Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: Let's Talk About Net Neutrality

  1. #1
    Senior Member Junior Division
    BlairBettsBlocksEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,799
    Rep Power
    61

    Let's Talk About Net Neutrality

    Net Neutrality is back in the forefront again



    In case anyone needed a reminder on why it's important to protect Net Neutrality this video is a good explanation
    __________________________________

  2. #2
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,756
    Rep Power
    112
    This is only a problem because the government has allowed ISPs to already have monopolies. The government fucked it up, adding more regulation won't fix anything.

    I mean, there is value in net neutrality. But the argument that "the government needs to be involved to preserve the free market" is ridiculous. Plus, the internet is not a right. So, whatever.
    Last edited by Future; 07-12-2017 at 11:16 AM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Junior Division
    BlairBettsBlocksEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,799
    Rep Power
    61
    I wouldn't consider preserving Net Neutrality as adding more regulations.

    It's preserving whats there. Yes, they have monopolies and the way it's happened is messed up. ISP's have consumers by the balls. Ending Net Neutrality enables them to grab a hell of a lot more too.

    The analogy they make in the video comparing it to water is completely correct. You can charge for the water, but you can't charge for what you do with it. Internet is (and should remain) no different. I'll gladly pay what I have to pay for access but the ISP's shouldn't dictate what sites you can go on or how your internet is for specific sites. I'd imagine all the websites that promote an open internet would suddenly not work very well if ISPs have that right to throttle speeds at their choosing
    __________________________________

  4. #4
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,756
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by BlairBettsBlocksEverything View Post
    I wouldn't consider preserving Net Neutrality as adding more regulations.

    It's preserving whats there. Yes, they have monopolies and the way it's happened is messed up. ISP's have consumers by the balls. Ending Net Neutrality enables them to grab a hell of a lot more too.

    The analogy they make in the video comparing it to water is completely correct. You can charge for the water, but you can't charge for what you do with it. Internet is (and should remain) no different. I'll gladly pay what I have to pay for access but the ISP's shouldn't dictate what sites you can go on or how your internet is for specific sites. I'd imagine all the websites that promote an open internet would suddenly not work very well if ISPs have that right to throttle speeds at their choosing
    I would. It's, by definition, a regulation.

    ISPs wouldn't have consumers by the balls if the government hadn't allowed them to get monopolistic in the first place. If they really cared about consumers, the govt. would do and would have done a hell of a lot more to stop ISPs from being the ONLY provider in areas. Net neutrality will only make the monopoly greater, at the end of the day.

    No, it's a horrible analogy. A streaming service is not the same as a basic webpage. ISPs should charge more for things that use more bandwidth. I get why consumers don't want to pay more, but ISPs have every right to do that. Netflix requires a hell of a lot more bandwidth than, say, BSBH, so why shouldn't it be more expensive?

    Without net neutrality, assuming the govt. works to allow more ISP providers into marketplaces and doesn't block them, consumers will at least have a choice to use other ISPs. Using Rochester as an example, Greenlight is working to install fiber optic and is the only real alternative to Time Warner. You can get away from it the big bad ISPs. With Net Neutrality in place, you better believe that ISP lobbyists are going to get an even tighter grip so that consumers have no choice at all. As demand for fiber optic or other internet options goes up, the Time Warners of the world will have to adjust - meaning they won't throttle sites. I don't think for one second they'll have to do that if Net Neutrality is kept in place.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Junior Division
    BlairBettsBlocksEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,799
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    I would. It's, by definition, a regulation.

    ISPs wouldn't have consumers by the balls if the government hadn't allowed them to get monopolistic in the first place. If they really cared about consumers, the govt. would do and would have done a hell of a lot more to stop ISPs from being the ONLY provider in areas. Net neutrality will only make the monopoly greater, at the end of the day.

    No, it's a horrible analogy. A streaming service is not the same as a basic webpage. ISPs should charge more for things that use more bandwidth. I get why consumers don't want to pay more, but ISPs have every right to do that. Netflix requires a hell of a lot more bandwidth than, say, BSBH, so why shouldn't it be more expensive?

    Without net neutrality, assuming the govt. works to allow more ISP providers into marketplaces and doesn't block them, consumers will at least have a choice to use other ISPs. Using Rochester as an example, Greenlight is working to install fiber optic and is the only real alternative to Time Warner. You can get away from it the big bad ISPs. With Net Neutrality in place, you better believe that ISP lobbyists are going to get an even tighter grip so that consumers have no choice at all. As demand for fiber optic or other internet options goes up, the Time Warners of the world will have to adjust - meaning they won't throttle sites. I don't think for one second they'll have to do that if Net Neutrality is kept in place.
    to that first point, I'm not disagreeing with that. But that's not what this is about. You talk about what Net Neutrality would do. We have it already. Yes ISPs have a monopoly in their own areas, but that's not the issue at hand. Eliminating Net Neutrality would allow for a further monopoly, because it would allow ISPs to throttle service for a site that might be a competitor.

    I'm not disagreeing that govt. should do more about ISPs having monopolies. But eliminating Net Neutrality is only another win for the ISPs. But your point is kind of like saying, "well, we lost game 1, might as well just let them have game 2 since we should've done more to win game 1 in the first place."

    Freezing your water into ice cubes uses more energy than just pouring it into a glass, therefore the water you freeze should cost more?

    To that last point, you are awssuming the govt. will do that? based on what? I think you are misunderstanding the debate. Net Neutrality isn't some new policy that is being forumalated to allow the govt. to further regulate the internet. The debate is centered around ending Net Neutrality. SO that argument about what the ISPs will do for a tighter grip is moot.

    You are absolutely right that if there was consumer choice, they wouldn't throttle sites in order to be the best. But it's not the case. Obviously we would be much better off if there wasn't a regional monopoly. But again, that's not the issue here.
    __________________________________

  6. #6
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,756
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by BlairBettsBlocksEverything View Post
    to that first point, I'm not disagreeing with that. But that's not what this is about. You talk about what Net Neutrality would do. We have it already. Yes ISPs have a monopoly in their own areas, but that's not the issue at hand. Eliminating Net Neutrality would allow for a further monopoly, because it would allow ISPs to throttle service for a site that might be a competitor.

    I'm not disagreeing that govt. should do more about ISPs having monopolies. But eliminating Net Neutrality is only another win for the ISPs. But your point is kind of like saying, "well, we lost game 1, might as well just let them have game 2 since we should've done more to win game 1 in the first place."

    Freezing your water into ice cubes uses more energy than just pouring it into a glass, therefore the water you freeze should cost more?

    To that last point, you are awssuming the govt. will do that? based on what? I think you are misunderstanding the debate. Net Neutrality isn't some new policy that is being forumalated to allow the govt. to further regulate the internet. The debate is centered around ending Net Neutrality. SO that argument about what the ISPs will do for a tighter grip is moot.

    You are absolutely right that if there was consumer choice, they wouldn't throttle sites in order to be the best. But it's not the case. Obviously we would be much better off if there wasn't a regional monopoly. But again, that's not the issue here.
    I'm referring to the regulation in terms of when net neutrality was passed to begin with. It does not encourage further monopoly, it would encourage consumers to go find better ISPs.

    No, my point is about fixing the shit you did wrong to lose game 1. The only reason we are in this position is because govt. allowed ISPs to get monopolies. Fix that, and then no ISP will be able to throttle sites because they'll lose customers immediately.

    No, you freezing the water doesn't have anything to do with the company who gave you the water. But you did pay for a freezer to freeze it, so you're not paying for just the water. If the water company also has to freeze it for you, then yea, it should be more expensive.

    Based on what? It's exactly what has happened. The govt. has allowed bigger companies to bully smaller competition out of markets. Here's a couple of decent breakdowns.
    https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-nee...d-competition/
    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...nd-competition
    "I look at all of these laws as ​subverting the democratic process. In all cases, they're nullifying or subverting the ability for local communities to make their own decisions," Settles said. "It's also a bastardization of the free market process that incumbents say the laws are in defense of. In reality, if 10,000 people in a community decide their services are crap, then they can decide, as a market, to take their money and find or create another provider."

    The monopoly IS the issue. There is no need for net neutrality is consumers have choice in ISP. If not for the government enabling ISP monopolization, we aren't here today. That's why it's the issue I think needs to be fixed, and I don't think that net neutrality will do anything to prevent those monopolies. If anything it will reinforce their position as there will be no motivation/need for new ISPs to develop. Eventually, that means prices will go up anyways. On top of that, I believe that net neutrality opens the doors for the government to regulate internet content because ISPs will say "we can't handle this bandwidth" and then need public money to upgrade - that means taxpayer dollars. When that happens, governments will have no choice but to either raise taxes OR throttle the internet.

    And not for nothing, but if consumers are upset enough about paying more for higher-bandwidth sites, they can stop streaming and all of that good stuff and go with DSL or whatever. It's not as if Netflix is an essential utility.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Junior Division
    BlairBettsBlocksEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,799
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    I'm referring to the regulation in terms of when net neutrality was passed to begin with. It does not encourage further monopoly, it would encourage consumers to go find better ISPs.

    No, my point is about fixing the shit you did wrong to lose game 1. The only reason we are in this position is because govt. allowed ISPs to get monopolies. Fix that, and then no ISP will be able to throttle sites because they'll lose customers immediately.

    No, you freezing the water doesn't have anything to do with the company who gave you the water. But you did pay for a freezer to freeze it, so you're not paying for just the water. If the water company also has to freeze it for you, then yea, it should be more expensive.

    Based on what? It's exactly what has happened. The govt. has allowed bigger companies to bully smaller competition out of markets. Here's a couple of decent breakdowns.
    https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-nee...d-competition/
    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...nd-competition
    "I look at all of these laws as ​subverting the democratic process. In all cases, they're nullifying or subverting the ability for local communities to make their own decisions," Settles said. "It's also a bastardization of the free market process that incumbents say the laws are in defense of. In reality, if 10,000 people in a community decide their services are crap, then they can decide, as a market, to take their money and find or create another provider."

    The monopoly IS the issue. There is no need for net neutrality is consumers have choice in ISP. If not for the government enabling ISP monopolization, we aren't here today. That's why it's the issue I think needs to be fixed, and I don't think that net neutrality will do anything to prevent those monopolies. If anything it will reinforce their position as there will be no motivation/need for new ISPs to develop. Eventually, that means prices will go up anyways. On top of that, I believe that net neutrality opens the doors for the government to regulate internet content because ISPs will say "we can't handle this bandwidth" and then need public money to upgrade - that means taxpayer dollars. When that happens, governments will have no choice but to either raise taxes OR throttle the internet.

    And not for nothing, but if consumers are upset enough about paying more for higher-bandwidth sites, they can stop streaming and all of that good stuff and go with DSL or whatever. It's not as if Netflix is an essential utility.
    And I pay for the netflix or hulu or whatever. It's seperate.

    Again, I'm not saying the monopolies arent an issue. I'm not saying that preserving Net Neutrality means in the internet is perfect. But you are saying that keeping net neutrality means new regulations that will hurt internet access when that simply isn't the case. We currently have net neutrality. this isn't a new policy that is seeking to dismantle the monopolies.

    Ending net neutrality means even more of a monopoly.

    Net neutrality has nothing to do with regional monopolies or lack of choice in providers. it's a seperate issue. I am 100% on board with what you are saying in regards to the monopolies, and you can say that without the monopolies, Net Neutrality wouldn't be an issue. But you're putting the cart before the horse here. We don't have a choice for ISPs now. But you are in favor of something that would give even more power to the ISPs because you think original policies aren't good. being in favor of preserving net neutrality doesn't make you pro-ISP, or pro regional monopoly. It just means you don't want them to have even more control of what the internet gets used for.
    __________________________________

  8. #8
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,756
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by BlairBettsBlocksEverything View Post
    And I pay for the netflix or hulu or whatever. It's seperate.

    Again, I'm not saying the monopolies arent an issue. I'm not saying that preserving Net Neutrality means in the internet is perfect. But you are saying that keeping net neutrality means new regulations that will hurt internet access when that simply isn't the case. We currently have net neutrality. this isn't a new policy that is seeking to dismantle the monopolies.

    Ending net neutrality means even more of a monopoly.

    Net neutrality has nothing to do with regional monopolies or lack of choice in providers. it's a seperate issue. I am 100% on board with what you are saying in regards to the monopolies, and you can say that without the monopolies, Net Neutrality wouldn't be an issue. But you're putting the cart before the horse here. We don't have a choice for ISPs now. But you are in favor of something that would give even more power to the ISPs because you think original policies aren't good. being in favor of preserving net neutrality doesn't make you pro-ISP, or pro regional monopoly. It just means you don't want them to have even more control of what the internet gets used for.
    It's not separate, because Netflix isn't paying the ISPs to cover the excess bandwidth.

    I'm not saying net neutrality hurts anything or that it means new regulations. It is a new regulation and I don't think it's a necessary one.

    No, ending net neutrality does not mean more of a monopoly. Cable companies have it now. The only thing that ending net neutrality could mean is that, essentially, you pay more to stream. It only gives them more of a monopoly if our government continues to make it difficult for new ISPs to start.

    They are not separate issues, anti-monopoly is one of the main arguments for supporters of net neutrality and monopolies are the only reason we are here. It is the fundamental reason behind why net neutrality is an issue. The ISPs do not have control of what the internet gets used for, nor would they. They'd have control over what you pay to use certain things, which is no different than the world we already live in. ISPs are their own companies, they have no obligation to provide "free" internet.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Junior Division
    BlairBettsBlocksEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,799
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    It's not separate, because Netflix isn't paying the ISPs to cover the excess bandwidth.

    I'm not saying net neutrality hurts anything or that it means new regulations. It is a new regulation and I don't think it's a necessary one.

    No, ending net neutrality does not mean more of a monopoly. Cable companies have it now. The only thing that ending net neutrality could mean is that, essentially, you pay more to stream. It only gives them more of a monopoly if our government continues to make it difficult for new ISPs to start.

    They are not separate issues, anti-monopoly is one of the main arguments for supporters of net neutrality and monopolies are the only reason we are here. It is the fundamental reason behind why net neutrality is an issue. The ISPs do not have control of what the internet gets used for, nor would they. They'd have control over what you pay to use certain things, which is no different than the world we already live in. ISPs are their own companies, they have no obligation to provide "free" internet.
    Kind of contradictory no?


    It allows them to throttle services to their streaming competitors, giving them more of a monopoly on services

    They are seperate issues because net neutrality is not about tackling the monopolies they have on regions. Im sure 99% of pro net neutrality people also believe they should'nt have monopolies but that's not the focal point of the net neutrality argument. Nothing in the concept of net neutrality is for or against ISPs and their regional controls. This is about paying for a service but having it be dictated how you can use that specific service, which is classified as a utility by law already
    __________________________________

  10. #10
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,756
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by BlairBettsBlocksEverything View Post
    Kind of contradictory no?


    It allows them to throttle services to their streaming competitors, giving them more of a monopoly on services

    They are seperate issues because net neutrality is not about tackling the monopolies they have on regions. Im sure 99% of pro net neutrality people also believe they should'nt have monopolies but that's not the focal point of the net neutrality argument. Nothing in the concept of net neutrality is for or against ISPs and their regional controls. This is about paying for a service but having it be dictated how you can use that specific service, which is classified as a utility by law already
    But if there is no net neutrality, there is far more of a threat to lose the monopoly because, in theory, other ISPs would have a greater ability to enter the market. It'd be no different than, say, DirecTV competing with Time Warner for TV subscribers.

    Well it is the focal point, or it should be. Monopolies open the door for this type of thing and it's only a matter of time before there is some other issue that has the same impact. If breaking up monopolies isn't the point, then really, pro net neutrality is just an argument against price gouging.

    If internet is considered a utility, like, say, gas, then doesn't it make sense that the more internet you use, the more you pay for it? The more you heat your house, the higher the bill. Why should that be different for internet. The issue is not about how you use the service, it's about how much of the service you use. Pro net neutrality folks want to make it an argument about how the internet is used but really, it's an argument about how much internet you use.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Junior Division
    BlairBettsBlocksEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,799
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    But if there is no net neutrality, there is far more of a threat to lose the monopoly because, in theory, other ISPs would have a greater ability to enter the market. It'd be no different than, say, DirecTV competing with Time Warner for TV subscribers.

    Well it is the focal point, or it should be. Monopolies open the door for this type of thing and it's only a matter of time before there is some other issue that has the same impact. If breaking up monopolies isn't the point, then really, pro net neutrality is just an argument against price gouging.

    If internet is considered a utility, like, say, gas, then doesn't it make sense that the more internet you use, the more you pay for it? The more you heat your house, the higher the bill. Why should that be different for internet. The issue is not about how you use the service, it's about how much of the service you use. Pro net neutrality folks want to make it an argument about how the internet is used but really, it's an argument about how much internet you use.
    How so? I don't believe Net Neutrality has anything to do with letting new ISPs enter markets or anything along that line. Correct me if I'm wrong though, but that isn't what net neutrality is. We have net neutrality right now. It's not about installing a new net neutrality policy, it's about preserving what we have. That doesn't mean internet is perfect. obviopusly the regional monopolies are a huge racket and I hope that steps are taken to stop it. But removing net neutrality doesn't remove the barriers for new or copmeting ISPs, it just allows the ISPs that already have a monopoly to dictate more about how the internet is used.

    And yes, it is an argument against price gouging. ISPs will be able to say, here's your basic internet that lets you access email and facebook, but if you want to start going to internet forums like 'BSBH' or 'Insert political belief page here' you have to pay extra. Or they would say, sites we don't want people going to will have their speeds throttled to prevent people from accessing that information.
    __________________________________

  12. #12
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,507
    Rep Power
    328
    In large scale issues like this, I'm usually a fan of starting with the ultimate goal and then working backwards to get there. Reverse engineering. The goal should be for every single household to have access to high speed internet over fiber optic cable. So lets start working backwards from there and get that done. Access to the internet for your mind is the same as access to roadways for your car. That will no doubt take some time.

    So in the meantime, net neutrality. In a lot of cases we are talking about monopolies. When the government has allowed monopolies to exist for the good of the public, those companies should expect heavier regulation. Net Neutrality is simple, to me. If ISPs are struggling with bandwidth issues, then they have two options:

    1) Throttle bandwidth across the board. Basically you are paying for a straw to pipe data, make the straw smaller so only so much data can pass through it at a given time.
    2) Limit total bandwidth over the course of a time period.

    Many ISPs already do #1. They tell you for an extra $X.XX you can get a bigger straw. And mobile is all about #2. And that's likely where ISPs would prefer to go if not for the terrible optics of it. What ISPs should not be in the business of doing is telling you what you can suck up with your straw.

    What has allowed these monopolies to continue is that high speed, use how much you want internet was hard to compete with when you had to build out your own delivery network. That's terribly obvious when you look at Google Fiber's roll out. Very slow and only to very dense areas where the terrain supports ease of construction. And that's from one of the largest companies on the planet. So rather than allowing these monopolies to dictate access locations, force them back into the more competitive space of pay as you go if bandwidth is really an issue for them. And lets see how much competition then springs up.

  13. #13
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,756
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by BlairBettsBlocksEverything View Post
    How so? I don't believe Net Neutrality has anything to do with letting new ISPs enter markets or anything along that line. Correct me if I'm wrong though, but that isn't what net neutrality is. We have net neutrality right now. It's not about installing a new net neutrality policy, it's about preserving what we have. That doesn't mean internet is perfect. obviopusly the regional monopolies are a huge racket and I hope that steps are taken to stop it. But removing net neutrality doesn't remove the barriers for new or copmeting ISPs, it just allows the ISPs that already have a monopoly to dictate more about how the internet is used.

    And yes, it is an argument against price gouging. ISPs will be able to say, here's your basic internet that lets you access email and facebook, but if you want to start going to internet forums like 'BSBH' or 'Insert political belief page here' you have to pay extra. Or they would say, sites we don't want people going to will have their speeds throttled to prevent people from accessing that information.
    No, net neutrality doesn't explicitly have anything to do with markets. BUT it has the indirect effect of making it difficult for other ISPs to build a customer base because there really is no pressure on the major ISPs to do anything different. If they start throttling different sites, then there will be a ton of public pressure and, on the flip side of that, support for other ISPs. And again, ISPs do not control, in any way, how people use the internet. Without net neutrality, they would have a say in how MUCH of the internet they use or more specifically, how much people pay for it. Net neutrality - and therefore, govt. intervention - is the only step towards regulating HOW the internet is used.

    That's exactly how TV works. I don't see why its so problematic for the internet.

  14. #14
    List Maker BSBH Rookie
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    22,082
    Rep Power
    188
    Questions:
    1.) I have one option of isp in my area. Will that change?
    2.) will all google image searches return porn as they did previously?

    Unless the answers are both "yes", then I don't care.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Junior Division
    BlairBettsBlocksEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,799
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by josh View Post
    Questions:
    1.) I have one option of isp in my area. Will that change?
    2.) will all google image searches return porn as they did previously?

    Unless the answers are both "yes", then I don't care.
    If your ISP decides it doesn't approve of all the weird shit I assume you are into, no
    __________________________________

  16. #16
    Senior Member Junior Division
    BlairBettsBlocksEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,799
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    No, net neutrality doesn't explicitly have anything to do with markets. BUT it has the indirect effect of making it difficult for other ISPs to build a customer base because there really is no pressure on the major ISPs to do anything different.

    If they start throttling different sites, then there will be a ton of public pressure and, on the flip side of that, support for other ISPs.

    And again, ISPs do not control, in any way, how people use the internet. Without net neutrality, they would have a say in how MUCH of the internet they use or more specifically, how much people pay for it. Net neutrality - and therefore, govt. intervention - is the only step towards regulating HOW the internet is used.

    That's exactly how TV works. I don't see why its so problematic for the internet.
    It's the laws dictate allow that. This isn't some policy they all agreed to stay off eachothers turf like a mob.

    I think you are vastly overestimating the likelyhood that ISPs will be allowed to compete once we lose net neutrality. What, if any evidence is there to suggest that the regional control policies are going to be changed with the end of NN?
    __________________________________

  17. #17
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,756
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by BlairBettsBlocksEverything View Post
    It's the laws dictate allow that. This isn't some policy they all agreed to stay off eachothers turf like a mob.

    I think you are vastly overestimating the likelyhood that ISPs will be allowed to compete once we lose net neutrality. What, if any evidence is there to suggest that the regional control policies are going to be changed with the end of NN?
    I think you're really overestimating how impactful the end of net neutrality will be...but if the internet that current ISPs provide is as miserable as you say, then everyone, cord cutters in particular, is going to look for other options. The market will look for better options, just like TV. The parallels between cable and the internet you're suggesting are striking. People don't want to pay for a bad product, so they go elsewhere. The same, in theory, would happen with internet.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Junior Division
    BlairBettsBlocksEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,799
    Rep Power
    61
    Well I think that internet is a bit more of a necessity than cable TV is. the fact that they are offered by the same companies though is telling. It's no secret that Time Warner would probably hate Netflix as people move away from cable tv and are paying for streaming services. Ending Net neutrality would mean that TW could block access to netflix and other streming type of services so that their customers only 'TV' option is their service instead.

    The so called free market wouldnt solve anything here. because, as you have noted, it's not actually a free market. We don't have a choice in ISP. Ending net neutrality is in part their strategy to people leaving their cable services for other options. They want to either throttle speeds or upcharge for doing things with the internet that directly impact their own business. this is a corporate handout, plain and simple.
    __________________________________

  19. #19
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,756
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by BlairBettsBlocksEverything View Post
    Well I think that internet is a bit more of a necessity than cable TV is. the fact that they are offered by the same companies though is telling. It's no secret that Time Warner would probably hate Netflix as people move away from cable tv and are paying for streaming services. Ending Net neutrality would mean that TW could block access to netflix and other streming type of services so that their customers only 'TV' option is their service instead.

    The so called free market wouldnt solve anything here. because, as you have noted, it's not actually a free market. We don't have a choice in ISP. Ending net neutrality is in part their strategy to people leaving their cable services for other options. They want to either throttle speeds or upcharge for doing things with the internet that directly impact their own business. this is a corporate handout, plain and simple.
    When TW blocks access, the demand for other ISPs will grow and people will leave TW. That's the point. It might not be immediate, but long-term, TW will kill itself by doing that, especially as fiber becomes more common.

    This is very shortsighted thinking, and I also don't agree that there's no choice in ISP. That's rarely true. The complaint, to me, always boils down to the fact that people don't want to pay more for streaming, which...fine, whatever. But there's DSL internet that's almost always available - I can't think of where someone would live, other than a very rural area - that doesn't have basic internet access that doesn't solely come from TW and other major ISPs. Sure, you might have to wait for Netflix to buffer on a slower connection, but "necessary" internet is readily available well outside of the ISPs you're contending that there's no choice to get away from.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Junior Division
    BlairBettsBlocksEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,799
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    When TW blocks access, the demand for other ISPs will grow and people will leave TW. That's the point. It might not be immediate, but long-term, TW will kill itself by doing that, especially as fiber becomes more common.

    This is very shortsighted thinking, and I also don't agree that there's no choice in ISP. That's rarely true. The complaint, to me, always boils down to the fact that people don't want to pay more for streaming, which...fine, whatever. But there's DSL internet that's almost always available - I can't think of where someone would live, other than a very rural area - that doesn't have basic internet access that doesn't solely come from TW and other major ISPs. Sure, you might have to wait for Netflix to buffer on a slower connection, but "necessary" internet is readily available well outside of the ISPs you're contending that there's no choice to get away from.
    That demand is already there but there isn't really the choice. I also believe that DSL is only available if you have a home phone line no? fewer and fewer people actually have those now. everyone has a cellphone.

    We were both saying we hate the regional monopolies right? you are claiming on one part that Net Neutrality protects the regional monopolies and that ending it would open some doors but then are saying now that there are other choices. so im not sure what your point is
    Last edited by BlairBettsBlocksEverything; 07-13-2017 at 02:19 PM.
    __________________________________

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •