Net Neutrality... My take..Maybe im Wrong?

[TheLongWay]

Net Neutrality means actually giving people the service they're paying $40 a month for.

 

You are not the business, you dont make the rules. If you dont like the prices for burgers at Buger King, that does not give you the right to just take what you want. You are however free to chose another ISP. Chances are you cant right now, becaue it is near iompossible to invest in infrastructure without some bureaucrats sitting in your way. Thats the problem, Thats why ISPs can behave like idiots and still make money. Net Neutrality does not get you anything, except for even worse service.

[NoctHorn]

Since we all know that the US government will do nothing to curb the rampage of these ISPs, I have determined that wherever I decide to live, it needs to be somewhere with google fiber.  

[Blade of Grass]

I completely disargee.

If Google does not show bing as a search result its a perfectly legitimate business strategy.Why? Because Google is not Manna sent from heaven to enrich the lives of people with free public utilities, they are a business and dont have to promote the business of others. Thats like saying that Porsche has to mention Honda in their ads, its nonsense.

Now, there are reasons why they dont do it. I use Google because I can find what I search for faster. If they change their software in a way that I cannot find what I want (like Bing, or any other product) I will stop using Google. They have an incentive to keep some fairness to the search engine. But they can change their software however they like, and calling that anticompetitive is just plain nonsense and confuses publicutilities with private enterprise. if you dont like it, use Bing or Yahoo.

 

"You cannot compare the internet and other services."

 

Yes I can, and it is reasonable to do so.

If a postal service decides to change its cost structure in a way I dislike, I use a different provider. Im not sure what you are using in the US, but Im sure there are more than just one or two.

 

You have to pay the ISP for using Netflix because Netflix uses gigantic amouns of data, which is expensive for the ISP. Again,. perfectly reasonable and if you enfore Net Neutrality, Netflix might just come up the biggest loser of them all because they wont get a premium treatment. Maybe now some serious research institutes has to wait longer to access data from around the world. but the grumpy cat post to 9gag will be faster.

 

 

All the issues you complain about derive from one axiom, and that is that there is only one provider that can basically do whatever they want, charge as much as they want, and generally act like a******

To be fair, in some places that is indeed the case. But, and Im sure that is the case 99 percent of the time, that is due to regulation that makes competiton nearly impossible.

 

 

"The real issue is not that ISPs can't deliver, so they want to purposely slow down other companies services and charge you more because (to alleviate poor infrastructure). "

 

Economics is that study of the allocation of scarce ressources. Bandwidth is such a scarce ressource, and since there is no infinite amount available, you have to differentiate between between data. If the network is poor, there is even more of an incentive to do so. Again, most of my data is not that important and I dont mind waiting, but work related data has to be as fast as possible, which is why I pay a premium to ensure the best service.

 

"People have issues with government censoring illegal content? Just wait until corporations start blocking competition."

 

And how would they do that? If Google changes its software so that the first 10 pages are ads for coca cola, thats not anticompetitive at all! The quality of their search engine is their main selling point, and degrading that quality will cost them money in the long run. As a private business, they have no obligation to create the "perfect" search engine that only uses objective criteria to determine the order in which results are shown.

 

Again, if Google decides today that they will not show anything that links to articles that critisize Google. that is NOT anticompetitive. It will make search engine worse, and I might stop using it but they should be able to implement that change. (I dont think they ever would)

 

"You have to remember, net neutrality is about not discriminating against traffic, so not allowing ISPs to slow down traffic based off who you're getting or sending to/from. "

 

I am well aware of that and it is, again, perfectly reasonable. Network infrastructure is expensive and some services like Netflix account for a large percentage of the available bandwidth. If Netflix wants to ensure a premium expenrience for their customers, they should pay more, if that is what the ISP wants.

 

 

My main point remains that the bad behaviour of ISPs derives from the fact that regulation cripples effective competiton. It is next to impossible to build network infrastructure anywhere without running into some bureaucrat that sits on his arse and lets you wait for 2 years. THAT is the problem, not the ISP, they are merely the product of a degenerate legislative environment.

 

 

Think of all the services you are not happy with. Think about your last trip to the DMV (thats what its called, right?), What do these places have in common? They are either government owned or at least heavily regulated. My bank has nice customer serivce, so does my shopping center, my favourite online retailer, my local car dealer, the list goes on and on. In all these cases, competiton has consolidated the market to a certain degree and I, the customer, can pick the company that offers the prices and services I prefer.

Competiton solves all the problems you mention, and regulation is whats maing that very difficult.

Net Neutrality wont foster competiton, it will only make the service worse, because now the ISPs will invest even less, which will lead to more regulation, and so on.

Make sure you quote people so they get a notification that you've replied to them.

On to your argument:

 

If Google does not show bing as a search result its a perfectly legitimate business strategy.Why? Because Google is not Manna sent from heaven to enrich the lives of people with free public utilities, they are a business and dont have to promote the business of others. Thats like saying that Porsche has to mention Honda in their ads, its nonsense.

Now, there are reasons why they dont do it. I use Google because I can find what I search for faster. If they change their software in a way that I cannot find what I want (like Bing, or any other product) I will stop using Google. They have an incentive to keep some fairness to the search engine. But they can change their software however they like, and calling that anticompetitive is just plain nonsense and confuses publicutilities with private enterprise. if you dont like it, use Bing or Yahoo.

I'm not quite sure how it is over in Germany, but in Canada we have laws preventing businesses from practicing anticompetitive business practices. Just for reference, here's the precedent from the Competition Bureau of Canada to investigate how they rank sites, heck, that link talks about the FTC and the EU doing similar investigations, all relating to Google's ranking algorithm. These investigations were not even about delisting competitors (which could lead to breach of antitrust laws), but about giving their own services higher rankings.

The idea of Porsche mentioning Honda is completely different.

They can change their software however they want, to a point. Even though they are a private business they still need to adhere to the laws of the countries in which they operate in.

"You cannot compare the internet and other services."

 

Yes I can, and it is reasonable to do so.

If a postal service decides to change its cost structure in a way I dislike, I use a different provider. Im not sure what you are using in the US, but Im sure there are more than just one or two.

I would say comparing internet services to other products is more apples to oranges, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

Where I live there's only two real options, Bell or Rogers, because everyone else needs to use their network for the last mile.

Even if I go with a 3rd, like Teksavvy, they need to lease the last mile from either of the two larger companies.

 

You have to pay the ISP for using Netflix because Netflix uses gigantic amouns of data, which is expensive for the ISP. Again,. perfectly reasonable and if you enfore Net Neutrality, Netflix might just come up the biggest loser of them all because they wont get a premium treatment. Maybe now some serious research institutes has to wait longer to access data from around the world. but the grumpy cat post to 9gag will be faster.

 

 

All the issues you complain about derive from one axiom, and that is that there is only one provider that can basically do whatever they want, charge as much as they want, and generally act like a******

To be fair, in some places that is indeed the case. But, and Im sure that is the case 99 percent of the time, that is due to regulation that makes competiton nearly impossible.

See, I would agree with you on Netflix, except, customers already pay ISPs for a certain amount of bandwidth and a certain amount of data, why should they be charged more for the exact same amount of data, just because it's from Netflix?

On top of that, Netflix isn't asking for preferential treatment, they're asking for ISPs not to throttle their connections (see here).

Research institutions are normally connected to their own private high speed fiber connections, so the passing of Net Neutrality won't have a bearing on that.

 

If you're 99% sure would you like to link to some credible sources?

 

Economics is that study of the allocation of scarce ressources. Bandwidth is such a scarce ressource, and since there is no infinite amount available, you have to differentiate between between data. If the network is poor, there is even more of an incentive to do so. Again, most of my data is not that important and I dont mind waiting, but work related data has to be as fast as possible, which is why I pay a premium to ensure the best service.

Bandwidth is only scarce if you don't properly invest in your network or if you oversell your capabilities. None of these are the customers problems. It's the responsibility of the business to maintain their network and not oversell their capabilities. 

And how would they do that?

How would they do that? Quite easily. Here, I'll write a simple pseudo code for it

if (url == bing.com) {    url = null} 

 

 

 If Google changes its software so that the first 10 pages are ads for coca cola, thats not anticompetitive at all! The quality of their search engine is their main selling point, and degrading that quality will cost them money in the long run. As a private business, they have no obligation to create the "perfect" search engine that only uses objective criteria to determine the order in which results are shown.

 

Again, if Google decides today that they will not show anything that links to articles that critisize Google. that is NOT anticompetitive. It will make search engine worse, and I might stop using it but they should be able to implement that change. (I dont think they ever would)

You've taken my scenario and completely changed it, nice logical fallacy there. My scenario is directly about Google delisting competitors, not them displaying advertisement, not them delisting specific articles.

I will refer you to the first point I made, which was the article talking about a few different competition/trade commissions who seem to disagree with you on that. 

 

I am well aware of that and it is, again, perfectly reasonable. Network infrastructure is expensive and some services like Netflix account for a large percentage of the available bandwidth. If Netflix wants to ensure a premium expenrience for their customers, they should pay more, if that is what the ISP wants.

 

 

My main point remains that the bad behaviour of ISPs derives from the fact that regulation cripples effective competiton. It is next to impossible to build network infrastructure anywhere without running into some bureaucrat that sits on his arse and lets you wait for 2 years. THAT is the problem, not the ISP, they are merely the product of a degenerate legislative environment.

 

 

Think of all the services you are not happy with. Think about your last trip to the DMV (thats what its called, right?), What do these places have in common? They are either government owned or at least heavily regulated. My bank has nice customer serivce, so does my shopping center, my favourite online retailer, my local car dealer, the list goes on and on. In all these cases, competiton has consolidated the market to a certain degree and I, the customer, can pick the company that offers the prices and services I prefer.

Competiton solves all the problems you mention, and regulation is whats maing that very difficult.

Net Neutrality wont foster competiton, it will only make the service worse, because now the ISPs will invest even less, which will lead to more regulation, and so on.

It sure is expensive, which is exactly why I pay them for my service! Again, I already pay for my bandwidth and data, why should I be charge twice?

 

Do you have any credible sources that regulation cripples competition?  Are you suggesting that the government hands out permits to anyone and everyone so that they can run lines anywhere they please? Are they the product of bad legislation, or because they're money hungry and no one can control them, and they've created an environment where they have no competition?

 

I've had some good and bad experiences from government owned/regulated services, but I've never had a good experience with a P3. Here are some links that show you what happens with P3s. 

 

Competition only works if businesses agree to be competitive. If all the business decide that they're all going to do the same thing (think of price fixing) than their is no competition.

I don't see how net neutrality will desolate competition. ISPs threatening that they will invest less is baseless (look at AT&T who said they were going to stop upgrading, they quickly backtracked on that one).

[NotGoodAtLying]

You all ignore the most crucial parts of the discussion. First of all, we must ask ourselves why there is so little competition. Look at other markets, like food or flash memory. Prices have gone down and the profit margins are very slim, the markets have been widely consolidated. Why is it different for network infrastructure? In most countries, government has been involved from the beginning. Take Germany after WW2. Something called "social capitalism" had been established and certain "key industries" were state controlled. It seems weird that food was not considered to be a key industrie, but telecommunication and mail were state owned and controlled. Food is dirt cheap but few people are happy with their internet or mobile plans. Why? Because government regulation tends to make things worse. Instead of allowing free competiton, the governments' idea of competiton was to basically assign monopolies to certain areas and then try to regulate the companies responsible for these areas.

 

Like most of the time governments have their brilliant ideas, it turned out to be a mess Germans still suffer from today. 

Now let me give you an example from my home country: France. I used to live in a small town with maybe 10 000 households. We had one ISP and the prices were very high for the serivice that was provided to us. Also, many households had no internet service at all and were forced to try to get wifi from their neighbours (They paid for the data they used, of course.)

There was a company that wanted to provide internet by radio transmission. This would be a lot cheaper than digging in every street, and the projected prices seemed reasonable. But they local government said it was impossible, there was regulation in place that did not allow that. It took the company 4 years and a LOT of money to finally be able to start building their infrastructure, and it was only possible because around 4 000 households signed a contract that they would use their services for at least 2 years.

Most of the time, you will find that regulation does harm to the consumer.

 

Second part.

 

Net Neutrality makes the internet inefficient. Everyhwere in the world, wie differentiate between important stuff and less important stuff. You pay extra for fast shipping, car repairs, medical attention etc. What if, instead of paying 3 dollards extra to get your disired item in 1 compared to 3 days, there was "neutrality", so that every package will take exactly 2 days? Now some packages cost more to deliver because they have to be transported faster, even though 3 days would have been fine for the customer, and some may be cheaper. but come later than desired, even though the customer would have been willing to pay more.

The same is true for data. I dont care if my overnight download finishes at 4 am or at 7 am when I wake up. Contrary to that, I teach French for Germans and provide online lessons delivered as a livestream for my students. My upstream has to be fast and reliable, and dropping frames due to connection issues is unacceptable for me and my students. Why ban the ability to differentiate between important and unimportant data? The same is true for Netflix by the way, they also want "the fast lane"  (I hate the terminology, but you know what I mean), and enforcing Net Neutrality can hurt them just as much.

 

That does not mean that I think that ISPs are doing a great job, on the contraty, I think they are, mostly, horrible. But we have to look at the reasons for that, and regulation does not help.

 

Sorry if my English is not great, its my third language and I dont use it that much, and mostly in short messaging.

 

 

I'm too lazy to even read the summary.

 

 

You cannot compare the internet and other services.

You have to remember, net neutrality is about not discriminating against traffic, so not allowing ISPs to slow down traffic based off who you're getting or sending to/from.

Just to look at your shipping example, I'll use a counter I previously used in a thread. What if your postal service decided that every time you send a letter to a family member, you need to pay a family mail fee. You can send a letter to your aunt's neighbour for $2 or to her for $4! Is that fair? Why does the postal service care about who you're sending your mail to? Does it really change how they deliver a letter if you're sending it to a friend? Child? Boss? Lover?

The real issue is not that ISPs can't deliver, so they want to purposely slow down other companies services and charge you more because (to alleviate poor infrastructure).

What if Google decided that they don't want users using Bing search, delisted it and blocked it on all their browsers?

You would have people crying nonstop about Google's anticompetitive behavior.

Yet, people are trying to allow one business tax customers/business to use a separate businesses service? Why should I have to pay a tax to a business so I can use someone else's service? Does the gas station charge BMW a tax so I can fill up my car there?

So yes, I am pro net neutrality, just because the alternative could very well be detrimental to our society.

People have issues with government censoring illegal content? Just wait until corporations start blocking competition.

 

 

Great post, dude. I sure hope the ISP's are not going to charge $2999 to view this post.

 

All I could think was: DA 'LOOMINATI!

 

 

I completely disargee.

If Google does not show bing as a search result its a perfectly legitimate business strategy.Why? Because Google is not Manna sent from heaven to enrich the lives of people with free public utilities, they are a business and dont have to promote the business of others. Thats like saying that Porsche has to mention Honda in their ads, its nonsense.

Now, there are reasons why they dont do it. I use Google because I can find what I search for faster. If they change their software in a way that I cannot find what I want (like Bing, or any other product) I will stop using Google. They have an incentive to keep some fairness to the search engine. But they can change their software however they like, and calling that anticompetitive is just plain nonsense and confuses publicutilities with private enterprise. if you dont like it, use Bing or Yahoo.

 

"You cannot compare the internet and other services."

 

Yes I can, and it is reasonable to do so.

If a postal service decides to change its cost structure in a way I dislike, I use a different provider. Im not sure what you are using in the US, but Im sure there are more than just one or two.

 

You have to pay the ISP for using Netflix because Netflix uses gigantic amouns of data, which is expensive for the ISP. Again,. perfectly reasonable and if you enfore Net Neutrality, Netflix might just come up the biggest loser of them all because they wont get a premium treatment. Maybe now some serious research institutes has to wait longer to access data from around the world. but the grumpy cat post to 9gag will be faster.

 

 

All the issues you complain about derive from one axiom, and that is that there is only one provider that can basically do whatever they want, charge as much as they want, and generally act like a******

To be fair, in some places that is indeed the case. But, and Im sure that is the case 99 percent of the time, that is due to regulation that makes competiton nearly impossible.

 

 

"The real issue is not that ISPs can't deliver, so they want to purposely slow down other companies services and charge you more because (to alleviate poor infrastructure). "

 

Economics is that study of the allocation of scarce ressources. Bandwidth is such a scarce ressource, and since there is no infinite amount available, you have to differentiate between between data. If the network is poor, there is even more of an incentive to do so. Again, most of my data is not that important and I dont mind waiting, but work related data has to be as fast as possible, which is why I pay a premium to ensure the best service.

 

"People have issues with government censoring illegal content? Just wait until corporations start blocking competition."

 

And how would they do that? If Google changes its software so that the first 10 pages are ads for coca cola, thats not anticompetitive at all! The quality of their search engine is their main selling point, and degrading that quality will cost them money in the long run. As a private business, they have no obligation to create the "perfect" search engine that only uses objective criteria to determine the order in which results are shown.

 

Again, if Google decides today that they will not show anything that links to articles that critisize Google. that is NOT anticompetitive. It will make search engine worse, and I might stop using it but they should be able to implement that change. (I dont think they ever would)

 

"You have to remember, net neutrality is about not discriminating against traffic, so not allowing ISPs to slow down traffic based off who you're getting or sending to/from. "

 

I am well aware of that and it is, again, perfectly reasonable. Network infrastructure is expensive and some services like Netflix account for a large percentage of the available bandwidth. If Netflix wants to ensure a premium expenrience for their customers, they should pay more, if that is what the ISP wants.

 

 

My main point remains that the bad behaviour of ISPs derives from the fact that regulation cripples effective competiton. It is next to impossible to build network infrastructure anywhere without running into some bureaucrat that sits on his arse and lets you wait for 2 years. THAT is the problem, not the ISP, they are merely the product of a degenerate legislative environment.

 

 

Think of all the services you are not happy with. Think about your last trip to the DMV (thats what its called, right?), What do these places have in common? They are either government owned or at least heavily regulated. My bank has nice customer serivce, so does my shopping center, my favourite online retailer, my local car dealer, the list goes on and on. In all these cases, competiton has consolidated the market to a certain degree and I, the customer, can pick the company that offers the prices and services I prefer.

Competiton solves all the problems you mention, and regulation is whats maing that very difficult.

Net Neutrality wont foster competiton, it will only make the service worse, because now the ISPs will invest even less, which will lead to more regulation, and so on.

 

 

You think my hatred of government regulation is a conspirary theory? Ask any small business, aside from internet companies maybe, what affects their daily work most negatively, and you are very likely to hear about regulation. Here in Germany we have tens of thousands of pages of regulation and sometimes small companies with 15 employees have to higher expensive lawyers just to abide by these regulations. 

 

 

Net Neutrality means actually giving people the service they're paying $40 a month for.

 

 

You might want to re-word the sentence to something like: "Basically, Not having Net neutrality gives large corporations entire control over today's market."

 

 

The thing is, many small municipalities are trying to make their own fiber network, but ISP's are throwing their weight around to try and often succeed in shutting down these effort.

What REALLY gets to me though is that these ISP's are unwilling to invest in infrastructure due to financial risk, even though THE 1996 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT "PAID" FOR SAID INFRASTRUCTURE. (Sorry, rant over)

 

EDIT: Grammar

 

 

The fact that comcast has a service competing with youtube and netflix puts it into a conflict of interest, the only solution is for the government to force comcast to split completely, and not allow them to throttle a competitor. comcast internet and comcast digital cable should not be owned by the same company, or share profits in any way.

 

Not to mention that the ISP's are already far bigger than they should ever have been allowed to be. They were allowed to merge "in order to cut costs and prevent peoples bills from going up" and yet since they were allowed to merge, the bills of their customers have risen 8 times faster than inflation.

 

 

That was also when they were allowed to merge. not to mention several states passing laws that municipalities couldn't create their own fiber infrastructure.

 

 

"The fact that comcast has a service competing with youtube and netflix puts it into a conflict of interest, the only solution is for the government to force comcast to split completely, and not allow them to throttle a competitor. comcast internet and comcast digital cable should not be owned by the same company, or share profits in any way."

 

That is false. If they wanted to, they could only provde service to go to their own website and it should still be legal. You know, youre allowed to provide bad service, its called a market.

 

Like in every example that is given that is pro net neutrality the issue is the following: There is next to no competiton, allowing ISPs to behave like a*****. Now why is that the case? Because of government regulation. The government WANTS a few big companies that they can influence rather than 10 000 small providers, simple as that, Either that, or they are just too stupod to realize what they laws have created.

The only solution is radical change in the laws of most countries, allowing companies to invest in network infrastructure. You have no idea how hard it is to build this infrastructure, when existing ISPs and the government dont want you to. If these laws are abolished, they cant go on behaving like they do now, because they will be out of business just like everyone else. 

 

Again: More regulation does not make it better, we need less regulation to allow competiton, which will force a consilidation of the maket and a pro-consumer shift on its own.

 

 

You are not the business, you dont make the rules. If you dont like the prices for burgers at Buger King, that does not give you the right to just take what you want. You are however free to chose another ISP. Chances are you cant right now, becaue it is near iompossible to invest in infrastructure without some bureaucrats sitting in your way. Thats the problem, Thats why ISPs can behave like idiots and still make money. Net Neutrality does not get you anything, except for even worse service.

 

 

Since we all know that the US government will do nothing to curb the rampage of these ISPs, I have determined that wherever I decide to live, it needs to be somewhere with google fiber.  

 

Oh Horray! Actual Debating I was hoping for this, really, im almost giddy. Just getting back from work, already have good news on my plate when i get home. Fun stuff, 

 

Thanks to all who liked the post Initially, Time for the post of debate ***knuckle cracking intensifies***

 

sooo

 

@

TheLongWay

 

After spending a day or so talking to co-workers about this issue and raising awareness (you would not believe the number of people who know nothing on this topic) i actually enjoy learning more about the other side to this debate. I am actually looking at both sides of this argument in a more constructive way than when i initially started this post. So, 

 

I understand regulation will harm the consumer to a large degree, especially after hearing others thoughts on the matter. That does not however, make me wish to concede to the fact that regulation is not the lesser of the two presented evils. For the most part, your comparison to shipping times makes sense, but i find it to be fairly black and white. I understand the need to further bandwidth, lay more fiber, even ease up on the current amount of bandwidth being used by the mass consumer. However, i feel your forgetting the negatives associated to the other side of this. Prioritizing bandwidth in what is essentially a giant, never-ending advertisement based market, will filter out any new start-up companies due to the fact that, maybe unlike you, will suffer from the idea of having to wait for a page to load. Yes, there are many sites that do not deserve to be eating the bandwidth that they do, but sites, specifically sites like square-space and dollar shave club (to use some linus sponsors) may never have grown in popularity if they did not have fast page-load times, as the majority of the people who use sites like that, dont want their webpages to load slowly, or have to wait a few minutes to be able to use a site like dollar shave club, leading onto my next argument...

 

There would then be no reason to buy expensive server equipment, as the load to your server will be drastically reduced. While phrasing it this way does seem like shedding a positive light on the matter, it also means current start up companies will be loosing money in their already bought hardware to support, what they assume to be a larger consumer base than usual, now having to wait a significantly longer amount of time to gain what i want to call "subscribers" as that in this fast lane's sense, is essentially what your doing. And even then you would then have to cater to the majority of your "audience" by waiting to upgrade your hardware until the majority are those who subscribe. Seemingly unfair to startup companies who, in a world where this existed, would never grow to the point that they currently are. Which may in-turn be a reason for the increase in bandwidth by consumers itself. The fact that there is a new website out there every day attracting more and more users, through a creative idea of their own, would make a system like this highly inefficient. Viewing it in the number of websites that are out there, who is to say which one gets to live, and which one withers away? Is this not alienating a consumerbase, simply because no matter how much money the "subscribers" of a company throw at it, the company itself cannot grow as the mass consumer has a harder time reaching the content, making them, themselves more expensive? Maybe even collapsing under its own weight?

 

I realize that was a lot. But in honesty, im more for the common business than i am for amazon, as it seems a fast-lane society would drive more towards what is popular, even if they are doing things wrong (such as over-charging, not providing products, which im not saying they do now buttt.....) Allowing a monopoly to form in the market, as only the most popular things will be able to sustain themselves, because they are the only things getting enough money because of the fast lane.

 

Think of it this way, if tomorrow you walked down a street and saw two best buys, and one charged you 15 dollars to walk in and buy what you want right now, and the other, didnt charge you to enter the store to buy your product, but you had to wait outside 15 minutes before you could enter...which would you choose?

 

Now think about having a deadline for work.

 

Now think about having an emergency that you need to get home for.

 

Now think about needing to go get your daughter from school, get lunch for your kids. Youve been called to an event by your boss.

 

Now imagine that product you were picking up was a gift for a family member....still going to choose the other one?

 

Now imagine that that wait to walk in the store were artificially put in place, so you would go to the other best buy. Does that make it the right decision? 

 

While this ^^ may not happen to you often. You, are not the majority.

 

The majority, still runs on slow internet like DSL because fiber has not been layed out everywhere. The majority who use these providers are using them because of how the ISP's themselves have decided to wire things. If they didnt lay enough fiber, that, is not my problem. Bandwidth can be increased, i should not have to settle and pay the same, or more, because an ISP feels its necessary. 

 

Though again I do understand your point. Government regulation is still a bad thing, especially by a government who does not understand what the internet itself is at all (considering their change of broadband to what was it..10 down? something laughable like that). Also especially with a government that will likely tax the hell out of our internet usage, but at least in that sense all sites are treated equal and it does not, in itself, pose a threat to start up companies, or pose potential to create a monopoly inside the internet. Making the internet some laughable place with 10-15 websites available, like the channel switcher of an old tv. 

 

Thinking way on down the line . Damn me and my old tin-foil hat. 

 

 

@

Blade of Grass

 

I like the way you re-phrased the shipping example There are actually fundamental problems with the government regulating the internet as a utility, but it is the lesser of two evils as i just pointed out, and so, i am currently pro Net Neutrality as well, if only for the sake of the free market.

 

@

Speedbird

 

Lol thank you, i thought something similar on my way home, i hope they dont charge us $1000 to watch linus and then $2000 to comment on the forums, but that is a hyperbole. I digress It was funny. 

 

@

TheLongWay

 

Hey your back! Yes, if google decided to ban bing that would be their decision and it would effect my experience with them. But your correct, they should be allowed to do so. But what if they did so, and charged you for it, and they were also your ISP, and blocked bing. And charged you for it. 

 

Corporations can block competition this way, simply through ways of bribes to the ISP's, or through way of being the ISP themselves. Forcing slow lanes, or "non-lanes" as in this respect they would be, to all of their competitors. In that sense you could erase all knowledge of Verizon, when you are on comcast. People wouldnt know a better option is out there, you cant view the consumer as being intelligent as for the most part, especially here in the IT world, they simply aren't. If you were to cripple verizon in that way, it would temporarily eliminate a growth point for Verizon, a fairly large one at that, and Verizon might buckle under the weight...as, like previously stated, they would not be gaining as many new customers, causing them to stagnate. Assuming all other ISP's decided Verizon should go away, Verizon would be constant loosing their customers as long as they did not implement something similar...

 

And as soon as they implemented something similar, we have segregated the market in its entirety. With no new customers going anywhere, except where they are supposed to, you have created areas around the world in which monopolies exist. The market stagnates until one of them drops out, and so on and so fourth, until we only have one provider, and by law they are required to split (supposedly). Constant loop, not a free market anymore. The only thing at that point you could expect to learn about other internet companies would be back in cable, and then we are back to advertisement costing far too much for small segments, thus again eliminating startup internet companies, like, say, google for example. While not a small company in itself, imagine not having the internet to learn about fiber's existance because all info in relation was proxied out to a "non-lane"...

 

Based on your responses, you dont seem very open to this concept, closed to a side of the argument let me know if that is the case with you if you come back to this pose...

 

 

@

TheLongWay

i dont, i actually think they are pretty bad myself. Im just saying i would trust them over a bunch of businesses that currently over-charge for every other service they sell, some even with internet. While i may be mistaken, im not sure what the future will hold in either respect, i can only say that currently, its better to have a market where small business can exist, rather than one where they cant. 

 

 

@

othertomperson

I like it!  

 

@

Briggsy

Thanks for the correction, ill work on making that look a little better

 

@

VIhul

 

I agree, though im not sure if the fiber promised in 1996 was actually already laid or not... >.> im rather uneducated on that and ill need to look into it more. Though them throwing their weight around is indeed a problem with something like net neutrality not getting pushed forward. Im sure ive said enough about that above but High Five!  

 

@

Trik'Stari

I actually have not thought about that before, wouldnt they be making their own websites succeed in a situation where net neutrality wasnt around, in my earlier posts i talked about many websites simply shutting down or crumbling under the weight of not having what i called "subscribers" or people willing to pay for faster access, or access at all for that matter, to certain websites. The ISP's own website, in a world where only a few exist, would be taking up a lot of the market for free, without fear of shutting down wouldnt it? 

 

SUPER INTERESTING! Going into the book 

 

@

TheLongWay

Oh my i didnt expect to see you on the second page.. oh boy! 

 

Again, my previous statements have summed up a pretty good argument to your statement. Id like to point out again, i dont think anyone here is pro government, just by reading the responses. They simply aren't pro big business, since were are using practical analogies here. Businesses do have competition, as ive summed up by previous replies to your statements. I simply think that they as a whole would be more likely to push out competitors than the government that has made laws around doing so. 

 

Not pro government, pro net neutrality. All sites remain equal so that no site gets singled out. Actually, so that a majority of sights get pushed out to make way for the already large and popular brand names...Thus not allowing small companies to grow...thus not allowing future competition to happen. Whether that is the cause of the government, or Big business, net neutrality, as a whole, is better than handing that power out. 

 

But hey again, could be wrong, government could kill all small businesses as well, i just dont see as big a reason for them to...Elaborate if you come back. 

 

 

@

TheLongWay

We do not make the rules, currently competition does. If one person has a lower price, people flock to them. Though in this instance, people would hesitate to flock because of slower speeds, because of the ISP. Because of the convience factor, hell, they may not even move, because it takes more effort, and effort is money. Adding effort to a process, increases cost in time to the consumer. Considering how little of this currency of time people actually has now adays, it makes more difference than you think. 

 

@

NoctHorn

 

I like your thinking Lets just hope google fiber doesn't do something similar out of way for competitions sake....If they did decide to invest more effort into their fiber project i mean. Thats all speculation, i like where your heads at though! 

 

@

Blade of Grass

WOAH such a huge reply while i was busy writing my own, props mate. 

 

Though in fairness, i believe there was an issue in france for a while where they could not lay fiber due to issues with governmental regulation. I think that is what he was referring to... or she >.> idk. 

 

I love the code based hosts file... but really i think they use something like a proxy, its easier to setup. 

 

I also agree with the general consensus of your reply that customers should not be charged twice I wish youd have gone more in depth with it though.

 

 

 

I didnt mean to judge anyone.. if it came out that way. Just debating in my own way, let me know if i offended anyone and i will apologize.

 

Also. I seem to have overused my emoticon limit haha crazy. 

 

 

 

 

[NotGoodAtLying]

You might want to re-word the sentence to something like: "Basically, Not having Net neutrality gives large corporations entire control over today's market."

Also, done sir  

[Blade of Grass]

@NotGoodAtLying 

 

I very much like the way that you're looking at both sides of the argument, it's quite refreshing. 

What part specifically about the charging would you like me to go into because I'd be happy to explain it more

[NotGoodAtLying]

@NotGoodAtLying 

 

I very much like the way that you're looking at both sides of the argument, it's quite refreshing. 

What part specifically about the charging would you like me to go into because I'd be happy to explain it more

@

Blade of Grass

 

Thank You

 

Also, i should have elaborated more on that. I just meant write your heart out on the subject like it matters, i feel a lot of that is lost in todays debates. Many of which i find boring (the ones on the news and such). Ive liked this one so far though I just meant throw some passion into talking about it, I liked the way you said it I just feel it was overly what you were trying to say and i felt it got lost in the reply thats all. 

 

Im Looking for Passion > GLORY! haha, ah, im a little awkward. I apologize for that. But yeah thats all i meant, I understood what you were trying to say. Ive gone fairly in depth into researching this over the last week or so and side with you for the most part. 

 

I think between our options here in the states though, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The only question, is the rock going to kill us? Are we better off living in the hard place? Or is the hard place a trap, and the rock baring a golden core in the center that we failed to notice. Its times like this i wish i lived in Canada, and not in the realized dystopian future that is The United States. 

[Trik'Stari]

"The fact that comcast has a service competing with youtube and netflix puts it into a conflict of interest, the only solution is for the government to force comcast to split completely, and not allow them to throttle a competitor. comcast internet and comcast digital cable should not be owned by the same company, or share profits in any way."

 

That is false. If they wanted to, they could only provde service to go to their own website and it should still be legal. You know, youre allowed to provide bad service, its called a market.

 

Like in every example that is given that is pro net neutrality the issue is the following: There is next to no competiton, allowing ISPs to behave like a*****. Now why is that the case? Because of government regulation. The government WANTS a few big companies that they can influence rather than 10 000 small providers, simple as that, Either that, or they are just too stupod to realize what they laws have created.

The only solution is radical change in the laws of most countries, allowing companies to invest in network infrastructure. You have no idea how hard it is to build this infrastructure, when existing ISPs and the government dont want you to. If these laws are abolished, they cant go on behaving like they do now, because they will be out of business just like everyone else. 

 

Again: More regulation does not make it better, we need less regulation to allow competiton, which will force a consilidation of the maket and a pro-consumer shift on its own.

....... The companies don't invest despite the government having paid for it for them. The problem is instead of investing the money they were give (by the taxpayers) they spent on buying each other, and then jacked the price up. It's called an oligopoly.

 

That's what the issue is. They are being jackasses despite having a 0 risk investment.

 

Watch just about any episode, and they will break it down for you.

 

Also, just for laughs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMcny_pixDw

[NotGoodAtLying]

....... The companies don't invest despite the government having paid for it for them. The problem is instead of investing the money they were give (by the taxpayers) they spent on buying each other, and then jacked the price up. It's called an oligopoly.

 

That's what the issue is. They are being jackasses despite having a 0 risk investment.

 

Watch just about any episode, and they will break it down for you.

 

Also, just for laughs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMcny_pixDw

 

I did not even have to watch to get the cracked.com reference there Loved the cable commercial. 

 

correction: I now realize that commercial was only shown at cracked, not by them. 

[TehTotalPwnage]

Just out of curiosity, how hard is it to create a start up ISP company? I heard there's a pretty tedious process that results in why not many ISPs start up, including:

1. Buying a set of IPs, but as Linus said in his recent video, IPv4 has only 4 billion max addresses or something, and Comcast or TWC might own the vast majority of them.

2. Trying to get right of way from the government.

 

I'm pretty conflicted in this debate to be honest. For net neutrality is basically don't let the ISPs go bats--t insane, and against net neutrality is less government interference. Both are pretty good points to be honest.

[TheLongWay]

Make sure you quote people so they get a notification that you've replied to them.

On to your argument:

 

I'm not quite sure how it is over in Germany, but in Canada we have laws preventing businesses from practicing anticompetitive business practices. Just for reference, here's the precedent from the Competition Bureau of Canada to investigate how they rank sites, heck, that link talks about the FTC and the EU doing similar investigations, all relating to Google's ranking algorithm. These investigations were not even about delisting competitors (which could lead to breach of antitrust laws), but about giving their own services higher rankings.

The idea of Porsche mentioning Honda is completely different.

They can change their software however they want, to a point. Even though they are a private business they still need to adhere to the laws of the countries in which they operate in.

I would say comparing internet services to other products is more apples to oranges, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

Where I live there's only two real options, Bell or Rogers, because everyone else needs to use their network for the last mile.

Even if I go with a 3rd, like Teksavvy, they need to lease the last mile from either of the two larger companies.

 

See, I would agree with you on Netflix, except, customers already pay ISPs for a certain amount of bandwidth and a certain amount of data, why should they be charged more for the exact same amount of data, just because it's from Netflix?

On top of that, Netflix isn't asking for preferential treatment, they're asking for ISPs not to throttle their connections (see here).

Research institutions are normally connected to their own private high speed fiber connections, so the passing of Net Neutrality won't have a bearing on that.

 

If you're 99% sure would you like to link to some credible sources?

 

Bandwidth is only scarce if you don't properly invest in your network or if you oversell your capabilities. None of these are the customers problems. It's the responsibility of the business to maintain their network and not oversell their capabilities. 

How would they do that? Quite easily. Here, I'll write a simple pseudo code for it

if (url == bing.com) {    url = null} 

You've taken my scenario and completely changed it, nice logical fallacy there. My scenario is directly about Google delisting competitors, not them displaying advertisement, not them delisting specific articles.

I will refer you to the first point I made, which was the article talking about a few different competition/trade commissions who seem to disagree with you on that. 

 

It sure is expensive, which is exactly why I pay them for my service! Again, I already pay for my bandwidth and data, why should I be charge twice?

 

Do you have any credible sources that regulation cripples competition?  Are you suggesting that the government hands out permits to anyone and everyone so that they can run lines anywhere they please? Are they the product of bad legislation, or because they're money hungry and no one can control them, and they've created an environment where they have no competition?

 

I've had some good and bad experiences from government owned/regulated services, but I've never had a good experience with a P3. Here are some links that show you what happens with P3s. 

 

Competition only works if businesses agree to be competitive. If all the business decide that they're all going to do the same thing (think of price fixing) than their is no competition.

I don't see how net neutrality will desolate competition. ISPs threatening that they will invest less is baseless (look at AT&T who said they were going to stop upgrading, they quickly backtracked on that one).

 

 

These antitrust laws are part of the regulatory legislation that Im talking about. Yes, it might be against the law to alter your search engine in a way that filters out competitors. and, even though it sounds great, it is a BS law. Again, Google is a privatde business and they dont have any obligation to provide you with anything, If they want to filter, let them! Its their software and infrastructure. These laws are unjust, even though you might not agree with me. You see, I want government out fo the economy. ISPs have been granted money from the government and have special rights that others dont have. tha is the other side of the coin. Most of the arguments being made for regulagion, and NN (Net Neutrality) arise from the fact that people know these subsidies exist, and now they want something back. Which is perfectly reasonable. 

The poblem I have is that instead of handing out subsidies and then later regulation businesses, we could let the market decide in the first place. I dont see anyone who is unhappy with food prices, Why? Because here, regulation has been kept to a minimum, and competition has created a plethora of options with very consumer frriendly prices. 

The only reason I can think of why I would ever support more regulation is because I think that my alternative is far too radical and unlikely to succeed. So even thought I dont like it, it might be the best practical solution to regulate them even more.

 

 

You say they should not oversell their capabilities or invest properly, but these are vague terms. What is the "proper amount to invest" ? Again, whether you like the service you get or not is the only criteria that applies, and if you dont, you can switch.

 

And here we are back again at the core of the probem: In some areas, there is no competiton. We may disargee why that is the case, but I assume we both think that is the most crucialpart of the problem?

 

 

Yes, there are plenty of examples: Lets have a look at the postal service in the US. Until around somewhere in the 80s, private business was not allowed to deliver mail, Thus, regulation completely destroyed any competiton. This was changed later on, of course, but millions of people had to pay inflated prices for decades.

Now that I have demonstrated an extreme example, let me show you a more subtle one

 

If you want to sell, process, or package food, you have to adhere to certain regulations. How big your text on the product may be, how the paperwork has to be done etc. For many small businesses, this can mak the difference between making a profit and being able to employ their workers, and the business going bankrupt. Theres plenty of spacein between, and in general it can be said the one single regulation is often not much of a problem, but the sum of thousands of them sure is.

 

 

You also claim that business is only competitive if they want to be. Well then, why isnt your cheeseburger 10 dollars? Because there are 100 places you can get one from. business is about your own profit, and if 10 companies agree to price fixing, the eleventh can get rich by taking a huge share of the market by lowering prices.

Price fixing is only possible in a market that is not open to competition, and the only examples for that are heavily regulated, like ISPs or banks.

 

In a free market, price fixing is impossible to maintain and there is not ONE SINGLE example of price fixing in a largely free market.

 

My position on this issue is so different because omy perception of the economy is different. Im an Objectivist (Ayn Rand), and most people have no idea how markets work or how they are affected by regulation.

 

Maybe this is of topic, but if you ever find the time, please read this book: "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell.

 

Read it, and you will understand me better.

 

 

Sorry if this seem rushed, Im currently on the train on my way to work and only have a limited amount of time, since I also want to reply to other comments,

[TheLongWay]

 

Oh Horray! Actual Debating I was hoping for this, really, im almost giddy. Just getting back from work, already have good news on my plate when i get home. Fun stuff, 

 

Thanks to all who liked the post Initially, Time for the post of debate ***knuckle cracking intensifies***

 

sooo

 

@

TheLongWay

 

After spending a day or so talking to co-workers about this issue and raising awareness (you would not believe the number of people who know nothing on this topic) i actually enjoy learning more about the other side to this debate. I am actually looking at both sides of this argument in a more constructive way than when i initially started this post. So, 

 

I understand regulation will harm the consumer to a large degree, especially after hearing others thoughts on the matter. That does not however, make me wish to concede to the fact that regulation is not the lesser of the two presented evils. For the most part, your comparison to shipping times makes sense, but i find it to be fairly black and white. I understand the need to further bandwidth, lay more fiber, even ease up on the current amount of bandwidth being used by the mass consumer. However, i feel your forgetting the negatives associated to the other side of this. Prioritizing bandwidth in what is essentially a giant, never-ending advertisement based market, will filter out any new start-up companies due to the fact that, maybe unlike you, will suffer from the idea of having to wait for a page to load. Yes, there are many sites that do not deserve to be eating the bandwidth that they do, but sites, specifically sites like square-space and dollar shave club (to use some linus sponsors) may never have grown in popularity if they did not have fast page-load times, as the majority of the people who use sites like that, dont want their webpages to load slowly, or have to wait a few minutes to be able to use a site like dollar shave club, leading onto my next argument...

 

There would then be no reason to buy expensive server equipment, as the load to your server will be drastically reduced. While phrasing it this way does seem like shedding a positive light on the matter, it also means current start up companies will be loosing money in their already bought hardware to support, what they assume to be a larger consumer base than usual, now having to wait a significantly longer amount of time to gain what i want to call "subscribers" as that in this fast lane's sense, is essentially what your doing. And even then you would then have to cater to the majority of your "audience" by waiting to upgrade your hardware until the majority are those who subscribe. Seemingly unfair to startup companies who, in a world where this existed, would never grow to the point that they currently are. Which may in-turn be a reason for the increase in bandwidth by consumers itself. The fact that there is a new website out there every day attracting more and more users, through a creative idea of their own, would make a system like this highly inefficient. Viewing it in the number of websites that are out there, who is to say which one gets to live, and which one withers away? Is this not alienating a consumerbase, simply because no matter how much money the "subscribers" of a company throw at it, the company itself cannot grow as the mass consumer has a harder time reaching the content, making them, themselves more expensive? Maybe even collapsing under its own weight?

 

I realize that was a lot. But in honesty, im more for the common business than i am for amazon, as it seems a fast-lane society would drive more towards what is popular, even if they are doing things wrong (such as over-charging, not providing products, which im not saying they do now buttt.....) Allowing a monopoly to form in the market, as only the most popular things will be able to sustain themselves, because they are the only things getting enough money because of the fast lane.

 

Think of it this way, if tomorrow you walked down a street and saw two best buys, and one charged you 15 dollars to walk in and buy what you want right now, and the other, didnt charge you to enter the store to buy your product, but you had to wait outside 15 minutes before you could enter...which would you choose?

 

Now think about having a deadline for work.

 

Now think about having an emergency that you need to get home for.

 

Now think about needing to go get your daughter from school, get lunch for your kids. Youve been called to an event by your boss.

 

Now imagine that product you were picking up was a gift for a family member....still going to choose the other one?

 

Now imagine that that wait to walk in the store were artificially put in place, so you would go to the other best buy. Does that make it the right decision? 

 

While this ^^ may not happen to you often. You, are not the majority.

 

The majority, still runs on slow internet like DSL because fiber has not been layed out everywhere. The majority who use these providers are using them because of how the ISP's themselves have decided to wire things. If they didnt lay enough fiber, that, is not my problem. Bandwidth can be increased, i should not have to settle and pay the same, or more, because an ISP feels its necessary. 

 

Though again I do understand your point. Government regulation is still a bad thing, especially by a government who does not understand what the internet itself is at all (considering their change of broadband to what was it..10 down? something laughable like that). Also especially with a government that will likely tax the hell out of our internet usage, but at least in that sense all sites are treated equal and it does not, in itself, pose a threat to start up companies, or pose potential to create a monopoly inside the internet. Making the internet some laughable place with 10-15 websites available, like the channel switcher of an old tv. 

 

Thinking way on down the line . Damn me and my old tin-foil hat. 

 

 

@

Blade of Grass

 

I like the way you re-phrased the shipping example There are actually fundamental problems with the government regulating the internet as a utility, but it is the lesser of two evils as i just pointed out, and so, i am currently pro Net Neutrality as well, if only for the sake of the free market.

 

@

Speedbird

 

Lol thank you, i thought something similar on my way home, i hope they dont charge us $1000 to watch linus and then $2000 to comment on the forums, but that is a hyperbole. I digress It was funny. 

 

@

TheLongWay

 

Hey your back! Yes, if google decided to ban bing that would be their decision and it would effect my experience with them. But your correct, they should be allowed to do so. But what if they did so, and charged you for it, and they were also your ISP, and blocked bing. And charged you for it. 

 

Corporations can block competition this way, simply through ways of bribes to the ISP's, or through way of being the ISP themselves. Forcing slow lanes, or "non-lanes" as in this respect they would be, to all of their competitors. In that sense you could erase all knowledge of Verizon, when you are on comcast. People wouldnt know a better option is out there, you cant view the consumer as being intelligent as for the most part, especially here in the IT world, they simply aren't. If you were to cripple verizon in that way, it would temporarily eliminate a growth point for Verizon, a fairly large one at that, and Verizon might buckle under the weight...as, like previously stated, they would not be gaining as many new customers, causing them to stagnate. Assuming all other ISP's decided Verizon should go away, Verizon would be constant loosing their customers as long as they did not implement something similar...

 

And as soon as they implemented something similar, we have segregated the market in its entirety. With no new customers going anywhere, except where they are supposed to, you have created areas around the world in which monopolies exist. The market stagnates until one of them drops out, and so on and so fourth, until we only have one provider, and by law they are required to split (supposedly). Constant loop, not a free market anymore. The only thing at that point you could expect to learn about other internet companies would be back in cable, and then we are back to advertisement costing far too much for small segments, thus again eliminating startup internet companies, like, say, google for example. While not a small company in itself, imagine not having the internet to learn about fiber's existance because all info in relation was proxied out to a "non-lane"...

 

Based on your responses, you dont seem very open to this concept, closed to a side of the argument let me know if that is the case with you if you come back to this pose...

 

 

@

TheLongWay

i dont, i actually think they are pretty bad myself. Im just saying i would trust them over a bunch of businesses that currently over-charge for every other service they sell, some even with internet. While i may be mistaken, im not sure what the future will hold in either respect, i can only say that currently, its better to have a market where small business can exist, rather than one where they cant. 

 

 

@

othertomperson

I like it!

 

@

Briggsy

Thanks for the correction, ill work on making that look a little better

 

@

VIhul

 

I agree, though im not sure if the fiber promised in 1996 was actually already laid or not... >.> im rather uneducated on that and ill need to look into it more. Though them throwing their weight around is indeed a problem with something like net neutrality not getting pushed forward. Im sure ive said enough about that above but High Five!  

 

@

Trik'Stari

I actually have not thought about that before, wouldnt they be making their own websites succeed in a situation where net neutrality wasnt around, in my earlier posts i talked about many websites simply shutting down or crumbling under the weight of not having what i called "subscribers" or people willing to pay for faster access, or access at all for that matter, to certain websites. The ISP's own website, in a world where only a few exist, would be taking up a lot of the market for free, without fear of shutting down wouldnt it? 

 

SUPER INTERESTING! Going into the book 

 

@

TheLongWay

Oh my i didnt expect to see you on the second page.. oh boy! 

 

Again, my previous statements have summed up a pretty good argument to your statement. Id like to point out again, i dont think anyone here is pro government, just by reading the responses. They simply aren't pro big business, since were are using practical analogies here. Businesses do have competition, as ive summed up by previous replies to your statements. I simply think that they as a whole would be more likely to push out competitors than the government that has made laws around doing so. 

 

Not pro government, pro net neutrality. All sites remain equal so that no site gets singled out. Actually, so that a majority of sights get pushed out to make way for the already large and popular brand names...Thus not allowing small companies to grow...thus not allowing future competition to happen. Whether that is the cause of the government, or Big business, net neutrality, as a whole, is better than handing that power out. 

 

But hey again, could be wrong, government could kill all small businesses as well, i just dont see as big a reason for them to...Elaborate if you come back. 

 

 

@

TheLongWay

We do not make the rules, currently competition does. If one person has a lower price, people flock to them. Though in this instance, people would hesitate to flock because of slower speeds, because of the ISP. Because of the convience factor, hell, they may not even move, because it takes more effort, and effort is money. Adding effort to a process, increases cost in time to the consumer. Considering how little of this currency of time people actually has now adays, it makes more difference than you think. 

 

@

NoctHorn

 

I like your thinking Lets just hope google fiber doesn't do something similar out of way for competitions sake....If they did decide to invest more effort into their fiber project i mean. Thats all speculation, i like where your heads at though! 

 

@

Blade of Grass

WOAH such a huge reply while i was busy writing my own, props mate. 

 

Though in fairness, i believe there was an issue in france for a while where they could not lay fiber due to issues with governmental regulation. I think that is what he was referring to... or she >.> idk. 

 

I love the code based hosts file... but really i think they use something like a proxy, its easier to setup. 

 

I also agree with the general consensus of your reply that customers should not be charged twice I wish youd have gone more in depth with it though.

 

 

 

I didnt mean to judge anyone.. if it came out that way. Just debating in my own way, let me know if i offended anyone and i will apologize.

 

Also. I seem to have overused my emoticon limit haha crazy. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well yes, large companies have an advantage over smaller ones because they have more money. This has always been the case and will always be this way. This does not mean that you cant make it int odays market. Take a look at the Fortune500 from 1950, then 1970, then 1990 and then and where we are today. You will find that the list of names changes rapidly. Despite all efforts, big business cant always win.

Also, I would like to point out that the problem is not that big business is trying to influence Washington, but that there is something to influence in the first place. Back 1890 there were no lobbyists. Why? Because there was nothing to lobby for. this unholy marriage between government and business is largely due to well intended efforts to try and help people. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. When a new law is proposed it might sound nice, but further down the road you will realise that it actually makes things worse.

Take a look at rent control. Surely, it was well intended, but there is a startling correlation between cities with housing problems and cities that enforce rent controls. It might lower prices in the short run, but less people will build houses, and singles often buy large houses, because its now cheap due to rent control. There was a famous case where a rich man rented an entire apartment block for a few thousand bucks because rent controle made it cheap.

 

Now, due to rent control, prices have gone up, less new buildings are built and singles live in big homes, while families a crammed into some form of state owned, dirty property.

 

 

My main point is that the involvement of the government in the economy in general is the problem. Dont hand out money to bug business, dont bail out greedy banks, dont pay for networks infrastructure for ISPs - you get my point

On the other side of the coin, the government has to stop interfering and regulation. Even if a company wanted to, you cannot run a large company in the US without contacts in Washington

Im sure Bill Gates wasnt keen on paying Lobbyists, he was buy trying to get his software out in the world, what he was passionate about.

But the antitrust cases in the 90s forced him to. And now we complain that MS pays Lobbyists in Wahsington.

 

 

My train will arrive in a minute, so I have to stop here. Maybe, if you find the time, you can read this book: "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell. Read some reviews on amazon, I can only recomment it for a different perspective on matters ranging from housing to monetary policy.

Ive read thousands of books, this one is my favourite!

[HullZ]

I will try to look at it from another angle.

I think, that charging too much is not the big deal, because that would not lower the freedom of the internet. I mean everyone would still pay for it.

But imagine what happens, if the basic bundle looks like this:

- You get a bundle where you get fast lane access to: Netflix, Youtube, Facebook, a few News Websites, Twitch and all the major websites

And you get this fast access, because those companies pay a little to use the fast lane and deliver 1080p to their customers.

Sounds good, right?

But what happens to everything else on the internet? It just became second class internet.

So I guess they would not overcharge you too much, because the politicians and people would protest against that. But if theres some sneaky way to slowly make the free internet, where everyone can set up their own server with their own blogs and stuff a non-free Internet where you have to pay someone to get data delivered to your customers that would hurt free speech and new or small businesses. And maybe not those small businesses that Google or Microsoft likes but those that need the support of the people most.

So I guess they would not overcharge you too much, because the politicians and people would protest against that. But if theres some sneaky way to slowly make the free internet, where everyone can set up their own server with their own blogs and stuff a non-free Internet where you have to pay someone to get data delivered to your customers that would hurt free speech and new or small businesses. And maybe not those small businesses that Google or Microsoft likes but those that need the support of the people most.

 

I am thinking about the US constitution right now, where it says that the people can have guns to protect themselves from the government or something like that (sry I am German, net neutrality is endangered here too). Its a little bit like censoring all newspapers.

 

Tldr; The Internet is becoming more and more the only place where we get information. Its not good most of us only use the same 40 websites owned by 20 huge companies. But it will get worse if Net Neutrality will be compromised.

[Tiby]

The internet is already the only place huge part of information is gathered, period. Now we even move deeper and deeper into cloud services were people decide to store their data or even use web apps to do their daily routine stuff for a very small fee to the operator. As much as many of you dislike this, thinner and more affordable services will prevail to many of us that don't exactly know / care what's under the hood as long as it works.

How should net neutrality be treated here? Should everybody pay the same fee for using this services? It's like asking for a laptop made by two manufacturers having the same hardware and slightly similar looks to be priced the same.. It's always the case that one will be a little more expensive then the other, because that's how a business runs. 

Also you can't even say: "ok it will look the same" because you won't even be able to sell it before the other company sues you for copying their product.

[TheLongWay]

I will try to look at it from another angle.

I think, that charging too much is not the big deal, because that would not lower the freedom of the internet. I mean everyone would still pay for it.

But imagine what happens, if the basic bundle looks like this:

- You get a bundle where you get fast lane access to: Netflix, Youtube, Facebook, a few News Websites, Twitch and all the major websites

And you get this fast access, because those companies pay a little to use the fast lane and deliver 1080p to their customers.

Sounds good, right?

But what happens to everything else on the internet? It just became second class internet.

So I guess they would not overcharge you too much, because the politicians and people would protest against that. But if theres some sneaky way to slowly make the free internet, where everyone can set up their own server with their own blogs and stuff a non-free Internet where you have to pay someone to get data delivered to your customers that would hurt free speech and new or small businesses. And maybe not those small businesses that Google or Microsoft likes but those that need the support of the people most.

So I guess they would not overcharge you too much, because the politicians and people would protest against that. But if theres some sneaky way to slowly make the free internet, where everyone can set up their own server with their own blogs and stuff a non-free Internet where you have to pay someone to get data delivered to your customers that would hurt free speech and new or small businesses. And maybe not those small businesses that Google or Microsoft likes but those that need the support of the people most.

 

I am thinking about the US constitution right now, where it says that the people can have guns to protect themselves from the government or something like that (sry I am German, net neutrality is endangered here too). Its a little bit like censoring all newspapers.

 

Tldr; The Internet is becoming more and more the only place where we get information. Its not good most of us only use the same 40 websites owned by 20 huge companies. But it will get worse if Net Neutrality will be compromised.

 

 

 

Until now there is no Net Neutrality and still, we can see new sites pop up every day. No one uses Myspace or ICQ anymore, and the same will happen to FB. The alck of Net Neutrality hasnt stopped Linus or Twitter or PCPER or basically any site you know and love.

Strangely, NN proponents always try to paint a scary future where doom awaits us all. It hasnt happened yet and it will not happen. Unless we start using atomic bombs again, of course, but thats another topic.

 

 

Why would Free Speech be endagered if it is harder to access certain information. If youre rich you can pay millions of dollars to get your point of view presented in the media; good luck with that on an average salary.

 

Small companies today face the same challenges they did 50 years ago: Their names are not established and they dont have the same ressources like the big names. Still, new companies rise every year. We dont need Net Neutraliry for that.

Before you can provide anything that comes even close to being relevant for data charges, like NetFlix, youre already a huge company.

I dont see how Net Neutrality would help smaller sites.

You also ignore other important factors, Even when Net Neutralty is enforced, you still cant provide the same service as big names like Amazon, simply because they can invest millions into servers. Do you want to regulate that as well? 

 

I feel like im a broken record repeating this: Net Neutrality is not the cure. Its like 2 doctors arguing over which colour the plaster should have while the patient is bleeding to death.

We need to seperate government from business, sto handing out favours, stop bailing out banks or the auto industry, stop giving money to so caled green jobs.

We should bring more power back to local institutions and let the market decide, instead of who can play the Washington-Game better.

[othertomperson]

You are not the business, you dont make the rules. If you dont like the prices for burgers at Buger King, that does not give you the right to just take what you want. You are however free to chose another ISP. Chances are you cant right now, becaue it is near iompossible to invest in infrastructure without some bureaucrats sitting in your way. Thats the problem, Thats why ISPs can behave like idiots and still make money. Net Neutrality does not get you anything, except for even worse service.

 

Actually no. If I went to Burger King and bought a burger and they refused to give me the burger I'd paid for I absolutely would launch legal proceedings against them. And under UK and US law I would be fully entitled to do this.

 

Stop pretending that we live in the Wild West of corporate entities being allowed to do whatever they like to customers. Every other industry besides ISPs are held to account over stuff like this.

 

You're talking about the state as if it hadn't given the ISPs massive amounts of funding to make the kinds of investments that you're claiming are "impossible" for them to do.

[TheLongWay]

Actually no. If I went to Burger King and bought a burger and they refused to give me the burger I'd paid for I absolutely would launch legal proceedings against them. And under UK and US law I would be fully entitled to do this.

 

Stop pretending that we live in the Wild West of corporate entities being allowed to do whatever they like to customers. Every other industry besides ISPs are held to account over stuff like this.

 

You're talking about the state as if it hadn't given the ISPs massive amounts of funding to make the kinds of investments that you're claiming are "impossible" for them to do.

 

 

You either dont understand what I say or you dont want to, maybe both.

 

I said Burger King could RAISE their prices. Raising prices does not mean cancelling existing contracts AFTER you bought something and then demanding more. I think I made that pretty clear and I dont see how you could possibly not understand it, but here it is. Read your contract with your ISP. If they do anything they are not allowed to do under that contract, sue them as is your right.

 

I have mentioned at least 3 times that ISPs have been granted money from the government and also special rights. Please read my text and try to underand it, instead of twisting my words or simply ignoring what you dont like to hear.

 

AGAIN:

ISPs are terrible and they should not get any money or special rights from the government. On the other side of the coin, government should not regulate them. This would result in something called competiton and better services for the customer like in most other industries. There is a startling correlation between heavy regulation and bad service for customers. Banks are a prime example. They are heavily regulated and get more money from the government than any other industries, aside from war-related industries maybe.

 

Now lets have a look at industries that are under little regulation, like software or youtube channels or even food. Where do we see growth and good service?

 

"Stop pretending that we live in the Wild West of corporate entities being allowed to do whatever they like to customers"

 

As long as they dont break the contract they should be allowed to do whatever they want. If i open a business I can call all my potential clients assholes on the phone and charge 1000000 for a shitty service. Of course, no one would pay me anything and I would not exactly gain market share, but I COULD do it.

 

The same should be true for ISPs, and if government would stop showering them with money with one hand and then choking them and, more importantly, competiton, with the other, we -the customers, would be much better of.

 

Sorry for the rant but othertomperson just ignored pretty much everything I wrote in previous posts.

[othertomperson]

You either dont understand what I say or you dont want to, maybe both.

 

I said Burger King could RAISE their prices. Raising prices does not mean cancelling existing contracts AFTER you bought something and then demanding more. I think I made that pretty clear and I dont see how you could possibly not understand it, but here it is. Read your contract with your ISP. If they do anything they are not allowed to do under that contract, sue them as is your right.

 

I have mentioned at least 3 times that ISPs have been granted money from the government and also special rights. Please read my text and try to underand it, instead of twisting my words or simply ignoring what you dont like to hear.

 

AGAIN:

ISPs are terrible and they should not get any money or special rights from the government. On the other side of the coin, government should not regulate them. This would result in something called competiton and better services for the customer like in most other industries. There is a startling correlation between heavy regulation and bad service for customers. Banks are a prime example. They are heavily regulated and get more money from the government than any other industries, aside from war-related industries maybe.

 

Now lets have a look at industries that are under little regulation, like software or youtube channels or even food. Where do we see growth and good service?

 

"Stop pretending that we live in the Wild West of corporate entities being allowed to do whatever they like to customers"

 

As long as they dont break the contract they should be allowed to do whatever they want. If i open a business I can call all my potential clients assholes on the phone and charge 1000000 for a shitty service. Of course, no one would pay me anything and I would not exactly gain market share, but I COULD do it.

 

The same should be true for ISPs, and if government would stop showering them with money with one hand and then choking them and, more importantly, competiton, with the other, we -the customers, would be much better of.

 

Sorry for the rant but othertomperson just ignored pretty much everything I wrote in previous posts.

 

I didn't ignore your posts, what you said was nonsensical garbage.

 

Charging people X amount of money for Y amount of bandwidth worked well when no one could conceivably come near that. Suddenly companies like YouTube and Netflix get popular and people actually start to need the bandwidth you've sold them: except that you've been sitting on your thumbs for 20 years putting all of the money that was supposed to go into R&D into huge profits. There's a massive deficit in the resources you've charged people for and the service you can offer. If you will, Burger King sold out of burgers weeks ago, but they haven't told you and they took your money regardless. To use your metaphor.

 

Have you actually read an ISP contract? It doesn't sound like you have. Whenever you come across the word "unlimited" it's always followed by an asterisk, and links to fine print saying something along the lines with "within the restraints of the Fair Use Policy". Funny thing about Fair Use Policies is that they're pretty poorly defined and not often easily available. This is a deliberate move to reduce accountability.

 

If you pay $40 per month for unlimited 30mbps broadband, and get throttled as soon as you go to Netflix in what sense is that giving you the service you have paid for? The Internet only works as a concept if all connections are considered equal, and if you think that demanding companies be big enough to be able to afford what is essentially the online equivalent of protection money to continue offering their own services will not adversely affect small businesses like LinusMediaGroup and TekSyndicate you're in for a rude awakening if the ISPs win.

[TheLongWay]

I didn't ignore your posts, what you said was nonsensical garbage.

 

Charging people X amount of money for Y amount of bandwidth worked well when no one could conceivably come near that. Suddenly companies like YouTube and Netflix get popular and people actually start to need the bandwidth you've sold them: except that you've been sitting on your thumbs for 20 years putting all of the money that was supposed to go into R&D into huge profits. There's a massive deficit in the resources you've charged people for and the service you can offer. If you will, Burger King sold out of burgers weeks ago, but they haven't told you and they took your money regardless. To use your metaphor.

 

Have you actually read an ISP contract? It doesn't sound like you have. Whenever you come across the word "unlimited" it's always followed by an asterisk, and links to fine print saying something along the lines with "within the restraints of the Fair Use Policy". Funny thing about Fair Use Policies is that they're pretty poorly defined and not often easily available. This is a deliberate move to reduce accountability.

 

If you pay $40 per month for unlimited 30mbps broadband, and get throttled as soon as you go to Netflix in what sense is that giving you the service you have paid for? The Internet only works as a concept if all connections are considered equal, and if you think that demanding companies be big enough to be able to afford what is essentially the online equivalent of protection money to continue offering their own services will not adversely affect small businesses like LinusMediaGroup and TekSyndicate you're in for a rude awakening if the ISPs win.

 

 

You have some valid points, but misquoting me or implying that I did not account for government funding of ISPs when I have explicitly stated that they received government funds SEVERAL times is a factual error on your side. If you dont believe me, read my posts, Everyone else here is encouraged to read my posts and verify that I have indeed mentioned government funding for ISPs on several occasions, thank you.

 

 

If the contract does not actually promise you unlimited data, then thats your fault for not reading it closely enough. Marketing should not be taken as fact. If there is a clause that is faulty and they cannot deliver what the contract says, you can sue them, and you should in fact do so.

 

Net Flix gets throttled because the garbage ISPs have garbage infrastructure that they try to conceal by smothering services that will use a lot of data in their network. Correct. I dont see how any company thats small in size could even conceivably get close to levels of data that would invoke similar measure from the ISPs, 

 

 

We do not disargee on whether ISPs are good or not. They are garbage, have been so for a long time and will be in the future. My question is: How can that be, when, in other parts of the economy, companies that have to  rely on trying to deceive their customers usually get out of business fast. I dont remember having any issue with my local car dealer, my department store or any other competitve industry business.

 

The argument that I put forth bails down to this: From the very beginning government has treated network infrastructure as some kind of public utility and thought that throwing money and special rights at ISPs would help the consumer. However, the opposite has happened and in many  countries, it has become next to impossible for competitors to offer services that compete with the ISPs. in my hometown in France, a small business had to fight 3 years to get official approval to offer internet service. The funny thing is that they did not even want to dig holes in the streets, since their service was to be provided by radio that only houses with a special set of equipment could use. If they had wanted to do ti the traditional way, they would have never gotten the approval because the law states that one network infrastructure is enough (thats what it comes down to, the legal language sounds a bit different of course)

 

THAT is the problem. If you dont address that, ISPs will never improve, and the government will increase its influence over it year by year.

 

 

Look at this fine example of government regulation:

http://www.collegesanddegrees.com/programs/cosmetology/licensing-by-state

 

 

If you want to be a hairdresser, you have to invest in hundreds of hours of "training" to get your license. I can understand licensing for doctors, but for hairdressers? Why was BS like that ever enforced? Because the established hairdressers or cosmetoloblabla, whatever they euphemism is, dont want competion. The only way to keep competiton out is by getting the state or federal legislator to enforce regulations that make entering the market for hairdressers harder. And because special interest always beats general interest, you now have licensing for hairdressers.

 

Now try to imagine how difficult it is to compete with Comcast. And who is to blame? The businesses that lobby for the laws and the legislator who enforce them.

[othertomperson]

You know what, I'm beyond caring. If you want to live in a world where to use Netflix you have to pay Netflix, you have to pay your ISP, and then you have to pay Netflix and your ISP again to slow down every other website and leave a "fast lane" open for your Netflix and you are going to argue tooth and nail for this to be somehow in your interest, that's your problem.

[Hikaru12]

It certainly puts way too much power in the hands of corporations who can then control what we do and see. But we've lived without internet before and also, the fact that the news media does the same thing every day doesn't really lend this theory much credit. Not to say it couldn't happen but I wouldn't reallly see it affecting us much if the worse case scenario happened. People would crowdfund another organization or another business would step in and make their own infrastructure. What does worry me is that laws are being passed to keep these monopolies in business because our whole political system is corrupt. But at that point, you're talking about starting a revolution, which hey it's getting there.

Interesting concepts but for all intenaive purposes a life with a controlled internet wouldn't be the worse thing because we already have a controlled media like the TV so instead we should just go back to the fundamentals of teaching our kids without a TV or putting them in front of a smart phone at the age of two.

[TheLongWay]

You know what, I'm beyond caring. If you want to live in a world where to use Netflix you have to pay Netflix, you have to pay your ISP, and then you have to pay Netflix and your ISP again to slow down every other website and leave a "fast lane" open for your Netflix and you are going to argue tooth and nail for this to be somehow in your interest, that's your problem.

 

Sorry but first you claim that I did not mention that ISPs received government money, and then when I correct you and invite everyone, inlcuding you, to look at my older posts then prove that you wrote something that is FACTUALLY wrong and also easy to prove for anyone that takes 2 minutes to search for it, you want to back out of the argument. That is weak. Very weak. You state something that is wrong, and then you back out.

 

You also dont even bother to reply, in any shape or form, to the arguments I presented regarding regulatution and the many ways by which existing ISPs and then government keep competiton out. Not a single line from you. You dont have to agree, Maybe, at this point, with this population, with the politicians you have in the US, all factors considered, it might just be too bad to solve it and better regulation could actually be the only practical solution. I dont think thats true, but you could make a case for it. You dont. You dont even bother to address anything I said about regulation, and how it affects the way ISPs can behave.

 

If you want to continue, acknowledge that you were wrong when you accused me of not mentioning the fact that ISPs receive money from the government. Thats what you do in a discussion between adults., You dont have to agree with anything else that I have said, you can claim that regulation is the best thing ever, because that is a matter of opinion, at leats to a certain degree.

 

 

It certainly puts way too much power in the hands of corporations who can then control what we do and see. But we've lived without internet before and also, the fact that the news media does the same thing every day doesn't really lend this theory much credit. Not to say it couldn't happen but I wouldn't reallly see it affecting us much if the worse case scenario happened. People would crowdfund another organization or another business would step in and make their own infrastructure. What does worry me is that laws are being passed to keep these monopolies in business because our whole political system is corrupt. But at that point, you're talking about starting a revolution, which hey it's getting there.

Interesting concepts but for all intenaive purposes a life with a controlled internet wouldn't be the worse thing because we already have a controlled media like the TV so instead we should just go back to the fundamentals of teaching our kids without a TV or putting them in front of a smart phone at the age of two.

 

 

And why would it put too much power into the hands of companies? I dont see the government imposing Neutrality for food supplies, which is certainly much more important than the internet, and yet food is cheap and of a high quality, if you bother to look for it, of course. Dont you agree that there are areas in which there is little to no regulation and yet the customer is in a very good position, much better than in the more regulated areas of the economy?

 

I dont want to defend the status quo. I dont want to defend ISPs, On the contrary, I think they are gargabe and should lose market shares. We disagree on how that might be achieved, I assume. And thats fine, But could we please start debating that instead of ignoring everything I say about how competiton has been kept out by regulation and lobbying by ISPs?

 

Since Im the onlly one arguing AGAINST more regulation, I would like to see some arguments why introcuding competiton to ISPs is impossible.

 

And yes, what Im talking about is a revolution. Not a violent one, but nonetheless a revolution. Big Business and Big Government is often regocnised as evil, and thats not false. However, most people seem to belief that the only way to improve this situation is to start regulating even more. I argue that regulation is BETTER for BIG BUSINESS because they have the money and economies of scale to either comply more easily or to avoid ha ving to comply trough lobbying or some legal trickery. BB LOVES regulation. Not all of it, mind you, but they certainly dont want free markets, because then they would have to actually offer better products. Same thing in most areas of our economy. You want to be a plumber? No, cant do that, You have to be part of this licensing model and pay us first before you can do that,

What should happen instead? You want to be a plumber, you go and try to satisfy your customer and if you can, you can stay to work as a plumber. Here, as with ISPs, regulation is always controlled by those who have the money to influence legislation, and no amount of regulation can stop that.

[Hikaru12]

Sorry but first you claim that I did not mention that ISPs received government money, and then when I correct you and invite everyone, inlcuding you, to look at my older posts then prove that you wrote something that is FACTUALLY wrong and also easy to prove for anyone that takes 2 minutes to search for it, you want to back out of the argument. That is weak. Very weak. You state something that is wrong, and then you back out.

 

You also dont even bother to reply, in any shape or form, to the arguments I presented regarding regulatution and the many ways by which existing ISPs and then government keep competiton out. Not a single line from you. You dont have to agree, Maybe, at this point, with this population, with the politicians you have in the US, all factors considered, it might just be too bad to solve it and better regulation could actually be the only practical solution. I dont think thats true, but you could make a case for it. You dont. You dont even bother to address anything I said about regulation, and how it affects the way ISPs can behave.

 

If you want to continue, acknowledge that you were wrong when you accused me of not mentioning the fact that ISPs receive money from the government. Thats what you do in a discussion between adults., You dont have to agree with anything else that I have said, you can claim that regulation is the best thing ever, because that is a matter of opinion, at leats to a certain degree.

 

 

 

 

And why would it put too much power into the hands of companies? I dont see the government imposing Neutrality for food supplies, which is certainly much more important than the internet, and yet food is cheap and of a high quality, if you bother to look for it, of course. Dont you agree that there are areas in which there is little to no regulation and yet the customer is in a very good position, much better than in the more regulated areas of the economy?

 

I dont want to defend the status quo. I dont want to defend ISPs, On the contrary, I think they are gargabe and should lose market shares. We disagree on how that might be achieved, I assume. And thats fine, But could we please start debating that instead of ignoring everything I say about how competiton has been kept out by regulation and lobbying by ISPs?

 

Since Im the onlly one arguing AGAINST more regulation, I would like to see some arguments why introcuding competiton to ISPs is impossible.

 

And yes, what Im talking about is a revolution. Not a violent one, but nonetheless a revolution. Big Business and Big Government is often regocnised as evil, and thats not false. However, most people seem to belief that the only way to improve this situation is to start regulating even more. I argue that regulation is BETTER for BIG BUSINESS because they have the money and economies of scale to either comply more easily or to avoid ha ving to comply trough lobbying or some legal trickery. BB LOVES regulation. Not all of it, mind you, but they certainly dont want free markets, because then they would have to actually offer better products. Same thing in most areas of our economy. You want to be a plumber? No, cant do that, You have to be part of this licensing model and pay us first before you can do that,

What should happen instead? You want to be a plumber, you go and try to satisfy your customer and if you can, you can stay to work as a plumber. Here, as with ISPs, regulation is always controlled by those who have the money to influence legislation, and no amount of regulation can stop that.

 

The problem isn't regulating the internet by government action but rather when consumers don't have a choice, you only one company, and the big businesses like Comcast or Time Warner are preventing competition by claiming this and that and getting the law on their side. They're physically trying to prevent Google Fiber from entering certain locations. They know that if they don't give the consumers what they want that they're going to lose business so what do they do instead? They try to get the politicians to side with them.

 

In my city there's only two choices 1) Comcast or 2) Verizon, if you don't like either because of their prices or practices you go without internet. I think that's bogus but many other places face this same issue.

 

As a result, regulating the internet may be the only thing left if the government doesn't decide to break up these monopolies soon. 

[CyanideInsanity]

You are not the business, you dont make the rules. If you dont like the prices for burgers at Buger King, that does not give you the right to just take what you want. You are however free to chose another ISP. Chances are you cant right now, becaue it is near iompossible to invest in infrastructure without some bureaucrats sitting in your way. Thats the problem, Thats why ISPs can behave like idiots and still make money. Net Neutrality does not get you anything, except for even worse service.

That example doesn't exactly fit with peoples' worries. Its more like if BK has a burger for $1 and a large soda for $1 totaling $2 if you make separate purchases, but if you go for the burger large soda combo they charge $10 instead of $2.

[KeltonDSMer]

 

And why would it put too much power into the hands of companies? I dont see the government imposing Neutrality for food supplies, which is certainly much more important than the internet, and yet food is cheap and of a high quality, if you bother to look for it, of course.

 

You have mentioned cheap safe food a few times and I have to ask if you realize that the USA food production is one of the most subsidized and regulated industries in the country. The only reason food is cheap here is because the feds buy all corn produced at a higher value than that of the open market, and the purchase is guaranteed. Our cheap meat exists solely because of these corn subsidies and the Midwestern soil quality and water table have been devastated because of it. The US food industry is anything but a free open market.

 

The ISPs are using infrastructure paid for in part by public money. There used to operate under title II "utility" status in the early 2000's and guess what? There were multiple ISPs to choose from and they had to offer a good value or lose business. Immediately after being reclassified as title one "information services", ISP's blocked out the small guys from having access to the infrastructure. Consumers all of a sudden had only one choice, Cable or DSL internet but no choice over what company provides that service.

 

I am not arguing whether an open market is good or bad in a particular instance, but I find it funny that the consumer did have more choices when the ISPs were operating under a "utility" classification compared to today. Now the ISPs are throwing their weight around speaking out against NN claiming a re-reclassification back under title II would magically do the opposite of what it provided to consumers 15 years ago. The ISPs now even have legal precedence in some situations to block municipalities from deploying their own infrastructure and creating a local government ISP; how does that help anybody?