FC/OT: UncleLar, Art & others - thoughts on new net neutrality laws impacting online content....

[Obliviax]

Let us know how you feel when your ISP starts charging you $10.00 a month to access this board.

Att, Verizon, spectrum, woway etc are all gonna charge for this lousy site? Don't think so. If they do, I'll change something.

The same if gas goes up for your suv, property taxes go up, or the cost of red meat. You either absorb the cost or change your behaviors.

 

[PS4814]

We've seen the "free market" before and it leads to oligopoly to the point of non-competition and higher prices for consumers so don't put out the free market argument. Also Hughes high speed is a joke - $70 for 25mbps download 3mbps upload and a 250 gb data cap limit.

I'm lucky that I'm able to get three options for high speed - RCN/Local/Verizon but in my previous location I was only able to get 1 option as the neighborhood wasn't wired for anything else when it was built. Gutting net neutrality doesn't open up at&t, comcast, or other options to me, it only allows the few options I have to further restrict my access to the internet and increase the cost for that access.

"The proposal would allow internet providers to block or slow down certain websites or charge variable rates for different streaming quality or other internet services. Regulations that created net neutrality prohibited this behavior. "

 

[PS4814]

One more infographic for the good of the order.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Att, Verizon, spectrum, woway etc are all gonna charge for this lousy site? Don't think so. If they do, I'll change something.

The same if gas goes up for your suv, property taxes go up, or the cost of red meat. You either absorb the cost or change your behaviors.

It’s more like the power company charging you different prices to power your refrigerator or lights versus your air conditioning. You can see the potential for abuse, surely.

 

[PS4814]

It’s more like the power company charging you different prices to power your refrigerator or lights versus your air conditioning. You can see the potential for abuse, surely.

To use a similar metaphor, when you talk about 5g that's all well and good, but most data plans on the market have a data cap attached to them that both your throttle speed and raise charges when they're hit. That'd be like the water company saying you've used your allotment of water for the month, so until the next billing cycle you'll only receive water at 5psi as opposed to your normal 60psi, enjoy bathing in a bucket.

 

[heckmans]

I haven't seen the details of the plan, but this statement alone gives me considerable pause. It basically says "trust the ISPs". How many people that you know love and trust their ISP?

Also, I get a kick out of this too "“For almost twenty years, the Internet thrived under the light-touch regulatory approach established by President Clinton and a Republican Congress."

Anyone who is familiar with internet speeds in other countries around the world would find this statement very debatable (the US ranks about 20th worldwide).

One big problem is that ISPs are monopolies and, left to their own devices, refuse to compete with each other. The idea that "consumers can buy the service plan that's best for them" might be good if those service plans were offered by competitors, but they aren't. When you go to choose plans, the only choices that you have are typically from one provider. That's not good for the consumer.

Why the U.S. Has Fallen Behind in Internet Speed and Affordability

The people that stand to gain from this are the ISPs not the content providers like B1G and ESPN. The ISPs will be free to charge the content providers extra to deliver their content.

Couple points.
1. ISP are not monopolies in most cases. Many locations have multiple wired choices(FIOS/Comcast/Time Warner) and even more have access to DirectTV/Hughes.
2. The US ranks behind other countries for one simple reason. Population density. It is expensive and cost prohibitive to bring internet to ex-urban and rural areas.
3. Net Neutrality lets Netflix shift their distribution costs to the ISPs and overwhelm their networks. They account for 37% of internet traffic and during peak times, it is far higher. In the past, Blockbuster had to invest in brick and mortar to distribute their content via VHS and DVD media and Netflix had to pay USPS to distribute their content. As it stands now, they have divested all of their distribution costs and forced someone else to pay for it under the force of government. I will not tell you that the ISPs will be perfect actors if left 100% to their own devices, but it is not a good thing to let content providers like netflix/hulu/amazon force the ISPs to pay for their distribution.

Here is an article from a Libertarian magazine opposed to Net "Neutrality" which is about as accurate a term as the "Affordable" Care Act
https://www.google.com/search?q=reason+magazine+net+neutrality&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab

 

[PS4814]

Att, Verizon, spectrum, woway etc are all gonna charge for this lousy site? Don't think so. If they do, I'll change something.

The same if gas goes up for your suv, property taxes go up, or the cost of red meat. You either absorb the cost or change your behaviors.

Rivals is owned by AllianceSports, who is owned by yahoo, who is owned by Verizon. So if you're an at&t customer and they don't want you to visit a competitor's site they may bundle this, along with other verizon properties, in a tier of service that will cost you an extra $15 per month to access the sites.

 

[heckmans]

It’s more like the power company charging you different prices to power your refrigerator or lights versus your air conditioning. You can see the potential for abuse, surely.

Not exactly. Your Air conditioner costs a LOT more to run than your lights and you pay a lot more to cool your house than to light it. The analogy for Net Neutrality would be that every house would pay the same amount to the electric company no matter how much power you used and whether you had an Air Conditioner(Netflix) or not.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Couple points.
1. ISP are not monopolies in most cases. Many locations have multiple wired choices(FIOS/Comcast/Time Warner) and even more have access to DirectTV/Hughes.
2. The US ranks behind other countries for one simple reason. Population density. It is expensive and cost prohibitive to bring internet to ex-urban and rural areas.
3. Net Neutrality lets Netflix shift their distribution costs to the ISPs and overwhelm their networks. They account for 37% of internet traffic and during peak times, it is far higher. In the past, Blockbuster had to invest in brick and mortar to distribute their content via VHS and DVD media and Netflix had to pay USPS to distribute their content. As it stands now, they have divested all of their distribution costs and forced someone else to pay for it under the force of government. I will not tell you that the ISPs will be perfect actors if left 100% to their own devices, but it is not a good thing to let content providers like netflix/hulu/amazon force the ISPs to pay for their distribution.

Here is an article from a Libertarian magazine opposed to Net "Neutrality" which is about as accurate a term as the "Affordable" Care Act
https://www.google.com/search?q=reason+magazine+net+neutrality&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab

The internet without content is nothing. Letting ISP’s dictate use and speed is like letting electricity wire makers do the same for power, or pipe makers to do the same for water.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Not exactly. Your Air conditioner costs a LOT more to run than your lights and you pay a lot more to cool your house than to light it. The analogy for Net Neutrality would means that every house would pay the same amount to the electric company no matter how much power you used and whether you had an Air Conditioner(Netflix) or not.

Yes, the AC cost more but not because of a change in rate - but because of a change in use. Net neutrality is about consistent rate, speed, and non-variable cost based on content used. The opposite of that is charging for all those things based on the content you choose to view/use.

 

[PS4814]

Couple points.
1. ISP are not monopolies in most cases. Many locations have multiple wired choices(FIOS/Comcast/Time Warner) and even more have access to DirectTV/Hughes.
2. The US ranks behind other countries for one simple reason. Population density. It is expensive and cost prohibitive to bring internet to ex-urban and rural areas.
3. Net Neutrality lets Netflix shift their distribution costs to the ISPs and overwhelm their networks. They account for 37% of internet traffic and during peak times, it is far higher. In the past, Blockbuster had to invest in brick and mortar to distribute their content via VHS and DVD media and Netflix had to pay USPS to distribute their content. As it stands now, they have divested all of their distribution costs and forced someone else to pay for it under the force of government. I will not tell you that the ISPs will be perfect actors if left 100% to their own devices, but it is not a good thing to let content providers like netflix/hulu/amazon force the ISPs to pay for their distribution.

Here is an article from a Libertarian magazine opposed to Net "Neutrality" which is about as accurate a term as the "Affordable" Care Act
https://www.google.com/search?q=reason+magazine+net+neutrality&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab

Point #2, the ISP's (at&t, verizon etc.) were given in essence $200 billion in tax breaks and profit opportunities to build the high speed networks in the late 90's early 2000's. They stalled, merged with each other again leading to no competition (free market right?) and the networks were never completed. They defrauded the tax payers and now they want to be able to charge more for substandard service.

http://newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm

 

[heckmans]

Yes, the AC cost more but not because of a change in rate - but because of a change in use. Net neutrality is about consistent rate, speed, and non-variable cost based on content used. The opposite of that is charging for all those things based on the content you choose to view/use.

wrong. If you use 37% of the electricity generated(ie content), you pay for 37% of the electricity generated.
Netflix users consume 37% of the internet bandwidth and pay the same exact rate any those that do not stream all of that content. The ISPs need to provide infrastructure to handle of the data and is required by law to make everyone pay the same. Sorry, but I cut cable, I'm a netflix, hulu, and Amazon user. My neighbor who has never streamed a program and uses the internet for email and web surfing shouldn't have to subsidize my internet consumption.

 

[heckmans]

Point #2, the ISP's (at&t, verizon etc.) were given in essence $200 billion in tax breaks and profit opportunities to build the high speed networks in the late 90's early 2000's. They stalled, merged with each other again leading to no competition (free market right?) and the networks were never completed. They defrauded the tax payers and now they want to be able to charge more for substandard service.

http://newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm

you're not gonna hear me defend government largess subsidizing companies and trying to social engineer society. But that has nothing to do with making the problem worse and forcing the ISPs to subsidize the distribution of massive content providers and consumers.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

wrong. If you use 37% of the electricity generated(ie content), you pay for 37% of the electricity generated.
Netflix users consume 37% of the internet bandwidth and pay the same exact rate any those that do not stream all of that content. The ISPs need to provide infrastructure to handle of the data and is required by law to make everyone pay the same. Sorry, but I cut cable, I'm a netflix, hulu, and Amazon user. My neighbor who has never streamed a program and uses the internet for email and web surfing shouldn't have to subsidize my internet consumption.

Right - because the cost to the ISP is the same whether or not their end user is watching Netflix or only checking email. People who stream content already pay for faster upload/download speeds - which is where the ISP’s already make their money. You’re not subsidizing anything.

 

[heckmans]

Right - because the cost to the ISP is the same whether or not their end user is watching Netflix or only checking email. People who stream content already pay for faster upload/download speeds - which is where the ISP’s already make their money. You’re not subsidizing anything.

no. people who don't stream are using a negligible amount of the bandwidth they are paying for.
Bottom line, net neutrality is like you paying for my tolls to drive down the highway. End.of.story.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

no. people who don't stream are using a negligible amount of the bandwidth they are paying for.
Bottom line, net neutrality is like you paying for my tolls to drive down the highway. End.of.story.

Wrong. They’re paying a cheaper toll than I am. ISP’s can already limit speeds and or data plans. What they shouldn’t do is limit or change costs or speeds depending on content. Under the new policy, I’ll be charged more because I drive a different car, though using the same road.

 

[Sproul]

no. people who don't stream are using a negligible amount of the bandwidth they are paying for.
Bottom line, net neutrality is like you paying for my tolls to drive down the highway. End.of.story.

You’re really going down with the ship on this one, eh? Who is your employer?

 

[PS4814]

no. people who don't stream are using a negligible amount of the bandwidth they are paying for.
Bottom line, net neutrality is like you paying for my tolls to drive down the highway. End.of.story.

Getting rid of net neutrality would be like me driving down the interstate and paying to merge from lane to lane. If I wanted to merge into the fast lane on a road, that was built with taxpayer funds, I'd have to purchase a special sticker for my car that will allow me to drive in said lane and the revenue would go to whatever corporation paid to license that lane from the gov't.

Oh, I forgot, end.of.story. I'll even throw in a few extra ... . .. .... to make it seem super serious.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

You’re really going down with the ship on this one, eh? Who is your employer?

It’s like this on every. Single. Issue. Just draw the line and that’s that.

 

[heckmans]

Wrong. They’re paying a cheaper toll than I am. ISP’s can already limit speeds and or data plans. What they shouldn’t do is limit or change costs or speeds depending on content. Under the new policy, I’ll be charged more because I drive a different car, though using the same road.

Semis pay higher tolls than passenger cars. Want to keep playing this game? You can't logically win.

 

[heckmans]

You’re really going down with the ship on this one, eh? Who is your employer?

whose your employer? great argument.
FTR, I work for noone involved in the ISP or content creation world

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Semis pay higher tolls than passenger cars. Want to keep playing this game? You can't logically win.

You keep wanting to talk toll roads and analogies instead of talking what is. Why is that always the case? People already pay more money for faster speeds from ISP's. Now they want you to pay more for faster speeds for certain content. Maybe some ISP's won't allow you to connect to Netflix at all, but rather direct you to whatever streaming service they own. That's not the same as a semi paying more than a passenger car on a toll road even if you think that is the case.

You've been fooled into thinking you're subsidizing everyone's internet service and that allowing ISP's to control access is a good thing. I've read enough of your posts to know you're not going to change your mind no matter what, which is why I didn't bother to ask your opinion about the subject in my OP. So, you're wrong, and will die being wrong (but happy I guess), but so be it.

 

[PS4814]

Semis pay higher tolls than passenger cars. Want to keep playing this game? You can't logically win.

You're right, it's impossible to "win" when you twist each response someone makes to fit your libertarian talking points. It's like we're playing chess and you're debating the finer points of connect four.

 

[PeetzPoolBoy]

Let us know how you feel when your ISP starts charging you $10.00 a month to access this board.

This board isn’t worth $10/month. I’ll just go to the public library once a week to see what you’re saying about me.

 

[kickerinaz]

Not a gamer , could care less. Actually getting really over the hamster wheel of technology we have to deal with. As I type this there is some sort of spy program on this sight slowing down my feed right now. 5 G , Hulu, what the F to the U to the C to the K ever. My life goal is to disengage from this bastard run away ship of a feudal economy. THAT is supply and demand for me. Kind of like the folks who say if you don't like America leave it. I like Penn State football , BUT I'm not going to follow along and pay every Tom , Dick and Harry for internet. I'l just make my supply and demand choice , hop on my $3,500 Mountain Bike and say F it. Glad lot's of people like to game , watch nascar, pro sports, fill in the blank. Keeps em out of the woods and somehow keeps merica running. Go State !

 

[Obliviax]

Rivals is owned by AllianceSports, who is owned by yahoo, who is owned by Verizon. So if you're an at&t customer and they don't want you to visit a competitor's site they may bundle this, along with other verizon properties, in a tier of service that will cost you an extra $15 per month to access the sites.

How is that different than the already existing pay site (s)?

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

How is that different than the already existing pay site (s)?

Maybe they charge you twice - once for an 'ISP package' that allows for 'fast' access to sports related websites, and another for premium content of said website. Under the current system, you only pay for the premium content - not for the privilege of being allowed to access the site at a fast speed. And as noted, ISP's who own online content (like Verizon), have an incentive to steer you towards their offerings at faster speeds or at a lower rate.

 

[Lion78]

The choke point has been and will continue to be access which is still controlled by a few corporations. It's their desire to maximize their profit by charging both sides (user and content providers). They lost the war to do that in traditional video (cable TV). They won't lose this one.

I have no issue with being charged for bandwidth as it's a use fee. I will have a problem if content of equal bandwidth utilization is charged at different rates (Access to Foxnews.com is more expensive than access to MSNBC.com, or vise versa). This has the potential to open a whole set of new issues. They used to be called unintended consequences. Now they know what the consequences are, they just don't care.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

The choke point has been and will continue to be access which is still controlled by a few corporations. It's their desire to maximize their profit by charging both sides (user and content providers). They lost the war to do that in traditional video (cable TV). They won't lose this one.

I have no issue with being charged for bandwidth as it's a use fee. I will have a problem if content of equal bandwidth utilization is charged at different rates (Access to Foxnews.com is more expensive than access to MSNBC.com, or vise versa). This has the potential to open a whole set of new issues. They used to be called unintended consequences. Now they know what the consequences are, they just don't care.

The money maker for ISPs under the current system is speed - not bandwidth. High stream users and gamers often pay a premium for speed because it greatly enhances the streaming or gaming experience (at there is a minimum required to enjoy both at the most basic level). What you’re suggesting is exactly the issue people are worried about - ISPs charging more to view certain content and/or having them throttle the speed at which you are able to view or enjoy said content, especially since many ISPs own online content. Verizon may allow you to visit their Yahoo streaming site for free, but charge you $2.00 a month (or whatever) - in addition to your monthly service fee - to access Netflix or hulu.

 

[Tri-Power65]

It's like we're playing chess and you're debating the finer points of connect four.

Pretty sneaky, sis.

 

[heckmans]

You're right, it's impossible to "win" when you twist each response someone makes to fit your libertarian talking points. It's like we're playing chess and you're debating the finer points of connect four.

Logic and reason are a bitch. You are arguing your feelings about wanting to consume as much as you want without regard to the costs involved and ignoring the reality of what Net Neutrality is and how it forces ISPs to operate.

Net neutrality imposes "Utility" status on the ISPs under a 1934 law created to manage Ma Bell during the Depression - the same law that stifled competition and saw customers paying .50+ a minute for long distance. Deregulation of Ma Bell led to plummeting costs, 5 cents a minute and ultimately free long distance, as well as the wireless revolution. After 20 years of free, unfettered growth and innovation, Net Neutrality turned the internet into a depression era utility. Ditching it will return the internet to it's roots and spur innovation and competition just as we did when the telephone was deregulated.

Go ahead and try to say I'm twisting something. You're out of your league and debating a topic you don't really understand beyond a visceral level.

 

[heckmans]

The choke point has been and will continue to be access which is still controlled by a few corporations. It's their desire to maximize their profit by charging both sides (user and content providers). They lost the war to do that in traditional video (cable TV). They won't lose this one.

I have no issue with being charged for bandwidth as it's a use fee. I will have a problem if content of equal bandwidth utilization is charged at different rates (Access to Foxnews.com is more expensive than access to MSNBC.com, or vise versa). This has the potential to open a whole set of new issues. They used to be called unintended consequences. Now they know what the consequences are, they just don't care.

These are legitimate concerns and may require rules about how content can be treated(ie volume vs domain prioritization). There are unintended consequences with all government regulation, including Net Neutrality. The supporters of which, don't seem willing to consider in their evaluation.

https://www.ced.org/blog/entry/how-...alize-the-internets-market-price-system-and-f

https://cei.org/blog/net-neutrality...s-“market-failure”-demand-neutrality-regulation

https://www.google.com/search?q=net...nsequences&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b

 

[johnmpsu]

Oh the horror if I'm asked to pay more if I use more. The horror. The gamers should riot in the streets. Oh wait, you may have to pay for something really popular; never heard of anything so unfair. Just plain unfair that I have to pay for Netflix and premium content on this site. Well I'm not going to until the government forces my neighbor to pay for it. Anyway I think he makes more money than me and the government should force him to give me an extra $30 per month. No, lets make that $100 per month. Hey, I think I like this way of thinking. Gimme more, gimme more. I have the RIGHT to use 10 times what you use and pay the same amount. Yeah, I like it.

 

[PS4814]

Ooo... I must've struck a nerve comrade b/c we're to the point in the play where you stop discussing the facts surrounding the situation and you're now going after my logic and understanding of the issue itself. You've successfully derailed the thread, good job sir.

But to bring this full circle - when net neutrality is removed it will allow isp's to set up a pricing structure similar to cable which people are dumping by the millions. Instead of paying one monthly fee and have access to the entire net, you will now pay that fee plus an extra fee to access specific websites at the speed you pay for. If you attempt to visit those websites that are not part of your "package" or "tier" enjoy the good'ol days of 56k. There is no true free market in this situation and only collusion between a handful of players with millions of Americans having no choice in isp.

It's at this point that I will take my bow and exit stage right since there's no point in discussing this further. Have a great holiday everyone, enjoy the time with your families and remember - Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland.

 

[Sunsox]

Oh the horror if I'm asked to pay more if I use more. The horror. The gamers should riot in the streets. Oh wait, you may have to pay for something really popular; never heard of anything so unfair. Just plain unfair that I have to pay for Netflix and premium content on this site. Well I'm not going to until the government forces my neighbor to pay for it. Anyway I think he makes more money than me and the government should force him to give me an extra $30 per month. No, lets make that $100 per month. Hey, I think I like this way of thinking. Gimme more, gimme more. I have the RIGHT to use 10 times what you use and pay the same amount. Yeah, I like it.

I understand your point, yet many of these same companies charge people for 30 cable channels that they will never watch. I have no interest in the Food Network or Lifetime Channel, but because my neighbor might I have to pay for them too. These companies now want it both ways so they can gouge the consumer and pay off the politicos that are allowing them to get away with it.

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

Instead of tiers of internet service allowing access to certain sites, watch us to back to "1000 hours for $19.99!"

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Ooo... I must've struck a nerve comrade b/c we're to the point in the play where you stop discussing the facts surrounding the situation and you're now going after my logic and understanding of the issue itself. You've successfully derailed the thread, good job sir.

But to bring this full circle - when net neutrality is removed it will allow isp's to set up a pricing structure similar to cable which people are dumping by the millions. Instead of paying one monthly fee and have access to the entire net, you will now pay that fee plus an extra fee to access specific websites at the speed you pay for. If you attempt to visit those websites that are not part of your "package" or "tier" enjoy the good'ol days of 56k. There is no true free market in this situation and only collusion between a handful of players with millions of Americans having no choice in isp.

It's at this point that I will take my bow and exit stage right since there's no point in discussing this further. Have a great holiday everyone, enjoy the time with your families and remember - Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland.

You should contribute more .

 

[Obliviax]

Ooo... I must've struck a nerve comrade b/c we're to the point in the play where you stop discussing the facts surrounding the situation and you're now going after my logic and understanding of the issue itself. You've successfully derailed the thread, good job sir.

But to bring this full circle - when net neutrality is removed it will allow isp's to set up a pricing structure similar to cable which people are dumping by the millions. Instead of paying one monthly fee and have access to the entire net, you will now pay that fee plus an extra fee to access specific websites at the speed you pay for. If you attempt to visit those websites that are not part of your "package" or "tier" enjoy the good'ol days of 56k. There is no true free market in this situation and only collusion between a handful of players with millions of Americans having no choice in isp.

It's at this point that I will take my bow and exit stage right since there's no point in discussing this further. Have a great holiday everyone, enjoy the time with your families and remember - Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland.

Great post but I disagree.

Things were set up because cable companies were, in effect, utilities. They had to have an infrastructure of wires and poles carry signals that were captured with elaborate satellite antennas. They were then free to charge whatever they wanted because they were the only game in town, or one of a few.

That elaborate infrastructure is no longer the only game in town and it is going to get worse for the ISP, not better. In the meantime, they are losing their cable TV revenues as people cut the cord.

In the meantime, to be clear, they will still be regulated by the FCC and laws governing monopolies/collusion.

Today, everyone has access to satellite TV, if they can afford it. In addition, most people have access to 4G FTE. Personally, living in a medium sized town of CLE, I have three cable TV companies and five additional high speed internet companies I can do business with. On top of that, I have at least five companies offering 4G FTE. I survived the last five days with no HS internet steaming movies and the PSU game on 4G FTE. When 5G comes out, other than pricing, there will be no need for a land line cable as 5G is 100MB.

I am a big proponent of free markets, the law of supply and demand. Pricing is not set on costs, but on value of the product/service. Free markets will set the price and consumers will have more choices moving forward. If they collude, there will be an army of lawyers only too happy to sue in a class action law suit.

Finally, BTW, the head of the FCC is Ajit Pai who was appointed to the FCC by President Obama in 2012.

There are tons of "pro and con" articles on this subject. I link one. At the end of the day, it isn't going to change life significantly.

 

[Sproul]

Bottom line, nobody is for this except Heckman and his employers. This will not benefit consumers at all. It’s all about making money for the corporations. Don’t worry, I’m sure paying more to the ISPs will somehow trickle more money down into your pocket. Even Fox News can’t spin this in a good way for consumers, and that says it all.

 

[Obliviax]

Bottom line, nobody is for this except Heckman and his employers. This will not benefit consumers at all. It’s all about making money for the corporations. Don’t worry, I’m sure paying more to the ISPs will somehow trickle more money down into your pocket. Even Fox News can’t spin this in a good way for consumers, and that says it all.

I don't agree at all, FWIW.