spice-boy

crofford said:

davgreg said:

Mr. Pai came to the FCC from Verizon and has been on a mission to give the telecom/ISP lobby their wish list starting with net neutrality. He is not your friend regardless of your political viewpoint.

Simply stated, net neutrality is equal access for both those who provide content- like Apple Insider - and consumers who view it. By the way, both the providers and consumers already pay ISPs for internet access.

A free and open internet needs for there to be equal access to the whole internet both to serve for a fair commercial market and for an open exchange of ideas among the public. The huge companies we all know like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Netflix and such were able to become what they are in part because of an online environment where your content and service was the determining factor in your success- not a rigged internet where their sites were not hobbled by a second or third tier online connection.

There is also a reasonable concern about a fair an open internet that allows for the free exchange of ideas. Despite the flame wars that get outsized attention, most online commenters are reasonable and not offensive.

Landline ISPs are a natural monopoly due to the expense and complexity of the build out and upkeep of the connections. Very few people have a choice regarding broadband landline internet connections. Wireless is not really a competition due to the low data caps imposed upon wireless networks and the common problems with congestion. As such, there is a compelling need fro some level of government oversight to make sure ISPs to not abuse their market position.

As long as you're happy with an Internet that only provides Apple Insider-like solutions for the next 50 years then net neutrality would be great.  But, if you'd like to see companies innovate and roll out new solutions that require new infrastructure, then tough luck.  If telecom providers want to roll out expensive switches and big pipes to support some new 16k video with interactive VR that requires super high bandwidth, shouldn't they be able to charge more for that lane of the highway?  Or if you think that should be shared by all, then isn't the shared cost unfairly high for those that don't want that product?
Landlines aren't a natural monopoly...they are only a monopoly because the local governments grant them.
Free market competition works everywhere except where government touches it.
"Free exchange of ideas" ?  How does that work in a regulated environment?  Do you  really want someone from an unelected government bureaucracy determining what is ok and what's not?
I'm 100% on board with regulation or even socialism as long as I get to be the person in charge.

SpamSandwich said:

Same old garbage, different day.

”Net Neutrality” is a proposal to hand over the Internet to your ‘superiors’ in Washington. 

The government you like today becomes the government you hate or fear tomorrow. Don’t give them the power to begin with.

davgreg said:

Mr. Pai came to the FCC from Verizon and has been on a mission to give the telecom/ISP lobby their wish list starting with net neutrality. He is not your friend regardless of your political viewpoint.

Simply stated, net neutrality is equal access for both those who provide content- like Apple Insider - and consumers who view it. By the way, both the providers and consumers already pay ISPs for internet access.

A free and open internet needs for there to be equal access to the whole internet both to serve for a fair commercial market and for an open exchange of ideas among the public. The huge companies we all know like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Netflix and such were able to become what they are in part because of an online environment where your content and service was the determining factor in your success- not a rigged internet where their sites were not hobbled by a second or third tier online connection.

There is also a reasonable concern about a fair an open internet that allows for the free exchange of ideas. Despite the flame wars that get outsized attention, most online commenters are reasonable and not offensive.

Landline ISPs are a natural monopoly due to the expense and complexity of the build out and upkeep of the connections. Very few people have a choice regarding broadband landline internet connections. Wireless is not really a competition due to the low data caps imposed upon wireless networks and the common problems with congestion. As such, there is a compelling need fro some level of government oversight to make sure ISPs to not abuse their market position.