Net Neutrality 2017

[tshile]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

No offense but I'm sure there are benefits to both sides.  I've done a little reading on this but I'm not very smart when it comes to technological terms.  That is where I get lost.

 

Do you want your internet to work the way your TV does?

 

Do you want to be charged based on what you access, and how much the people hosting what you access pay your isp?

 

Do you think comcast's motives in any way align with what is best for you?

[Hersh]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

No offense but I'm sure there are benefits to both sides.  I've done a little reading on this but I'm not very smart when it comes to technological terms.  That is where I get lost.

 

It's not a problem if your rich but literally only the telecoms benefit from this. This will decrease competition and increase costs to consumers. This also hurts jobs and wage growth. 

[PokerPacker]

23 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

It's not a problem if your rich but literally only the telecoms benefit from this. This will decrease competition and increase costs to consumers. This also hurts jobs and wage growth. 

It could still be a problem if you're rich because the cable companies might decide they just want to throttle the competition regardless.  Netflix?  Hulu?  Amazon?  Snuff 'em out.

Edited November 16, 2017 by PokerPacker

[Bang]

the internet is where small business has it's best opportunities these days.

And they want to kill it.

 

This isn't America.

 

~Bang

[Springfield]

7 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

It could still be a problem if you're rich because the cable companies might decide they just want to throttle the competition regardless.  Netflix?  Hulu?  Amazon?  Snuff 'em out.

 

Well of course.

 

Why wouldn’t Comcast throttle Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, et all in favor of its own streaming service?

[TheGreatBuzz]

19 hours ago, nonniey said:

Think of it like an Airline.  The Broadband companies want to offer 1st Class business, and coach tickets. The Tech Companies want only coach available (It is cheaper for them if they don't have to compete with each other for the better bandwidth).  Effects on the average customer is that price of from bandwidth providers will go down while price of online services would go up (Ie your cable internet access goes down while paid services -ie netflix, hulu, gaming etc. goes up).

Which one of these is Pro-neutrality and which is anti-neutrality?  It seems to me like it would make sense to only pay for what I use.  And don't we already kind of do this because we pay for different internet speeds?  I think the price of internet already is outrageous.  And for that chart that @Springfield posted, how would it work for sites that aren't listed (like ES)?  Would every site on the internet have to fit into one of those bundles?  Wouldn't it make more sense for each site to just charge their own fee if they want? 

16 hours ago, tshile said:

 

Do you want your internet to work the way your TV does?

 

Do you want to be charged based on what you access, and how much the people hosting what you access pay your isp?

 

Do you think comcast's motives in any way align with what is best for you?

I don't have Comcast so I'm not sure but I generally disagree with anything a big business wants to do.  I usually put my opinions of big businesses right around my opinion level of politicians.

[Springfield]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Which one of these is Pro-neutrality and which is anti-neutrality?  It seems to me like it would make sense to only pay for what I use.  And don't we already kind of do this because we pay for different internet speeds?  I think the price of internet already is outrageous.  And for that chart that @Springfield posted, how would it work for sites that aren't listed (like ES)?  Would every site on the internet have to fit into one of those bundles?  Wouldn't it make more sense for each site to just charge their own fee if they want? 

 

Well, a few possibilities Buzz.

1. The site is blocked, won’t work at all.

2.  You pay an additional fee to access sites not in the above.  The fee would probably be unreasonably high because ES/Redskins has no content agreement with your isp meaning the isp hasn’t profited off of ES/Redskins.

3.  Site works but at a limited capacity.  Pages load slowly, links don’t work, images don’t appear.

 

Thats just a few ways I think it would be handled.

[Mooka]

 

Reminder:

 

On 7/12/2017 at 5:05 PM, tshile said:

This fight was lost years ago.

[TheGreatBuzz]

15 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Well, a few possibilities Buzz.

1. The site is blocked, won’t work at all.

2.  You pay an additional fee to access sites not in the above.  The fee would probably be unreasonably high because ES/Redskins has no content agreement with your isp meaning the isp hasn’t profited off of ES/Redskins.

3.  Site works but at a limited capacity.  Pages load slowly, links don’t work, images don’t appear.

 

Thats just a few ways I think it would be handled.

Would this make internet cheaper for some people?  Like my grandmother who only uses facebook and Gmail?  I guess I am lost on why paying for what you actually use is a bad thing.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

37 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Would this make internet cheaper for some people?  Like my grandmother who only uses facebook and Gmail?  I guess I am lost on why paying for what you actually use is a bad thing.

 

For people that aren't on the internet that much, sure, it won't impact them that much.  But right now, those people have the option to only get plans with basic/slower speeds at lower monthly rates (for the most part).  For those of us that are on the internet all the time and rely on fast speeds for work, etc.  We have the potential to get bent over and ****ed if this happens.

 

For me, I'm always on the internet and rely on it heavily as I work remotely for my employer.  Also, I game a lot and we watch tons of streaming content on Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime.  Basically they will have the opportunity to make me pay extra for access to certain websites along with raising the rates for speeds for gaming, etc.  

 

Like the chart Springy posted, it would be like adding premium channels to your cable/satellite programming package.  Except they can basically make you pay twice for something.  Like charging you $5 per month per streaming service (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, Vudu, etc.), so say you have Hulu and Netflix, the internet provider will make you pay them $10 for internet access for those services in addition to your monthy subs for each.  Free services such as Vudu and Apple TV (free to use, you pay for the digital movies/shows) would have a separate fee to allow internet access to the accounts.  

 

It doesn't help or hurt those that rarely use the internet, but it will completely fubar everyone that does use it a lot.  

Edited November 16, 2017 by Dont Taze Me Bro

[TheGreatBuzz]

My situation is similar to yours @Dont Taze Me Bro.  Except my wife works remotely.  I game a lot online though and use Netflix and Amazon streaming.  I would have to get a ridiculous plan.  But that chart posted, if I got every single on of those packages (the "baller package" I have named it), it is like $80/month.  I pay more than that now.  And I could definitely cut out a few of those packages that I wouldn't use.  

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

My situation is similar to yours @Dont Taze Me Bro.  Except my wife works remotely.  I game a lot online though and use Netflix and Amazon streaming.  I would have to get a ridiculous plan.  But that chart posted, if I got every single on of those packages (the "baller package" I have named it), it is like $80/month.  I pay more than that now.  And I could definitely cut out a few of those packages that I wouldn't use.  

 

But I think (and if I'm wrong, someone correct me), that those could be extra fees in addition to what package you have for the actual speeds.  So say they charge you $80/month for the modem lease and the fastest speed package (300 mbps down/25mbps up), then they can also charge you for what websites you want to access (like in the chart).  Causing the prices to skyrocket for everyone.

[Springfield]

21 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

My situation is similar to yours @Dont Taze Me Bro.  Except my wife works remotely.  I game a lot online though and use Netflix and Amazon streaming.  I would have to get a ridiculous plan.  But that chart posted, if I got every single on of those packages (the "baller package" I have named it), it is like $80/month.  I pay more than that now.  And I could definitely cut out a few of those packages that I wouldn't use.  

 

I have no idea what country that chart came from, but I could almost guarantee that it would be more in America, because we are the best at everything.

[TheGreatBuzz]

17 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

But I think (and if I'm wrong, someone correct me), that those could be extra fees in addition to what package you have for the actual speeds.  So say they charge you $80/month for the modem lease and the fastest speed package (300 mbps down/25mbps up), then they can also charge you for what websites you want to access (like in the chart).  Causing the prices to skyrocket for everyone.

Gotcha.  Yea, that would suck.  That help explain why it's bad.

[skinfan2k]

other countries are doing the exact same thing.  America is following them too

[Destino]

Can anyone explain to me how this isn't a way to allow ISPs to create a revenue stream out of thin air that will inevitably force us to pay more (not necessarily directly to ISPs) for either what we're currently getting (or for less)?  

[PokerPacker]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Would this make internet cheaper for some people?  Like my grandmother who only uses facebook and Gmail?  I guess I am lost on why paying for what you actually use is a bad thing.

This really doesn't have anything to do with 'pay for what you use' in that using different things doesn't actually have any real costs.  What you are using is bandwidth.  Whether that comes from ES or Facebook or Netflix, you are using bandwidth.  What they want to do is now decide that paying for the bandwidth is not enough.  Now they want to charge to be able to use your bandwidth on Facebook.  Or maybe they just won't let you use your bandwidth on Netflix, since they provide an entertainment product that competes with their cable services.

 

Basically, you already 'pay for what you use' in bandwidth, now ISPs want to be able to choose how you use what you already pay for and charge you (or the company you are trying to allocate your bandwidth to) for how you use it.

 

It's like if I sold you a fork, but then restricted your rights to eat Spaghetti with it unless you paid a Spaghetti fee or unless Barillo paid a "let people eat my spaghetti" fee.  Or maybe I sell Italian food and I'll block your ability to eat any Italian food with that fork unless its my overpriced food.  Oh, and I'm the only fork-vendor in town thanks to a cushy government-mandated fork monopoly.

Edited November 16, 2017 by PokerPacker

[TheGreatBuzz]

What is keeping other companies from providing internet access?  (please keep the tech level of the explanation to a 5 year old level).

[Springfield]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

What is keeping other companies from providing internet access?  (please keep the tech level of the explanation to a 5 year old level).

 

In many areas there is only one isp.

 

Add to that, the cost of entry of being an isp is quite high, so it’s unlikely that other competition comes to the areas that only offer isp.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Springfield

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just now, Springfield said:

 

In many areas there is only one isp.

And why is that?  Why can't I go start my own isp company to compete with the big companies?  

[Springfield]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

And why is that?  Why can't I go start my own isp company to compete with the big companies?  

 

See above.  Creating the infrastructure of a local isp is fairly expensive.  Google has done it, but they have more money than god. All the other isp’s are once phone companies (Fios) or once cable companies (Comcast, Cox, etc).

[TheGreatBuzz]

I guess my confusion is because I have absolutely no idea how the internet works.  To me, it is just "there".  

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

What is keeping other companies from providing internet access?  (please keep the tech level of the explanation to a 5 year old level).

 

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

And why is that?  Why can't I go start my own isp company to compete with the big companies?  

 

It has more to do with setting up the entire infrastructure, it costs so much money.  The price it would cost to start from scratch would not allow standard companies especially start-ups to be able to price competitively against the ones already established in the area.  So unless it's a company like Google who makes so much money they can afford to take the minimal loss (for them it is minimal) by installing their Google Fiber infrastructure, then for the most part, everyone is SOL.

[Springfield]

 

 

Take me cell phone service, for instance.  When you first got your iPhone or Android or whatever, and you had a data plan, it was likely unlimited.  Well somehwhere along the line they decided to limit people’s data and teir the data.  It wasn’t to save people money, it wasn’t because of network congestion, it wasn’t because unlimited data was outdated.  It was because a tiered data plan would ultimately make them more money.

 

Cell phone companies have done it with the purchase of cell phones as well.  It’s a cash grab.  They want you to pay in installments to continue their revenue stream.

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I guess my confusion is because I have absolutely no idea how the internet works.  To me, it is just "there".  

 

Well, you’re pretty much right.  It is just there.  The infrastructure is already there.  The company that you pay actually owns very little of the infrastructure that you are connecting to.  What you pay them for is access to that infrastructure.

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

 

Take me cell phone service, for instance.  When you first got your iPhone or Android or whatever, and you had a data plan, it was likely unlimited.  Well somehwhere along the line they decided to limit people’s data and teir the data.  It wasn’t to save people money, it wasn’t because of network congestion, it wasn’t because unlimited data was outdated.  It was because a tiered data plan would ultimately make them more money.

 

Cell phone companies have done it with the purchase of cell phones as well.  It’s a cash grab.  They want you to pay in installments to continue their revenue stream.

 

Well, you’re pretty much right.  It is just there.  The infrastructure is already there.  The company that you pay actually owns very little of the infrastructure that you are connecting to.  What you pay them for is access to that infrastructure.

Who owns the infrastructure then?  I always assumed the government owned it.  I guess in my head it was like a highway where the government owns it and you are just paying for the on ramp to the information superhighway..