FCC approves plan to allow for paid priority on Internet

[alucard13mm]

Problem is often times, only one isp operates in one neighborhood....

 

[PRB]

Problem is often times, only one isp operates in one neighborhood....

that "problem" is not a real one, since there is no right to internet access, nor a duty that you must have it.

 

[dntrpltt]

When only one or two ISPs operate in a neighborhood because government-sponsored monopolies make it near impossible for anyone else to enter the market, you can't have a free market solution to net neutrality. Ideally, yes, ISPs would be allowed to throttle their bandwidth or censor whatever they wanted, because the free market would correct that problem and consumers would be allowed to switch to a competitor who didn't. But when there isn't any competitor to switch to because lobbyists for these corporations have done their job and gotten rules imposed that favor them over anyone else, then the free market won't be able to correct the problem.

In my county, there are only two solutions other than satellite internet (which is capped at 10GB a month): Frontier's DSL (2-6 mbps; 20-30 a month) or ZitoMedia's Cable (10 mbps; 40 a month). Unfortunately, not everywhere in my county has both options--at my house, we are only able to get DSL, and we are basically forced to have two routers in order to meet everyone's bandwidth requirements. Going to a competitor would be ideal, however, there isn't a competitor to switch to. In other words, I already pay $60 a month for two routers running 6mbps internet access, and I imagine it would get much more expensive if these companies forced consumers to pay for un-throttled access to certain services. On top of this, at peak times, my bandwidth availability drops substantially (sometimes to half what I'm paying for).

I would imagine, though, that the majority of internet users in my county stick with the well advertised $20 a month for 2mbps DSL access, partially because some telephone lines in the county can't actually handle the 6mbps that I'm able to get (and the cable is pretty much limited to the city limits, which is maybe a 3-4 mile radius). Additionally, because this is the mountains, sometimes even that capped satellite internet isn't an option. One company controls the only option.

 

[PRB]

When only one or two ISPs operate in a neighborhood because government-sponsored monopolies make it near impossible for anyone else to enter the market

Internet access is not a right, get over it.

 

[dntrpltt]

Internet access is not a right, get over it.

Corporations do not have the right to have regulations created that favors those already in the marketplace over their competitors. Toilet paper isn't a right either, but if the government made it near impossible for anyone else to enter the toilet paper market, that would be pretty sh*tty in my opinion.

 

[PRB]

Corporations do not have the right to have regulations created that favors those already in the marketplace over their competitors. Toilet paper isn't a right either, but if the government made it near impossible for anyone else to enter the toilet paper market, that would be pretty sh*tty in my opinion.

pretty shitty is not illegal.

 

[dntrpltt]

pretty shitty is not illegal.

So because crony capitalism isn't illegal, we should support it?

 

[eduardo89]

So because crony capitalism isn't illegal, we should support it?

How is allowing a company to determine the way it provides and charges for its services crony capitalism? Should ISPs be forced to deliver all data in the same way?

 

[dntrpltt]

How is allowing a company to determine the way it provides and charges for its services crony capitalism? Should ISPs be forced to deliver all data in the same way?

I'm not saying that it is. But when a company encourages government restrictions on any competitors that pop-up in the areas it serves, that is crony capitalism. Ideally, ISPs could do whatever they wanted to with their data--that's the beauty of the free market, consumers could go and choose from a provider that didn't, was better, etc. But when consumers don't have that choice because of the legal hurdles that a provider has to overcome to enter an area, it isn't a free market. It would be different if ISPs just chose not to enter a market because the tech was expensive, but the government shouldn't get in the way in the slightest.

 

[eduardo89]

I'm not saying that it is. But when a company encourages government restrictions on any competitors that pop-up in the areas it serves, that is crony capitalism.

What does that have to do with this thread? This thread isn't about creating barriers preventing other ISPs from entering the market, this thread is about whether an ISP has the right to determine how it will deliver and charge for its services.

 

[PRB]

What does that have to do with this thread? This thread isn't about creating barriers preventing other ISPs from entering the market, this thread is about whether an ISP has the right to determine how it will deliver and charge for its services.

this guy's logic is, because the market wasn't free to begin with, we must use government to make it even less free. use government to solve government, just like we need to mandate GMO labelling to combat Monsanto's privileges and advantages

 

[dntrpltt]

this guy's logic is, because the market wasn't free to begin with, we must use government to make it even less free. use government to solve government, just like we need to mandate GMO labelling to combat Monsanto's privileges and advantages

No, what I'm saying is, there are two options to combat this problem: Rescind all government restrictions (which isn't going to happen any time soon), or net neutrality. Internet has always been throttled, and it will continue to be throttled (right now, my contract says that after I hit a point in my data, my bandwidth drops off), but companies that reap the benefit of the government's regulations shouldn't be able to throttle their bandwidth on a selective, discriminatory basis. It's almost equivalent to the government stepping in and saying "You want Netflix? Pay twice as much." I don't like the government forcing the ISPs to open up their bandwidth either, but I also don't like the ISPs colluding with the government to put up a giant brick wall in the path of innovation.

90% of the arguments I hear against Net Neutrality are "Oh no, the government is regulating internet for the first time! Unprecedented!" It's already regulated, probably will (unfortunately) always be regulated, and its important to recognize the complex nature of the issue rather than just write everything off without approaching it from every possible side.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

People that pay for their usage would pay a disproportional amount because of all the other users that only use low bandwidth, kind of like health insurance.

Kind of like Obamacare...

In this case ISPs are saying that if people are using them to stream massive amounts of video from netflix, than they should be able to charge netflix an extra fee based on that. Seems reasonable to me.

It's reasonable. But it separates the end consumer from the actual cost, thus market forces are stifled.

Instead of $75 or more monthly flat fee for smart phones, did you know that you can get "pay for what you" use plans starting at $15/mo? At least in the cell market there are more options right now.

Actually forget everything I typed above. The old "tubes" analogy really is a pretty decent one. Think of it like water flowing through pipes. You can only fit so much water at a certain pressure. If you need more water you need more pipes. That's basically it.

The difference is the compression option.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I just looked it up and there are 7 Tier 1 providers in the US: Level 3 Communications, TeliaSonera International Carrier, CenturyLink, Vodafone, Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T Corporation.

I used to work at one of the above in network capacity management...

 

[charrob]

I guess I don’t understand this issue very well.

I think I understand that:

1) Data packets flow around on networks between lines and routers until they reach their destination.
2) Currently all data packets flow at the same speed because of net neutrality.
3) Taking away net neutrality means a whole new set of lines and routers will be created for a new network, and data packets that travel on those lines and through those routers will flow at a faster speed than the data packets on the slower, original, network.
-------------------------------------------------

Example:

4) Say I have a small business called: “Mom’s Homemade Cookies”. I’m located in City “XYZ” and sell cookies in a shop locally. However, people in other states who have typed the search term “Homemade Cookies” into their browser have seen my website and so buy my cookies via the web as well. There are many large corporations located in City “XYZ” who also now sell factory made cookies online, including Walmart, Target, and Home Depot. But because of Net Neutrality, all data packets travel equally fast on the web and Search Results from typing in “Homemade Cookies XYZ” has allowed “Mom’s Homemade Cookies” to be right up on that first Google Results page with “Walmart”, “Target”, and “Home Depot".

5) The rules change. Net Neutrality is abandoned. A whole new set of lines and routers are created where data packets flow faster. As a small business with 5 employees, I cannot afford to pay for the network where data packets move faster. However Walmart, Target, and Home Depot can and many other large corporations who sell factory made cookies can.

6) When people now type in “Homemade Cookies XYZ” as their Google Search Term, “Walmart”, “Target” and “Home Depot” are still right up on that first Google Results page along with many others who sell factory made cookies but pay for the faster packet network. However, the search result “Mom’s Homemade Cookies” travelled on the slower packet network and ended up being on Google Search Results page number 40 even though many of the previous results pages contained businesses who did not make homemade cookies but just sold factory made cookies. Because most people rarely look on Google Search Results page number 40, with time, “Mom’s Homemade Cookies” had less and less web customers, so had to lay off workers.

So my question would be: Could getting rid of Net Neutrality create a situation like the above scenario?

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I guess I don’t understand this issue very well.

I think I understand that:

1) Data packets flow around on networks between lines and routers until they reach their destination.
2) Currently all data packets flow at the same speed because of net neutrality.
3) Taking away net neutrality means a whole new set of lines and routers will be created for a new network, and data packets that travel on those lines and through those routers will flow at a faster speed than the data packets on the slower, original, network.
-------------------------------------------------

Example:

4) Say I have a small business called: “Mom’s Homemade Cookies”. I’m located in City “XYZ” and sell cookies in a shop locally. However, people in other states who have typed the search term “Homemade Cookies” into their browser have seen my website and so buy my cookies via the web as well. There are many large corporations located in City “XYZ” who also now sell factory made cookies online, including Walmart, Target, and Home Depot. But because of Net Neutrality, all data packets travel equally fast on the web and Search Results from typing in “Homemade Cookies XYZ” has allowed “Mom’s Homemade Cookies” to be right up on that first Google Results page with “Walmart”, “Target”, and “Home Depot".

5) The rules change. Net Neutrality is abandoned. A whole new set of lines and routers are created where data packets flow faster. As a small business with 5 employees, I cannot afford to pay for the network where data packets move faster. However Walmart, Target, and Home Depot can and many other large corporations who sell factory made cookies can.

6) When people now type in “Homemade Cookies XYZ” as their Google Search Term, “Walmart”, “Target” and “Home Depot” are still right up on that first Google Results page along with many others who sell factory made cookies but pay for the faster packet network. However, the search result “Mom’s Homemade Cookies” travelled on the slower packet network and ended up being on Google Search Results page number 40 even though many of the previous results pages contained businesses who did not make homemade cookies but just sold factory made cookies. Because most people rarely look on Google Search Results page number 40, with time, “Mom’s Homemade Cookies” had less and less web customers, so had to lay off workers.

So my question would be: Could getting rid of Net Neutrality create a situation like the above scenario?

what no, search results have nothing to do with how fast a network is. What they can do is limit your connection to certain internet networks, just like how cable companies limit your channel selection unless you pay more. Oh, like watching youtube? Well buy the 10 dollars/month online video plan and get access to YouTube and Hulu without any lag.

 

[Tod]

good

Did you listen to Ben Swann and his guest's take on the consequences of this?

http://youtu.be/VGit3RiCWaY?t=29m31s

"People have to understand, this is cronyism at its best" ~ Ben Swann

 

[Anti Federalist]

I'm only sure of a few things here:

This will end up costing more.

This will end up with government having even greater access to spy and snoop.

This will end up with websites having "non approved" messages being deleted, blocked, or squeezed out of existence.

 

[green73]

Get the fucking government out of it. Fucking statists here.

 

[Tod]

I'm only sure of a few things here:

This will end up costing more.

This will end up with government having even greater access to spy and snoop.

This will end up with websites having "non approved" messages being deleted, blocked, or squeezed out of existence.

According to Ben and his guest, this has the potential to turn the internet into essentially like a cable tv package, where you pay so much to get so many web sites. The little content producer effectively gets locked out......no chance at visibility.