cpldingo said
How about instead of three paragraphs of bullshit, just tell me the point of your post.

Or you could develop reading comprehension since you are on a website that's primarily about reading and writing stories with other people. If you think that post was too long for you to read, I have really bad news for you. Tick could probably tell you, and it would still go over your head.

In other news, don't be a jackass. It isn't hard, honest.

On topic, it's really only a matter of time before net neutrality is a long forgotten pipe dream. People are already fine with publishing every minute detail of their life on social networking sites, and some companies actually scan your face when you go into their stories and run your picture through Facebook so they can send you promotions. Nothing in those links surprises me, at all. The internet isn't really a private place anymore and you can bet if there's money to be made, big companies are going to lobby to get their paws into it, even if it means your rights are being trampled in the process.

The Nexerus said
Ask yourself this question.Why doesn't McDonalds charge $20 for a cheeseburger?Answer it, and you'll have my response to that post.

Because, if they charge 20 dollars for a cheeseburger, everyone would go to other fast food restaurants (that are cheap and good) or make their own (for a whole lot cheaper).

The Nexerus said
Ask yourself this question.Why doesn't McDonalds charge $20 for a cheeseburger?Answer it, and you'll have my response to that post.

This example doesn't work for the main reason that wherever McDonalds is, there is another restaurant of comparable calibre nearby.

There are many areas in the States where there is only one or two ISP's. It's a monopoly or duopoly, and nothing stops them from charging whatever they want to, except maybe a cleverly worded law suit...

...And at this rate, even that will be a joke.

In other words, government created a problem it now has to solve.

So Boerd said
In other words, government created a problem it now has to solve.

Not government. The government had nothing to do with the inevitable failure of the free market in this case to stop a snowball effect with corporations. Though it certainly isn't helping the point by killing net neutrality. Then again, I'm pretty sure everyone knows by now that the States' government is heavily corrupted/influenced by corporations... Hm...

Brovo said
This example doesn't work for the main reason that wherever McDonalds is, there is another restaurant of comparable calibre nearby.There are many areas in the States where there is only one or two ISP's. It's a monopoly or duopoly, and nothing stops them from charging whatever they want to, except maybe a cleverly worded law suit......And at this rate, even that will be a joke.

Oddly enough, some of those monolpolies are enacted by local ordnances.

Brovo said
This example doesn't work for the main reason that wherever McDonalds is, there is another restaurant of comparable calibre nearby.There are many areas in the States where there is only one or two ISP's. It's a monopoly or duopoly, and nothing stops them from charging whatever they want to, except maybe a cleverly worded law suit......And at this rate, even that will be a joke.

In a static economy that's a problem. In the states though, that's just more incentive for new companies to move in and make a better buck. Heck, we practically committed genocide over gold in the black hills, imagine what we'll do for Netflix in Wyoming.

.... ultimately what happens here is companies accounting for high bandwidth transfers are going to be accountable in *more* equitable amounts for the traffic they generate. The FCC has been falsely propping up Netflix, by preventing TimeWarner from charging them a fair rate. It's a market inefficiency. Removing these is almost always beneficial in the long run, though I can't say I'm excited for my UltraHD streaming account to get a price boost. Frankly, 'Net Neutrality' was probably complicit in the extinction of Blockbuster -- the corporations do frequently lose, after all.

mdk said
In a static economy that's a problem. In the states though, that's just more incentive for new companies to move in and make a better buck. Heck, we practically committed genocide over gold in the black hills, imagine what we'll do for Netflix in Wyoming..... ultimately what happens here is companies accounting for high bandwidth transfers are going to be accountable in *more* equitable amounts for the traffic they generate. The FCC has been falsely propping up Netflix, by preventing TimeWarner from charging them a fair rate. It's a market inefficiency. Removing these is almost always beneficial in the long run, though I can't say I'm excited for my UltraHD streaming account to get a price boost. Frankly, 'Net Neutrality' was probably complicit in the extinction of Blockbuster -- the corporations do frequently lose, after all.

I really want to believe it, but there's not a lot of precedent for that.

Turtlicious said
I really want to believe it, but there's not a lot of precedent for that.

True. Idunno. I live in a rural area of New Mexico where there's basically no coverage from Verizon or AT&T, and the only internet when I moved here (about three years ago) was Comcast. But a local-ish company called Yucca sprouted up, using basically a gigantic wi-fi; they got enough business to upgrade to fiber, so Comcast had to follow suit. Now Dish Network is in the game with crazy-cheap no-installation high speed, so all the prices are falling. In this area, everything's working as it should. In other areas, though, local municipalities signed deals with the big companies to save money, and now that's screwing everybody out of FiOS. I mean.... shit happens. I generally hang my hat on the less-regulated peg, so obviously any time an FCC thing comes down, I'm inclined to be happy, but there's probably no sure way of saying how this comes out. I have some faith in the invisible hand, but it's only faith.

mdk said
True. Idunno. I live in a rural area of New Mexico where there's basically no coverage from Verizon or AT&T, and the only internet when I moved here (about three years ago) was Comcast. But a local-ish company called Yucca sprouted up, using basically a gigantic wi-fi; they got enough business to upgrade to fiber, so Comcast had to follow suit. Now Dish Network is in the game with crazy-cheap no-installation high speed, so all the prices are falling. In this area, everything's working as it should. In other areas, though, local municipalities signed deals with the big companies to save money, and now that's screwing everybody out of FiOS. I mean.... shit happens. I generally hang my hat on the less-regulated peg, so obviously any time an FCC thing comes down, I'm inclined to be happy, but there's probably no sure way of saying how this comes out. I have some faith in the invisible hand, but it's only faith.

That's rare, if it even happens. Typically the cable company like Comcast or Time Warner, etc., are the only provider in the area. Or, like in my area, all the providers offer essentially the same service for the same price, leaving no real alternatives. Not too many providers can actually get off the ground and manage to continue undercutting the big guys' prices in a rural area.

mdk said .... ultimately what happens here is companies accounting for high bandwidth transfers are going to be accountable in *more* equitable amounts for the traffic they generate. The FCC has been falsely propping up Netflix, by preventing TimeWarner from charging them a fair rate. It's a market inefficiency. Removing these is almost always beneficial in the long run, though I can't say I'm excited for my UltraHD streaming account to get a price boost. Frankly, 'Net Neutrality' was probably complicit in the extinction of Blockbuster -- the corporations do frequently lose, after all.

Except that's not what Net Neutrality is there for. Net Neutrality stops ISPs from extorting money from websites and creating a fast lane of traffic that only paying websites are served on. So you know how Youtube, Vimeo, Vine, Megavideo and a bunch of other video sites exist, all competing on the same, basic premise of user-uploaded videos? Now imagine that the ISPs can charge websites for fast lane access, now only the richest companies can pay. In this world, Vimeo manages to start up, but Youtube doesn't, nor does Vine, so now all your video watching takes place on Vimeo. Vimeo has an incentive to continue to have a stranglehold on the marketplace, they need the money to pay for the ISP's racketeering scheme, so if you happen to run afoul of one of Vimeo's policies, or you don't care for their website, that's just too damn bad. Any alternative site is going to be slow and laggy because they can't afford to pay, and users will gravitate away from them and back to Vimeo whenever they get tired of the slower speeds.

It's not that Net Neutrality is propping up the market, it's that Net Neutrality is preserving the market. Why should the ISPs be in control of what content gets served or not? Their purpose is no different than a telephone company providing phone service, an electric company providing power or a water company providing running water. None of the other utilities care how you use their service, or how much you use it; you just get charged based on how much you do use it. The ISPs are the same, they're simply dumb pipes conveying the content of the internet, but the FCC and the US Government is just too fucking scared to call them that. Until or unless they do, Net Neutrality is nothing but a pipe dream.

Brovo said
Not government. The government had nothing to do with the inevitable failure of the free market in this case to stop a snowball effect with corporations. Though it certainly isn't helping the point by killing net neutrality. Then again, I'm pretty sure everyone knows by now that the States' government is heavily corrupted/influenced by corporations... Hm...

Government gave the de jure monopolies. Which is a giant problem. But otherwise, you are right, Government is corrupt. I get so tired of hearing people say the government is corrupt and then hearing from the same people that it needs to be bigger. The bigger government is, the more reason Corporations and the Rich have to pump money in it. And who is government going to listen to? The people with money. The three richest people in America want government bigger for a reason.

Brovo said
This example doesn't work for the main reason that wherever McDonalds is, there is another restaurant of comparable calibre nearby.There are many areas in the States where there is only one or two ISP's. It's a monopoly or duopoly, and nothing stops them from charging whatever they want to, except maybe a cleverly worded law suit......And at this rate, even that will be a joke.

In which case economic obstructions should be removed to allow for a more lively economic playground in aforementioned states.

Is there is anything we can actually do, besides complaining about it?

Captain Jordan said That's rare, if it even happens. Typically the cable company like Comcast or Time Warner, etc., are the only provider in the area. Or, like in my area, all the providers offer essentially the same service for the same price, leaving no real alternatives. Not too many providers can actually get off the ground and manage to continue undercutting the big guys' prices in a rural area.

I know. The history isn't great. But historically we've been operating under Net Neutrality, so it's not a great predictor of what's going to happen next. A startup company is able to tailor their services a little bit more now..... will they? Will anyone go for it? I guess we'll find out.

Except that's not what Net Neutrality is there for. Net Neutrality stops ISPs from extorting money from websites and creating a fast lane of traffic that only paying websites are served on. (...)

What it's there for and what it does, sometimes, are two different things. I mean..... How many web companies are there now, which aren't owned by Google or Facebook, right? If you're worried about a few megacorps taking over the web, no need -- that's already happened. So... if the purpose of Neutrality was to prevent that, then Neutrality isn't working very well.

Why should the ISPs be in control of what content gets served or not?

My understanding is that ISPs are going to be allowed to charge websites based on the traffic they generate (a cost that will ultimately get passed on to the end user, which sucks). It can certainly be characterized as 'Now Comcast gets to decide what websites it shows,' and that's a valid concern. I could also characterize it, just as accurately, as 'Now startup.com isn't paying the same price as YouTube to deliver its content.' Which is fantastic for the startups. Now, which is going to happen more? Easy -- the one we, as subscribers, support with our money. The only barrier (and it's a real one) is that some rural areas don't have great selection in ISP, so it's not a perfect competition and some of the shitty providers are going to have an advantage starting out, but ultimately this is a better answer. Maybe. Again, we'll have to wait and see.

mdk said
My understanding is that ISPs are going to be allowed to charge websites based on the traffic they generate (a cost that will ultimately get passed on to the end user, which sucks). It can certainly be characterized as 'Now Comcast gets to decide what websites it shows,' and that's a valid concern. I could also characterize it, just as accurately, as 'Now startup.com isn't paying the same price as YouTube to deliver its content.' Which is for the startups. Now, which is going to happen more? Easy -- the one we, as subscribers, support with our money. The only barrier (and it's a real one) is that some rural areas don't have great selection in ISP, so it's not a perfect competition and some of the shitty providers are going to have an advantage starting out, but ultimately this is a better answer. Maybe. Again, we'll have to wait and see.

Except, the opposite is likely to happen. If startup.com isn't paying Comcast, why should Comcast serve traffic to startup.com faster than YouTube? YouTube is paying for the privilege of faster traffic, so it will get preferential speed, versus startup.com which can't afford to be in the fast lane.

Your example depends on ISPs tolerating websites until they begin to incur more difficult performance for the ISP. However, you know as well as I do that corporations are greedy, why should startup.com get to hook into the Internet for free when YouTube has to pay? There would be nothing that stops ISPs (except the FCC's bluff, which you can't really count on to save the Internet anymore) from charging both Startup.com and Youtube, and relegating anyone who couldn't pay to the frontage roads and pothole-filled streets of the Internet, rather than the speedy expressways.

Captain Jordan said
Except, the opposite is likely to happen. If startup.com isn't paying Comcast, why should Comcast serve traffic to startup.com faster than YouTube? YouTube is paying for the privilege of faster traffic, so it will get preferential speed, versus startup.com which can't afford to be in the fast lane. Your example depends on ISPs tolerating websites they begin to incur more difficult performance for the ISP. However, you know as well as I do that corporations are greedy, why should startup.com get to hook into the Internet for free when YouTube has to pay? There would be nothing that stops ISPs (except the FCC's bluff, which you can't really count on to save the Internet anymore) from charging Startup.com and Youtube, and relegating anyone who couldn't pay to the frontage roads and pothole-filled streets of the Internet, rather than the speedy expressways.

That's what we're here for. If we want to access new sites we're going to subscribe to the ISPs that don't lock them out. Corporations are greedy, so if we want access, they'll sell it to us -- that's the only way to make a profit off us saps. Nobody makes money by refusing to sell us the things we want, so I don't think it's likely to happen. The question is going to be whether or not our demand is sufficient to drive the business. From all the uproar, it doesn't seem like that's going to be an issue -- but that's only speculation.

mdk said
That's what we're here for. If we want to access new sites we're going to subscribe to the ISPs that don't lock them out. Corporations are greedy, so if we want access, they'll sell it to us -- that's the only way to make a profit off us saps. Nobody makes money by refusing to sell us the things we want, so I don't think it's likely to happen. The question is going to be whether or not our demand is sufficient to drive the business. From all the uproar, it doesn't seem like that's going to be an issue -- but that's only speculation.

That's going to be very difficult when there's only one ISP in your area.

Captain Jordan said
That's going to be very difficult when there's only one ISP in your area.

To add onto this.

One ISP that can easily strangle hold all the lines.

Remember: They have to pay for every mile of line they put down, and then maintain and upgrade those lines to keep up to standards, then try to expand to other locations, all on rural funding?

Atop this, rural funding where they have to compete with Comcast or Time Warner?

It's just not realistic.

Captain Jordan said
That's going to be very difficult when there's only one ISP in your area.

I assume that the rural areas aren't going to be driving the market (they never are, or they wouldn't be called 'rural.') ComCast isn't going to make much money if the only people they can extort are Nevada moisture farmers. They're going to have to structure their service to fit the whole national demand, or they're not going to make any money.

Remember -- Dish can sell you high-speed internet without burying a single cable. So can Verizon, Sprint, AT&T.... we're really not that deadlocked anymore. We've got pretty good networks going up all over, and if there's an increased demand for new networks, that's only going to accelerate the process of development.

There's not much point in guessing about it though. In five years when the internet hasn't collapsed, we'll all know that I was right. Or you'll disappear from my life, and I won't have to admit that I was wrong.

Vox has an excellent article today on what this new era of the Internet looks like in regards to Net Neutrality: http://www.vox.com/2014/5/2/5665890/beyond-net-neutrality-the-new-battle-for-the-future-of-the-internet