Why would I (an internet provider) spend massive amounts of capital, fleshing out infrastructure, when content providers (like netflix), can clog the network with massive amounts of bandwidth and not have to pay extra for their heavy use... thus requiring the infrastructure developers to spend ever more money improving the bandwidth to accommodate. Someone has to pay for the infrastructure development.
Its a lot like heavy trucks on the road breaking up the asphalt. Who pays for the repair? The guy in the prius?
Netflix pays for bandwidth at the source: they pay for big pipes into the network. Meanwhile, people who want to watch Netflix have paid for bandwidth at the destination. The fact that ISP's oversell their bandwidth, assuming no one actually uses very much, is the problem in this case. The customers with light bandwidth needs are subsidizing the ones with heavy needs, in this case.
This idea that any regulation is really off. Financial deregulation was at the core of the great recession.
I can make a good argument that financial deregulation had nothing to do with the so called great recession.
Most broadband internet markets are really monopolies at the last mile, so the implication that regulating a monopoly is trampling rights is just crazy.
It is if the intention is to take private property which I beleive is the big point here. If you want an Internet that is free of throttling and shows no content preferences then you want a public utility. You can't get that public utility by decree though, you must be willing to pay for it. This is the big problem I have with the net neutrality crowd, nothing in this world if free.
Anti-trust laws were written for good reason.
This is certainly the case. In most communities though, the community itself has set up a preferred Internet company with exclusive access to the community. This right there has caused more competition problems than anything.
The world your ilk is itching to return us to (Gilded Age, robber barons) was not very nice and didn't have a stable economy.
Nope! We are looking for rational solutions to real problems. The biggest problem we have right now is the mistaken belief people have that net neutrality would suddenly make the Internet a better place. It won't and will create as many problems as it will solve.
It is the "no throttling" line that concerns me as a long-time IP network engineer and former CTO for ISPs. I've written details about it here: http://bit.ly/NetNeutrality-ssh since there's complexity that is often missed.
Here is the primary issue: interactive and stream-sensitive data should have preference over bulk data (like email), especially in that high-contention last mile. Interactive video should be preferred over streaming video which should be preferred over email and file downloads. To forbid such "throttling" is to reduce effective performance unnecessarily.
I really don't think any of the people who are posting here are executive management for any of the ISP's. So I wonder why all these people are arguing any point other than the one that would bring them the fastest Internet speeds at the lowest prices. I have no reason to believe that doing what Obama has indicated is going to make my experience any better or worse than it is. I currently rarely experience problems streaming. Maybe all that is needed is to do away with the local monopolies for cable companies. I suspect I would get better and cheaper Internet if I could choose between Comcat, Cox, Charter etc.
I want to be free, free as the wind. Free is when you don't have to pay for nuthin' or do nuthin', I want to be free, I've got to be free.
— Frank Zappa
I am a huge Zappa fan -- both his music and him as social philosopher -- but I don't recall his giving away his music for free. In fact, he would rail against others even sampling his music.
Precisely. Obviously the quotation was meant as satire. Zappa's personal feelings were the opposite of the quote. He was mocking freetards. Surprised you didn't get it.
I agree and disagree with this whole debate. I think that throttling and fast lanes aren't really that evil. It's how they are being done that I object to. And I object to this continued game of letting companies have legal monopolies. Competition breds fairer pricing, a need to keep services up to par etc. why am I paying $40 a month for 'up to' a speed I rarely get half of. Because I have no other choice. It's cable or no internet in my area so I just have to bend over and bear it. And then to have my ISP demand conpanies like Netflix pay to not be throttled to even slower speeds. Yeah I can't support that.
If I had some kind of guarantee of service and Netflix was paying to go over that, or throttling was merely taking everyone down from the 'up to' to something still above the guarantee because it's a high traffic time, well I cant balk at that
Private property doesn't exist without the laws, judicial system, and enforcement of the government, so keep that in mind.
Actually this is exactly what we have in mind when these attempts to steal private property come up. If you are in a community that wants a public until it's to provide Internet service I have no problem with that if the community buys the infrastructure to provide that service. I have a big problem if the same community tries to steal existing private hardware by decree. This is exactly what the net neutrality gang is trying to do.
It's not intended to be out of reach of government regulation or legal power.
Nor should the community have the authority to negate the legal rights of the cable owners. You need to realize that these companies are already highly regulated.
Many on the right like to talk about private property as if it's somehow independent of the government or the will of the people, but it's obviously not.
Hell there was a time when the will of the people lead to burning witches. In some cases people are exhibiting the same mentality with respect to the cable companies as the people that burned the "witches" all those years ago. The concept of private property is very important in any free state. Look at it this way would you like to live in a country where the state was free to take you home and it's contents, at anytime without compensation?
There are certainly instance when it makes sense for the government to take private property, however there is a legal framework within which they should do so and there is a requirement for compensation. Generally the government doesn't pursue such takings unless there is a pay off for the community as a whole.
The problem with the net neutrality movement is that they effectively want to steal private property and have no interest in paying for it. The other big problem is this idea that you can some how run these systems without some sort of management in place including management of bandwidth. In the case of a cable company the preferred customers should be the ones making use of that system for its original intent and that is entertainment. Think about it how would you like it if the football game suddenly became intermittent because some idiot is serving up the latest copy of Fedora and the local system can't handle the bandwidth demands? Should the provider be forced to provide said idiot with all the bandwidth he wants even if that means the quality of service suffers for the majority of the systems users?
I hate to say this but the majority of the net neutrality supporters out there are technological idiots. They simply have jumped on the band wagon not understanding the pitfalls of what they are demanding. Does that mean the current situation Is ideal - it certainly isn't however net neutrality is the wrong direction to go. I'd go so far as to suggest that we need to go in the other direction which is heavy restrictions on those that don't pay their fair share.
Essentially Netflix doesn't create content or worry about delivery, they are very much a middle man.
This is nonsense. Netflix may not create most of their content, but they are the ones shoveling enormous amounts of content into the internet, and they pay for big pipes to do this! They also pay ISP's for local content caching, so they don't have to send the same popular content out as often, and there is less network congestion. The end users pay for a certain level of bandwidth, so they can watch Netflix.
Yet a monopoly handled the phone calls of an entire country for decades. They were given the monopoly but not without having to adhere to certain service standards, to quality standards, and fee increases had to be granted, but first made public knowledge. All this was the reason why even the most rural of area had telephone service, not because they wanted to but because they had. With less regulation these companies are now picking, and choosing which areas to wire up, and which ones not to.
We may have to come up with an entirely new model based on how different this situation is from the telegraph and telephone buildout.
Those were simpler times, with only those thin copper wires carrying a few volts from the house to the central office where the switching was done. AT&T owned the local Bell companies, owned Western Electric that did all the equipment making, Bell Labs that developed all the new hardware, and owned AT&T Long Lines, to connect the locals together and interface with the world. An integrated network of manufacturing, operations and finance, the PR people used to say. A certain discipline and integrity was built in, because, for example, WE had to make stuff that would never give the local Bells trouble.
It all worked world-class during the decades of buildout, and was robust enough to handle data networks like the massive real-time global one needed for NASA's satellite and moon programs. But everyone was chafing under the monopoly of Ma Bell when their connection rules started interfering with escalating computer-communication needs.
That's where we are now, a Wild West of chaotically blocked-out de facto mini-monopolies. I don't see how we can go back to the simple regulated-utility model. There's no built-in integrity. On the other hand, something has to be done, because the system is being choked by bandwidth hogs delivering paid entertainment. But what?
So it's pretty much a mafia style protection racket. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">"You pay us money or your stuff might not get sent so quick".</span>
Not at all, they are simply responding to the possibility that they might not have the money to pay for the infrastructure they are about to build. The wrong type of regulation could impact these companies to the point that they don't have the profits to build new infrastructure. Considering the stupidity embodied in out current federal administration this is a very real possibility.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Imagine if USPS started offering a higher charge for postage saying "if you go for the higher charge, there's more chance it'll turn up and we won't kick your parcel all over the depot".</span>
That is a very very poor example as the USPS offers all sorts of rates, some that favor specific industries.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">?Blackmailing companies </span>
isn't<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> the best plan.</span>
Neither is the obsession with net neutrality. It is impossible to get away from the need to manage a network, big or small they all have limitations.
To tell the truth, there are too many conflicting stories about this for most of us to get the complete picture. On the other hand if the government wants to regulate it (whatever "it" may be) I strongly suspect that the ones who suffer will be the people of the United States. Do we really need an increase in regulation? Or would it be better to let the market regulate itself and, if it does a bad job, would it not fail of it's own accord?
Government desires to regulate (control) everything in our lives because government is made of two main groups. The elected officials who have taken money to get elected and therefore are not inherently trustworthy. And the (much more numerous) bureaucrats whose only desire it to increase their size and power so they can spend taxpayer money to continue their own paychecks.
Totally free markets are imperfect. But, as a general rule, government control produces overall worse, not better results.
I don't think the argument from the right is that the free market would do a better job. The argument is that having a fast Internet connection is nice, but it's not as important as upholding indvidual rights. In this case the private property rights of the people who own the cables.
What about your rights?
You are paying for 60 Mbps but you are only getting 10, because you're not streaming the cable company's favorite content.
Precisely. Obviously the quotation was meant as satire. Zappa's personal feelings were the opposite of the quote. He was mocking freetards. Surprised you didn't get it.
I don't think the argument from the right is that the free market would do a better job. The argument is that having a fast Internet connection is nice, but it's not as important as upholding indvidual rights. In this case the private property rights of the people who own the cables.
Weren't most cables, at least in the last mile, laid under govt enabled monopolies? They gave up substantial rights to obtain these monopolies rather than risk capital in a free market system. Regulating them for neutrality is just an extension of this system, of rights they gladly gave up for almost guaranteed profit, not some new made up attack on property rights
Wait, so you two want ISPs to be able to block and throttle content as they see fit? Would you also want the USDA dissolved to let the free market handle what is considered safe to eat?
The only comment that actually replies to the content... How about instead of forcing a monopoly on us, as the government would want, they remove whatever restrictions are put in place now that allow ISPs to be a singular entity serving a community? I don’t have a choice of electricity or natural gas where I live, but I do have (one) choice of ISP: either DSL or cable. I’d prefer to have that choice rather than be told I can only buy from a certain company, as per my actual utilities.
I don’t mean to say the government should force businesses to operate where they cannot, whether for reason of expenditure or complexity, rather that they be able to operate where a, hmm, collusive situation may now exist...
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Yes Wall Street thanks you for agreeing with them and that worked out really well didn't it?
Originally Posted by cnocbui
Go live in Somalia, I hear your ideology works well there.
This one, in particular, is utterly psychotic.
Originally Posted by boredumb
Well, the “petulant toddler” rings true, but you really seem to contradict yourself in advocating both "less control" "put[ting] legal teeth".
No, not at all. The government is of, by, and for the people. It is we the people who control them and should be bringing our laws to bear upon their lawlessness, not the other way around. Less government control; more citizen control.
Originally Posted by kerryb
In some parts of our economy that might be right but access to the delivery of content on the internet is too important for a monopoly to control.
Which is, of course, why you advocate for the government to have a monopoly over said control. Huh...
...or the local power company providing more energy to certain customers? Human nature is the strong will prevail at the expense of the poor and weak, societies succeed when all are considered of value and a shared responsibility is maintained the way a happy family succeeds.
They do. It’s called paying for what you use. I don’t like that about the Internet, but that’s the only option we’ll be given in a “net neutrality” (understand the quotes) world. I foresee telecom-level pricing in a pay for what you use scenario. $5 per gigabyte, wired.
Originally Posted by wizard69
Actually it is a business. A business stops building something if it suddenly realizes it might not be able to pay for that something. In a nut shell it is far from childish...
Yes, I was referring to the actions of the government in response to AT&T’s halted buildout. Apologies if that was unclear.
Well yes, exactly in this case. Free access to private property is theft which is what would happen if the government suddenly imposed net neutrality on the owners of the cable to your house.
In the bigger picture nothing in this world is free.
In reality this is the big problem with the Internet net neutrality crowd - they want free access without paying for it. Even if net neutrality were to become a reality you would still be getting a bill at the end of the day. Further you would still be suffering from throttling. The fundamental problem here is that you won't have infinite bandwidth to most communities for the foreseeable future.
Nobody is asking for anything for free. The consumer will still pay.
A government regulation is not the same as communism or state ownership. Plenty of "private property rights" are regulated, in particular anything for sale is subject to regulation. There are any number of regulations imposed in your iPhone for instance which is why it has to be certified . This is one more and one which any sane person should believe in. Especially Apple users or investors.
That is a pretty foolish picture to post considering it if is from the days when you needed a wire for ever thing you wanted to do.
In any event the problem with the people that want the Internet to become a utility is that they don't want to pay for that utility. Beyond that utilities have for a very long time offered preferential treatment to manage the loads on their systems. Off peak electrical metering comes to mind as one approach to managing network usage. How about the local water utility charging for high summertime water usage or having different rates for bulk users.
In the end it comes down to the same thing in every case , you have to have techniques available to you to manage your networks. That could be an electrical network, a bunch of pipes supplying water, the USPS, or access to a data network. Without such freedom to manage a system you end up with quality of service problems.
In a nut shell this is the problem I have with the net neutrality crowd, even if some of their demands come to pass, you would still need active management of the network. Active management includes throttling to prevent disruption of the service.
This throttling can be likened to restrictions on water usage that many communities out in place that prevent low water pressure. You need to be able to regulate to be able to support preferred users such as the fire department. In the case of the data networks that is effectively what they are trying to do, that is to make sure the preferred users have the bandwidth they need.
That might rub some the wrong way in the net neutrality community but you need to look at this from the perspective of two groups. One being the cable companies and the other being the majority of their customers. The cable companies are providing Internet access as an adjunct to their primary business which is selling entertainment. As such it is reasonable to expect them to remain focused on suppliers that provide such services thus deals with companies like Netflix.
On the flip side the vast majority of cable customers are using their service to consum the content offered up or in reality to vegetate in front of a TV. Even if they make use of the data services offered their primary interest is in "watching TV". For these users net neutrality means nothing to them and frankly could result in significant quality of service issues.
It still comes down to my impression that the majority of net neutrality freaks simply want access without the requirement to pay for that access.
I see some comments on here that are very inflammatory, one person tries to calmly state their views and someone else rails on them. Tallest skil was actually the calmest one here.
I'm gonna try to talk about this calmly. So, I usually prefer net neutrality, but after seeing all of the comments I wonder about a few scenarios. Imagine if net neutrality goes through, and everyone gets the same treatment, and then Netflix is so happy about it that they decide to start streaming 8k? People across the nation start consuming it and Netflix accounts for 90% if Internet usage and the whole country/worlds Internet starts to slow down.
Essentially Netflix doesn't create content or worry about delivery, they are very much a middle man. If they just sit back and let the Internet companies increase their speed and capacity, they'll make more money.
As I write this, I still lean towards net neutrality - no fast lanes, no fees for anyone including Netflix - because it's bit Netflixs fault if the people choose to use their service. If people want to use the Internet to watch movies, let them. The cable companies may need to put a cap on the end user, but then at least the end user can decide what they're paying for, and someone who doesn't need the data won't pay for it, as opposed to the cable company deciding behind closed doors with arbitrary companies you may not be in need of. What if you don't realize that Kerry's video service payed for fast service and you never use them? That's money you'll never make use of, that will slow down the services you like. Get rid of fees for the behind the scenes companies, get rid of fast lanes, that's the best way to let the user decide how they want to use their Internet.
Agreed... The consumer shouldn't have to keep going to faster bandwidths just to get something at a usable speed when in reality that something they want is being throttled by the ISP and there is no way of knowing that.
The only comment that actually replies to the content... How about instead of forcing a monopoly on us, as the government would want, they remove whatever restrictions are put in place now that allow ISPs to be a singular entity serving a community? I don’t have a choice of electricity or natural gas where I live, but I do have (one) choice of ISP: either DSL or cable. I’d prefer to have that choice rather than be told I can only buy from a certain company, as per my actual utilities.
I don’t mean to say the government should force businesses to operate where they cannot, whether for reason of expenditure or complexity, rather that they be able to operate where a, hmm, collusive situation may now exist...
This one, in particular, is utterly psychotic.
No, not at all. The government is of, by, and for the people. It is we the people who control them and should be bringing our laws to bear upon their lawlessness, not the other way around. Less government control; more citizen control.
Which is, of course, why you advocate for the government to have a monopoly over said control. Huh... :???:
They do. It’s called paying for what you use. I don’t like that about the Internet, but that’s the only option we’ll be given in a “net neutrality” (understand the quotes) world. I foresee telecom-level pricing in a pay for what you use scenario. $5 per gigabyte, wired.
Yes, I was referring to the actions of the government in response to AT&T’s halted buildout. Apologies if that was unclear.
If AT&T don't build out some one else will take their lunch.
You guys are a joke. A government regulation is not the same as government ownership. It's like saying that sanitary laws for restaurants are communism. What is injurious to liberty - since liberty can be removed by property owners*, monopolists as well as the state - is the control that private capital and infrastructure rentiers can have over information flow on the Internet.
Comments
Why would I (an internet provider) spend massive amounts of capital, fleshing out infrastructure, when content providers (like netflix), can clog the network with massive amounts of bandwidth and not have to pay extra for their heavy use... thus requiring the infrastructure developers to spend ever more money improving the bandwidth to accommodate. Someone has to pay for the infrastructure development.
Its a lot like heavy trucks on the road breaking up the asphalt. Who pays for the repair? The guy in the prius?
Netflix pays for bandwidth at the source: they pay for big pipes into the network. Meanwhile, people who want to watch Netflix have paid for bandwidth at the destination. The fact that ISP's oversell their bandwidth, assuming no one actually uses very much, is the problem in this case. The customers with light bandwidth needs are subsidizing the ones with heavy needs, in this case.
Another great discussion, people.
Nope! We are looking for rational solutions to real problems. The biggest problem we have right now is the mistaken belief people have that net neutrality would suddenly make the Internet a better place. It won't and will create as many problems as it will solve.
Here is the primary issue: interactive and stream-sensitive data should have preference over bulk data (like email), especially in that high-contention last mile. Interactive video should be preferred over streaming video which should be preferred over email and file downloads. To forbid such "throttling" is to reduce effective performance unnecessarily.
Precisely. Obviously the quotation was meant as satire. Zappa's personal feelings were the opposite of the quote. He was mocking freetards. Surprised you didn't get it.
If I had some kind of guarantee of service and Netflix was paying to go over that, or throttling was merely taking everyone down from the 'up to' to something still above the guarantee because it's a high traffic time, well I cant balk at that
Hell there was a time when the will of the people lead to burning witches. In some cases people are exhibiting the same mentality with respect to the cable companies as the people that burned the "witches" all those years ago. The concept of private property is very important in any free state. Look at it this way would you like to live in a country where the state was free to take you home and it's contents, at anytime without compensation?
There are certainly instance when it makes sense for the government to take private property, however there is a legal framework within which they should do so and there is a requirement for compensation. Generally the government doesn't pursue such takings unless there is a pay off for the community as a whole.
The problem with the net neutrality movement is that they effectively want to steal private property and have no interest in paying for it. The other big problem is this idea that you can some how run these systems without some sort of management in place including management of bandwidth. In the case of a cable company the preferred customers should be the ones making use of that system for its original intent and that is entertainment. Think about it how would you like it if the football game suddenly became intermittent because some idiot is serving up the latest copy of Fedora and the local system can't handle the bandwidth demands? Should the provider be forced to provide said idiot with all the bandwidth he wants even if that means the quality of service suffers for the majority of the systems users?
I hate to say this but the majority of the net neutrality supporters out there are technological idiots. They simply have jumped on the band wagon not understanding the pitfalls of what they are demanding. Does that mean the current situation Is ideal - it certainly isn't however net neutrality is the wrong direction to go. I'd go so far as to suggest that we need to go in the other direction which is heavy restrictions on those that don't pay their fair share.
Essentially Netflix doesn't create content or worry about delivery, they are very much a middle man.
This is nonsense. Netflix may not create most of their content, but they are the ones shoveling enormous amounts of content into the internet, and they pay for big pipes to do this! They also pay ISP's for local content caching, so they don't have to send the same popular content out as often, and there is less network congestion. The end users pay for a certain level of bandwidth, so they can watch Netflix.
We may have to come up with an entirely new model based on how different this situation is from the telegraph and telephone buildout.
Those were simpler times, with only those thin copper wires carrying a few volts from the house to the central office where the switching was done. AT&T owned the local Bell companies, owned Western Electric that did all the equipment making, Bell Labs that developed all the new hardware, and owned AT&T Long Lines, to connect the locals together and interface with the world. An integrated network of manufacturing, operations and finance, the PR people used to say. A certain discipline and integrity was built in, because, for example, WE had to make stuff that would never give the local Bells trouble.
It all worked world-class during the decades of buildout, and was robust enough to handle data networks like the massive real-time global one needed for NASA's satellite and moon programs. But everyone was chafing under the monopoly of Ma Bell when their connection rules started interfering with escalating computer-communication needs.
That's where we are now, a Wild West of chaotically blocked-out de facto mini-monopolies. I don't see how we can go back to the simple regulated-utility model. There's no built-in integrity. On the other hand, something has to be done, because the system is being choked by bandwidth hogs delivering paid entertainment. But what?
Neither is the obsession with net neutrality. It is impossible to get away from the need to manage a network, big or small they all have limitations.
To tell the truth, there are too many conflicting stories about this for most of us to get the complete picture. On the other hand if the government wants to regulate it (whatever "it" may be) I strongly suspect that the ones who suffer will be the people of the United States. Do we really need an increase in regulation? Or would it be better to let the market regulate itself and, if it does a bad job, would it not fail of it's own accord?
Government desires to regulate (control) everything in our lives because government is made of two main groups. The elected officials who have taken money to get elected and therefore are not inherently trustworthy. And the (much more numerous) bureaucrats whose only desire it to increase their size and power so they can spend taxpayer money to continue their own paychecks.
Totally free markets are imperfect. But, as a general rule, government control produces overall worse, not better results.
You are paying for 60 Mbps but you are only getting 10, because you're not streaming the cable company's favorite content.
Correct, well said
Weren't most cables, at least in the last mile, laid under govt enabled monopolies? They gave up substantial rights to obtain these monopolies rather than risk capital in a free market system. Regulating them for neutrality is just an extension of this system, of rights they gladly gave up for almost guaranteed profit, not some new made up attack on property rights
The only comment that actually replies to the content... How about instead of forcing a monopoly on us, as the government would want, they remove whatever restrictions are put in place now that allow ISPs to be a singular entity serving a community? I don’t have a choice of electricity or natural gas where I live, but I do have (one) choice of ISP: either DSL or cable. I’d prefer to have that choice rather than be told I can only buy from a certain company, as per my actual utilities.
I don’t mean to say the government should force businesses to operate where they cannot, whether for reason of expenditure or complexity, rather that they be able to operate where a, hmm, collusive situation may now exist...
This one, in particular, is utterly psychotic.
No, not at all. The government is of, by, and for the people. It is we the people who control them and should be bringing our laws to bear upon their lawlessness, not the other way around. Less government control; more citizen control.
Which is, of course, why you advocate for the government to have a monopoly over said control. Huh...
They do. It’s called paying for what you use. I don’t like that about the Internet, but that’s the only option we’ll be given in a “net neutrality” (understand the quotes) world. I foresee telecom-level pricing in a pay for what you use scenario. $5 per gigabyte, wired.
Yes, I was referring to the actions of the government in response to AT&T’s halted buildout. Apologies if that was unclear.
Nobody is asking for anything for free. The consumer will still pay.
A government regulation is not the same as communism or state ownership. Plenty of "private property rights" are regulated, in particular anything for sale is subject to regulation. There are any number of regulations imposed in your iPhone for instance which is why it has to be certified . This is one more and one which any sane person should believe in. Especially Apple users or investors.
That is a pretty foolish picture to post considering it if is from the days when you needed a wire for ever thing you wanted to do.
In any event the problem with the people that want the Internet to become a utility is that they don't want to pay for that utility. Beyond that utilities have for a very long time offered preferential treatment to manage the loads on their systems. Off peak electrical metering comes to mind as one approach to managing network usage. How about the local water utility charging for high summertime water usage or having different rates for bulk users.
In the end it comes down to the same thing in every case , you have to have techniques available to you to manage your networks. That could be an electrical network, a bunch of pipes supplying water, the USPS, or access to a data network. Without such freedom to manage a system you end up with quality of service problems.
In a nut shell this is the problem I have with the net neutrality crowd, even if some of their demands come to pass, you would still need active management of the network. Active management includes throttling to prevent disruption of the service.
This throttling can be likened to restrictions on water usage that many communities out in place that prevent low water pressure. You need to be able to regulate to be able to support preferred users such as the fire department. In the case of the data networks that is effectively what they are trying to do, that is to make sure the preferred users have the bandwidth they need.
That might rub some the wrong way in the net neutrality community but you need to look at this from the perspective of two groups. One being the cable companies and the other being the majority of their customers. The cable companies are providing Internet access as an adjunct to their primary business which is selling entertainment. As such it is reasonable to expect them to remain focused on suppliers that provide such services thus deals with companies like Netflix.
On the flip side the vast majority of cable customers are using their service to consum the content offered up or in reality to vegetate in front of a TV. Even if they make use of the data services offered their primary interest is in "watching TV". For these users net neutrality means nothing to them and frankly could result in significant quality of service issues.
It still comes down to my impression that the majority of net neutrality freaks simply want access without the requirement to pay for that access.
Agreed... The consumer shouldn't have to keep going to faster bandwidths just to get something at a usable speed when in reality that something they want is being throttled by the ISP and there is no way of knowing that.
If AT&T don't build out some one else will take their lunch.
You guys are a joke. A government regulation is not the same as government ownership. It's like saying that sanitary laws for restaurants are communism. What is injurious to liberty - since liberty can be removed by property owners*, monopolists as well as the state - is the control that private capital and infrastructure rentiers can have over information flow on the Internet.
* ask a slave.