I pay $x/mo for Y bandwidth, Netflix pays $/mo for Y bandwidth. It's as simple as that. Companies like Comcast are double-dipping by charging companies like Netflix more because users (like me) use it? Bullsh!t.
I'm all for the government keeping their paws off of stuff. I don't trust them. However, in this very rare instance, I think this is a perfect example of why we need legislation for companies to NOT do that. Sure, you'll complain that it will harm the industry more, but I flat-out don't believe that propaganda. It's certainly not hurting companies like Google from doing its own fiber service. I think its the industry being scared to death that the FTC will handcuff their gravy-train.
I, the end-user should have access to any website I choose to visit on the bandwidth I am paying for. Netflix - and other popular services - are paying for their bandwidth too and folks like Comcast are saying "You want to reach our customers at the speeds you already paid for? Well, it will cost you extra now!" Flat out wrong.
I hate libtards just as much as the next... this is the one exception where government needs to get involved. The FTC just better not make it all political, and just do their job.
One of the big reasons you're able to be screwed in the way you are is because of the government's "regulation" and "control" already present. The rules that govern these industries are so invasive that they literally push the little guys out (or are overly prohibitive so they cannot start in the first place). Competition doesn't exist because these behemoth corporations literally have the blessing of government to grow, expand, monopolize, control, and screw all day long.
The solution to too many bears sitting on your face is not to add more bears.
The interstates were a good idea, badly maintained now but wonders in their day. And clearly I am not pro war but most republicans are.
The ISPs act as local monopolies. They want to strangle your internet for commercial reasons. Treating them as common carriers gives the consumer the power.
And who/what enabled them in their quest for monopolization?
rural county rounds are not interstates.our interstates are pretty amazing compared to most of the world. travel a bit and see.
You mean when I recently visited DC, Hong Kong, China, NY, Britain, Mississippi, California, and Guatemala, among other places, and where the roads were all roughly comparable to the cherished wonders that are the American interstates? There is nothing too terribly special about our roads, except for the one fact that we are hijacking funding meant for other things in order to keep them from being a wreck (aka government's M.O.).
One of the big reasons you're able to be screwed in the way you are is because of the government's "regulation" and "control" already present. The rules that govern these industries are so invasive that they literally push the little guys out (or are overly prohibitive so they cannot start in the first place). Competition doesn't exist because these behemoth corporations literally have the blessing of government to grow, expand, monopolize, control, and screw all day long.
The solution to too many bears sitting on your face is not to add more bears.
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 solution is not to regulate the ISP monopolies just because they have used their monopolies to buy votes in the past.
You mean when I recently visited DC, Hong Kong, China, NY, Britain, Mississippi, California, and Guatemala, among other places, and where the roads were all roughly comparable to the cherished wonders that are the American interstates? There is nothing too terribly special about our roads, except for the one fact that we are hijacking funding meant for other things in order to keep them from being a wreck (aka government's M.O.).
Everybody else caught up because of .... Drum roll.... adequate Government spending.
I prefer elected officials being involved to bureaucrats. Bureaucrats have no accountability.
It is absolutely scary how far this administration has gone to undermine our elected officials. We need to get back to congress making the laws of the land not decrees by an ignorant president.
Everybody else caught up because of .... Drum roll.... adequate Government spending.
Apparently you've never heard toll roads. Anyway, my argument was not who paid for the roads in the places mentioned, only that the U.S. is not some shining beacon of hope for the rest of the world's cobblestone and dirt road systems as was implied by the original post I replied to.
One of the big reasons you're able to be screwed in the way you are is because of the government's "regulation" and "control" already present. The rules that govern these industries are so invasive that they literally push the little guys out (or are overly prohibitive so they cannot start in the first place). Competition doesn't exist because these behemoth corporations literally have the blessing of government to grow, expand, monopolize, control, and screw all day long.
The solution to too many bears sitting on your face is not to add more bears.
Allowing shops like AT&T and Comcast to file lawsuits to prevent companies like Google and municipalities to build their own networks to compete with the established monopolies is flat-out wrong.
I totally support the "concept" of net neutrality. We need it. That doesn't mean it's perfect by a long shot. So long as people are involved that have their own agenda and interest contrary to the spirit of the regulation, or are in-bed with the networks, it's going to be ripe with corruption and that needs to be weeded out.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't need it. I don't trust the government, but I sure as heck don't trust a for-profit company like Comcast to look out for the little guy.
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 and kept the prices high via the complete lack of competition and the greed of the carriers. We need more regulation, not less.
The open internet is one of the most democratizing things we have in our modern society, why is this even up for debate?
It is no more democratizing then any other form of communications. Worst it is a refuge for flakes and idiots that do more harm than good.
It is up to debate because paying for a better product is a basic freedom. I don't see people whining about BMW's being for sale in this country, how about the cost of a Harley? So why can't Apple pay for a better allotment of bandwidth to better serve its customers? This is what the discussion is all about, being able to buy what you need to maintain your competitive stance.
What benefit would society have in enabling "Fast lanes" or "premium" connections or other nonsense?
There is a huge benefit to society. For one it means that mainstream services such as content streaming will continue to work into the future. It is also a benefit to the community because it keeps the fringe elements operating on low bandwidth connections. Look at it this was do you want the KKK or the Nazi party being able to broadcast their nonsense world wide with the same freedom and cost structure that Apple will stream movies to you?
What do we get protecting commercial interests?
You aren't protecting commercial interests you are protecting the ability of the corporations to maintain their networks in a cost effective manner and making sure high priority traffic gets through. This has hugh benefits to you as an individual.
Look at it this way Netflix, Apple, Dropbox and others are all commercial interests that will suffer if net neutrality goes forward. You as a consumer will suffer also if you need to pay the same rate per bit as everybody else. In the end the important thing to understand here is that it costs real money for each bit transferred over the networks, now the big corporations pick up a good bit of that bill for you due to the costs of the high speed connections to their data centers. In the end somebody has to pay and frankly I'd rather it be the big corporation rather than me.
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 and kept the prices high via the complete lack of competition and the greed of the carriers. We need more regulation, not less.
Government regulation causes monopolies, not competition. That canard has been trotted out so often it is now mistaken as a permanent installment. It's a complete lie.
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 solution is not to regulate the ISP monopolies just because they have used their monopolies to buy votes in the past.
I don't think we really disagree on the heart of the matter, so I can't figure out why we're arguing. You seem to think bombing innocent people in the name of "safety" is bad. You seem to think monopolies are bad. You apparently are not in favor of governments favors being bought and sold by big businesses at the cost of taxpayers/citizens. I agree with all that as well, assuming those really are your general positions.
My overarching message is that while big businesses can act quite prickish when it comes to pursuing their own interests, government always has been and always will be 100 times worse (partly for the reasons mentioned above). And you can't necessarily blame big business: they are told what they cannot do by government fiat.
The first line of reasoning for most businesses in this kind of environment is "We can't do x, y, or z, so the rest of the alphabet is apparently ok!" And we're really screwed because the sheeple sit by and say "Oh, the [insert government acronym here: FCC, FDA, FAA, CDC, BAFTEQRSTLK) has my back, so I'm safe to ignore the goings on in Washington or elsewhere!" If we care to see change, we must start demanding it first from the businesses that claim to serve our interests, then by highlighting the poor judgement on the part of our representatives both in taking backroom deals and, equally as bad, overreaching into the goings on of business, making it harder for the little guys and actually setting up the mega-monopolies for decades of additional job security.
Business wants your attention/money/love and will woo whoever they can to get it. Government takes it by force and gives you much less say in the matter. Society has a much better chance of bucking this monopolistic landscape when they show it has fallen widely out of favor than by asking government for a disease invested bandaid they took off the last corpse.
Is there a chance we can strike any kind of agreement on this topic?
If the cellular industry can have MVNOs why can't internet providers? I want my dumb pipe!
MVNOs, and CLECs are the same if Apple had to sell iPhones at a loss to another company, and then that company sold them at a profit. The telecoms were forced to accept that in the spirit of competition.
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 and kept the prices high via the complete lack of competition and the greed of the carriers. We need more regulation, not less.
Great comment. It won't be addressed though because it can't be refuted.
Allowing shops like AT&T and Comcast to file lawsuits to prevent companies like Google and municipalities to build their own networks to compete with the established monopolies is flat-out wrong.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't need it. I don't trust the government, but I sure as heck don't trust a for-profit company like Comcast to look out for the little guy.
Where in anything I've said do I even hint at supporting companies blocking other companies — legislatively or legally — from competing in the same space? On the contrary! That has nothing to do with the current argument, and in fact it is the very kind of action that will do FAR MORE to balance the internet and "fairness" than any kind of fiat.
You don't have to trust Comcast to look out for the little guy, you have to trust YOU to look out for the little guy. Defending the free market (note that Comcast does not operate in the free market) is the solution, not restricting markets further and emboldening Comcast's place as the sole provider of goods in the majority of said market.
Comments
I pay $x/mo for Y bandwidth, Netflix pays $/mo for Y bandwidth. It's as simple as that. Companies like Comcast are double-dipping by charging companies like Netflix more because users (like me) use it? Bullsh!t.
I'm all for the government keeping their paws off of stuff. I don't trust them. However, in this very rare instance, I think this is a perfect example of why we need legislation for companies to NOT do that. Sure, you'll complain that it will harm the industry more, but I flat-out don't believe that propaganda. It's certainly not hurting companies like Google from doing its own fiber service. I think its the industry being scared to death that the FTC will handcuff their gravy-train.
I, the end-user should have access to any website I choose to visit on the bandwidth I am paying for. Netflix - and other popular services - are paying for their bandwidth too and folks like Comcast are saying "You want to reach our customers at the speeds you already paid for? Well, it will cost you extra now!" Flat out wrong.
I hate libtards just as much as the next... this is the one exception where government needs to get involved. The FTC just better not make it all political, and just do their job.
One of the big reasons you're able to be screwed in the way you are is because of the government's "regulation" and "control" already present. The rules that govern these industries are so invasive that they literally push the little guys out (or are overly prohibitive so they cannot start in the first place). Competition doesn't exist because these behemoth corporations literally have the blessing of government to grow, expand, monopolize, control, and screw all day long.
The solution to too many bears sitting on your face is not to add more bears.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/
The interstates were a good idea, badly maintained now but wonders in their day. And clearly I am not pro war but most republicans are.
The ISPs act as local monopolies. They want to strangle your internet for commercial reasons. Treating them as common carriers gives the consumer the power.
And who/what enabled them in their quest for monopolization?
People just need to vote out these idiots.
There are plenty more where they came from. Smart and honest people don't usually go into politics. They don't have the stomach for it.
rural county rounds are not interstates.our interstates are pretty amazing compared to most of the world. travel a bit and see.
You mean when I recently visited DC, Hong Kong, China, NY, Britain, Mississippi, California, and Guatemala, among other places, and where the roads were all roughly comparable to the cherished wonders that are the American interstates? There is nothing too terribly special about our roads, except for the one fact that we are hijacking funding meant for other things in order to keep them from being a wreck (aka government's M.O.).
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 solution is not to regulate the ISP monopolies just because they have used their monopolies to buy votes in the past.
Everybody else caught up because of .... Drum roll.... adequate Government spending.
It is absolutely scary how far this administration has gone to undermine our elected officials. We need to get back to congress making the laws of the land not decrees by an ignorant president.
I prefer elected officials being involved to bureaucrats. Bureaucrats have no accountability.
Maybe. But that assumes that the 'elected officials' are actually elected by... you know.... intelligent, informed people.
Apparently you've never heard toll roads. Anyway, my argument was not who paid for the roads in the places mentioned, only that the U.S. is not some shining beacon of hope for the rest of the world's cobblestone and dirt road systems as was implied by the original post I replied to.
One of the big reasons you're able to be screwed in the way you are is because of the government's "regulation" and "control" already present. The rules that govern these industries are so invasive that they literally push the little guys out (or are overly prohibitive so they cannot start in the first place). Competition doesn't exist because these behemoth corporations literally have the blessing of government to grow, expand, monopolize, control, and screw all day long.
The solution to too many bears sitting on your face is not to add more bears.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/
Go ahead... point fingers.
Allowing shops like AT&T and Comcast to file lawsuits to prevent companies like Google and municipalities to build their own networks to compete with the established monopolies is flat-out wrong.
I totally support the "concept" of net neutrality. We need it. That doesn't mean it's perfect by a long shot. So long as people are involved that have their own agenda and interest contrary to the spirit of the regulation, or are in-bed with the networks, it's going to be ripe with corruption and that needs to be weeded out.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't need it. I don't trust the government, but I sure as heck don't trust a for-profit company like Comcast to look out for the little guy.
It is up to debate because paying for a better product is a basic freedom. I don't see people whining about BMW's being for sale in this country, how about the cost of a Harley? So why can't Apple pay for a better allotment of bandwidth to better serve its customers? This is what the discussion is all about, being able to buy what you need to maintain your competitive stance. There is a huge benefit to society. For one it means that mainstream services such as content streaming will continue to work into the future. It is also a benefit to the community because it keeps the fringe elements operating on low bandwidth connections. Look at it this was do you want the KKK or the Nazi party being able to broadcast their nonsense world wide with the same freedom and cost structure that Apple will stream movies to you?
You aren't protecting commercial interests you are protecting the ability of the corporations to maintain their networks in a cost effective manner and making sure high priority traffic gets through. This has hugh benefits to you as an individual.
Look at it this way Netflix, Apple, Dropbox and others are all commercial interests that will suffer if net neutrality goes forward. You as a consumer will suffer also if you need to pay the same rate per bit as everybody else. In the end the important thing to understand here is that it costs real money for each bit transferred over the networks, now the big corporations pick up a good bit of that bill for you due to the costs of the high speed connections to their data centers. In the end somebody has to pay and frankly I'd rather it be the big corporation rather than me.
Government regulation causes monopolies, not competition. That canard has been trotted out so often it is now mistaken as a permanent installment. It's a complete lie.
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 solution is not to regulate the ISP monopolies just because they have used their monopolies to buy votes in the past.
I don't think we really disagree on the heart of the matter, so I can't figure out why we're arguing. You seem to think bombing innocent people in the name of "safety" is bad. You seem to think monopolies are bad. You apparently are not in favor of governments favors being bought and sold by big businesses at the cost of taxpayers/citizens. I agree with all that as well, assuming those really are your general positions.
My overarching message is that while big businesses can act quite prickish when it comes to pursuing their own interests, government always has been and always will be 100 times worse (partly for the reasons mentioned above). And you can't necessarily blame big business: they are told what they cannot do by government fiat.
The first line of reasoning for most businesses in this kind of environment is "We can't do x, y, or z, so the rest of the alphabet is apparently ok!" And we're really screwed because the sheeple sit by and say "Oh, the [insert government acronym here: FCC, FDA, FAA, CDC, BAFTEQRSTLK) has my back, so I'm safe to ignore the goings on in Washington or elsewhere!" If we care to see change, we must start demanding it first from the businesses that claim to serve our interests, then by highlighting the poor judgement on the part of our representatives both in taking backroom deals and, equally as bad, overreaching into the goings on of business, making it harder for the little guys and actually setting up the mega-monopolies for decades of additional job security.
Business wants your attention/money/love and will woo whoever they can to get it. Government takes it by force and gives you much less say in the matter. Society has a much better chance of bucking this monopolistic landscape when they show it has fallen widely out of favor than by asking government for a disease invested bandaid they took off the last corpse.
Is there a chance we can strike any kind of agreement on this topic?
Regulation is control and this is only a stepping stone to the democrats desire to censor the Internet.
MVNOs, and CLECs are the same if Apple had to sell iPhones at a loss to another company, and then that company sold them at a profit. The telecoms were forced to accept that in the spirit of competition.
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 and kept the prices high via the complete lack of competition and the greed of the carriers. We need more regulation, not less.
Great comment. It won't be addressed though because it can't be refuted.
Go ahead... point fingers.
Allowing shops like AT&T and Comcast to file lawsuits to prevent companies like Google and municipalities to build their own networks to compete with the established monopolies is flat-out wrong.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't need it. I don't trust the government, but I sure as heck don't trust a for-profit company like Comcast to look out for the little guy.
Where in anything I've said do I even hint at supporting companies blocking other companies — legislatively or legally — from competing in the same space? On the contrary! That has nothing to do with the current argument, and in fact it is the very kind of action that will do FAR MORE to balance the internet and "fairness" than any kind of fiat.
You don't have to trust Comcast to look out for the little guy, you have to trust YOU to look out for the little guy. Defending the free market (note that Comcast does not operate in the free market) is the solution, not restricting markets further and emboldening Comcast's place as the sole provider of goods in the majority of said market.
What do we get protecting commercial interests?
Campaign contributions.