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

Call_me_Ishmael · May 11, 2018, 1:54am

SottoVoce:

Call_me_Ishmael:

Samson_Corwell:

Except it isn’t like that.

tell us how it is

Here you go.

Bob pays Pipe Company X to deliver water to his house through their pipes. Pipe Company X doesn’t make the water, or have anything to do with its production, they just give Bob a way to get it to his house. If Bob wants more water each month, or wants it quicker, he pays Pipe Company X more since they’ll have to install and maintain additional pipes for Bob to get what he wants, and other customers to still get their water.

With “pipe neutrality,” if Bob decides he wants some of his water from Water Company A and some from Water Company B, he still only pays Pipe Company X for the use of their pipes and the volume/speed of water delivery. It’s the same cost to Pipe Company X to deliver the water from Water Company A as the water from Water Company B. Pipe Company X isn’t allowed to charge more for delivery, or limit the water from a specific water company.

After “pipe neutrality” is repealed, Pipe Company X continues to charge Bob based on the use of their pipes. However, Pipe Company X can now charge Bob more if he wants water from Water Company B. Furthermore, if Pipe Company X doesn’t particularly like Water Company B, they can limit or remove the ability of Bob to get water from them at all. It still costs Pipe Company X the same amount to deliver water from any company, but now they can pick and choose which water companies Bob will get his water from, and how much it’ll cost.

why should the government tell pipe company X how to do business?

tnt · May 11, 2018, 2:00am

No. Net nuetrsliry is above and beyond the anla cattle prices we pay to the websites. It effects the actual transfer of data from the web site to our devices.

So sure, pay Netflix your $10 a month or whatever…BUT if Comcast (or whomever your internet provider is) decides they don’t like Netflix- because maybe they own a competing service - then they can choke off your data speed UNLESS you pay them more money.

SottoVoce · May 11, 2018, 2:04am

Call_me_Ishmael:

SottoVoce:

Call_me_Ishmael:

Samson_Corwell:

Except it isn’t like that.

tell us how it is

Here you go.

Bob pays Pipe Company X to deliver water to his house through their pipes. Pipe Company X doesn’t make the water, or have anything to do with its production, they just give Bob a way to get it to his house. If Bob wants more water each month, or wants it quicker, he pays Pipe Company X more since they’ll have to install and maintain additional pipes for Bob to get what he wants, and other customers to still get their water.

With “pipe neutrality,” if Bob decides he wants some of his water from Water Company A and some from Water Company B, he still only pays Pipe Company X for the use of their pipes and the volume/speed of water delivery. It’s the same cost to Pipe Company X to deliver the water from Water Company A as the water from Water Company B. Pipe Company X isn’t allowed to charge more for delivery, or limit the water from a specific water company.

After “pipe neutrality” is repealed, Pipe Company X continues to charge Bob based on the use of their pipes. However, Pipe Company X can now charge Bob more if he wants water from Water Company B. Furthermore, if Pipe Company X doesn’t particularly like Water Company B, they can limit or remove the ability of Bob to get water from them at all. It still costs Pipe Company X the same amount to deliver water from any company, but now they can pick and choose which water companies Bob will get his water from, and how much it’ll cost.

why should the government tell pipe company X how to do business?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3

Electricity deregulation is a close analogy to net neutrality in that there is a separation between the delivery infrastructure and the delivered product.

MidwestIndy · May 11, 2018, 2:10am

Just imagine what would happen when ISP (x) decides to throttle the bandwidth to say a www.hannity.com one day just because they can.

Call_me_Ishmael · May 11, 2018, 2:11am

I read fearmongering. Evil ISPs vs good altruistic gubmint.

SottoVoce · May 11, 2018, 2:17am

Maybe you could give us some examples of companies deciding not to charge more when given the opportunity to do so?

Or how about examples of what has happened in other countries without net neutrality rules?

tnt · May 11, 2018, 2:21am

that’s exactly what is going to happen.

tnt · May 11, 2018, 2:22am

this isn’t really guesswork. We have seen what happened in other countries without net neutrality laws. We also have seen how corporations react in our own country when given similar opportunities.

Call_me_Ishmael · May 11, 2018, 2:23am

Free market. I know… libs hate that “F” word.

SottoVoce · May 11, 2018, 2:29am

If “free market” means charging more for less service then yes, I’m anti “free market.”

Call_me_Ishmael · May 11, 2018, 2:30am

top round… $5/lb.
tenderloin…$12/lb.

SottoVoce · May 11, 2018, 2:35am

That analogy is completely off point.

An ISP doesn’t make internet content. It delivers the electrons that are the internet. All electrons cost the exact same to get to your house. An electron from Netflix doesn’t cost any more than one from hannity.com.

Call_me_Ishmael · May 11, 2018, 2:58am

but some are more in demand than others.

just stop it. You want the government to have the kind of control that naturally belongs to the owners. There are names for such a system and none of them sound like “capitalism”.

tnt · May 11, 2018, 2:59am

it’s not the owners that are charging more…it’s the conduits.

Call_me_Ishmael · May 11, 2018, 3:00am

elections have consequences

Call_me_Ishmael · May 11, 2018, 3:01am

the owners of the conduits…

why try to twist the truth and use euphemisms?

Call_me_Ishmael · May 11, 2018, 3:03am

“net neutrality”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

tnt · May 11, 2018, 3:05am

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

SottoVoce · May 11, 2018, 3:06am

Stop what? ISPs are not the owners of internet content. They should not be able to decide what content is available or how much it costs.

If the government decided what internet sites you could and couldn’t see, people would scream. If a private company does it, it’s just “free market” and that’s OK?

Let’s say your ISP is Comcast, an NBC company. Now let’s say Comcast wants to increase traffic to NBC news sites and limit competitors. You’re perfectly fine with Comcast charging you extra to go to Fox News? Or how about not letting you go there at all?

Hey, it’s a “free market.”

Call_me_Ishmael · May 11, 2018, 3:08am

libs are thinking “but it will be for the people”… “from each, to each”… a little socialism never hurt anyone.

But then do we the people start to take over the ISPs so that we all get what we want? Ummm no. This little oasis of socialism has to be created by government control that a has all the privilege and power of ownership. This little oasis of socialism sure looks and smells like the economic system called fascism… government ownership of industry.