End of Net Neutrality

Part of the complication is that certain things (video, namely) consume more bandwidth than others. You can effectively close off large, important parts of the internet to people even with "neutral" metered usage. This wasn't always an issue with the internet, hence a fight to keep it open. And even before the repeal of NN, companies practiced things like zero-rating that seem both substantively shady and against the spirit of net neutrality. On the one hand, free Youtube! Streaming YT video doesn't count against your 4G LTE data caps. This is attractive to consumers, and raises the barrier for small companies. 

We could talk about this, or we could wrap a bow around it with "the problem is that proponents of net neutrality don't have inspiring leaders and poor messaging." Apologies for the snark, it's just that we can go that route with literally any topic. We don't for the problems we are interested in solving, rather than ascribing to unchangeable forces. Even if, in this as well as other cases, the sheer lack of voter power is a pretty tough nut to crack.

 
funhusker said:
I can see that point.  But I would have a hard time believing my prices would go lower.  The ISP would most likely leave my prices as they are and raise the "streamers".
Click to expand...
I would agree.

RedDenver said:
ISP's can already charge differently based on usage. What they can't do (well, they can now that NN is repealed) is charge differently depending on what sites or content you use.
Click to expand...
How?  You select your speed package as the customer.  If I have an internet package for 20/mbps and my neighbor has the same package, whether he streams more content than me or not, he's still paying the same price.  If I stream more than him, I'm a more "expensive" customer but we're both still paying the same.  To your last point, that's one of the worst parts of this whole ordeal.

 
RedSavage said:
How?  You select your speed package as the customer.  If I have an internet package for 20/mbps and my neighbor has the same package, whether he streams more content than me or not, he's still paying the same price.  If I stream more than him, I'm a more "expensive" customer but we're both still paying the same.  To your last point, that's one of the worst parts of this whole ordeal.
Click to expand...
For example, Comcast used to have tiers that had a cap on data per month. It used to be 200 GB/month for a residential user (I'm not sure if that's still the limit or even if the limit still exists), but as a business user you could purchase higher tiers that allowed different caps. Also, they're charging you based on bandwidth, which is another form of usage.

 
RedDenver said:
For example, Comcast used to have tiers that had a cap on data per month. It used to be 200 GB/month for a residential user (I'm not sure if that's still the limit or even if the limit still exists), but as a business user you could purchase higher tiers that allowed different caps. Also, they're charging you based on bandwidth, which is another form of usage.
Click to expand...
I have comcast and can confirm they still have a data cap. As does AT&T

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver said:
For example, Comcast used to have tiers that had a cap on data per month. It used to be 200 GB/month for a residential user (I'm not sure if that's still the limit or even if the limit still exists), but as a business user you could purchase higher tiers that allowed different caps. Also, they're charging you based on bandwidth, which is another form of usage.
Click to expand...
Hmm interesting.  I know there’s the caps for pretty much all the phone companies (AT&T as mentioned, Sprint, Verizon, etc).  In Omaha there are really only two choices, Centurylink and Cox and to my knowledge, neither of them have any sort of caps.  

 
RedSavage said:
Hmm interesting.  I know there’s the caps for pretty much all the phone companies (AT&T as mentioned, Sprint, Verizon, etc).  In Omaha there are really only two choices, Centurylink and Cox and to my knowledge, neither of them have any sort of caps.  
Click to expand...
The caps aren't advertised, so you'd have to go looking for them, but I was just giving an example.

 
IF YOU LIVE IN A RED STATE:

No republicans have yet signed on to this (hopefully) bipartisan congressional resolution as proposed by Ed Markey.  Call them to tell them to do so.  This issue is not one that they should be against!

https://contactingcongress.org

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Two articles that provide an articulated, very good alternative:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/a-public-internet-is-possible

http://theweek.com/articles/647871/america-needs-public-option-internet

I do not know of a major political party that his this in their platform or messaging. I would gently suggest that it is possible to consider this an ideal solution that we should work to promote, without considering all parties not presently doing this-and-sundry as failing the public interest, illegitimately corrupt and to be discarded as we wait for our White Knight Party to arrive.

But -- the main point here being the public option -- do read the articles above. 
 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What work would you like me to show?  You can read my last reply as to how I experienced some of the issues that NN has helped address.  

Thanks for your contribution to the topic.  :thumbs
Click to expand...


Yea, but I don't think you have though; you've stated that you are pro-NN, yet you equate social media sites moderating what content is seen to ISPs deciding what content is seen? Isn't there a disconnect in logic there? 

 
RedSavage said:
Full Disclosure:  I'm for Net Neutrality.

One of the arguments I've seen is that certain users (people who stream a lot) use a lot more of the ISP's bandwidth when compared with a user that uses it more for social media, online shopping, checking e-mail, things like that.  So the rationale is the user who uses more of the bandwidth should be charged more, when they are a more "expensive" customer to the ISP.
Click to expand...


I mean its good you support it, but anyone making that argument doesn't understand what NN is at a fundamental level and is spewing nonsense as others have pointed out.  NN just means ISPs have to treat data their customers request and send equally to all other data sent and requested, not giving preferential treatment to some service over others.

RedSavage said:
Hmm interesting.  I know there’s the caps for pretty much all the phone companies (AT&T as mentioned, Sprint, Verizon, etc).  In Omaha there are really only two choices, Centurylink and Cox and to my knowledge, neither of them have any sort of caps.  
Click to expand...


They both do, they don't advertise it, but if you get close to hitting it you'll get a nasty email or throttled service based on your tier of service. Once again though NN doesn't have a single thing to do with tier'd service for you the ISP customer.  It has to do with them playing gatekeeper to you by choosing what services will work well on their network both on an application(like no more bit-torrent or voip calls) or site level(no good connection to netflix unless netflix is willing to pay so you can get a better connection with less buffering for example). 

They want to be able to not only charge you for the honor of using their service, but charge the services for access to you, when you are already paying to access them (or whatever you want) by paying for internet service.  As well as throttling things like streaming video and P2P which allows them to shape traffic so they don't have to upgrade their networks or can push you towards their in-house or partner services.

It also doesn't help that basically every large national ISP is also in the content business, cable business and wireless business and have a vested interest in their own services.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top