Save net neutrality.

And if you flap your arms really fast you can fly.
 
Dave Smith presented an interesting case against NN. He points out the high speed internet was originally implemented through technology created by the Cable TV industry and that in the early 80's the FCC was attempting to regulate cable in defense of traditional broadcast television. They failed but had they been successful we may not even have the high speed internet needed to have this argument. He also points out that if ISP's jack up the price on streaming content, it will draw investment and innovation to potential ISP competitors, thereby revitalizing what is currently a fairly stagnant market. Not wanting to attract that kind of capital to competitors, the current ISP's may just opt to maintain status quo and enforce their own net neutrality in order to keep their customers. Not sure what to believe about all of this but it's good to contemplate both sides.
 
people need to stop and take this seriously
 
Gunny said:
Dave Smith presented an interesting case against NN. He points out the high speed internet was originally implemented through technology created by the Cable TV industry and that in the early 80's the FCC was attempting to regulate cable in defense of traditional broadcast television. They failed but had they been successful we may not even have the high speed internet needed to have this argument.
Click to expand...

That argument fails when you consider that countries that have always had their cable tv regulated have MUCH faster internet than we do.

Gunny said:
He also points out that if ISP's jack up the price on streaming content, it will draw investment and innovation to potential ISP competitors, thereby revitalizing what is currently a fairly stagnant market. Not wanting to attract that kind of capital to competitors, the current ISP's may just opt to maintain status quo and enforce their own net neutrality in order to keep their customers. Not sure what to believe about all of this but it's good to contemplate both sides.
Click to expand...

Just 3 companies have over 50% of the market, and they make sure that "lines" they're using are only for them... good luck with competition.

Imagine if Samsung owned all the electricity lines and didn't let Sony TV's use them. Sony would have to invest billions to run it's own electric service and then still try to undercut samsung... never going to happen.
 
djacobox372 said:
Imagine if Samsung owned all the electricity lines and didn't let Sony TV's use them. Sony would have to invest billions to run it's own electric service and then still try to undercut samsung... never going to happen.
Click to expand...

If Samsung inflated their prices to the point that consumers were screaming for another option then Sony might very well start running some lines and undercutting the competition. Excess margin always attracts investment and innovation. You should read about what's going on in the mattress industry these days.
 
Gunny said:
Dave Smith presented an interesting case against NN. He points out the high speed internet was originally implemented through technology created by the Cable TV industry and that in the early 80's the FCC was attempting to regulate cable in defense of traditional broadcast television. They failed but had they been successful we may not even have the high speed internet needed to have this argument. He also points out that if ISP's jack up the price on streaming content, it will draw investment and innovation to potential ISP competitors, thereby revitalizing what is currently a fairly stagnant market. Not wanting to attract that kind of capital to competitors, the current ISP's may just opt to maintain status quo and enforce their own net neutrality in order to keep their customers. Not sure what to believe about all of this but it's good to contemplate both sides.
Click to expand...

Bolded: why didn't that happen with traditional cable? How come the increased prices and limited options didn't result in more investment and innovation by new providers? Until the internet came along, I can't see where that happened.

The infrastructure work alone is a daunting. Even if someone did start moving in that direction, it would take them years just to prove out in 1 regional market, let alone nationwide. I don't think the ISP's are going to be too concerned with doing something now which might bite them in the ass 10 years from now - especially when they can just pivot when that competition comes along.
 
Shoemaker said:
Bolded: why didn't that happen with traditional cable? How come the increased prices and limited options didn't result in more investment and innovation by new providers? Until the internet came along, I can't see where that happened.

The infrastructure work alone is a daunting. Even if someone did start moving in that direction, it would take them years just to prove out in 1 regional market, let alone nationwide. I don't think the ISP's are going to be too concerned with doing something now which might bite them in the ass 10 years from now - especially when they can just pivot when that competition comes along.
Click to expand...

Well I would argue that the innovation away from cable happened with the streaming and satellite services. Personally, I cut the cord years ago and have no use for cable at all anymore
 
Let the market sort it out. We'll all be better for it.
 
Gunny said:
Well I would argue that the innovation away from cable happened with the streaming and satellite services. Personally, I cut the cord years ago and have no use for cable at all anymore
Click to expand...

... that’s exactly what the thread is about. The “innovative service” that you replaced cable with is going to open to being stifled by the same people who did it to cable.
 
Shoemaker said:
... that’s exactly what the thread is about. The “innovative service” that you replaced cable with is going to open to being stifled by the same people who did it to cable.
Click to expand...

I understand that that's what you're contending but my point is that that is one possible outcome among many. Another would be some other new innovation takes hold. Another yet is that ISP's maintain the status quo.
 
Gunny said:
I understand that that's what you're contending but my point is that that is one possible outcome among many. Another would be some other new innovation takes hold. Another yet is that ISP's maintain the status quo.
Click to expand...

We know that with net neautrality, the consumer is better off (and isps are still free to charge based on bandwidth usage). I don’t agree it’s a better idea to remove it in hopes that a) the providers will do the right thing (when they ARE the same companies who did this to cable) or b) maybe someone else will come along and fix the problem for us later. Maybe.
 
It's ironic that people advocating for big government are using the Gadsden flag as part of their logo.

Net neutrality went into effect in 2015. I don't remember life without it being a problem in the years prior. As far as I can tell having it in effect has not noticeably improved service or lowered prices. I think this is just another example of the leftist fetish for government interventionism.
 
Shoemaker said:
We know that with net neautrality, the consumer is better off (and isps are still free to charge based on bandwidth usage). I don’t agree it’s a better idea to remove it in hopes that a) the providers will do the right thing (when they ARE the same companies who did this to cable) or b) maybe someone else will come along and fix the problem for us later. Maybe.
Click to expand...

What is your measuring stick for consumers being better off? Other than the apocalyptic fantasy that pro-NN people are painting for us what is your data for claiming this? Has there been a measurable decrease in prices, improvement in service, or substantial innovations which can be tied to NN rules being imposed?
 
Of course. Anyone defending this is a cool. Let's tell the boys in Washington to let us bang
 
ocfightfan said:
What is your measuring stick for consumers being better off? Other than the apocalyptic fantasy that pro-NN people are painting for us what is your data for claiming this? Has there been a measurable decrease in prices, improvement in service, or substantial innovations which can be tied to NN rules being imposed?
Click to expand...

My measuring stick is that the internet service I receive now is good, and I have access to any domain in existence (for the most). The cable service I’ve received in the past was poor - I was limited in what I could watch. Allowing ISPs (who are also by-and-large cable companies) the freedom to shard the internet won’t be better for the consumer. Like I said earlier, if ISPs are concerned with cost, they can already charge based on bandwidth use.

Anyone who thinks it will be better is free to argue otherwise, but so far all I’ve heard is “maybe someone will come along, innovate and compete - but don’t ask why that never happened with cable.” There’s precedent for cable companies not doing what’s in the consumers best interest, and precedent for that not changing for a long time (yes, streaming changed it - but that’s exactly what we’re talking about here).



There are tons of technical challenges I’m willing to concede though. I.E. content aggregators getting around domain/ip restrictions.

It won’t be the end of the world. But I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument against net neutrality.
 
All consumer protections will be swiftly eliminated under this piece of shit pres. Just the other night a panelist on CNBC complained about the tax reform taking away individual deductions, but keeping the carried interest for the ultra rich hedge fund managers. Drain the swamp, my ass.
 
Hmm have the government control it or let company's control it. Both are untrusted but the way it's set up right now and how ridiculous ISP's already are with the BS I want it saved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,983
Messages
55,459,325
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top