5 ms·

(This comment is a little bit disorganized, so I apologize for that.) Far too many people don't seem to understand the arguments against net neutrality as it h

(This comment is a little bit disorganized, so I apologize for that.) Far too many people don't seem to understand the arguments against net neutrality as it has been proposed... There's been much made about the "astroturfing" and automated comments on the FCC website that go against net neutrality-- but what about the reverse? John Oliver doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Reddit and HN provide warped perspectives on the issue. Don't you guys realize that no matter what policy is chosen, someone is getting screwed and someone going to profit? Don't get me wrong, the ISPs are not exactly benevolent organizations. But I don't think they're evil either. Plain and simple, if you think this is a cut-and-dry, good-versus-evil, conglomerates-versus-littleguy issue, I think you're not hearing both sides of the issue. This issue is between content providers that serve far more bits than they take in, and ISPs, and there are billions of dollars on both sides. In other words, don't think for a second that this is about protecting small internet websites from having to pay ransom. That's not what is going to happen. The only people who are going to be squeezed are the giants like Google, Netflix, etc., and it's no surprise that these are the people who are making such a fuss about it today. The particular event that made me reconsider net neutrality was digging into the details of the Comcast/Netflix/Level3 fiasco a couple years ago. Everything I had heard about that situation made it sound to me like Comcast was simply demanding ransom. The reality of the situation is that L3 and Netflix acted extremely recklessly in how they made their deals, and IMO deserved everything that came to them. Much is made about "eyeball ISPs" and the power it gives them. In reality, I think Netflix has more power in swaying consumers, and I think they used that power to bail themselves out of a sticky situation by badmouthing Comcast. I don't see how compensatory peering agreements would work out well in a net neutral world. Specifically, the FCC proposal for Title II classification (paraphrasing here) said that the FCC would step in when it believed one party was acting unfairly. It is far too open-ended, doesn't list any criteria for what that means, and it's not the FCCs job anyway, the FTC should be doing that. But in general I don't think net neutrality is a good idea. I think that people are out of touch with internet access in rural parts of the US, and I don't think NN is beneficial for that situation at all. My grandmother pays $30/mo for internet access that she barely uses, and I don't think it's right to enshrine into law that Comcast can't offer her a plan where she pays $5/mo instead for limited access to the few sites she uses. As a bandwidth-hogging internet user, a lack of net neutrality will probably mean that I will pay more. But maybe that's how it is supposed to be. The internet didn't turn out to be what the academics once hoped it would be. And that's okay. The internet should serve everyone, however they want to use it, and the market should be built around that principle-- not around decades-old cypherpunk ideals. I think it's incredible that behemoths like Google have the nerve to paint this as if they care about an open internet. It's obvious that their dominance is what makes an open internet irrelevant.

soundwave106 9y ago
Network neutrality probably would not be as big of an issue if ISPs in America were not quasi-monopolies. In a market with healthy competition, it seems much less likely that the only choice available would be some tiered, managed entity that throttles back "non-favored" traffic -- perhaps that option would be available at the lower end, but a "power user" market with net neutrality practices would probably exist as well. Unfortunately, many markets are served by only one high speed ISP in the United States. This makes the net neutrality fears somewhat more realistic. I will say that from this angle, I put quite a bit more weight on correcting other anti-competitive practices pushed into law by communications companies. Things like states banning and suing municipal broadband efforts come to mind. The American marketplace for Internet ISPs as a result is quite distorted, certainly far from an open, competitive marketplace.
pelbred 9y ago
> My grandmother pays $30/mo for internet access that she barely uses, and I don't think it's right to enshrine into law that Comcast can't offer her a plan where she pays $5/mo instead for limited access to the few sites she uses. ISPs are too greedy for that nonsense. You're more likely to see $30 becoming the base price, and $50 is what it costs to access more content. Price shouldn't be based on what sites you like to visit. Under the title 2 designation, the internet is treated as a utility, so ISPs can't charge consumers based on how they use the internet, akin to how your water company can't charge you a premium if you decide to drink the water instead of using it to water your lawn. Abolishing net neutrality would allow for just that. > As a bandwidth-hogging internet user, a lack of net neutrality will probably mean that I will pay more. Why? ISPs already have data caps to charge customers more. Data caps are another story altogether... The cost of increasing broadband capacity has declined much faster than the increase in data traffic. For that reason alone Sonic doesn't impose data caps. If an ISP as big as Comcast says data caps are because heavy users are costing them more money, or saturating their network, it's a bunch of bullshit. One of the big reasons some ISPs have data caps is to keep customers from cord cutting cable TV. AT&T owns DirectTV, Comcast is a huge cable TV provider, they don't want customers relying solely on services like Netflix. If they can get customers to pay for both internet and TV, they will.
jogjayr 9y ago

soundwave106 9y ago

Network neutrality probably would not be as big of an issue if ISPs in America were not quasi-monopolies. In a market with healthy competition, it seems much less likely that the only choice available would be some tiered, managed entity that throttles back "non-favored" traffic -- perhaps that option would be available at the lower end, but a "power user" market with net neutrality practices would probably exist as well. Unfortunately, many markets are served by only one high speed ISP in the United States. This makes the net neutrality fears somewhat more realistic. I will say that from this angle, I put quite a bit more weight on correcting other anti-competitive practices pushed into law by communications companies. Things like states banning and suing municipal broadband efforts come to mind. The American marketplace for Internet ISPs as a result is quite distorted, certainly far from an open, competitive marketplace.

pelbred 9y ago

> My grandmother pays $30/mo for internet access that she barely uses, and I don't think it's right to enshrine into law that Comcast can't offer her a plan where she pays $5/mo instead for limited access to the few sites she uses. ISPs are too greedy for that nonsense. You're more likely to see $30 becoming the base price, and $50 is what it costs to access more content. Price shouldn't be based on what sites you like to visit. Under the title 2 designation, the internet is treated as a utility, so ISPs can't charge consumers based on how they use the internet, akin to how your water company can't charge you a premium if you decide to drink the water instead of using it to water your lawn. Abolishing net neutrality would allow for just that. > As a bandwidth-hogging internet user, a lack of net neutrality will probably mean that I will pay more. Why? ISPs already have data caps to charge customers more. Data caps are another story altogether... The cost of increasing broadband capacity has declined much faster than the increase in data traffic. For that reason alone Sonic doesn't impose data caps. If an ISP as big as Comcast says data caps are because heavy users are costing them more money, or saturating their network, it's a bunch of bullshit. One of the big reasons some ISPs have data caps is to keep customers from cord cutting cable TV. AT&T owns DirectTV, Comcast is a huge cable TV provider, they don't want customers relying solely on services like Netflix. If they can get customers to pay for both internet and TV, they will.

jogjayr 9y ago