First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Net Neutrality Is In Danger Again
qwueri 
23828 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17

dougeprofile wrote:

The FCC acted like a legislative body's by creating "net" neutrality, that needs to be repealed. It isn't neutral when some government bureaucrat is dictating outcomes. Want faster internet? Pay for it. I trust corporations rather than BIG government that has no business imposing bureaucratic regulations on the internet ...now that is an entrenched monopoly that needs to be broken up and cut down to its proper role.


Yeah, a bureaucrat enforcing common carrier standards on the internet to ensure websites aren't hit with pay gates for speed is totally where the monopoly lies. Not areas already highly locked into local monopolies. Carriers nickel and diming providers as well as the existing pay structure serves nothing more than further lining carriers' pockets while costs for paid services get shifted onto consumers. Or are consumer the monopoly that needs to be broken up? because that's who the FCC is acting in favor of.
86946 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17

qwueri wrote:

Yeah, a bureaucrat enforcing common carrier standards on the internet to ensure websites aren't hit with pay gates for speed is totally where the monopoly lies. Not areas already highly locked into local monopolies. Carriers nickel and diming providers as well as the existing pay structure serves nothing more than further lining carriers' pockets while costs for paid services get shifted onto consumers. Or are consumer the monopoly that needs to be broken up? because that's who the FCC is acting in favor of.


That bureaucrat has no business enforcing their ...and your "common standards" on someone else's business. The net SHOULD be hit with pay gates - want faster speed? Pay for it rather than coveting and using government to steal services you didn't pay for. Now THAT is common sense! The monopoly lies in the regulatory imposition seizing control and dispensing favors according to the bureaucratic whim. Bureaucrats (like the FCC did) nickel and dimming companies, lining their own pockets, expanding their influence, need to be slapped down. These businesses aren't "lining their pockets" they are investing in new infrastructure; the regulatory monopoly hurts businesses and consumers.
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17
Saw this coming a mile away

and the fight continues

signed it
14029 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17

dougeprofile wrote:
The net SHOULD be hit with pay gates - want faster speed? Pay for it rather than coveting and using government to steal services you didn't pay for. Now THAT is common sense!


... you do realize people pay to access the internet and also pay a higher price to access faster speeds.
you make it seem as though having any sort of regulation will automatically make internet access a free commodity, which is frankly, absurd.


dougeprofile wrote:
These businesses aren't "lining their pockets" they are investing in new infrastructure; the regulatory monopoly hurts businesses and consumers.


if you let cable companies complete freedom to opetrate their business, they'll typically provide a worse service at a premium price. just look at Brazil, where the government bowed down to the cable companies. People paying for a 10mbps service only get an effective 2mbps. People paying for 1mbps connection receive a generous 0.18 mps, and those with a 20mbps data plan receive a fast 3.9 mbps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QowEw9B-gWA

Yes, people already pay more to get a faster internet. No-one is claiming that accessing internet should be a free commodity. Instead, people in favor of net neutrality rules do so, because they don'y trust Internet companies to hold themselves accountable to provide good service to customers, especially given the near monopoly that they have in the US.
Why would, say, Comcast provide the promised speeds if there's hardly a competition in some areas? Without government oversight, we might as well end up like Brazil in internet speeds. If you disagree, I'd really like to know why you'd think Internet companies would listen to their customers despite having a monopoly.
5395 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / The Cat Empire
Offline
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17



13315 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Abyss
Offline
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17
Man, and I said this would be an issue over 3 months ago. People never listen. At this point I am almost content to let people eat their just deserts. I have a ticket out of the USA anyway.
28846 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
14029 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17

MysticGon wrote:

If it ain't broke don't fix it.


if it ain't broke, break it and demand consumers to pay more to fix it.
mxdan 
11845 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17

dougeprofile wrote:


qwueri wrote:

Yeah, a bureaucrat enforcing common carrier standards on the internet to ensure websites aren't hit with pay gates for speed is totally where the monopoly lies. Not areas already highly locked into local monopolies. Carriers nickel and diming providers as well as the existing pay structure serves nothing more than further lining carriers' pockets while costs for paid services get shifted onto consumers. Or are consumer the monopoly that needs to be broken up? because that's who the FCC is acting in favor of.


That bureaucrat has no business enforcing their ...and your "common standards" on someone else's business. The net SHOULD be hit with pay gates - want faster speed? Pay for it rather than coveting and using government to steal services you didn't pay for. Now THAT is common sense! The monopoly lies in the regulatory imposition seizing control and dispensing favors according to the bureaucratic whim. Bureaucrats (like the FCC did) nickel and dimming companies, lining their own pockets, expanding their influence, need to be slapped down. These businesses aren't "lining their pockets" they are investing in new infrastructure; the regulatory monopoly hurts businesses and consumers.


Most Americans don't even realize their being ripped off. All it took was a flight out of the country to clear that one up for me.
86946 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17

namealreadytaken wrote:

... you do realize people pay to access the internet and also pay a higher price to access faster speeds.
you make it seem as though having any sort of regulation will automatically make internet access a free commodity, which is frankly, absurd.

if you let cable companies complete freedom to opetrate their business, they'll typically provide a worse service at a premium price. just look at Brazil, where the government bowed down to the cable companies....

Yes, people already pay more to get a faster internet. No-one is claiming that accessing internet should be a free commodity. Instead, people in favor of net neutrality rules do so, because they don'y trust Internet companies to hold themselves accountable to provide good service to customers, especially given the near monopoly that they have in the US.

Why would, say, Comcast provide the promised speeds if there's hardly a competition in some areas? Without government oversight, we might as well end up like Brazil in internet speeds. If you disagree, I'd really like to know why you'd think Internet companies would listen to their customers despite having a monopoly.


People should pay to access higher speeds; there is no place I made it "seem" like the internet would be free ...absurd indeed. Not sure the situation in Brazil has anything to do with the U.S. (there is likely some government/business corruption); the U.S. Internet was the best in the world before "net neutrality" came along - it will be the best after this anti consumer rule is gone. I don't trust government bureaucrats to hold themselves accountable, rather the private sector. If Comcast promises a certain speed at a certain price, but doesn't deliver, that is called fraud and is sueable; their having a monopoly meant no one else thought it was worth doing. Maybe a situation where no internet is available preferable?
qwueri 
23828 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17

dougeprofile wrote:

People should pay to access higher speeds; there is no place I made it "seem" like the internet would be free ...absurd indeed. Not sure the situation in Brazil has anything to do with the U.S. (there is likely some government/business corruption); the U.S. Internet was the best in the world before "net neutrality" came along - it will be the best after this anti consumer rule is gone. I don't trust government bureaucrats to hold themselves accountable, rather the private sector. If Comcast promises a certain speed at a certain price, but doesn't deliver, that is called fraud and is sueable; their having a monopoly meant no one else thought it was worth doing. Maybe a situation where no internet is available preferable?


How is net neutrality consumer unfriendly? Consumers already pay for access speeds. Allowing broadband providers to charge content providers as well for their own tiered speeds does nothing for consumers, other than pass costs onto them and degrade the quality of smaller content providers that can't afford high speeds.
14029 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17

dougeprofile wrote:
Not sure the situation in Brazil has anything to do with the U.S. (there is likely some government/business corruption);


the cable companies there have pretty much complete freedom to operate (there's a laughable rule that requires them to provide 10% of the advertised speeds). basically, the internet companies in Brazil operate in the same manner you're advocating.

14725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17

dougeprofile wrote:


namealreadytaken wrote:

... you do realize people pay to access the internet and also pay a higher price to access faster speeds.
you make it seem as though having any sort of regulation will automatically make internet access a free commodity, which is frankly, absurd.

if you let cable companies complete freedom to opetrate their business, they'll typically provide a worse service at a premium price. just look at Brazil, where the government bowed down to the cable companies....

Yes, people already pay more to get a faster internet. No-one is claiming that accessing internet should be a free commodity. Instead, people in favor of net neutrality rules do so, because they don'y trust Internet companies to hold themselves accountable to provide good service to customers, especially given the near monopoly that they have in the US.

Why would, say, Comcast provide the promised speeds if there's hardly a competition in some areas? Without government oversight, we might as well end up like Brazil in internet speeds. If you disagree, I'd really like to know why you'd think Internet companies would listen to their customers despite having a monopoly.


People should pay to access higher speeds; there is no place I made it "seem" like the internet would be free ...absurd indeed. Not sure the situation in Brazil has anything to do with the U.S. (there is likely some government/business corruption); the U.S. Internet was the best in the world before "net neutrality" came along - it will be the best after this anti consumer rule is gone. I don't trust government bureaucrats to hold themselves accountable, rather the private sector. If Comcast promises a certain speed at a certain price, but doesn't deliver, that is called fraud and is sueable; their having a monopoly meant no one else thought it was worth doing. Maybe a situation where no internet is available preferable?


"Fast Lanes" is just a buzz word. What it really means is to slow everything they don't like down.

We already pay for higher speed, businesses already pay for higher speed, and now they want to add an arbitrary fee to to throttle media services that compete with theirs. They even take government subsidies to build out infrastructure... which they fail to do. They are protected from competition at the local levels due to stupid laws. Get rid of those first.

ISPs can have their walled-gardens after they are open to competition. Until then they can STFU about government interference as long as they receive government assistance themselves.
15788 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17

dougeprofile wrote:


namealreadytaken wrote:

... you do realize people pay to access the internet and also pay a higher price to access faster speeds.
you make it seem as though having any sort of regulation will automatically make internet access a free commodity, which is frankly, absurd.

if you let cable companies complete freedom to opetrate their business, they'll typically provide a worse service at a premium price. just look at Brazil, where the government bowed down to the cable companies....

Yes, people already pay more to get a faster internet. No-one is claiming that accessing internet should be a free commodity. Instead, people in favor of net neutrality rules do so, because they don'y trust Internet companies to hold themselves accountable to provide good service to customers, especially given the near monopoly that they have in the US.

Why would, say, Comcast provide the promised speeds if there's hardly a competition in some areas? Without government oversight, we might as well end up like Brazil in internet speeds. If you disagree, I'd really like to know why you'd think Internet companies would listen to their customers despite having a monopoly.


People should pay to access higher speeds; there is no place I made it "seem" like the internet would be free ...absurd indeed. Not sure the situation in Brazil has anything to do with the U.S. (there is likely some government/business corruption); the U.S. Internet was the best in the world before "net neutrality" came along - it will be the best after this anti consumer rule is gone. I don't trust government bureaucrats to hold themselves accountable, rather the private sector. If Comcast promises a certain speed at a certain price, but doesn't deliver, that is called fraud and is sueable; their having a monopoly meant no one else thought it was worth doing. Maybe a situation where no internet is available preferable?


When do you consider "before net neutrality"? I'd say the major action that most people speak of when talking about net neutrality law would be the 2015 classification of internet as a service. What this did was impose a few restrictions, however by my understanding it changed virtually nothing. Instead it prevented things from changing in the future, so speaking about "before net neutrality" seems a bit strange.

So then, was the internet in the US "the best in the world" before net neutrality came along? Well, I guess it depends on when you consider "before net neutrality". Back in 2011, the US was ranked 12th in the world. Not exactly the best, and since then, their standing hasn't really changed much with the most recent data I've found showing them 14th in the world and the Akamai State of the Internet reports show a consistent increase in speeds and from what I've seen there has been no change due to the classification of internet as a service.

As for why the US is ranked so low, here is the opinion of David Belson, Akamai's Director of Market Intelligence (Akamai is a huge tech company which regularly provides reports on the state of the internet worldwide) following the data from 2011 I spoke of:

"There are two main reasons why the US is comparatively low in terms of global Internet connection speeds.

The first reason is a comparatively lower investment in broadband infrastructure in the US, as compared to many Asian nations such as South Korea and Japan, whose cities tend to dominate the list. In addition, Wall Street frequently punishes carriers in the short-term for making long-term investments in network infrastructure.

The second reason is that getting a high speed Internet connection in the US costs consumers more money than it does in other countries, so less people can afford it. This pricing issue is due in part to a lack of effective competition amongst Internet service providers in the US. This lack of competition has also provided a disincentive for broadband providers to significantly raise the speeds included in their service tiers."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kymmcnicholas/2011/01/24/the-fastest-internet-speeds-in-the-world/#379b22be7b9b
135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17
Has there ever been a time when net neutrality hasn't existed? I mean, on computers at least? I genuinely ask because over here, it's always... neutral. But I got on the Internet bandwagon pretty late, just before DSL became the primary source of Internet here so... early 2000. So, I mean, at least in America, was net neutrality ever... not a thing?
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.