Negative. People who support net neutrality do not know what net neutrality really is.
Net neutrality is a push by the big corporations to avoid having to pay for the pipeline they use. Google, Netflix, and the like that use huge amounts of bandwidth. You are witnessing rent seeking 101, the corporations on one side are trying to get regulations to help themselves.
I'm torn... I do support net neutrality. But I guess I also believe that markets get the products they deserve. And if they choose to support operators that constrain their content choices then they are idiots.
I do wonder if net neutrality is supported by a small number of elite/intelligent folk who would be careful in their choices of which providers to support, but realise that given the wider stupidity of the market, their overall lack of market clout will lead to them having no option but to choose a crappy service.
sigh... gives the phrase 'Forcing people to be free' - yet one further dimension.
Net Neutrality is how the internet has operated since its beginning. It's not "giving" the government or anyone else anything new, just preserving a very successful status quo. It's the telco's and the anti-NN crowd that want to change that, not the other way around, despite their dissembling. If you want the internet to remain a level playing field for everyone, as it has been since day 1, from bootstrapped startups to giants like Google and Microsoft, support Net Neutrality.
this fcc comment is so uninformed. getting rid of net neutrality will make service way better because you will be able to pay for a line with prioritized access for video conferencing and remote presence. net neutrality is what makes it impossible for individuals with a public isp connection to get the same quality as corporations with their own private networks.
Net neutrality is literally constraint on how data passing through networks can be routed and shaped. It’s exactly “constraining the Internet”. It’s not “freedom” in any shape or matter. Freedom is never constraint on others. It’s a popular constraint, and people just happen to confuse and conflate “things I like/feel positivity about” and “freedom”.
It’s controversial to say here but I don’t think it gets discussed enough: Net neutrality only really helps established players. That is not to say it hurts others, but it certainly helps established players.
That’s why they all love it. Facebook, Hulu, Netflix, GitHub, Tumblr, Microsoft. Unestablished unpopular players are not the ones getting throttled. It’s the ones already using tons of bandwidth getting throttled and odds are good most new players bandwidth usage is hardly even noticeable to the ISP. They wouldn’t be touting the joys of something that had the potential to displace them.
The one who would be getting throttled is primarily Netflix, who literally uses over half of the bandwidth of the Internet. Literally slows everything else on the Internet down. Netflix doesn’t want to be throttled, so of course they love net neutrality.
I’m not saying net neutrality is inherently bad, I just don’t think it’s as innately good as a lot of the cheerleaders attest.
Net Neutrality legislation scares me. Any legislation of the internet to "protect" you from corporations will most likely include new and invasive powers of government to monitor and control the Internet (like SOPA). No thanks.
Let's see if I understand this article though: I can pay $$$$ dollars a month for 250GB of dumb data transfer a month. If I go over that quota, I have to pay $$$ more or I get shut off or slowed down.
But now Comcast allows me to pay $ to get an unlimited access to certain sites like NetFlix that would otherwise eat up most my "dumb" quota (if I watched movies all day).
That sounds good to me, I'd rather pay $$$$+$ than $$$$+$$$ for the 400GB of NetFlix traffic and 100GB of other traffic I use per month.
In a way, this is the market's solution to the piracy problem. Licensed media sources are offered at a discount while torrent traffic is still allowed, but under general traffic prices. Say what you will but, if the market doesn't create a solution, the government will and I guarantee you won't like their solution.
Net neutrality would not suppress ISP competition in any way, shape, or form. Unless you count upset ISPs trying to take their ball and go home, like spoiled children.
And yes, robust ISP competition would be awesome. But there are parts of the country that realistically could not support more than one ISP. Do those people not deserve neutrality in their internet service? What do you say to them if their ISP suddenly decided to fuck with their traffic? There would never be anyone else to turn to.
net neutrality was sold to the public as anti-censorship, when really it had nothing to do with free speech. the author of the post seems to have a more developed understanding that it's really about increasing bargaining power of media companies (specifically big bandwidth users like streaming video) and decreasing the bargaining power of telecoms, but most do not understand this.
the difference is that now most of those activists are pro-censorship, as long as the censorship is what they like, and those same big media companies are able to enact that type of censorship. as far as I can tell, that's really it. most people never really understood net neutrality.
Net neutrality is the idea that your ISP shouldn't deprioritize content from someone else in order to benefit their own competing service.
For example, Comcast not counting their on-demand, over the internet, streaming against your data cap. Whereas watching Netflix/hulu/etc would count against it.
I hope most net neutrality proponents would not say that it implies that all providers must allow all traffic through their network, regardless of whether it is malicious or not. If they do believe that then it turns out I’m against net neutrality.
There has been a huge fearmongering campaign behind net neutrality, partially funded by companies that profit from net neutrality.
Net neutrality is a classic case of regulatory capture, the very thing people think it will suppress. If you think Google and Netflix are supporting NN because it's a right thing to do, instead of their profit motive, you're extremely naive.
Confused: free market and net neutrality are coherent ideas. Both are a free market for the participants (not the government/lobbyists hoping to profit by price-fixing or supply-fixing).
Or should we conflate those with govt-supported monopoly (local cable companies) wanting to skim money for no work, with private citizens wanting to trade their personal property WITHOUT govt interference?
I don't think I fully understand the argument for net neutrality. I try to think about it from a few different perspectives:
Broadband intensive services like Netflix:
I think a problem that they face is that their connection is often slow, not only intentionally, but also because developing infrastructure is expensive. Why would an ISP bother building out the infrastructure if they can't extract a higher value from those that it most benefits (Netflix)? In fact, Netflix thinks it's worth it to pay Comcast directly. If that was not beneficial, I don't see why Netflix would have done so. Sure, they would probably prefer to get that service for free, but it must be mutually beneficial for both parties to go along. If Netflix were not allowed to make sure a deal with a company like Comcast, would that really benefit anyone?
Smaller Websites:
There is the risk that ISPs try extracting a toll but I think it may not be worth it a lot of the time for the ISP. I think this fear is overblown, although I could be wrong.
Consumers that don't use broadband extensive services:
Why should those consumers be subsidizing those that use broadband heavy services?
Consumers using broadband extensive services:
Why should Netflix not be allowed to help subsidize the cost of providing broadband? Why should this fall solely on the individual?
Government:
The obvious concerns of more governmental control of the internet.
I could imagine a scenario where Netflix was not allowed to pay Comcast directly for increased bandwidth. Instead, Netflix would spend that money to lobby politicians to force Comcast to build out their infrastructure. I don't see how that's a better scenario than currently exists.
I think a better solution to very little competition in ISPs would be to decrease the barriers it takes to compete. Further regulation would only increase the barriers.
Net neutrality is a push by the big corporations to avoid having to pay for the pipeline they use. Google, Netflix, and the like that use huge amounts of bandwidth. You are witnessing rent seeking 101, the corporations on one side are trying to get regulations to help themselves.
reply