Net Neutrality

[Regank]

I have looked throughout the threads and I did not see another talking about net neutrality. I was wondering what all of your views were about the subject and to feel free to post anything about net neutrality. 

[JeffreyEagan]

Needs to be left the hell alone, I'm fine with obama trying to end those laws that don't allow competition, but the government needs NO MORE control over what should be easily used.

[Kazooey]

Needs to be left the hell alone, I'm fine with obama trying to end those laws that don't allow competition, but the government needs NO MORE control over what should be easily used.

 

exactly.

 

Big companies that are trying to get rid of net neutrality are, in my opinion, full of horse shit.

[Regank]

Do you think that Comcast really sides with Net Neutrality in their new ad? http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7DNk/comcast-protect-net-neutrality

[Crabtr]

Do you think that Comcast really sides with Net Neutrality in their new ad? http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7DNk/comcast-protect-net-neutrality

Absolutely not. They know they're one of the most hated companies in the world and they know that net neutrality is a really hot topic even among "average" citizens. These is just typical fluff to garner a little sympathy. It's a good thing they made this though, it means they're starting to feel the heat now and it's on their list of concerns.

[Ertman]

isn't there many threads discussing net neutrality?

Needs to be left the hell alone, I'm fine with obama trying to end those laws that don't allow competition, but the government needs NO MORE control over what should be easily used.

So without goverment intervention it is extremely unlikely net neutrality will exist. So just to clarify is your stance to let ISPs do whatever they want then?

[JeffreyEagan]

isn't there many threads discussing net neutrality?

So without goverment intervention it is extremely unlikely net neutrality will exist. So just to clarify is your stance to let ISPs do whatever they want then?

No. That's why I said that the ending of those 19 laws will bring much more competition.

[Ertman]

No. That's why I said that the ending of those 19 laws will bring much more competition.

It was just a little confusing when you said the following. 

 

 

the government needs NO MORE control over what should be easily used

Net Neutrality and the rules to enforce it are more government control.

[ThomasD]

Needs to be left the hell alone, I'm fine with obama trying to end those laws that don't allow competition, but the government needs NO MORE control over what should be easily used.

Net Neutrality is one of those focus group tested buzz words - It sounds like nice common sense but when you ask indiviudal people what it actually means they each give a different answer.  So, without any actual details, it is hard to argue for or against it.

 

If, by net neutrality, you mean one price for unlimited access then I think that is about as irresponsible as charging a flat fee for electricity - it would only promote waste and inevitably create economic distortions where some benefited at the hidden expense of others.

 

If you mean that there will standard measures of internet usage established so that producers and consumers can understand the market then I think that is just dandy.

 

If you mean attempts to open up markets to alternate providers - be it wireless, copper, fiber optic, or carrier pigeons, then I'm all for it.

 

If you mean a politically motivated power grab by the FCC then I strongly oppose it.

 

By and large the issue is two wolves (content and service providers) arguing over how they are going to split the sheep (consumers.)

[Trik'Stari]

Needs to be left the hell alone, I'm fine with obama trying to end those laws that don't allow competition, but the government needs NO MORE control over what should be easily used.

Needs to be left the hell alone, I'm fine with obama trying to end those laws that don't allow competition, but the government needs NO MORE control over what should be easily used.

^this.

more competition, but not a shit ton of government control and snooping.

[Crabtr]

If, by net neutrality, you mean one price for unlimited access then I think that is about as irresponsible as charging a flat fee for electricity - it would only promote waste and inevitably create economic distortions where some benefited at the hidden expense of others.

To clarify, do you mean, hypothetically, everyone pays $15 for unlimited gigabit internet? If so, then I have to strongly disagree. If it's properly implemented, residential internet is incredibly cheap. I think it's something like $0.50-1.00 per terabyte of bandwidth from a house to the backbone before tacking on portions for network admins, construction, etc and equating for how many people the ISP is servicing. Additionally, electricity and bandwidth aren't really analogous products. It doesn't cost an ISP $75 a month to provide a 50/5 cable line that's capable of pulling at most 16.2TB a month. Even at $2 per TB you're looking at a maximum of $32.40.

[ThomasD]

To clarify, do you mean, hypothetically, everyone pays $15 for unlimited gigabit internet or do you mean different tiers based on speed and then each tier has unlimited bandwidth? If you mean the former then I agree but if you mean the latter then I'd have to strongly disagree. If it's properly implemented, residential internet is incredibly cheap. I think it's something like $0.50-1.00 per terabyte of bandwidth from a house to the backbone.

That is exactly the sort of detail that is not being discussed, and this is no accident.

 

Specifically to answer your question I think both speed and volume matter and see nothing wrong with plans that price based upon either or both.

 

Ideally this would go hand in hand with allowing more direct competition between service providers.  Then let the market sort out what is truly most valuable/expensive aspects of internet service.

 

I suspect it will prove to be bandwidth, but that really depends on how people's tastes and demands develop.  IF gaming is all you do then ping is pretty much all that matters, at least in comparison to video content streamers.  And even among that group there are different ways to consume.  If you want wait until you get home from work to decide what movie you want to watch live streamed right now IMO that should cost more than if you can plan ahead, and pre-order your choice first thing in the morning, then trickle stream the data to your device all day for playback that night.

 

But, also note how that difference in data control might matter to the content providers.  They are definitely pushing towards a usage model as opposed to ownership, and they all want to free ride on bandwidth paid for/provided by someone else.