Net Neutrality

[CRedskinsRule]

Net Neutrality means that companies can't differentiate between different types of internet data for purposes of delivering them.

Consider a package sent from your house to your sister.
You can use UPS, Fedex, the Post Office.
Net Neutrality says they can't take that package look at it's size/weight/content to discriminate how it ships.
For physical packages that would be ridiculous because size weight content factor into shipping costs

But in the internet all data is just bits and bytes so the argument is that they all should be treated equal, or Neutral.

or another way to say it is:

If you are for Net Neutrality you say that it is irrelevant if the data is more packed ie video, or less packed, text, and irrelevant who sent it (netflix or the mom and pop website), and no data should have more or less cost and no data should have more or less priority.

If you are against it, you say that type and sender has relevance to how the data can be treated, and the ISP's can charge more/less or prioritize some data over others.

[metalskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Net Neutrality means that companies can't differentiate between different types of internet data for purposes of delivering them.

Consider a package sent from your house to your sister.
You can use UPS, Fedex, the Post Office.
Net Neutrality says they can't take that package look at it's size/weight/content to discriminate how it ships.
For physical packages that would be ridiculous because size weight content factor into shipping costs

But in the internet all data is just bits and bytes so the argument is that they all should be treated equal, or Neutral.

or another way to say it is:

If you are for Net Neutrality you say that it is irrelevant if the data is more packed ie video, or less packed, text, and irrelevant who sent it (netflix or the mom and pop website), and no data should have more or less cost and no data should have more or less priority.

If you are against it, you say that type and sender has relevance to how the data can be treated, and the ISP's can charge more/less or prioritize some data over others.

Which is why almost everyone is for net neutrality.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by metalskins

Which is why almost everyone is for net neutrality.

So, would you be ok if we had a monolithic phone system where there was no available options for better service?

Or if the US Postal system had the rights to all air mail packages, hence eliminating UPS, FedEx, DHS and other options.

The ability to charge different rates is a basic premise of what makes capitalism work, the net should not be exempt, and if it's not, then we will see better products.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So, would you be ok if we had a monolithic phone system where there was no available options for better service?

Or if the US Postal system had the rights to all air mail packages, hence eliminating UPS, FedEx, DHS and other options.

The ability to charge different rates is a basic premise of what makes capitalism work, the net should not be exempt, and if it's not, then we will see better products.

Or we won't, because it's already monopolized to where 3-4 companies control 95% of the infrastructure, and they won't intrude on other markets because they have handshake agreements with the other companies. And our gov't couldn't care less about monopolies, as long as they get theirs.

Meanwhile we get the shaft, much like we do with everything else. But we'll be alright, because we've grown used to living with the shaft.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

Or we won't, because it's already monopolized to where 3-4 companies control 95% of the infrastructure, and they won't intrude on other markets because they have handshake agreements with the other companies. And our gov't couldn't care less about monopolies, as long as they get theirs.

Meanwhile we get the shaft, much like we do with everything else. But we'll be alright, because we've grown used to living with the shaft.

How Anti-Capitalist are You?

You are 11% anti-capitalist!

You are a good little consumer, aren't you? You never question spending money. You definitely own an SUV, and have probably never even changed your own oil. And you shop at Walmart. You have a lot to learn.

[I don't own an SUV, I have changed my own oil other than that it was a fair assessment ]

The answer is not to move towards a non-competitive state, but to increase the competition. And that can and does happen in the US. More regulations - like Title 2 (net neutrality) - leads to less innovation, and ultimately degraded services or more cost.

The thing that brought innovation and price competition to the phone market was the break up of Ma Bell, and the same with the post office.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

How Anti-Capitalist are You?


[I don't own an SUV, I have changed my own oil other than that it was a fair assessment ]

The answer is not to move towards a non-competitive state, but to increase the competition. And that can and does happen in the US. More regulations - like Title 2 (net neutrality) - leads to less innovation, and ultimately degraded services or more cost.

The thing that brought innovation and price competition to the phone market was the break up of Ma Bell, and the same with the post office.

I get what you're saying, but we'll have to agree to disagree. Splitting up the monopolies that rule the ISP landscape would be great for the consumer, I just don't see it happening.

[metalskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So, would you be ok if we had a monolithic phone system where there was no available options for better service?

Or if the US Postal system had the rights to all air mail packages, hence eliminating UPS, FedEx, DHS and other options.

The ability to charge different rates is a basic premise of what makes capitalism work, the net should not be exempt, and if it's not, then we will see better products.

Let's stick to real example as to how it pertains to the internet. One can access Netflix no matter if they're on Verizon, Spectrum, Comcast, or AT&T. Many consumers don't have a choice in where their internet service comes from. So, let's say their only choice is Comcast but Comcast either charges more for full speed Netflix or outright blocks them. Well, you as a consumer, have had your choice limited without NN.

Where I live, I have a choice between AT&T and Spectrum internet. AT&T has a bandwidth cap, so I can't go with them. Spectrum does not. However, both provide equal access to Netflix. Let's say Spectrum decides to go the way of Comcast and drops any connection to Netflix, well, I no longer have a choice to enjoy Netflix.

Or another choice, let's say Spectrum limits its users to Yahoo, but I want to use Google. Well, tough luck, I either have to pay extra to use Google, or I'm stuck using Yahoo search. Another choice being taken away.

The issue is, in capitalism, the thought is the best product wins out, and the bad ones die out. That's not the case when the ISP in your area is pretty much a monopoly. They can put out a crappy product and because they hold the keys, they force you to use a crappy product instead of you having a choice for a better product.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by metalskins

Let's stick to real example as to how it pertains to the internet. One can access Netflix no matter if they're on Verizon, Spectrum, Comcast, or AT&T. Many consumers don't have a choice in where their internet service comes from. So, let's say their only choice is Comcast but Comcast either charges more for full speed Netflix or outright blocks them. Well, you as a consumer, have had your choice limited without NN.

Where I live, I have a choice between AT&T and Spectrum internet. AT&T has a bandwidth cap, so I can't go with them. Spectrum does not. However, both provide equal access to Netflix. Let's say Spectrum decides to go the way of Comcast and drops any connection to Netflix, well, I no longer have a choice to enjoy Netflix.

Or another choice, let's say Spectrum limits its users to Yahoo, but I want to use Google. Well, tough luck, I either have to pay extra to use Google, or I'm stuck using Yahoo search. Another choice being taken away.

The issue is, in capitalism, the thought is the best product wins out, and the bad ones die out. That's not the case when the ISP in your area is pretty much a monopoly. They can put out a crappy product and because they hold the keys, they force you to use a crappy product instead of you having a choice for a better product.

But in your example if spectrum drops netflix they risk losing a substantial base to at&t even with a data cap. There is no incentive to drop it. Like wise if they try to charge to much for it then they lose the base to at&t.

There are few true monopolies and if the isps act in a monopolistic fashion there are tools in place to break those.

In both your examples you shut the door on another option (at&t) but if at&t or some other provider sees an opportunity for profit by providing yahoo or google or netflix they will offer it. That is how competition works.

[metalskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

But in your example if spectrum drops netflix they risk losing a substantial base to at&t even with a data cap. There is no incentive to drop it. Like wise if they try to charge to much for it then they lose the base to at&t.

Not necessarily. Because each ISP has their own product they'll want to push before a third party product. Such as Comcast pushing their own streaming product, and AT&T pushing theirs. Essentially what would happen is Netflix would either be put on a higher tier internet plan, which then forces more money out of the consumer, or Netflix has to pay out more to those ISPs to remain on the "fast" track and in turn, will pass that cost on to the consumer.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

There are few true monopolies and if the isps act in a monopolistic fashion there are tools in place to break those.

I haven't seen it done yet. What I've seen are these companies continuing to absorb the smaller companies. In a lot of areas, there is only one ISP or only one cable company that provides unlimited internet. And they treat their customers as if they're monopolies by charging them an outrageous amount of money already.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

In both your examples you shut the door on another option (at&t) but if at&t or some other provider sees an opportunity for profit by providing yahoo or google or netflix they will offer it. That is how competition works.

AT&T isn't created equal with what they offer me. Their internet is a third of the speed for the same price as I'm paying Spectrum, and it's limited bandwidth. That is no viable option for someone who works from home and does video streaming.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by metalskins

Not necessarily. Because each ISP has their own product they'll want to push before a third party product. Such as Comcast pushing their own streaming product, and AT&T pushing theirs. Essentially what would happen is Netflix would either be put on a higher tier internet plan, which then forces more money out of the consumer, or Netflix has to pay out more to those ISPs to remain on the "fast" track and in turn, will pass that cost on to the consumer.



I haven't seen it done yet. What I've seen are these companies continuing to absorb the smaller companies. In a lot of areas, there is only one ISP or only one cable company that provides unlimited internet. And they treat their customers as if they're monopolies by charging them an outrageous amount of money already.




AT&T isn't created equal with what they offer me. Their internet is a third of the speed for the same price as I'm paying Spectrum, and it's limited bandwidth. That is no viable option for someone who works from home and does video streaming.

Historically, more competition is good. Net Neutrality actually limits competition because it means every provider must have the ability to provide high volume streams the same access as low volume streams, along with other basic concepts of market capitalism.

If you want to argue that we need to open up competition at the broadband level then we can fight that fight together, I agree 100%. If you want to say that because some locations are currently limited we must make the entry point to high for all but the largest ISPs, I am not ok with that.

As I said HISTORICALLY the option that provides the best long term innovation and consumer choice is more competition, more incentive for companies to find a better solution to problems, and more opportunity for those companies to make a profit.

Also historically rent control in any form - even data bandwith "fairness" has backfired in stagnation corruption and more blatant taxation and regulations.


I think we all agree the big issue is monopolistic tendencies of the ISPs we just disagree on Title II's importance as the solution.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by metalskins

Let's stick to real example as to how it pertains to the internet. One can access Netflix no matter if they're on Verizon, Spectrum, Comcast, or AT&T. Many consumers don't have a choice in where their internet service comes from. So, let's say their only choice is Comcast but Comcast either charges more for full speed Netflix or outright blocks them. Well, you as a consumer, have had your choice limited without NN.

Where I live, I have a choice between AT&T and Spectrum internet. AT&T has a bandwidth cap, so I can't go with them. Spectrum does not. However, both provide equal access to Netflix. Let's say Spectrum decides to go the way of Comcast and drops any connection to Netflix, well, I no longer have a choice to enjoy Netflix.

Or another choice, let's say Spectrum limits its users to Yahoo, but I want to use Google. Well, tough luck, I either have to pay extra to use Google, or I'm stuck using Yahoo search. Another choice being taken away.

The issue is, in capitalism, the thought is the best product wins out, and the bad ones die out. That's not the case when the ISP in your area is pretty much a monopoly. They can put out a crappy product and because they hold the keys, they force you to use a crappy product instead of you having a choice for a better product.

The examples I use, Ma Bell and the Post Office, are historical examples that we can actually see what happened when monopolies were broken and regulations reduced. In both cases it was a win for consumers.

What I hear here, is the expectant continuation of monopolistic ISP's in local regions. BUT with advances in wifi and broadband availability, those should break up naturally much like the regional baby bells early on had semi monopolistic tendencies, but now are competitive players in there markets, not monopolies that leave consumers no choice.

I agree that monopolistic tendencies and handshake deals need to be broken up, but easing competitive pressures on monopolies is not the way to get that done.

[metalskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The examples I use, Ma Bell and the Post Office, are historical examples that we can actually see what happened when monopolies were broken and regulations reduced. In both cases it was a win for consumers.

What I hear here, is the expectant continuation of monopolistic ISP's in local regions. BUT with advances in wifi and broadband availability, those should break up naturally much like the regional baby bells early on had semi monopolistic tendencies, but now are competitive players in there markets, not monopolies that leave consumers no choice.

I agree that monopolistic tendencies and handshake deals need to be broken up, but easing competitive pressures on monopolies is not the way to get that done.

As a consumer, I haven't seen any real choice. What I've seen are a lot of "gotchas" with each company that provides Pay TV and internet service. For me, it really comes down to only one choice for internet. I can choose different sources for TV, or choose no source at all, but then, the choosing no source at all usually means I supplement with HULU or NETFLIX, which brings me back to the point earlier. If Spectrum forces you to use their streaming app, then they may shut off access to Hulu and Netflix, or either charge me more to use those apps on top of the monthly charge with those companies. After awhile, they really force you back on their own products, which is what a lot of us in the tech biz fear will happen, because we've seen it over and over again.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by metalskins

As a consumer, I haven't seen any real choice. What I've seen are a lot of "gotchas" with each company that provides Pay TV and internet service. For me, it really comes down to only one choice for internet. I can choose different sources for TV, or choose no source at all, but then, the choosing no source at all usually means I supplement with HULU or NETFLIX, which brings me back to the point earlier. If Spectrum forces you to use their streaming app, then they may shut off access to Hulu and Netflix, or either charge me more to use those apps on top of the monthly charge with those companies. After awhile, they really force you back on their own products, which is what a lot of us in the tech biz fear will happen, because we've seen it over and over again.

so you don't think you have a choice in how you overnight a package or which cell phone company you go with.

Competition doesn't work in milliseconds, or hours. AOL was a dominant ISP, it isn't anymore. maybe Spectrum offers a better HULU, or maybe enough people become a market place for an ISP that will offer HULU.

If we can keep the regulations down for 6 years, let's see what happens. I am confident that a free market for ISP's would result in far better options then the dismal picture you paint, but, no it is true that tomorrow there won't be miniISP's knocking at your door ready to tear you away from Spectrum. Although with wifi, and localized 5g networks coming online you may see more options sooner than you think.