7 Reasons Net Neutrality Is a Threat to Your Freedom

I don't understand this comment. I purchase content, I don't sell bandwidth. Those who sell it want to jack the prices up, those who buy it wish to keep prices down. The FCC seems to have voted to maintain competition. That usually keeps prices down. But I haven't studied the details.

 

Comcast actually did throttle Netflix in order to get higher fees from them for better bandwidth. source Issa, is as usual completely wrong about this subject. The big providers want to be able to charge content providers higher fees and have a tiered system. Small sites like this one stand to be pushed to the slowest access speeds, since they would not be able to afford high speed access.

 

The FCC ruling does nothing to change competition. Also you're going to be paying new federal, state, and local fees. Title II services are subject to both federal taxes and fees. Now the taxes may be waved since internet use is not allowed to be taxed, but the fees are legal and they can add more if the fees don't cover regulatory costs. States and municipalities impose similar fees on public utilities, and now broadband is considered a public utility. States would have to actively vote to exempt broadband. Of course these are generally collected from the providers themselves, but they immediately pass that cost on to consumers.

The higher fees and regulations are going to stifle investment (as it did 10 years ago when Title II was trotted out to control DSL, then DSL took off when a court struck down the regulation). The major ISPs invested over $43 billion in 2013, and that is at least going to contract now. That means ISPs will either not invest or go to a usage fee system as they do with cell phone data. These changes allow for tiered usage and overall rate increases, and if the infrastructure doesn't keep up, more congestion.

Hopefully this all goes to court and gets nixed like they did for DSL.

 

Ah, I think I get it now. With net neutrality, infrastructure improvement is stifled while everyone pays higher prices for worse service, while nobody benefits in any way. I didn't understand that.

 

Yeah, Netflix caved and pays a big fee to prevent comcast from throttling it's customers access. Netflix passes that cost on to it's customers. So now Comcast gets to charge it's users twice for the same content, first directly by their monthly connection fee and indirectly by forcing higher fees on Netflix which they then pass on to the customer. And the reality is in much of the nation they have no competition at all. If you want high speed internet service they are the only supplier. FIOS service is generally only available in large metropolitan areas, and satellite service is much more expensive.

 

I'm not seeing the connection. Yes, I think that the government uses the internet to spy on people. No, I don't see how net neutrality has anything to do with that.

 

Link for that.

 

"Don't worry about the FCC." Heap big smoke, but no fire?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/02/gary-north/stop-worrying/

 

More BS. I'm not talking about "networks" as in a couple of computers in a room wired together. There were networks that did what ARAPNET did but using different protocols, some of which were incorporated into the "internet".

The first actual microprocessor was designed by Intel in partnership with a Japanese company (BUSICOM) - no federal money involved at all. BUSICOM owns the patent and rights to that microprocessor (the Intel 4004) but shared the intellectual property with Intel. That's the foundation of Intel Corp.

You make the same ridiculous claim that all "progressives" make - you think that because the govt was the main (not the only) customer until the 1950s that it has some claim to inventing the computer and gets credit for "inventing" the internet and computers. As if a computer from 1940 is anything at all like a computer today. With your logic, the govt invented everything because it paid for a road in the 18th century, and everyone uses roads. Total foolishness.

And I don't care who you know, everyone knows people. In fact, some of use don't rely on who we know, some of us were there. Stick to verifiable facts.

 

The argument doesn't make any sense, does it?

First of all, the ISP's enjoy the de facto monopoly statues with or without NN.

NN is a way to prevent them from achieving their worst ambitions, a tiered system, with no incentive to invest, which is where Comcast and Cox want to go. They want to run the railroad as it is, charge what the traffic will bear, and set up a tiered system that makes you buy by the predetermined slice, like their other wildly profitable business model, cable TV. This prevents that.

I suspect that in the end, it will be better for the ISP's. If large content providers become a significant part of the traffic that ISP's carry, they will be the ones driving the access and speed processing, not the ISP. Any market with more than one ISP in it will be competing with content, and not price. And providers like Netflix will dictate to the ISP what they will pay. This is already happening in cable TV.

It was the pattern in the original common carrier, railroads, a century ago. It's ironic that Comcast's skyscraper is two blocks away from the original home of the Pennsylvania Railroad.

 

Thank you. I did. But they weren't facts you wanted to hear, obviously.

These machines and ARAPNET were created by researchers and private corporations because government wanted them. Computers evolved because of the role government played.

These technologies didn't just come into existance after decades of expensive research out of thin air.

In every case, the government was the primary driver, and often the sole customer.

You can remove the word "invented" and substitute "created demand for" and "subsidized", and the argument is hardly ridiculous at all.

Wilbur and Orville Wright invented the airplane, but without substantial government involvement the technology would have evolved far more slowly than it did. So too with radio, and electronics.

Electricity did not extend past the city limits (much like high speed internet service today) until the government forced the issue and subsidized the expansion.

The fact is that substatial government involvement, investment and subsidy played a significant role in the evolution of many major technologies and infrastructure all through US history.

 

for Comcast source Verizon as well source

 

Wrong. These same carrier companies already went to the Government and demanded to be treated as a public utility to help them to string their cables into your living room to start with. You don't have a choice between Comcast and Bright House because they were already treated as a legal utility monopoly. They limited the competition, now is the time to act in the public trust that came with the territory.

 

They have to find some way of justifying taking the internet over.

And to fool and foil the masses to do so.

 

Progressive rule, tyranny with a smiley face.

 

Kind of like your avatar.

 

Taking over health care insurance, 'for your own good', taking over the internet, 'for your own good', wonder what's next?

 

It why they use silly world like "affordable" in their healthcare take-over and why North Korea calls their government "the People's Republic" and why the leftists in the U.S. call themselves "Democrat".

 

You guys act like the internet hasn't been under attack over the last few years by these companies looking to squash companies like Netflix and other much smaller startups. What is net neutrality? The principle that all data on the internet be treated equally? That no matter where the data is going or where it comes from cannot be treated unfairly, right? ISP's cannot block legal websites, they cannot throttle any websites, nor can any ISP's implement any paid fast lanes meaning no companies can pay their way to make sure their data moves faster than the competition. The FCC has made it clear is wishes to use Title 2 to regulate the network providers NOT the applications on the internet. They have made clear they will not be regulating ANY rates.

This also now covers mobile data. Just about every mobile network provider that offers unlimited data does and will throttle the user down for using TO MUCH of the unlimited data he/she pays for.

Explain to me how this stunts the internet? Internet based companies are where small buisnesses thrive. How is it keeping internet lanes fair hamper any thing?

 

By "settled that" you mean Netflix paid the blackmail/ransom... That is like saying that when people pay the ransom to Somali pirates, the issue is settled and kidnapping should not be illegal. Why don't you ask Netflix if the issue is settled.

 

Lol... There's going to be a new form of rebellion, Cyber Rebellion. You forget that the government tries to recruit out of the major "hacking" organizations. Just think when they are tired of the regulations, the people vs the government on a stage that wouldn't be absolute bloodshed.

 

Of course it can- all the FCC has to do is hold the threat of force over the heads of the website owners just like the IRS holds the threat of force of taxpayers.

 

I will admit, I am afraid that my Netflix will soon be unusable--interestingly, just around the time I thought about dumping cable.....

 

Which means that torrent sites will soon be takign over all of my Netflix space, and I'll have to go back to the next tier of cable.