4 ms·

I'm more of a WSJournal reader myself, but I think "NYTimes is more neutral than HuffPost" is self-evident to all but a few. I'm a pretty free market guy, but

I'm more of a WSJournal reader myself, but I think "NYTimes is more neutral than HuffPost" is self-evident to all but a few. I'm a pretty free market guy, but I'm pretty sure I support net neutrality regulation. Somebody please help me play it out. I'd like to think that there'd be a market for content neutral plans from ISPs, and that I'd be able to buy one, but isn't the fact that cable television has commercials evidence that people will do anything to save a buck? That is, I'd also like to think there would be a plan offering commercial free television programming, but with the exception of movie channels like HBO, I can buy no such service at any price (at least none that I know of) I'd sincerely appreciate this community's thoughts on the issue.

dantheman 16y ago
That's because local governments give monopoly status to cable companies, i.e. there is no competition due to government interference in the market. I'm against net neutrality because I fear government interference in the network more than corporate - wherever the government goes it is eventually captured by vested interests and will do great harm.
- hcurtiss 16y ago
  I don't know about your house, but I only have one choice of cable internet provider, and one choice of DSL internet provider (at least I believe that to be true in SE Portland, OR). I do, however, have several choices of wireless ISP (Clear and all the major mobile providers), but these are ridiculously expensive. All of that is to say, are you sure internet is different that TV? Seems that, for the most part, they're both already state sponsored monopolies.
invisible 16y ago
Currently I pay the website (or channel in your example) directly for premier content, but what is being proposing would involve me paying a marked up price to my ISP that passes that on to the website they choose. Or would there be a $10/mo for email/3 "content" websites? I can get everything for $20/mo currently (Roadrunner lite is $20). Broadband is SO cheap now, how could anyone justify paying less than $20/mo for way, way less access? I don't really see any way that a free market could support a neutral Internet right now - these "schemes" will be forced down our throats.
andreyf 16y ago
Honestly, the way I think it'll play out, at least at first, is that now Hulu and YouTube and NetFlix will be able to guarantee the content owners that they can broadcast it uninterrupted by buffering problems (to the households that subscribe).

dantheman 16y ago

That's because local governments give monopoly status to cable companies, i.e. there is no competition due to government interference in the market. I'm against net neutrality because I fear government interference in the network more than corporate - wherever the government goes it is eventually captured by vested interests and will do great harm.

hcurtiss 16y ago
I don't know about your house, but I only have one choice of cable internet provider, and one choice of DSL internet provider (at least I believe that to be true in SE Portland, OR). I do, however, have several choices of wireless ISP (Clear and all the major mobile providers), but these are ridiculously expensive. All of that is to say, are you sure internet is different that TV? Seems that, for the most part, they're both already state sponsored monopolies.

invisible 16y ago

Currently I pay the website (or channel in your example) directly for premier content, but what is being proposing would involve me paying a marked up price to my ISP that passes that on to the website they choose. Or would there be a $10/mo for email/3 "content" websites? I can get everything for $20/mo currently (Roadrunner lite is $20). Broadband is SO cheap now, how could anyone justify paying less than $20/mo for way, way less access? I don't really see any way that a free market could support a neutral Internet right now - these "schemes" will be forced down our throats.

andreyf 16y ago

Honestly, the way I think it'll play out, at least at first, is that now Hulu and YouTube and NetFlix will be able to guarantee the content owners that they can broadcast it uninterrupted by buffering problems (to the households that subscribe).