Explain it like I'm 5: What benefits will I be seeing when net neutrality ends next month?

Meat is not content it is the bandwidth. You are having trouble with your own example.

really… wow.

um… right… there are not hundreds of bandwidth providers. But there are hundreds and thousands of products that the few bandwidth providers will make available to you. And just like grocery stores don’t raise and kill the steer, ISPs don’t create the product. But you get that product from the grocery store just as you get the product from the ISP. Both determine what products they carry and what the price sticker says. And stores can set prices and availability however they want.
And if a certain product is really in demand but is not made available… the market has various ways of satisfying the demand without forcing the outlet (ISP or store) to carry the product.

Stop being a pawn on government’s big chessboard. Big federal government is no better than big business. It’s worse. You decry having just a few ISPs but seem content to have ONE big federal government making the rules. Is that because you trust the big federal government to be working in your best interest?

Last mile monopolies are soon to be a thing of the past. But hey, if you want to give them a way to hang around longer, let the FCC regulate, so they can buy the politicians that ultimately set the regulations.

in my analogy meat is the product that people want. They don’t want an empty fiber no more than they want an empty meat case at the store. It is my analogy and I know what is what in my analogy.

Ok. Make it simple. Show evidence that Netflix caused slowing of other traffic to Comcast end users before a deal was made.

Can you at least recognize that Comcast had a vested financial interest in this issue? Comcast refused to allow Netflix to establish a direct connection with Comcast’s servers and would only allow them to interlink via third parties that would pay fees to Comcast.

Did you read the FCC quote? What happened is expressly prohibited. It wouldn’t stay bogged down because end users pay for their ISPs to deliver content. It is up to the ISPs to make sure they have the infrastructure for delivery of the content. That’s why people pay more for faster speeds and higher data caps. You use more, you pay more. You don’t pay more based on specific content.

That’s not what happened at all because as soon as Netflix started paying Comcast, the throttling stopped.

What…you think Comcast instantaneously built out new capacity so that the slow speeds just were miraculously cleaned up?

I was on Comcast at the time.

None of my other content suffered from degraded speeds…only my Netflix did.

Nor did all my content miraculously improve in theie downloading speeds once Netflix paid up.

Only Netflix’s speeds went up.

And it happened almost immediately after Netflix paid up…so it was NOT a lack of capacity that was hindering Comcast.

Finally, once again you misunderstand how data demand works.

The mere existence of Netflix does NOT cause data demand increase. The data demand has to come from the USER. If no one watches Netflix’s content, there is not data demand on the ISP.

So since the USER is pulling on the data, it is the USER that should be charged, not an intermediate content provider.

And the user IS charged already.

Going after the content providers for more money is a clear case of the ISPs double-dipping.

So now you ARE on board with government regulation of health care prices?

Yeah. He changes his opinion on a lot of things.

Yes i do believe in the social contract and yes i do trust the government more than i trust the free market. That’s part and parcel of the foundation of my liberalism. But i als understand the problem with a late bureaucracy and over reaching legislation and regulation. So i don’t lay my trustin the government without reservations.

All that being said you are confounding the existence of a single government be it federal or local which is meant to be a monopoly on certain things such as laws and regulation and an artificial effect on competition that infrastructure plays in the ISP market.

Yes the government can over reach yes it has in the past and yes it will in the future but that doesn’t mean that the market should exist without checks and balances.

Then you are misunderstanding the underlying problem. The product being delivered isn’t the only problem. The delivery system is a much bigger one.

in my analogy, the grocery store delivers the product to you. they set the price. Like the ISP, it is nothing more than a delivery channel for thousands of products made by someone else.

get your head out of the “M U S T N O T A G R E E” place.

I am agreeing with you in part silly human

Been over most of this already and provided links, here is another.

from

‘Most of the points of the debate are artificial, distracting, and based on an incorrect mental model on how the internet works.’

The only trouble is that, here in the year 2014, complaints about a fast-lane don’t make much sense. Today, privileged companies—including Google, Facebook, and Netflix—already benefit from what are essentially internet fast lanes, and this has been the case for years. Such web giants—and others—now have direct connections to big ISPs like Comcast and Verizon, and they run dedicated computer servers deep inside these ISPs. In technical lingo, these are known as “peering connections” and “content delivery servers,” and they’re a vital part of the way the internet works.

“Fast lane is how the internet is built today,” says Craig Labovitz, who, as the CEO of DeepField Networks, an outfit whose sole mission is to track how companies build internet infrastructure, probably knows more about the design of the modern internet than anyone else. And many other internet experts agree with him. “The net neutrality debate has got many facets to it, and most of the points of the debate are artificial, distracting, and based on an incorrect mental model on how the internet works,” says Dave Taht, a developer of open-source networking software.

That article was written four years ago when the debate over the net neutrality regulations that eventually were codified by the FCC were starting to happen.

Did you notice the end of that article, where a suggestion to increase competition amongst ISPs was to classify them as common carriers, so new ISPs would have the same access to the common infrastructure as existing ISPs?

That’s EXACTLY what happened with the net neutrality regs in 2015…ISPs were classified as common carriers.

That also is PRECISELY what was killed when the net neutrality regs were killed last year.

Maybe now you understand why the large ISPs that dominate the market are happy.

The age of the article changes nothing about what was going on between Netflix and Comcast which is what was being discussed, nor did their classification as common carries put an end to paid peering or paid content delivery.

Those are irrelevant.

This has always been about the large ISPs having outsized power…which they will have.

If you want to oppose mergers be my guest, net neutrality doesn’t address it.