SO WHATs WRONG WITH NET NEUTRALITY??

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

NetFlix would not be constrained though. They would pay the service providers for more rapid access to their customers.

Yes, and they would pass on the extra costs to their customers. So we would end up essentially paying the Internet Provider twice. Or rather, paying extra for every service out there that could afford to pay the toll. Without Net Neutrality, Internet providers could also choose to block or throttle any data they didn't like... Let's just pick one at random for example... let's say... Gun Shows for example.

oralloy wrote:

The people that Net Neutrality truly helps are those who use lots of bandwidth without being able to pay for it -- downloads of pirated movies over Bit Torrent for example.

Bit Torrent users never exceed the bandwidth that they pay for. Actually, nobody ever exceeds the bandwidth they pay for.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Yes, and they would pass on the extra costs to their customers.

That would put the cost of the massive bandwidth use directly on the people who were using the massive bandwidth.

rosborne979 wrote:

So we would end up essentially paying the Internet Provider twice.

People will pay more regardless. If internet service providers can't bill places like NetFlix, internet providers will increase the bills to home consumers.

If internet service providers don't charge enough money to support the infrastructure required for widespread high definition video downloads, they'll go out of business. Someone somewhere will always have to pay the bill for all of this bandwidth.

rosborne979 wrote:

Without Net Neutrality, Internet providers could also choose to block or throttle any data they didn't like... Let's just pick one at random for example... let's say... Gun Shows for example.

I've heard those arguments, but they are scare mongering. If Net Neutrality only banned such practices, there would be no opposition from the industry.

rosborne979 wrote:

Bit Torrent users never exceed the bandwidth that they pay for. Actually, nobody ever exceeds the bandwidth they pay for.

Yes, but most Bit Torrent users would not be able to pay for expanded bandwidth, whereas NetFlix would be able to pay (and as you say pass the costs on to the customers).

So if internet providers were able to limit massive downloads unless a website paid more for the privilege, NetFlix would not be harmed, but torrents of pirated movies would be throttled.

It would likely also limit the prevalence of large YouTube videos. YouTube might limit free uploads to 720P and charge money for higher resolution uploads. But I'm sure we can all manage if our kitten videos are limited to 720P.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

These are basically the arguments that the Internet Service providers use. The Net Neutrality issue is actually very complex. And while I agree with the concept of Net Neutrality at a high level, and I ultimately agree with the recent FCC ruling, that's not to say that it's a perfect solution. At the moment, no side can offer a perfect solution, so I find myself agreeing with the concept of Net Neutrality in principle while recognizing risks in the implementation.

The main problem I have with the argument presented from the ISP's is that they are inconsistent with their profit margins and with successful implementations in many other countries. Second to that is the fact that they are essentially monopolies and they have continued to exploit their monopoly status to try to reduce competition.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/south-carolina-internet-laws-broadband_n_1644579.html

Quote:

The laws, and the lawmakers who support them, are backed by major Internet providers trying to limit competition, even though they don't serve rural areas with high-speed Internet, said Mitchell. "The only threat of competition they face comes from local governments deciding to build their own networks, so they’re trying to stop that," he said.

The ISP arguments are also peppered with specious truisms like this one:

oralloy wrote:

If internet service providers don't charge enough money to support the infrastructure required for widespread high definition video downloads, they'll go out of business. Someone somewhere will always have to pay the bill for all of this bandwidth.

In which they make a high level business statement which is obviously true in theory but which glosses over the fact that they make plenty of money to build a high speed functional infrastructure.

Arguments like that, and multiple instances where they try to block competition, show me that they are disingenuous.

0 Replies

SO WHATs WRONG WITH NET NEUTRALITY??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know