The end of net neutrality? - Page 4
Forum Index > General Forum |
r.Evo
Germany14054 Posts
| ||
URfavHO
United States514 Posts
| ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States42223 Posts
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/10/7185979/obama-reclassification Bad guy: http://www.vox.com/2014/11/10/7186317/obamacare-for-the-internet-ted-cruz | ||
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22201 Posts
| ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States42223 Posts
On November 11 2014 04:04 ahswtini wrote: I don't understand that Ted Cruz tweet, but I thought the republicans were generally against net neutrality? Yeah. I think he's saying that people should be against net neutrality just like people should be against Obamacare (lol). From the article: "What, if anything, that phrase means is difficult to say. But its political significance is easy to grasp. All true conservatives hate Obamacare, so if net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet, all true conservatives should rally against it." Sigh. | ||
andrewlt
United States7648 Posts
| ||
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
| ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States42223 Posts
On November 11 2014 05:16 andrewlt wrote: I don't think this issue falls under party lines. It depends on who's getting money from telcos. Ted Cruz is just against Obama, no matter what. He is plain unhinged. Correct. Happily enough, he's getting blowback from other conservatives as well for his ignorant comments on net neutrality: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/13/1344716/-After-nonsensical-comments-on-Net-Neutrality-conservatives-rage-against-Ted-Cruz?showAll=yes?detail=facebook | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21792 Posts
On November 14 2014 12:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Correct. Happily enough, he's getting blowback from other conservatives as well for his ignorant comments on net neutrality: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/13/1344716/-After-nonsensical-comments-on-Net-Neutrality-conservatives-rage-against-Ted-Cruz?showAll=yes?detail=facebook That's more or less what I expected from conservatives in the US politics thread here but they seemed indifferent/pro Cruz comments which confused the crap out of me. | ||
Falling
Canada10923 Posts
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-regulating-the-internet-threatens-entrepreneurial-freedom/2014/11/13/a0a852e6-6aaf-11e4-a31c-77759fc1eacc_story.html | ||
NIJ
1012 Posts
Bumping since I'm suprised nobody posted this yet. This is a huge deal for this issue. Title II gives alot of power to the FCC in regulating the industry. | ||
Fwmeh
1286 Posts
https://www.battleforthenet.com/ | ||
NewSunshine
United States5651 Posts
| ||
iloveav
Poland1464 Posts
That being said, I will drop my 2 cents (opinion that is) on the subject: First of all, we need to see how the law was supposed to be for and then look at how it was applied. There have been many laws over human history that "were supposed to do one thing", and where then used for other purposes. This is important as any regulation that gives a monopoly of power to one entity (in this case a public entity that is likely to have different political views depending on who is currently in power to make changes) can easily be abused. So here you have two choices: One, to trust the public entity. Two, to trust the private Internet provider. My problem is, that a private entity needs to sell their product and can be pressured more easily by the consumer than a public entity that cannot (or at least is very hard to). Sort of like a private bank having to have the trust of their customers or they might not use the services of the bank vs national bank where you are stuck with it, whenever you like it or not. That would also be true for a private internet provider if it is the only provider that you can choose in your area, but at least it opens the possibility for another provider to move in and create competition, usually benefiting the end consumer in the long run. With a public entity, you dont get competition since it is supported by taxes (meaning there is no metric for how good it is as there can always be more money for it from taxes). (I am assuming here that over all, people who work in the public sector are not better people than those in the private sector, yet because in the private sector you need to win your consumer over to make money, you are held to a certain standard that people will expect based on the price they pay, creating an incentive for the private sector to stay within the boundaries that the market creates for them, where as the public sector, will get your money regardless of their standard as it already has a budget set, no matter how well or bad they will perform). As an example of from my own life, I have had cases where a contract from my internet provider (first in Spain then in Poland) gave a guarantee of only 10% of the actual internet speed as "guaranteed", but in every case where I had the option to chose another internet provider, I was able to negotiate better terms in the contract (like for example stay on my current plan yet increase my speed since another company had a better offer). I would say that TB's video on the subject is not exactly accurate: If a internet provider can put you into a "slow lane", then the consumer eventually figures out that the price they are paying for a certain speed, turns out to be a slower speed, meaning if (using the analogy of the speed on a lane for a car) people pay the standard fee for 70 miles per hour but can only drive 30 miles per hour, the consumer understand that the price they are paying for is effectively 30 miles per hour, not 70. The difference here is that you can sue the company for selling you the 70 line with an effective 30 lane speed, where as the government cannot be sued (again, it can, but it is a lot harder to do). An example is social security: I pay for it every month, yet when i want to see a specialist, I go to the private sector and pay again anyway because in the public health insurance waiting lines are 2 years long (in Poland). Again, there is no incentive for the public health insurance to do anything to keep me healthy as they will get the money anyway. Even if I know I am not getting my moneys worth, I still have to pay it every month. Now, all that being said, I have very limited knowledge of net neutrality so I dont presume that my generalization applies here effectively. | ||
Saumure
France404 Posts
https://www.battleforthenet.com/#bftn-action-form These are the emails of the 5 people on the FCC roster. These are the five people deciding the future of the internet. The two women have come out as No votes. We need only to convince ONE of the other members to flip to a No vote to save Net Neutrality. Blow up their inboxes! Ajit Pai - Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov Mignon Clyburn - Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov Michael O'Rielly - Mike.ORielly@fcc.gov Brendan Carr - Brendan.Carr@fcc.gov Jessica Rosenworcel - Jessica.Rosenworcel@fcc.gov Spread this comment around! We need to go straight to the source. Be civil, be concise, and make sure they understand that what they're about to do is UNAMERICAN. Godspeed! | ||
Excludos
Norway7687 Posts
On November 23 2017 03:03 iloveav wrote: If a internet provider can put you into a "slow lane", then the consumer eventually figures out that the price they are paying for a certain speed, turns out to be a slower speed, meaning if (using the analogy of the speed on a lane for a car) people pay the standard fee for 70 miles per hour but can only drive 30 miles per hour, the consumer understand that the price they are paying for is effectively 30 miles per hour, not 70. The difference here is that you can sue the company for selling you the 70 line with an effective 30 lane speed, where as the government cannot be sued (again, it can, but it is a lot harder to do). What in the world makes you think you can do that? They don't need to lie about it. In many (most?) places in the US, there is literally only one service provider to choose from. If they decide that Netflix gets the slow lane, Netflix gets the slow lane and there is nothing you can do about it. You can't stop paying them, internet is practically a requirement these days to just survive. The only reason you'd ever think this could possibly be a good idea is if you're an internet provider who wants people to shell out even more money. There is literally no other reason for this. It's also not just as straight forward as what you're implying. Internet speed has and will increase quite a lot over the years. They don't need to put anything in the slow lane, they can just stop increases the speed for certain websites over a number of years. Suddenly you're not paying to get rid of the slow lane, you're paying to get into the new super fast lane which is only available for Amazon Prime users, when in reality that's the speed you should have gotten for everything. | ||
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On November 23 2017 03:03 iloveav wrote: As an example of from my own life, I have had cases where a contract from my internet provider (first in Spain then in Poland) gave a guarantee of only 10% of the actual internet speed as "guaranteed", but in every case where I had the option to chose another internet provider, I was able to negotiate better terms in the contract (like for example stay on my current plan yet increase my speed since another company had a better offer). I would say that TB's video on the subject is not exactly accurate: If a internet provider can put you into a "slow lane", then the consumer eventually figures out that the price they are paying for a certain speed, turns out to be a slower speed, meaning if (using the analogy of the speed on a lane for a car) people pay the standard fee for 70 miles per hour but can only drive 30 miles per hour, the consumer understand that the price they are paying for is effectively 30 miles per hour, not 70. The difference here is that you can sue the company for selling you the 70 line with an effective 30 lane speed, where as the government cannot be sued (again, it can, but it is a lot harder to do). An example is social security: I pay for it every month, yet when i want to see a specialist, I go to the private sector and pay again anyway because in the public health insurance waiting lines are 2 years long (in Poland). Again, there is no incentive for the public health insurance to do anything to keep me healthy as they will get the money anyway. Even if I know I am not getting my moneys worth, I still have to pay it every month. Now, all that being said, I have very limited knowledge of net neutrality so I dont presume that my generalization applies here effectively. Some thoughts... * ISPs can already compete, or can compete to the same degree regardless of net neutrality. The only thing that net neutrality changes is that ISPs can be evaluated along a few basic premises (general speed, customer service, uptime). Restricting net neutrality only increases competition in the sense that a company could then offer different packages (entertainment package with Netflix for example) and compete with each other on that way. That sort of competition is likely to be actively bad for a lot of consumers though as companies rush to lock up exclusivity deals with desirable services to get better competitive edges. * You wouldn't have leeway to sue over fast/slow lanes. The internet speeds advertised are already basically phony numbers (they're UP TO) and the speed another company's data travel is something the ISP is negotiating without you, though they may put it into your contract. * The US Is really big and really sparse (in parts). It's expensive to build infrastructure and a lot of areas only have one provider currently working in that area. With or without net neutrality these facts don't change. The only way it changes post Net Neutrality in a meaningful way is if ISPs get to enact exclusive deals that give them a competitive edge by locking up content, but that's exactly the sort of deal that hurts consumers so even if it means you have 2 terrible ISP providers to choose from the service from each is less valuable than your current crappy service. | ||
| ||