No I’m not OK with it. I want to pay less and watch what I want.
But I don’t own the distribution system so I have to suck it up. And knowing that the alternative is NOT a free system but a government controlled one, it will make it easier for me to accept it as the lesser of two undesirable choices.
They already get paid for distribution. Now they’d be given the ability to dictate what content they distribute and how much it will cost. Even though they don’t make the content and there is no cost difference to them.
I’m guessing you don’t really understand the concept of government-granted monopolies. You see the issue of Net Neutrality hits at the very core of the free market because in nearly every market across the country there IS NOT a free market when it comes to internet service.
Indeed most municipalities grant monopolies to common carriers such as landline telephone, cable companies, etc because who really wants to see 10 different lines going across a pole through a neighborhood to carry essentially the same service. Same is true for buried lines where the risk is to tear up the streets 2x, 3x, 10x times every time there is a problem.
In most markets you have ONE and at most TWO different options when it comes to internet service. Cable and DSL. Sure you could use Satellite service if you are really bold and want to pay a crap load of money. And yes Wireless call data is sort of an option but you’ll be throttled by your wireless carrier to 3G or less speeds even on unlimited plans after so many GBs.
So you can spout off all the free market rhetoric as you want but it doesn’t apply in this market segment because of logistics. Given that dynamic in the world of capitalism and exactly what SottoVoce was speaking to, ISPs are NOT going to ever lower the cost of service because they have no competition. What they did have up until now due to regulation was a barrier to them increasing the end user cost just because 1 service used more bandwidth than another. Without NN, these ISPs WILL charge providers more to carry their content and those providers WILL charge you more to use their product. In the end the consumer loses.
But if you feel like being the ritualistic sacrifice who willingly pays more for something based on a false principal be my guest. I choose not to.
You don’t even have the slightest idea what you are talking about in this field, I on the other hand do because it’s my chosen line of work.
sounds like they made a good choice to get into that business. I wish I had.
But choices have consequences too.
Sorry… I want that junkyard dog called “Gubmint” to be mean but on a short leash. I could just sic that ole dog on everyone that has something I want. But I’m wiser than that. Mean dog. Short leash.
Evil choice 1 - A private company gets the ability to dictate what I can and can’t access on the internet, how much various content will cost, and still charge for the delivery.
Evil choice 2 - The government tells a private company they can charge whatever it wants for delivery, but can’t dictate what content I will see, or charge extra for certain content. The system we’ve basically had since the advent of the modern internet.
thats because as usual you haven’t a clue about what you are talking about. Bet you won’t be as cavalier when it takes you 30 seconds to load a page from here because your ISP doesn’t like dear host.
it is not a good way to start a post if you really wanted me to read it.
Get over it. June is coming.
If libs did not make careers out of fear mongering, there might be some reason to stop and listen. But the fear mongering of everything from climate, to Trump, to the internet, to nuclear war with Iran or Korea, to Russian election meddling…
I didn’t realize MAGA meant paying more for less so that private companies can tell me what I can and can’t see. I guess it’s nice to know someone will go to bed with a great big free market capitalism smile on their face. You might be priced out or blocked by your ISP from posting your satisfaction here, but a few of us will remember.
It isn’t fear mongering it’s reality, and I didn’t expect you to read it because you are incapable of understanding it anyway. You just comment wherever you feel like despite have absolutely no concept or expertise in the a particular subject matter, it’s your MO.
Fortunately by the time the next presidential election rolls around maybe two, the effects of this stupid ass idea that ISPs are going to do anything positive for their consumers will have set in and people will figure it out.
Comcast was posting all over the place their “support” for net neutrality, until the last FCC chair announced he was going to do away with it. Not sure how anybody believed that one. They were literally one of the reasons the regs were created in the first place.
On the other hand, net neutrality is a very heavy handed method of regulation. If things reach an abusive level, there are less heavy handed regulations that could be enacted. Heavy regulation should NEVER be a first resort. If regulation is required, at the very least it should be implemented narrowly and incrementally.
I’ve always respected and took interest in your point of view on a lot of topics particularly legal ones to which you offer subperb insight into. In this case though I feel that you may be underestimating the gravity of how these ISPs did operate and will operate without appropriate regulation.
It isn’t a matter of “If things reach an abusive level” That already did before which is what prompted the FCC to do what they did under the Obama administration and by and large it was highly successful. Now we want to do a 180 and expect it will be so much different this time around. I think you are intelligent enough to know exactly what happens under those circumstances.
The NN regulations at least in my opinion where in fact narrow. Simple stated, you can’t throttle content based on what it is. You agree to provide a certain amount of bandwidth to customers, what they watch is there business. Just because one providers uses more of that bandwidth than other doesn’t mean you should charge them more to deliver it to the customer and then charge the customer more. That is pretty much like someone order a pie from you, you deliver the pie to your customer, at the same time you cut out a slice for yourself eat it, and then you add a couple of dollar on top of the producers shipping cost and put that in your bank to.
