Net Neutrality

[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.