Net Neutrality moved to trash

[reckless]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Correct.

This is simply a cash grab by the big players. The consumer always loses in those scenarios.

Ironically the government control in this instance actually is allowing more freedom for the consumer not less.

But not freedom of thought or expression, especially conservative points of view.

The Obama Administration pulled this fast one -- the benign sounding 'Net Neutrality' law in his final year as President.

The lobbying Google villains had more documented visits to Obama during his last term than the number of visits by most high ranking Cabinet administrators.

The law was anything but 'net neutral' ... it was meant for the government to pick winners and losers -- and in Obama's case it was for Google, Facebook, Twitter and the other purveyors of free speech and totalitarianism -- such as the George Soros-funded Tech Left Coalition companies.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

ALright.

So I can be charged based upon use, number of sites, and/or amount of bandwith then, right?

No with Net Neutrality providers can slow down the ways in which you use data. Netflix for instance can be slowed down unless you want to pay a premium for faster "streaming data." It can be targeted and providers like Comcast will do exactly that because they compete with that service for viewership.

Originally Posted by Clocker

Even if you want to pay more to do so. Like if you want to pay more for service that prioritizes your provider's transmission of streaming video ahead of transmission of email or web browsing, you can't, because data is data.

I have ZERO issue paying for the amount of Data I use. The problem is I don't want a provider being able to determine my ease of use depending on how I play to spend my data.

This is very similar to a targeted use tax.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by reckless

But not freedom of thought or expression, especially conservative points of view.

The Obama Administration pulled this fast one -- the benign sounding 'Net Neutrality' law in his final year as President.

The lobbying Google villains had more documented visits to Obama during his last term than the number of visits by most high ranking Cabinet administrators.

The law was anything but 'net neutral' ... it was meant for the government to pick winners and losers -- and in Obama's case it was for Google, Facebook, Twitter and the other purveyors of free speech and totalitarianism -- such as the George Soros-funded Tech Left Coalition companies.

This is absolute nonsense. The sources you are citing are the greatest platforms of free speech ever created. I can post something there and reach MILLIONS if I so choose.

If anything this will strengthen their hand as they are already established platforms.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Elysian, I agree on your simple explanation on purchasing bandwidth. But I don’t think we will be any further away from what we are doing today, which is close to your explanation, for awhile. Hopefully the new tech and streaming models will influence the future and increase competition.

I get what you are saying too but lets use an example. Sling TV currently offers what is tantamount to a streaming cable service. In the world of ISPs they don't compete with anyone but Comcast does. However, in the world of entertainment programming they compete directly with Comcast and in many ways surpass them. (Try calling Comcast customer service). Whats to keep a ISP like Comcast from throttling a company like Sling or causing their service to become too expensive to be competitive? The answer is nothing. That's why I feel points like reckless' make no sense.

This is exactly like the ACA in that the big players benefit but the smaller ones can't survive.

[Tom]

I am sure no one intends to hurt the little guy.
I doubt anyone even considered the little guy.

Internet must be FREE for everyone.
cities are doing it now - it is good for business and good for the country.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

I get what you are saying too but lets use an example.

Okay, let's do that. The WWW is still here like a big fuzzy, warm, cuddly fungus in cyberspace. The internet has survived yesterday's actions. All is well. Life is good.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

I have ZERO issue paying for the amount of Data I use. The problem is I don't want a provider being able to determine my ease of use depending on how I play to spend my data.

The issue is not the provider charging you based on different data. The issue is allowing you to chose a plan that charges you less for something like email and browsing and more for something like streaming video.

Under net neutrality, you have to pay for everything at the rate for the highest quality you need for any particular use, like the poster here who said he had to upgrade his service to use Hulu. So he is now paying for a higher quality service for all usage, even though he only needs it occasionally when he uses Hulu. Eliminating net neutrality allows the provider to unbundle usage and charge more for better service only on the traffic that you want better service for.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Tom

Internet must be FREE for everyone.
cities are doing it now - it is good for business and good for the country.

It looks like Bernie Sanders hijacked Tom's account.

Hint: It ain't free. Someone is paying for it.

Why just the internet? Why not phone service too? That is as important as the internet, and just as good for business and the country.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Clocker

The issue is not the provider charging you based on different data. The issue is allowing you to chose a plan that charges you less for something like email and browsing and more for something like streaming video.

Under net neutrality, you have to pay for everything at the rate for the highest quality you need for any particular use, like the poster here who said he had to upgrade his service to use Hulu. So he is now paying for a higher quality service for all usage, even though he only needs it occasionally when he uses Hulu. Eliminating net neutrality allows the provider to unbundle usage and charge more for better service only on the traffic that you want better service for.

That is EXACTLY the problem. Net Neutrality is you pay $X amount for X amount of data/bandwidth regardless of how its used.

And on the flip side the provider who is simply moving bytes of data can arbitrarily determine the quality of the service based on how its being used.

Hence the problem.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

That is EXACTLY the problem. Net Neutrality is you pay $X amount for X amount of data/bandwidth regardless of how its used.

And on the flip side the provider who is simply moving bytes of data can arbitrarily determine the quality of the service based on how its being used.

Hence the problem.

The internet is like anything else in a free market economy: If you want better quality, you can get it by paying for it. Can you go out and buy a Lexus for the price of a Ford Focus?

[Dave Schwartz]

In today's USA Today (print version) there is an article that begins by saying, "Expect to pay more for access to your favorite internet sites."

Welcome to all that wonderful competition that will make it better for the consumer.

It will go downhill from here.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The internet is like anything else in a free market economy: If you want better quality, you can get it by paying for it. Can you go out and buy a Lexus for the price of a Ford Focus?

I'm beginning to think you are missing the issue here or don't understand what data even is. No one says you shouldn't pay more if you consume more. NO ONE. The problem is you will be charged differently not for the amount of data you use or the speed in which you get it but by the sites you are accessing.

This is actually a bipartisan issue with the majority of Republicans also favoring net neutrality.

"Democrats — urged on by consumer advocates, digital rights groups and online giants such as Amazon, Google and Facebook — said the tougher federal oversight is needed because the internet’s increasingly vital role in business and daily life is vulnerable to exploitation by telecom companies."

"But there is bipartisan support for net neutrality, and some lawmakers want to pass net neutrality legislation that would enshrine some of the principles in law."

"“I call on Democrats and Republicans who want to preserve a free and open internet to work together on permanent consumer protections,” said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) after the FCC vote."

LA Times

75% of Republicans don't support the reversal. 80% of the electorate is against it.

Maryland Poll on Net Neutrality

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The internet is like anything else in a free market economy: If you want better quality, you can get it by paying for it. Can you go out and buy a Lexus for the price of a Ford Focus?

Its not a free-market economy and quite frankly I find it asinine that Trump supporters are on here trying to paint it as such... since they don't want a free economy.

If I use 60gigs of data watching movies on Netflix and you use 60gigs of data making your arguments in the religious thread I still have to pay more because I'm using Netflix? That's a free market to you?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

In today's USA Today (print version) there is an article that begins by saying, "Expect to pay more for access to your favorite internet sites."

Welcome to all that wonderful competition that will make it better for the consumer.

It will go downhill from here.

This may be a blessing in disguise. It may force family-members to start noticing one another...

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Its not a free-market economy and quite frankly I find it asinine that Trump supporters are on here trying to paint it as such... since they don't want a free economy.

When did we move to communism?

If I use 60gigs of data watching movies on Netflix and you use 60gigs of data making your arguments in the religious thread I still have to pay more because I'm using Netflix? That's a free market to you?

So your objection is that you don't want to pay Netflix's subscription price? I gladly pay Netflix's price. Now...if PA charged to access his site....then I would have take that under advisement.

I know what you could use for Christmas: A large crying towel.