what is right as they pretend, the country might have been "fixed" when the Republicans had Senate, House, and Presidency from 2003 to 2007. Or when the Dem's had control of all three from 2009 to 2011. Sure a few partisan items got voted through, but generally you must admit the end results were rather lame.

We have 100 senators and 435 Representatives. $60 million donated by ATT alone which works out to over $100,000 per congress position. It looks like this was for 14 years, so $8,000 per congressperson per year just from ATT.
Then look at top spenders for lobbying, ATT ponied up over $180 million over 16 years which works out to another $21,000 per year per congressman. $29,000 being spent per year per congress person to influence/buy their votes, and that is only ATT. Looking at the other sources of donations and lobbying, an average over $500,000 is being spent to influence each congressman every year.

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=a&indexType=s

PS can anyone explain why the US Chamber of Commerce spent almost 4 times as much lobbying ($1.2 billion) as number 2 ranked American Medical Association ($320 million).
I don't really guess I understand what the CoC is about - never imagined they would be the biggest lobbiest operation - especially by such a large margin!

 

[its phillip]

The Chamber of Commerce is just a really big lobbyist group.

 

[KEW]

The Chamber of Commerce is just a really big lobbyist group.

You're not kidding!
Their $1.2 billion over 16 years works out to $75 million/year or $140,000 per year to influence each congressman.
They wouldn't do it if it didn't pay off. I think it is fair to say or government largely answers to the highest bidder.