3 ms·

Try this: imagine the government put up a fence in front of everyone's house and they let poor people in fine, but charged rich people to get in through the fe

Try this: imagine the government put up a fence in front of everyone's house and they let poor people in fine, but charged rich people to get in through the fence. That's the basic idea for ISPs...they want to charge Google, Facebook, etc. money. They're already charging Netflix (Verizon forced them to pay or they would throttle them). There is NO CHANCE that ISPs will actually invest in two technically different products like regular/super clean water! That's just how ISPs want paint the debate, that they want the right to invest in "better technology", but the bottleneck is the last mile and the chances that Verizon will lay 2 different cables to your house is exactly zero! The requirement for prejudicial packet routing to deliver things like HD video is a non-starter, Netflix when it's not getting throttled is already delivers great hi-def video in the current non-prejudicial packet-based internet. It is really pure "extortion"...at least in my view and a clear case of necessary government intervention to insure fair market behavior (e.g. ISPs can only charge consumers, not web services, for internet service).

studentrob 9y ago
Thanks for your ideas! Points about bottleneck at the last mile and Verizon not offering to lay more cabling to your house are good I realize that ISPs want to paint the debate as separate products. I wanted to use their language in my description so that people can interpret their words alongside mine. If you're constantly making different points and not addressing your opponents', I feel the listener will walk away with a 50/50 chance of agreeing with you, probably choosing to follow their political party. If you offer some translation, maybe we can get some meaningful discussion about it. Regarding charging rich people to enter the fence. I feel that would only help convince the general public that net neutrality benefits big companies. Google and Facebook, forgive me if you work there, are teetering on not being perceived as evil mega corporations with access to all our data. Naming them as a victim doesn't do much to win over the public.

studentrob 9y ago

Thanks for your ideas! Points about bottleneck at the last mile and Verizon not offering to lay more cabling to your house are good I realize that ISPs want to paint the debate as separate products. I wanted to use their language in my description so that people can interpret their words alongside mine. If you're constantly making different points and not addressing your opponents', I feel the listener will walk away with a 50/50 chance of agreeing with you, probably choosing to follow their political party. If you offer some translation, maybe we can get some meaningful discussion about it. Regarding charging rich people to enter the fence. I feel that would only help convince the general public that net neutrality benefits big companies. Google and Facebook, forgive me if you work there, are teetering on not being perceived as evil mega corporations with access to all our data. Naming them as a victim doesn't do much to win over the public.