That argument is pretty dumb. Of course government can enable local monopolistic practices - congress and state legislatures are there to be bought. In this case the ISPs are unhappy and calling in their favours. But the administration hasn't been bought.
The problem is the administration has been bought! The purchase was made by ignorant people that want to freeload on the rest of society. It is no surprise for example that the Free Software crowd is a big proponent of net neutrality. Why? Simple they are the types of people that never pick up the tab.
The solution is not to regulate the ISP monopolies just because they have used their monopolies to buy votes in the past.
The common thread I'm seeing here is the insistence from the net neutrality people that they need the same acces to the net as everyone else but don't want to pay for that access. Well, it is time for these people to put on their big boy pants and go out into the world and make a dollar.
Everybody else caught up because of .... Drum roll.... adequate Government spending.
Actually they caught up because of excessive government spending. Our biggest problem is we spend far to much of the budget on social and far to little on more productive uses for a tax dollar. We need to go cold turkey with respect to welfare for one an if there are riots in the streets we need to shoot the lazy bastards!
Then we need to start in on corrupt state governments and make the states respect the constitutions and find a new desire to implement equality in the laws.
How drunk does one have to be on the Republican Kool-Aid to believe that getting rid of Net Neutrality would benefit customers? We have one of the lousiest and most expensive internet service of the industrialized world. People in Europe pay $30/month for broadband + TV + international calling. Compare to your cable bill. Deregulation has allowed the creation of monopolies
No it didn't, your local governments allowed that to happen.
and kept the prices high via the complete lack of competition and the greed of the carriers. We need more regulation, not less.
We don't need regulation of the carriers beyond what is already there, we need regulation of government to make sure that the local authority doesn't offer exclusive contracts to what ever carrier finds the most corrupt official. This in a nut shell has created the biggest problem we have today, which is the high costs of services.
No it didn't, your local governments allowed that to happen.
We don't need regulation of the carriers beyond what is already there, we need regulation of government to make sure that the local authority doesn't offer exclusive contracts to what ever carrier finds the most corrupt official. This in a nut shell has created the biggest problem we have today, which is the high costs of services.
Still haven't explained why the vast majority of tech firms are in favor of Neutrality.
Great comment. The wingnuts on this board won't address it though because it can't be refuted.
Republicans didn't set up the monopolies that we see in most of this country that is a function of local government. The reality is you actually do see more competition in Europe due to less regulation. Surprise.
Frankly I'm not sure why people think this is strange. It is no different than any other user of a public facility, commercial vehicles, trucks and the like pay significant taxes to drive on the roads due to the high usage and wear they cause. Realistically the streaming services are no different in that they cause an excess burden on the net.
The way I see it is that the problem all started with cable offering unlimited bandwidth to residential consumers during the ISDN vs. Cable Internet delivery wars. At that point there was no fiber optics and offering unlimited bandwidth over coax was possible but ISDN providers could not match that service with twisted pair copper.
Jump ahead 20 years and the US cable companies have a near monopoly in Internet delivery to residential customers. Now with all the video streaming, the cable companies are getting hit from multiple directions.
1.) The likes of Netflix and iTunes are stealing viewers and their TV ad eyeball revenue,
2.) Some cable companies now own content, so streaming services are competing with their own pay per view programs, and
3.) Their networks are becoming saturated from so many people streaming video.
Their brilliant solution is to basically tax Netflix to solve all their problems and restore their bottom line. This provides capital to continue to build out their networks to handle the additional load that the consumers are putting on their infrastructure. The problem of bandwidth hogs has not been addressed at all so casual users are being overcharged because of those bandwidth hogs. The unlimited bandwidth is still an issue that won't be solved until bandwidth becomes metered and regulated like any other utility.
Bottom line is, the way the broadband Internet backbone is supposed to work is that every ISP must accept all packets sent to their router, the cost of which gets paid for by their own subscribers, the requester, not the sender. The sender is already paying for their initial bandwidth through a connection to their own ISP. This is the way it has always been, but now the networks want to change all that and charge to send and receive which would be fine, as long as the person being charged is their own subscriber, not some remote source outside of their network. Metering is the only solution in my opinion. That way everyone pays their fair share.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "in the spirit of competition," but your Apple analogy is dumb.
So it seems like there's competition but there really isn't. They're forced to sell those companies service way below cost, those companies then turn around and sell it at a profit. Those companies do not help build nor maintain the network.
I work for a telco, and when CLECs started many customers jumped ship thinking they'd get better service, but they were really just paying someone else for the same service over the same crappy network. We still had to repair those lines, and when customers saw me they'd say "why are you here? I'm no longer with your company" I'd tell them "you're still getting your service over the same network, and we're still responsible for repairs", so please tell me how my analogy is dumb.
The only people demanding control are the local ISP monopolies.
Obviously you are not up to speed on the latest attempts from Washington to censor the Internet, this time going after books that float about the net. This has nothing to do with local ISP or even national carriers but is rather a direct effort by the administration to attempt to limit what you can access on the net. The net neutrality move would only make it easier for the likes of these people to further control what you can read or see on the net. The current administration is literally attacking a basic freedom we have as Americans.
What they oppose is government regulations stopping their monopolistic control harming end users free and unfettered access to the Internet without bias.
Net neutrality changes absolutely noting with respect to that end users access except for the costs, the freedom to do what you want with that access and your freedom to let somebody else pay for the high bandwidth usage.
Please keep up.
Obviously you really don't understand what net neutrality will actually do for you. Let's put it this way it won't be a positive experience.
So it seems like there's competition but there really isn't. They're forced to sell those companies service way below cost, those companies then turn around and sell it at a profit. Those companies do not help build nor maintain the network.
Apparently, you don't see that your first sentence and second sentence are connected!
The reason for this quid pro quo is because many of the incumbent carriers were quasi-(local) monopolies. Moreover, they got much of their legacy bandwidth assets for basically free (now they do have to bid for it), and were asked to share a bit of it.
Then you don't understand the dangers net neutrality will present to the end user. The problem is that somebody has to pay for the bandwidth and it that regard it is far better for Netflix and other bulk users to pay for that bandwidth rather than the average consumer. The vast majority of consumers are only interested in a couple of things out of the net. That is streaming services, E-Mail, and the web. Net neutrality would have zero impact on e-Mail and the web, it is with streaming services where the end user will get screwed.
The inevitable result of net neutrality is that you will be paying by the bit for net access. That means huge bills for those buying into streaming services.
The problem is the administration has been bought! The purchase was made by ignorant people that want to freeload on the rest of society. It is no surprise for example that the Free Software crowd is a big proponent of net neutrality. Why? Simple they are the types of people that never pick up the tab.
The common thread I'm seeing here is the insistence from the net neutrality people that they need the same acces to the net as everyone else but don't want to pay for that access. Well screw you, it is time for these people to put on their big boy pants and go out into the world and make a dollar.
Netflix is paying for higher bandwidth. You argue as if they're paying for a consumer level internet connection.
What the fcuk do you mean by freeloading. Typical republican rhetoric. People want to pay for their internet connection and get what they paid for.
If they pay for a lower quality connection they will get lower quality streams from Netflix which - like most of these services - can downgrade the picture quality if the steam is weak. What we don't want is the ISPs to decide to throttle Netflix even though we pay for the higher bandwidth and HD from Netflix but Netflix didn't pay a bribe to the ISP.
And that solves the problem for the ISPs. User pays more to finance the cable it fibre to his house which eliminates bottlenecks. If that were the problem. It isn't. They want to throttle Netflix to bully providers or promote their own crap service.
The inevitable result of net neutrality is that you will be paying by the bit for net access. That means huge bills for those buying into streaming services.
Typical Republican thinking. Get the money from someone else. No new taxes. You want to increase military spending, but there is no money for it, so lets close down public education and take their money to build bombs. If the citizens want a bigger military then let them pay for it. None of this rob Peter to pay Paul nonsense.
If video streamers want to stream 24/7, let them pay for it themselves.
The other way of saying that Netflix can pay to send more bits to the user is that if they don't pay their service is compromised to be unusable by the end user even if he has paid both a premium for Netflix and for his fibre connection.
Which is exactly how it should be! I'm not sure why people think that services like Netfix should get a free ride on the net. I still believe that most people in favor of net neutrality simply don't understand the technology nor the impact that Netfix and similar operations have on the network.
I see a lot of fear mungering from the net neutrality crowd that seems to imply that they will personally loose something if we don't push net neutrality forward. That is pure crap. Networks be they a small corporate one or the massive one run by the telcos fail whe they aren't managed properly. The government can not manage these networks simply because they don't understand them. And frankly net neutrality is all about the government trying to manage the networks.
Obviously you are not up to speed on the latest attempts from Washington to censor the Internet, this time going after books that float about the net. This has nothing to do with local ISP or even national carriers but is rather a direct effort by the administration to attempt to limit what you can access on the net.
No it's not. This isn't some batshit crazy red necked phone in, people here are tech savvy. There is nothing in these proposals that censor the Internet.
The net neutrality move would only make it easier for the likes of these people to further control what you can read or see on the net.
No
The current administration is literally attacking a basic freedom we have as Americans.
No they are not censoring. The bloody corporations in the middle are censoring.
Net neutrality changes absolutely noting with respect to that end users access except for the costs,
I though it was censoring us?
the freedom to do what you want with that access
The removal of net neutrality clearly does affect my quality of access.
and your freedom to let somebody else pay for the high bandwidth usage.
Everybody's prepared to pay more for high bandwidth. Or less for lower bandwidth. What we don't want us to pay for high bandwidth and get shoddy service from providers who are not in favour with the local ISP monopoly.
Obviously you really don't understand what net neutrality will actually do for you. Let's put it this way it won't be a positive experience.
It will be a free internet where I choose what to pay to achieve what bandwidth I require to receive what content I have paid for. I can live with that.
I fully understand that. But they are also paying for a guaranteed level of service due to the way they can saturate the telcos networks.
You argue as if they're paying for a consumer level internet connection.
Again I have to say most of the net neutrality arguments are coming from people that simply don't understand the technology. I can pay for my LTE bandwidth every month but that does imply that the bandwidth is available every hour of every day of the week. The bandwidth is a function of load, distance and other factors as I'm not guaranteed that bandwidth I take what I'm given. The same thing happens for a corporate access point to the net, most companies take what they get no matter how fast the theoretical connection. Netflix and others are getting assurances for the extra money paid.
Frankly without those assurances streaming services would be crap.
Frankly without those assurances streaming services would be crap.
The irony here is that is exactly what will happen without net neutrality. The cable companies will throttle the streaming content to make sure it is crap so they can un-level the playing field and deliver their own preferred content uninterrupted.
I fully understand that. But they are also paying for a guaranteed level of service due to the way they can saturate the telcos networks.
Again I have to say most of the net neutrality arguments are coming from people that simply don't understand the technology. I can pay for my LTE bandwidth every month but that does imply that the bandwidth is available every hour of every day of the week. The bandwidth is a function of load, distance and other factors as I'm not guaranteed that bandwidth I take what I'm given. The same thing happens for a corporate access point to the net, most companies take what they get no matter how fast the theoretical connection. Netflix and others are getting assurances for the extra money paid.
Frankly without those assurances streaming services would be crap.
If Netflix services would be crap as a result of Net Neutrality, why are they in favor of it?
Which is exactly how it should be! I'm not sure why people think that services like Netfix should get a free ride on the net. I still believe that most people in favor of net neutrality simply don't understand the technology nor the impact that Netfix and similar operations have on the network.
.
You honestly make me want to puke. Listening to this nonsense is frankly soul destroying.
One minute you call those of us prepared to pay for higher bandwidth freeloaders, next minute the providers are free loaders.
What pays for the network roll outs is the sales of the higher bandwidth capacity to end consumers. If Netflix is causing more traffic because consumers steam more then the solution is to build out more fibre, the consumer pays more and gets higher bit rates. Win win.
You want a world where regardless of what I pay for fibre -- and I do pay for fibre -- and regardless of what I pay to stream from Apple or Netflix in HD the ISPs can, behind my back because of contract disputes with either of these companies throttle my stream. Or because they want to sell ComCastFlix or some such shite. And being a local monopoly in most places ( thankfully not where I am) most people will have no choice but to watch ComCastFlix or whatever inferior service the ISPs have convinced to bribe them the most.
Comments
The common thread I'm seeing here is the insistence from the net neutrality people that they need the same acces to the net as everyone else but don't want to pay for that access. Well, it is time for these people to put on their big boy pants and go out into the world and make a dollar.
If consumers had more ISPs to choose from, these pricing proposals would evaporate.
Actually they caught up because of excessive government spending. Our biggest problem is we spend far to much of the budget on social and far to little on more productive uses for a tax dollar. We need to go cold turkey with respect to welfare for one an if there are riots in the streets we need to shoot the lazy bastards!
Then we need to start in on corrupt state governments and make the states respect the constitutions and find a new desire to implement equality in the laws.
I prefer elected officials being involved to bureaucrats. Bureaucrats have no accountability.
And elected officials have effective accountability only to the lobbyists.
No it didn't, your local governments allowed that to happen.
We don't need regulation of the carriers beyond what is already there, we need regulation of government to make sure that the local authority doesn't offer exclusive contracts to what ever carrier finds the most corrupt official. This in a nut shell has created the biggest problem we have today, which is the high costs of services.
More nonsense.
No it didn't, your local governments allowed that to happen.
We don't need regulation of the carriers beyond what is already there, we need regulation of government to make sure that the local authority doesn't offer exclusive contracts to what ever carrier finds the most corrupt official. This in a nut shell has created the biggest problem we have today, which is the high costs of services.
Still haven't explained why the vast majority of tech firms are in favor of Neutrality.
Republicans didn't set up the monopolies that we see in most of this country that is a function of local government. The reality is you actually do see more competition in Europe due to less regulation. Surprise.
Frankly I'm not sure why people think this is strange. It is no different than any other user of a public facility, commercial vehicles, trucks and the like pay significant taxes to drive on the roads due to the high usage and wear they cause. Realistically the streaming services are no different in that they cause an excess burden on the net.
The way I see it is that the problem all started with cable offering unlimited bandwidth to residential consumers during the ISDN vs. Cable Internet delivery wars. At that point there was no fiber optics and offering unlimited bandwidth over coax was possible but ISDN providers could not match that service with twisted pair copper.
Jump ahead 20 years and the US cable companies have a near monopoly in Internet delivery to residential customers. Now with all the video streaming, the cable companies are getting hit from multiple directions.
1.) The likes of Netflix and iTunes are stealing viewers and their TV ad eyeball revenue,
2.) Some cable companies now own content, so streaming services are competing with their own pay per view programs, and
3.) Their networks are becoming saturated from so many people streaming video.
Their brilliant solution is to basically tax Netflix to solve all their problems and restore their bottom line. This provides capital to continue to build out their networks to handle the additional load that the consumers are putting on their infrastructure. The problem of bandwidth hogs has not been addressed at all so casual users are being overcharged because of those bandwidth hogs. The unlimited bandwidth is still an issue that won't be solved until bandwidth becomes metered and regulated like any other utility.
Bottom line is, the way the broadband Internet backbone is supposed to work is that every ISP must accept all packets sent to their router, the cost of which gets paid for by their own subscribers, the requester, not the sender. The sender is already paying for their initial bandwidth through a connection to their own ISP. This is the way it has always been, but now the networks want to change all that and charge to send and receive which would be fine, as long as the person being charged is their own subscriber, not some remote source outside of their network. Metering is the only solution in my opinion. That way everyone pays their fair share.
So it seems like there's competition but there really isn't. They're forced to sell those companies service way below cost, those companies then turn around and sell it at a profit. Those companies do not help build nor maintain the network.
I work for a telco, and when CLECs started many customers jumped ship thinking they'd get better service, but they were really just paying someone else for the same service over the same crappy network. We still had to repair those lines, and when customers saw me they'd say "why are you here? I'm no longer with your company" I'd tell them "you're still getting your service over the same network, and we're still responsible for repairs", so please tell me how my analogy is dumb.
Obviously you really don't understand what net neutrality will actually do for you. Let's put it this way it won't be a positive experience.
So it seems like there's competition but there really isn't. They're forced to sell those companies service way below cost, those companies then turn around and sell it at a profit. Those companies do not help build nor maintain the network.
Apparently, you don't see that your first sentence and second sentence are connected!
The reason for this quid pro quo is because many of the incumbent carriers were quasi-(local) monopolies. Moreover, they got much of their legacy bandwidth assets for basically free (now they do have to bid for it), and were asked to share a bit of it.
Then you don't understand the dangers net neutrality will present to the end user. The problem is that somebody has to pay for the bandwidth and it that regard it is far better for Netflix and other bulk users to pay for that bandwidth rather than the average consumer. The vast majority of consumers are only interested in a couple of things out of the net. That is streaming services, E-Mail, and the web. Net neutrality would have zero impact on e-Mail and the web, it is with streaming services where the end user will get screwed.
The inevitable result of net neutrality is that you will be paying by the bit for net access. That means huge bills for those buying into streaming services.
What the fcuk do you mean by freeloading. Typical republican rhetoric. People want to pay for their internet connection and get what they paid for.
If they pay for a lower quality connection they will get lower quality streams from Netflix which - like most of these services - can downgrade the picture quality if the steam is weak. What we don't want is the ISPs to decide to throttle Netflix even though we pay for the higher bandwidth and HD from Netflix but Netflix didn't pay a bribe to the ISP.
And that solves the problem for the ISPs. User pays more to finance the cable it fibre to his house which eliminates bottlenecks. If that were the problem. It isn't. They want to throttle Netflix to bully providers or promote their own crap service.
The inevitable result of net neutrality is that you will be paying by the bit for net access. That means huge bills for those buying into streaming services.
Typical Republican thinking. Get the money from someone else. No new taxes. You want to increase military spending, but there is no money for it, so lets close down public education and take their money to build bombs. If the citizens want a bigger military then let them pay for it. None of this rob Peter to pay Paul nonsense.
If video streamers want to stream 24/7, let them pay for it themselves.
Which is exactly how it should be! I'm not sure why people think that services like Netfix should get a free ride on the net. I still believe that most people in favor of net neutrality simply don't understand the technology nor the impact that Netfix and similar operations have on the network.
I see a lot of fear mungering from the net neutrality crowd that seems to imply that they will personally loose something if we don't push net neutrality forward. That is pure crap. Networks be they a small corporate one or the massive one run by the telcos fail whe they aren't managed properly. The government can not manage these networks simply because they don't understand them. And frankly net neutrality is all about the government trying to manage the networks.
No it's not. This isn't some batshit crazy red necked phone in, people here are tech savvy. There is nothing in these proposals that censor the Internet.
No
No they are not censoring. The bloody corporations in the middle are censoring.
I though it was censoring us?
The removal of net neutrality clearly does affect my quality of access.
Everybody's prepared to pay more for high bandwidth. Or less for lower bandwidth. What we don't want us to pay for high bandwidth and get shoddy service from providers who are not in favour with the local ISP monopoly.
It will be a free internet where I choose what to pay to achieve what bandwidth I require to receive what content I have paid for. I can live with that.
Again I have to say most of the net neutrality arguments are coming from people that simply don't understand the technology. I can pay for my LTE bandwidth every month but that does imply that the bandwidth is available every hour of every day of the week. The bandwidth is a function of load, distance and other factors as I'm not guaranteed that bandwidth I take what I'm given. The same thing happens for a corporate access point to the net, most companies take what they get no matter how fast the theoretical connection. Netflix and others are getting assurances for the extra money paid.
Frankly without those assurances streaming services would be crap.
Frankly without those assurances streaming services would be crap.
The irony here is that is exactly what will happen without net neutrality. The cable companies will throttle the streaming content to make sure it is crap so they can un-level the playing field and deliver their own preferred content uninterrupted.
I fully understand that. But they are also paying for a guaranteed level of service due to the way they can saturate the telcos networks.
Again I have to say most of the net neutrality arguments are coming from people that simply don't understand the technology. I can pay for my LTE bandwidth every month but that does imply that the bandwidth is available every hour of every day of the week. The bandwidth is a function of load, distance and other factors as I'm not guaranteed that bandwidth I take what I'm given. The same thing happens for a corporate access point to the net, most companies take what they get no matter how fast the theoretical connection. Netflix and others are getting assurances for the extra money paid.
Frankly without those assurances streaming services would be crap.
If Netflix services would be crap as a result of Net Neutrality, why are they in favor of it?
You honestly make me want to puke. Listening to this nonsense is frankly soul destroying.
One minute you call those of us prepared to pay for higher bandwidth freeloaders, next minute the providers are free loaders.
What pays for the network roll outs is the sales of the higher bandwidth capacity to end consumers. If Netflix is causing more traffic because consumers steam more then the solution is to build out more fibre, the consumer pays more and gets higher bit rates. Win win.
You want a world where regardless of what I pay for fibre -- and I do pay for fibre -- and regardless of what I pay to stream from Apple or Netflix in HD the ISPs can, behind my back because of contract disputes with either of these companies throttle my stream. Or because they want to sell ComCastFlix or some such shite. And being a local monopoly in most places ( thankfully not where I am) most people will have no choice but to watch ComCastFlix or whatever inferior service the ISPs have convinced to bribe them the most.
That's as free as North Korea.