5 ms·

Do you think that Net Neutrality is about cost? If so, you are misunderstanding what Net Neutrality is. Go read about it, as there is more than plenty, readil

Do you think that Net Neutrality is about cost? If so, you are misunderstanding what Net Neutrality is. Go read about it, as there is more than plenty, readily available on the subject.

ekianjo 9y ago
Its not about cost but if internet access is expensive or constrained in bandwidth it severly limits its utility.
- tjoff 9y ago
  It doesn't. At all. If anything it makes it even worse, where prioritizing one type of data has an even bigger impact and can quickly cement the presence of companies such as facebook and obliterate any competitors.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    > It doesn't. At all. Not At all? Are you sure? Ever tried to use video streaming services when your bandwidth is capped at 10 Gb per month?
    - tjoff 9y ago
      Yes, I'm positive. > Ever tried to use video streaming services when your bandwidth is capped at 10 Gb per month? That's the whole point. You can't. But hey, lucky for you your ISP has partnered up with netflix, and thus netflix streaming doesn't count towards that data cap. Awesome huh? Most customers will think so. But in reality it's nothing but a death blow to all of netflix competitors.
lloeki 9y ago
The argument is that Net Neutrality is a regulatory device, thus hampers proper free market competition, hence prevents prices from properly going down. To me Net Neutrality is a needed regulation that forces telco ops to compete on telco stuff. In that framework it's a free market competition and it does bring prices down as well as allows additional players to enter the game on ground unbiased by deep pocketed content production, which is a venue in direct conflict of interest with the telco (i.e be a pipe) side of things.
- TheRealPomax 9y ago
  That's a false chain of reasoning. It's a regulatory device that prevents discrimination of service based on content and origin. It does not hamper free market competition, it protects human beings from monopolies and cartels and sets up the legal framework within which the free market is allowed to operate. Pretty much every industry has these regulations, and the market's doing just fine. You can't have an actually working free market without a regulatory oversight to act as feedback coupling. You need a dampening force, it just needs to be appropriate to the times, and net neutrality is appropriate to the now.
  - lloeki 9y ago
    > That's a false chain of reasoning. Agreed, I was merely outlining the opposite side argument in a very concise way so that it's immediately obvious how much broken it is. > It does not hamper free market competition, it protects human beings from monopolies and cartels and sets up the legal framework within which the free market is allowed to operate. This is precisely my opinion, as stated in my second paragraph.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  The flaw in that argument is the idea that all regulation always significantly hampers free market competition. That is so clearly not the case with this specific regulation, that your conclusion is total nonsense. Net Neutrality is a term describing a necessary quality for the internet to have in order to be a free market. Net Neutrality regulation is necessary because ISPs do not have competition to prevent them from breaking that. Net Neutrality regulation requires ISPs to keep a few records, costing them a tiny amount, which is totally reasonable, and will not hamper the free market in any way.
  - lloeki 9y ago
    > That is so clearly not the case with this specific regulation, that your conclusion is total nonsense. Just to be clear, the first sentence is not my argument, and not my point of view at all: I was merely stating in a very clear way the (flawed) chain of reasoning people in favour of killing net neutrality put forward, which makes it all the more obvious how much nonsensical it is. If you (re)read my second paragraph you will notice that it exactly states your last three sentences, and that we definitely agree.
dingo_bat 9y ago
Net neutrality is 100% about cost. If you don't think so, you are misunderstanding what Net Neutrality is. Go read about it, as there is more than plenty, readily available on the subject.
- tempestn 9y ago
  Saying, "X is true; if you disagree, you're misinformed and should go inform yourself," isn't particularly productive. Obviously the parent is basing their opinion on different information than you, so to refute that opinion it would be helpful to prevent some evidence or reasoning.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    I don't think you noticed that I was trying to make the same point.
    - tempestn 9y ago
      You're right; your comment ended up below a couple other siblings and I lost the thread. My reply should have been to your parent.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  I assure you I have read about it. The only cost associated with net neutrality regulation is a minimal bookkeeping one. The only cost associated with net neutrality itself is the potential cost for consumers without it.
hackeraccount 9y ago
That's the question isn't it. Ask someone what Net Neutrality is and they'll say "ISP's can't discriminate on data by source". Ask them what it will do and it turns out that it will fix every problem you don't like about your ISP. They charge too much? Fixed. They throttle bittorrent? Fixed. Poor service? Fixed. Too slow? Too much latency? And beauty of it is that when it's been effect for 20 years and I look around and all those things still happen ... well, imagine how bad it would have been without Net Neutrality. Frankly I think for most people this is just a political chip. We want this because the other guys don't and vice versa. When we get this win we hurt the people who support so many other things that we don't like. The weird thing is that the logic of thought is perfectly reasonable.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  > Frankly I think for most people this is just a political chip. The only bandwagon I see is the one in opposition to net neutrality regulation. It's a bandwagon against any and all regulation, as if the word "regulation" suddenly makes something malicious. The rest of us actually considered the details and implications, or trusted someone else who did.

Do you think that Net Neutrality is about cost? If so, you are misunderstanding what Net Neutrality is. Go read about it, as there is more than plenty, readily available on the subject.

ekianjo 9y ago

Its not about cost but if internet access is expensive or constrained in bandwidth it severly limits its utility.

tjoff 9y ago
It doesn't. At all. If anything it makes it even worse, where prioritizing one type of data has an even bigger impact and can quickly cement the presence of companies such as facebook and obliterate any competitors.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  > It doesn't. At all. Not At all? Are you sure? Ever tried to use video streaming services when your bandwidth is capped at 10 Gb per month?
  - tjoff 9y ago
    Yes, I'm positive. > Ever tried to use video streaming services when your bandwidth is capped at 10 Gb per month? That's the whole point. You can't. But hey, lucky for you your ISP has partnered up with netflix, and thus netflix streaming doesn't count towards that data cap. Awesome huh? Most customers will think so. But in reality it's nothing but a death blow to all of netflix competitors.

lloeki 9y ago

The argument is that Net Neutrality is a regulatory device, thus hampers proper free market competition, hence prevents prices from properly going down. To me Net Neutrality is a needed regulation that forces telco ops to compete on telco stuff. In that framework it's a free market competition and it does bring prices down as well as allows additional players to enter the game on ground unbiased by deep pocketed content production, which is a venue in direct conflict of interest with the telco (i.e be a pipe) side of things.

TheRealPomax 9y ago
That's a false chain of reasoning. It's a regulatory device that prevents discrimination of service based on content and origin. It does not hamper free market competition, it protects human beings from monopolies and cartels and sets up the legal framework within which the free market is allowed to operate. Pretty much every industry has these regulations, and the market's doing just fine. You can't have an actually working free market without a regulatory oversight to act as feedback coupling. You need a dampening force, it just needs to be appropriate to the times, and net neutrality is appropriate to the now.
- lloeki 9y ago
  > That's a false chain of reasoning. Agreed, I was merely outlining the opposite side argument in a very concise way so that it's immediately obvious how much broken it is. > It does not hamper free market competition, it protects human beings from monopolies and cartels and sets up the legal framework within which the free market is allowed to operate. This is precisely my opinion, as stated in my second paragraph.
thomastjeffery 9y ago
The flaw in that argument is the idea that all regulation always significantly hampers free market competition. That is so clearly not the case with this specific regulation, that your conclusion is total nonsense. Net Neutrality is a term describing a necessary quality for the internet to have in order to be a free market. Net Neutrality regulation is necessary because ISPs do not have competition to prevent them from breaking that. Net Neutrality regulation requires ISPs to keep a few records, costing them a tiny amount, which is totally reasonable, and will not hamper the free market in any way.
- lloeki 9y ago
  > That is so clearly not the case with this specific regulation, that your conclusion is total nonsense. Just to be clear, the first sentence is not my argument, and not my point of view at all: I was merely stating in a very clear way the (flawed) chain of reasoning people in favour of killing net neutrality put forward, which makes it all the more obvious how much nonsensical it is. If you (re)read my second paragraph you will notice that it exactly states your last three sentences, and that we definitely agree.

dingo_bat 9y ago

Net neutrality is 100% about cost. If you don't think so, you are misunderstanding what Net Neutrality is. Go read about it, as there is more than plenty, readily available on the subject.

tempestn 9y ago
Saying, "X is true; if you disagree, you're misinformed and should go inform yourself," isn't particularly productive. Obviously the parent is basing their opinion on different information than you, so to refute that opinion it would be helpful to prevent some evidence or reasoning.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  I don't think you noticed that I was trying to make the same point.
  - tempestn 9y ago
    You're right; your comment ended up below a couple other siblings and I lost the thread. My reply should have been to your parent.
thomastjeffery 9y ago
I assure you I have read about it. The only cost associated with net neutrality regulation is a minimal bookkeeping one. The only cost associated with net neutrality itself is the potential cost for consumers without it.

hackeraccount 9y ago

That's the question isn't it. Ask someone what Net Neutrality is and they'll say "ISP's can't discriminate on data by source". Ask them what it will do and it turns out that it will fix every problem you don't like about your ISP. They charge too much? Fixed. They throttle bittorrent? Fixed. Poor service? Fixed. Too slow? Too much latency? And beauty of it is that when it's been effect for 20 years and I look around and all those things still happen ... well, imagine how bad it would have been without Net Neutrality. Frankly I think for most people this is just a political chip. We want this because the other guys don't and vice versa. When we get this win we hurt the people who support so many other things that we don't like. The weird thing is that the logic of thought is perfectly reasonable.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
> Frankly I think for most people this is just a political chip. The only bandwagon I see is the one in opposition to net neutrality regulation. It's a bandwagon against any and all regulation, as if the word "regulation" suddenly makes something malicious. The rest of us actually considered the details and implications, or trusted someone else who did.