Net Neutrality moved to trash

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Data is data. However I choose to use it, since I paid for it and as long as it's legal, is no one's ****ing business.

That's why the FCC has removed a strict form of regulation on the internet, allowing providers to offer a variety of different services and allowing customers to chose the services that they want.

If it's nobody's business, how can you object to deregulation?

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Clocker

That's why the FCC has removed a strict form of regulation on the internet, allowing providers to offer a variety of different services and allowing customers to chose the services that they want.

If it's nobody's business, how can you object to deregulation?

Because I fail to see how a regulation that requires ISPs to treat all data (the actual thing you are paying for) the same (since to them it is) hurts options, competition, or market freedom. Again data is data whether us PA, Netflix, or Breitbart. Want less buy less.

You make it seem like these options didn't already exist... they did.

The only group that gains leverage is the telecoms who can now strong arm any content provider they see fit to.

Who in your area is going to step in and replace them if they jack fees on the consumer? The answer is no one.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Because I fail to see how a regulation that requires ISPs to treat all data (the actual thing you are paying for) the same (since to them it is) hurts options, competition, or market freedom. Again data is data whether us PA, Netflix, or Breitbart. Want less buy less.

You make it seem like these options didn't already exist... they did.

The only group that gains leverage is the telecoms who can now strong arm any content provider they see fit to.

Data is data, but it can be blocked, throttled, or prioritized. All of the major providers already state in their terms of service that they will not block or throttle any data. Enforcement of those terms now reverts to the FTC, where it was before net neutrality. The FTC has a better reputation and history of enforcing anti-competitive laws than the FCC. Any telecom that would "strong arm any content provider" would be subject to FTC action.

What providers want, and what was prohibited under net neutrality, was the ability to openly offer prioritized switching and delivery of selective data (such as streaming video) at a higher price. You would then have the option of having all of your data delivered at the same base speed at a flat monthly rate, or having your data unbundled, paying more as you use more prioritized data. It's like sending a letter 1st class or Express Mail, your choice.

[Clocker]

Bonus question: What was wrong with the internet prior to 2015 that net neutrality fixed?

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Data is data, but it can be blocked, throttled, or prioritized. All of the major providers already state in their terms of service that they will not block or throttle any data. Enforcement of those terms now reverts to the FTC, where it was before net neutrality. The FTC has a better reputation and history of enforcing anti-competitive laws than the FCC. Any telecom that would "strong arm any content provider" would be subject to FTC action.

What providers want, and what was prohibited under net neutrality, was the ability to openly offer prioritized switching and delivery of selective data (such as streaming video) at a higher price. You would then have the option of having all of your data delivered at the same base speed at a flat monthly rate, or having your data unbundled, paying more as you use more prioritized data. It's like sending a letter 1st class or Express Mail, your choice.

This ability already exists. I the consumer already have the ability to determine the amount and speed of my data through what I'm willing to pay.

This is simply ISPs, who also happen to be content providers, attempting to steer you to use their content by charging different amounts for what is tantamount to the exact same service, data and bandwidth.

Netflix is a good example since they are a standalone entity. The ISP has the ability to charge you more for access than say Hulu in the case of Comcast since they own part of it. If not they can simply charge Netflix who in turn passes that on to you.

And the result is you as the consumer can switch services (not possible for most as they only have 1 or maybe 2 options) or pay more for the exact same thing... data and bandwidth simply because of what content you consume.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Bonus question: What was wrong with the internet prior to 2015 that net neutrality fixed?

For starters the content providers weren't nearly considered the threat they are now. House of Cards launched in 2013. At the time Netflix was laughed at and mocked for attempting to compete with the traditional industry.

The market has completely changed and this is a life raft to telecoms seeing their shares of a market they previously had a Monopoly in being sliced into.

I don't see how you can't see this as crony capitalism.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

I've determined at this point you are being either factually dishonest or deliberately obtuse.

AT&T or whatever provider you have now gets to determine the ease in which you can access certain locales on the internet. This flies directly in the face of your previous post of being able to filter what you get online.

You were for net neutrality before you were against it. Common theme among the Trumpers that was for free markets before Trump and tariffs.

I assure you my voting record is more free market than yours.

I was never for NN. What gives you this idea? NN wasn't needed because the internet was working fine without it.

My ISP does not determine the "ease at which [I] can access certain locales on the internet." I DO! I'm the one who chose my plan. I could have stayed with appreciably more modest speeds or upgrade (for relatively little more) to a much higher speed. I chose the latter because it represented far greater value -- and not because the slower speed was inadequate for streaming.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I was never for NN. What gives you this idea? NN wasn't needed because the internet was working fine without it.

My ISP does not determine the "ease at which [I] can access certain locales on the internet." I DO

Then you don't understand Net Neutrality because now they can!

They can bottle neck your Netflix or charge Netflix to have the same bandwidth as other services they currently offer themselves.

I really don't understand why you are having such a hard time comprehending this. Read up on the issue. Read both sides. Then come back and explain to me how this isn't a telecom cash grab.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Then you don't understand Net Neutrality because now they can!

They can bottle neck your Netflix or charge Netflix to have the same bandwidth as other services they currently offer themselves.

I really don't understand why you are having such a hard time comprehending this. Read up on the issue. Read both sides. Then come back and explain to me how this isn't a telecom cash grab.

Are you claiming that a business similar to Netflix in all ways can be allowed more bandwidth at the whim of the ISP? If so there should be a huge business opportunity for a company to pick up the disgruntled customers of some ruthless ISP.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Then you don't understand Net Neutrality because now they can!

They can bottle neck your Netflix or charge Netflix to have the same bandwidth as other services they currently offer themselves.

I really don't understand why you are having such a hard time comprehending this. Read up on the issue. Read both sides. Then come back and explain to me how this isn't a telecom cash grab.

Because you're telling me what "they CAN do", yet I have never experienced with or prior to NN what you're claiming. Why don't you want to understand that the internet wasn't broken prior to NN and it isn't broken now?

Furthermore, can you tell me what was the great benefit I was supposed to experience with NN? What was supposed to improve to make my experience so much better before NN was implemented? IOW, what am I supposed to be missing with NN now in the dumpster?

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Are you claiming that a business similar to Netflix in all ways can be allowed more bandwidth at the whim of the ISP? If so there should be a huge business opportunity for a company to pick up the disgruntled customers of some ruthless ISP.

Do you have any idea how much money it takes to create fiber networks?

Another company simply can't step in and do it. My father was senior VP of Verizon installation and repair for the Midwest and the Carolinas. Where Verizon is AT&T and Comcast aren't and vice versa. It's too expensive and the return too risky. How many providers do you have access to? My guess is one cable and one DSL am I correct?

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Because you're telling me what "they CAN do", yet I have never experienced with or prior to NN what you're claiming. Why don't you want to understand that the internet wasn't broken prior to NN and it isn't broken now?

See the previous graph I posted. Do you think the internet and media consumption has changed in the past 5 years? You're seriously going to argue it hasn't? NN was actually forward thinking. You pay for data and thats it. Now you potentially can pay for data BUT also how you use it? And you're going to argue this is good or beneficial in some way?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Furthermore, can you tell me what was the great benefit I was supposed to experience with NN? What was supposed to improve to make my experience so much better before NN was implemented? IOW, what am I supposed to be missing with NN now in the dumpster?

That all you paid for was data and speed. Now you can potentially pay for not just the data but how you use it.

I seriously feel like you all are just supporting this because the guy who reversed it has an R next to his name and a Trump appointee. You really have no idea what NN is. (Except Clocker whose opposition also doesn't make sense to me but is based entirely on a different premise)

You buy data and you use it. There can be no additional charge for the type of data you're using and now there can be...

That's the difference.

It's literally just a way for telecoms to charge you more for using the exact same things you already have been.

But I digress... I'm sick of discussing this. You all were against it when you thought Obama was for it. Now you flip because... well Trump. You in particular espoused how great the internet is because you can access whatever you want. I've showed you over and over again how that ability might cost more now and you simply choose to ignore it.

I've said the same thing a million times and no has refuted that it can potentially cost you more for doing the same things you have already been doing and diligently paying for... just sheeple sheeping... or flocking... or whatever you call it.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Do you have any idea how much money it takes to create fiber networks?

Another company simply can't step in and do it. My father was senior VP of Verizon installation and repair for the Midwest and the Carolinas. Where Verizon is AT&T and Comcast aren't and vice versa. It's too expensive and the return too risky. How many providers do you have access to? My guess is one cable and one DSL am I correct?

Take out the infrastructure cost, provide very high speed Internet on what’s already there..........forget about fiber. This tech is out there and coming. It should change the market drastically if allowed to flourish


http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/16/tech...eds/index.html

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Take out the infrastructure cost, provide very high speed Internet on what’s already there..........forget about fiber. This tech is out there and coming. It should change the market drastically if allowed to flourish


http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/16/tech...eds/index.html

5G is going to crush everything. But it still has to have an access point. Which is infrastructure. The towers and lines still have to have the capacity. Which is owned predominately by only 4 entities. Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Uncle Sam.

It all siphons up.

Hell AT&T is the one behind this financially according to your article... hardly a little guy stepping in. And totally irrelevant when it comes to streaming media and potential premiums associated with NN repeal. The topics aren't related.

Back to 5G... we will soon be a wireless society. The ease at which we will have access is a serious threat to the way we have traditionally consumed media. Why the do you think they want to repeal NN? It's a means to charge more for the same thing you've already been doing and offset the losses they know they are going to suffer from the dying way we still consume media.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

See the previous graph I posted. Do you think the internet and media consumption has changed in the past 5 years? You're seriously going to argue it hasn't? NN was actually forward thinking. You pay for data and thats it. Now you potentially can pay for data BUT also how you use it? And you're going to argue this is good or beneficial in some way?


That all you paid for was data and speed. Now you can potentially pay for not just the data but how you use it.

emphasis mine!!!

"POTENTIALLY", you say? Now...we're getting somewhere. Thank you very much for supporting my foundational premise, which was once again: The NN was implemented to fix something that wasn't broken to begin with!

And, yes, consumption has changed and that will impact supply and demand. In fact, sir, are you familiar with the Law of Supply and Demand? Do you have any idea what happens, normally, when demands exceed supplies?

To what shall I liken NN that had actually fixed nothing in its few years of existence? I liken it to a traffic cop pulling over the driver of a really red hot, jazzy, fast really cool looking sports car to give the driver a ticket for breaking no laws. The driver being really incredulous wants to know what that's all about. The cop tells him the ticket is to discourage the driver's potential for actually speeding in the car. Now...if this makes sense to you, then I can understand why you favor NN. Obama making NN a rule is a classic case of someone crying, "WOLF", when there was none to be found at the time, nor is there any to this day.

I've said the same thing a million times and no has refuted that it can potentially cost you more for doing the same things you have already been doing and diligently paying for... just sheeple sheeping... or flocking... or whatever you call it.

And this is the second thing you have right. No one can refute anything that hasn't happened and may never happen, anymore than you can prove that it will happen!

Have a pleasant evening, sir.