OT: Net neutrality in danger again

[RUin2WIN]

For those who don't know big cable companies are lobbying the FCC. They hope to end net neutrality so they can force smaller sites to pay fees for visitors. This means the consumers will be charged a fee for each site they want to visit and it'll be reflected in your internet/cable package.

Click the link for more info and ways to voice your concern.
https://www.battleforthenet.com

 

[RU4Real]

For those who don't know big cable companies are lobbying the FCC. They hope to end net neutrality so they can force smaller sites to pay fees for visitors. This means the consumers will be charged a fee for each site they want to visit and it'll be reflected in your internet/cable package.

Click the link for more info and ways to voice your concern.
https://www.battleforthenet.com

Yeah... I'm gonna take the word of an anonymous web site whose ownership is hidden behind a shell corporation in Toronto.

 

[RUin2WIN]

Or you could stop being ignorant and do a little research of your own and see this has been an issue for many years. That website is also created by the founders of the website Reddit. Net neutrality is being fought for by companies like Netflix and Amazon. But by all means please continue to be disparaging for no reason.

 

[RU4Real]

I'm light years from ignorant on the subject. I've been at the forefront of this industry from Day 1. I just know the difference between the real issues and the bullshit ginned up to get clicks from the same people who think that someone is giving away RVs for free on Facebook.

 

[RUin2WIN]

Then you know that the issues that site brings up are in fact true. Ending net neutrality allows big telecom companies like verizon and comcast to be able to force smaller websites into paying fees. In turn that cost will work it's way back to the average consumer. So great maybe you know about it, but others aren't aware and they should be. Instead of coming here attacking a site that has been used in the past to fight the lobbying be constructive and offer other options.

 

[dconifer]

I'm with you on this, RUin2Win. It's easy to see what this debate is about when you look at who is on which side...

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Yeah... I'm gonna take the word of an anonymous web site whose ownership is hidden behind a shell corporation in Toronto.

you don't need to be an investigative genius to understand the implications of net neutrality, or it's demise.

that said, imo it's much less about just NN, and more about title II.

without title II classification, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and Charter, will be lords of the internet, and conduct themselves as so.

you think Facebook, Amazon, Google, are powerful, think again.

Facebook, Amazon, Google, could all disappear tomorrow and the net wouldn't skip a beat, and 3 months from now they'd be a distant memory.

if the infrastructure owners like Comcast are allowed to and want to screw with you, whether you're a user or site or support or browser or search engine or retailer, or whatever, then you are screwed.

without title II, you can use the Comcast partnered browser and search engine to go to the Comcast partnered retailer, or video site, or fan site, or friends network, or whatever.

they couldn't stop themselves from doing so, even if they wanted to.

Comcast, AT&T, etc, aren't people, they are things.

"Listen, and understand! That corporation is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear! And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until it controls every phase of the internet".

absolute power corrupts absolutely, and without title II you would eventually give absolute power to the guys who control the infrastructure.

and don't forget, not only do Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Charter, control the infrastructure, they also either outright own or outright control literally all the mainstream news.

thus the entities that outright control all the mainstream media would also outright control the entire internet they wish to control.

that's why you hear absolutely nothing about net neutrality or title II on MSNBC, CNN, Fox, EVER, and nothing but Russia Russia Russia 24/7, while the lead story going right now is totally and completely buried.

 

[DJ Spanky]

 

[cicero grimes]

Can I get the link for the free RV's they are giving away.

 

[Crazed_RU]

you don't need to be an investigative genius to understand the implications of net neutrality, or it's demise.

that said, imo it's much less about just NN, and more about title II.

without title II classification, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and Charter, will be lords of the internet, and conduct themselves as so.

you think Facebook, Amazon, Google, are powerful, think again.

Facebook, Amazon, Google, could all disappear tomorrow and the net wouldn't skip a beat, and 3 months from now they'd be a distant memory.

if the infrastructure owners like Comcast are allowed to and want to screw with you, whether you're a user or site or support or browser or search engine or retailer, or whatever, then you are screwed.

without title II, you can use the Comcast partnered browser and search engine to go to the Comcast partnered retailer, or video site, or fan site, or friends network, or whatever.

they couldn't stop themselves from doing so, even if they wanted to.

Comcast, AT&T, etc, aren't people, they are things.

"Listen, and understand! That corporation is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear! And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until it controls every phase of the internet".

absolute power corrupts absolutely, and without title II you would eventually give absolute power to the guys who control the infrastructure.

and don't forget, not only do Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Charter, control the infrastructure, they also either outright own or outright control literally all the mainstream news.

thus the entities that outright control all the mainstream media would also outright control the entire internet they wish to control.

that's why you hear absolutely nothing about net neutrality or title II on MSNBC, CNN, Fox, EVER, and nothing but Russia Russia Russia 24/7, while the lead story going right now is totally and completely buried.

OK John Connor.

 

[Crazed_RU]

New legislation is needed to manage this. Not legislation from 90 years ago.

http://corporate.comcast.com/comcas...day-of-action-comcast-supports-net-neutrality

 

[RU4Real]

New legislation is needed to manage this.

And that's all it comes down to.

The people who own the networks cannot be allowed to own the content that's on them. There needs to be a clear delineation of scope. Anything less will result in catastrophe.

The whole wail-n-bitch about "net neutrality" is a smoke screen. It nickel and dimes the issue. The issue is that telecom and content cannot coexist in the same organization to the benefit of the consumer.

 

[dconifer]

And that's all it comes down to.

The people who own the networks cannot be allowed to own the content that's on them. There needs to be a clear delineation of scope. Anything less will result in catastrophe.

The whole wail-n-bitch about "net neutrality" is a smoke screen. It nickel and dimes the issue. The issue is that telecom and content cannot coexist in the same organization to the benefit of the consumer.

RU4Rreal, I'm not quite sure what your position on this even now, although I don't doubt that you know a lot about the topic. Honest question: can you explain your comment that the wail-n-bitch about "net neutrality" is a smokescreen? Is the wail-n-bitch about something other than what you described in your next paragraph?

What do you think about allowing internet service providers to adjust prices and/or speed based on what the internet signal (sorry, can't think of the proper term) is being use used for?

 

[SouthJerseyRU]

I agree the laws should change, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't also contact the FCC and congress to let them know we disagree with the current enforcement of laws. If you don't like the link above, here's another one from the ALCU: https://www.aclu.org/net-neutralityAMA

For those that aren't well versed on this topic, an example of what could happen if net neutrality is reversed that is related to the Rutgers/Scarletnation corner of the Internet would be something like having to pay your ISP for specific access to this site or to scarletknights.com. Imagine in an non-net neutral world if the 3 biggest ISPs in NJ Comcast, Cablevision and Verizon got checks from the athletic departments of Penn State, OSU and Michichigan. With that money those schools said that everytime someone tries to go to scarletnights.com or scarletnation.com, slow down their connection or redirect them to our site. The ISP would take the money and say OK in a non-neutral world. As consumers we could then complain and the ISP could say, OK, pay me $5 more a month and I'll give you better access to those sites.

Obviously the above a contrived example, but it illustrates that people won't have a free path to choose their content and get their information.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

And that's all it comes down to.

The people who own the networks cannot be allowed to own the content that's on them. There needs to be a clear delineation of scope. Anything less will result in catastrophe.

The whole wail-n-bitch about "net neutrality" is a smoke screen. It nickel and dimes the issue. The issue is that telecom and content cannot coexist in the same organization to the benefit of the consumer.

finally you don't sound like a shill for big cable. agree completely.. the REASON that Big Cable is a threat to TRUE net neutrality is that PLAY multiple roles..

1) they are a high speed broadband provider, often the only one in a given municipality. And in New Jersey at least, they often lobby politicians to write laws to limit competition from start-up ISPs. Your development or town wants to run broadband itself? Sorry.. against the law.

2) they are a cable company, providing feeds from networks with which they make deals to buy content

3) they sell advertising on their cable channels... some of the ad time is the content providers to sell, some of it is the cable companies in most cases

4) they OWN some of these cable channels.. some of which compete with other channels they carry

5) in the case of at least comcast/xfinity.. they are a major content provider by owning NBC/Universal.. that's on the cable side.. on the IP side they own HULU.

So they have incentives all over the map to hurt their competition by slowing down internet traffic going to, say, netflix and drive people to Hulu which is lightning fast to their treasured broadband customers homes. Say Disney/ABC/ESPN demands more money per subscriber.. they not only suspend service to those channels on their cable.. they slow down the net traffic to their sites like ESPN3.

Net neutrality is something we should all care about as broadband customers. Of course, my solution is radical.. we treat the information highway like real highways. The public should own it all. Free gigabit broadband everywhere... seize cable infrastructure assets like they do private property.. for the public good. Use tax money to build it out.. employ a lot of people to do so. And assure net neutrality because the net infrastructure is owned by all of us.

EFF.org on Net Neutrality

 

[Crazed_RU]

finally you don't sound like a shill for big cable. agree completely.. the REASON that Big Cable is a threat to TRUE net neutrality is that PLAY multiple roles..

1) they are a high speed broadband provider, often the only one in a given municipality.

2) they are a cable company, providing feeds from networks with which they make deals to buy content

3) they sell advertising on their cable channels... some of the ad time is the content providers to sell, some of it is the cable companies in most cases

4) they OWN some of these cable channels.. some of which compete with other channels they carry

5) in the case of at least comcast/xfinity.. they are a major content provider by owning NBC/Universal.. that's on the cable side.. on the IP side they own HULU.

So they have incentives all over the map to hurt their competition by slowing down internet traffic going to, say, netflix and drive people to Hulu which is lightning fast to their treasured broadband customers homes. Say Disney/ABC/ESPN demands more money per subscriber.. they not only suspend service to those channels on their cable.. they slow down the net traffic to their sites like ESPN3.

Net neutrality is something we should all care about as broadband customers. Of course, my solution is radical.. we treat the information highway like real highways. The public should own it all. Free gigabit broadband everywhere... seize cable infrastructure assets like they do private property.. for the public good. Use tax money to build it out.. employ a lot of people to do so. And assure net neutrality because the net infrastructure is owned by all of us.

EFF.org on Net Neutrality

Do I get the same potholes, $18 fares to cross toll bridges, and 2 hour Rt 95 traffic jams that I get with "real highways". I don't disagree with some of your comments but regulation and letting the government handle it all as the solution to all the problems you list won't work either.

 

[Crazed_RU]

I agree the laws should change, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't also contact the FCC and congress to let them know we disagree with the current enforcement of laws. If you don't like the link above, here's another one from the ALCU: https://www.aclu.org/net-neutralityAMA

For those that aren't well versed on this topic, an example of what could happen if net neutrality is reversed that is related to the Rutgers/Scarletnation corner of the Internet would be something like having to pay your ISP for specific access to this site or to scarletknights.com. Imagine in an non-net neutral world if the 3 biggest ISPs in NJ Comcast, Cablevision and Verizon got checks from the athletic departments of Penn State, OSU and Michichigan. With that money those schools said that everytime someone tries to go to scarletnights.com or scarletnation.com, slow down their connection or redirect them to our site. The ISP would take the money and say OK in a non-neutral world. As consumers we could then complain and the ISP could say, OK, pay me $5 more a month and I'll give you better access to those sites.

Obviously the above a contrived example, but it illustrates that people won't have a free path to choose their content and get their information.

I don't believe that "net neutrality" is being reversed. Regulation under Title II is being reversed. What is needed is a new regulation passed based on modern times that protects all constituents and still allows for economic return on infrastructure investment. Unless you want to make internet service a utility. Which is a potential answer, but has it's own problems.

It's also funny how people are so anti ISP carriers, but have no problem putting their lot in with the equally powerful tech companies like Facebook, Google, etc. Like those companies have all us poor consumers best interests at heart.

 

[ashokan]

There are some alluring appeals in the net neutrality thing, but its really just another ginned-up crisis - a pre-desired solution looking for a problem to solve. The whole thing originates with sketchy characters who want gov to control the internet.

John Fund wrote about that in the WSJ, I have another link w/o the paywall

"The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney’s agenda? “At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies,” he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. “But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

A year earlier, Mr. McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that “any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself.”

With that foundation, a "movement" was strategically created.

"The “media reform” movement paid for research that backed its views, paid activists to promote the research, saw its allies installed in the FCC and other key agencies, and paid for the FCC research that evaluated the research they had already paid for. Now they have their policy. That’s quite a coup."

John Fund: The net neutrality coup
http://www.ocregister.com/2010/12/22/john-fund-the-net-neutrality-coup/

No surprise Obama admin worked hard to gain power over internet. The FCC's Ajit Pai is portrayed as a villian when he's a hero.

Don't think for a minute the gov wants control over internet to protect your freedom. Geez lol.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Do I get the same potholes, $18 fares to cross toll bridges, and 2 hour Rt 95 traffic jams that I get with "real highways". I don't disagree with some of your comments but regulation and letting the government handle it all as the solution to all the problems you list won't work either.

It doesn't solve all the problems.. it solves the dangers to net neutrality problem.

But if you believe IPTV is the way of the future, it takes power out of the hands of the cable companies and frees customers to find content where they will.. choose the winners and loser of content providers. You vote with your dollars. A percentage of which goes back to the government to pay for it all. Your "toll highway" example. There's gonna be potholes.. there are now.. s anyone who has lost internet for a few hours or days can attest.

BTW.. many countries with state-owned broadband infrastructure get faster broadband for less money than we do here int he USA.. on average. So, really, exactly what have the open market "competition" and cable companies done for us so that we should not consider such a thing?

And all that crap by ASHOKAN about the government wanting control of content.. they don't have it over TV broadcasts.. radio.. what makes you think they want it over broadband or would know what to do with it if they had it? If anything. that is the ginned-up argument. Really? Government provided broadband is a marxist threat? Where do you people get this stuff?

The UK has had nominal "control" over the BBC, Broadband, Radio, event the hospitals.. for decades and decades... and they have cameras everywhere in London.. any 1984 Big Brother totalitarianism breaking out there anytime soon?

 

[i'vegotwinners]

New legislation is needed to manage this. Not legislation from 90 years ago.

http://corporate.comcast.com/comcas...day-of-action-comcast-supports-net-neutrality

yes, of course Comcast and AT&T support net neutrality.

publicly anyway. wink wink

behind the scenes though, their puppet Ajit Pai leads us to believe otherwise.

if Comcast and AT&T really supported net neutrality, as their PR depts want us to believe, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[LC-88]

The government won't let their top surveillance tools Google and Facebook suffer. But woe to the little guys that will be priced or censored out of existence.

 

[vkj91]

Can I get the link for the free RV's they are giving away.

No wonder nobody wants to buy mine

 

[jmc11201]

I don't believe that "net neutrality" is being reversed. Regulation under Title II is being reversed. What is needed is a new regulation passed based on modern times that protects all constituents and still allows for economic return on infrastructure investment. Unless you want to make internet service a utility. Which is a potential answer, but has it's own problems.

It's also funny how people are so anti ISP carriers, but have no problem putting their lot in with the equally powerful tech companies like Facebook, Google, etc. Like those companies have all us poor consumers best interests at heart.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

Hummm...

A study by Maplight indicates that for every one comment submitted to the FCC on net neutrality (and there have been roughly 5 million so far), the telecom industry has spent $100 in lobbying to crush the open internet. The group found that Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) have spent $572 million on attempts to influence the FCC and other government agencies since 2008.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/...lion-to-Kill-Net-Neutrality-Since-2008-139931

 

[i'vegotwinners]

And that's all it comes down to.

The people who own the networks cannot be allowed to own the content that's on them. There needs to be a clear delineation of scope. Anything less will result in catastrophe.

The whole wail-n-bitch about "net neutrality" is a smoke screen. It nickel and dimes the issue. The issue is that telecom and content cannot coexist in the same organization to the benefit of the consumer.

while you're correct that they shouldn't be allowed to own content as well, banning them from "owning" content wouldn't fix the issues.

internet providers can extract that pound of flesh without ownership or equity interests.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Hummm...

A study by Maplight indicates that for every one comment submitted to the FCC on net neutrality (and there have been roughly 5 million so far), the telecom industry has spent $100 in lobbying to crush the open internet. The group found that Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) have spent $572 million on attempts to influence the FCC and other government agencies since 2008.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/...lion-to-Kill-Net-Neutrality-Since-2008-139931

i'll presume most of that has gone into campaign coffers.

that said, the cheapest road to big telecoms' goals is to just buy off the chiefs.

you mention the NCTA, (big cable's trade/lobbying association).

the NCTA is headed up by Michael Powell, (son of Colin). Michael Powell used to be Chairman of the FCC, and never met a merger he didn't like while chairman. (probably getting NBA type money now).

many other former commissioners hold similar type positions after leaving the FCC.

no doubt Ajit Pai sees a similar payday in his future.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

finally you don't sound like a shill for big cable. agree completely.. the REASON that Big Cable is a threat to TRUE net neutrality is that PLAY multiple roles..

1) they are a high speed broadband provider, often the only one in a given municipality. And in New Jersey at least, they often lobby politicians to write laws to limit competition from start-up ISPs. Your development or town wants to run broadband itself? Sorry.. against the law.

2) they are a cable company, providing feeds from networks with which they make deals to buy content

3) they sell advertising on their cable channels... some of the ad time is the content providers to sell, some of it is the cable companies in most cases

4) they OWN some of these cable channels.. some of which compete with other channels they carry

5) in the case of at least comcast/xfinity.. they are a major content provider by owning NBC/Universal.. that's on the cable side.. on the IP side they own HULU.

So they have incentives all over the map to hurt their competition by slowing down internet traffic going to, say, netflix and drive people to Hulu which is lightning fast to their treasured broadband customers homes. Say Disney/ABC/ESPN demands more money per subscriber.. they not only suspend service to those channels on their cable.. they slow down the net traffic to their sites like ESPN3.

Net neutrality is something we should all care about as broadband customers. Of course, my solution is radical.. we treat the information highway like real highways. The public should own it all. Free gigabit broadband everywhere... seize cable infrastructure assets like they do private property.. for the public good. Use tax money to build it out.. employ a lot of people to do so. And assure net neutrality because the net infrastructure is owned by all of us.

EFF.org on Net Neutrality

maybe we could just plant a joint in Brian Robert's car ashtray, stop him for an improper lane change, say we smell pot and do a search, and go all civil forfeiture on the entire empire.

you're on the right track though anyway.

while i don't believe in just taking it, we could go eminent domain and buy it in the greater good. (or several other roads to reach the same goal).

what needs done is divorcing infrastructure ownership/management/maintenance, from also being the internet provider. as well as divorcing provider and content.

let one company or govt entity do the infrastructure, and allow anyone who wants to be an isp lease space on the infrastructure.

 

[RU4Real]

while you're correct that they shouldn't be allowed to own content as well, banning them from "owning" content wouldn't fix the issues.

internet providers can extract that pound of flesh without ownership or equity interests.

Part of the problem is that content consumers want it both ways. They want to cut the cord and not pay Verizon, et al, for content delivery but they also don't want those same companies to charge for accessing content delivered on their IP networks.They're seeing their revenue projections go all sideways because the premium services are cutting deals with Amazon and Netflix, and their costs associated with network utilization have increased.

It's like everything else - if you want something really cool, you have to pay for it. I think that the network providers would be happy to restructure their pricing models in a number of different ways, but if one of those ways is to accommodate people who want to ditch their cable TV and get all their content over the IP network then you have to be prepared for the reality that your data plan is going to cost 100 bucks per connection.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I don't believe that "net neutrality" is being reversed. Regulation under Title II is being reversed. What is needed is a new regulation passed based on modern times that protects all constituents and still allows for economic return on infrastructure investment. Unless you want to make internet service a utility. Which is a potential answer, but has it's own problems.

It's also funny how people are so anti ISP carriers, but have no problem putting their lot in with the equally powerful tech companies like Facebook, Google, etc. Like those companies have all us poor consumers best interests at heart.

as i said above, without title II, there can be no net neutrality.

and the internet and cable should both be treated and regulated, including price regulation, as utilities, BECAUSE THEY ARE. (and what exactly are "it's own problems" you refer to)?

and if you can't see the difference between an isp and a .com, then you shouldn't be posting in this thread.

the difference between an isp and a .com, is the same as the difference between an interstate, and a business the interstate goes to.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Part of the problem is that content consumers want it both ways. They want to cut the cord and not pay Verizon, et al, for content delivery but they also don't want those same companies to charge for accessing content delivered on their IP networks.They're seeing their revenue projections go all sideways because the premium services are cutting deals with Amazon and Netflix, and their costs associated with network utilization have increased.

It's like everything else - if you want something really cool, you have to pay for it. I think that the network providers would be happy to restructure their pricing models in a number of different ways, but if one of those ways is to accommodate people who want to ditch their cable TV and get all their content over the IP network then you have to be prepared for the reality that your data plan is going to cost 100 bucks per connection.

that's total and complete BS and you know it.

no one is saying they shouldn't have to pay their isp for delivery.

they are saying the isp shouldn't be able to again charge the content provider for a delivery the content receiver has already paid for.

that would be like the water company charging you for the water to fill your pool, then charging the pool manufacturer for you using all that water.

 

[RU4Real]

that's total and complete BS and you know it.

no one is saying they shouldn't have to pay their isp for delivery.

they are saying the isp shouldn't be able to again charge the content provider for a delivery the content receiver has already paid for.

that would be like the water company charging you for the water to fill your pool, then charging the pool manufacturer for you using all that water.

No. What I'm saying is that right now, in much or most of our part of the world, your ISP and your cable company and your phone company are the same.

People don't want to pay to make phone calls. So the telcos have a flat rate for voice. It works for them because voice traffic is down and, routed over the IP networks they built to carry data, it's minimally impactful.

Now people have decided they don't want to pay for cable. That's a big part of a telco's revenue stream. They're gonna want it back. You can't possibly believe that everyone can throw off the yoke of Verizon's television tyranny and not expect to pay that money back to Verizon, somehow, for your data plan which is now delivering your favorite episodes of Game of Thrones.

And your analogy is ridiculous. It's not like that at all.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

No. What I'm saying is that right now, in much or most of our part of the world, your ISP and your cable company and your phone company are the same.

People don't want to pay to make phone calls. So the telcos have a flat rate for voice. It works for them because voice traffic is down and, routed over the IP networks they built to carry data, it's minimally impactful.

Now people have decided they don't want to pay for cable. That's a big part of a telco's revenue stream. They're gonna want it back. You can't possibly believe that everyone can throw off the yoke of Verizon's television tyranny and not expect to pay that money back to Verizon, somehow, for your data plan which is now delivering your favorite episodes of Game of Thrones.

And your analogy is ridiculous. It's not like that at all.

no, that's not what you said.

and my analogy was spot on, otherwise you could have pointed out the flaw in it, which you couldn't, so you didn't.

everything else you said was total BS as well.

it's not the responsibility of the internet subscriber to cover or subsidize any lost or dwindling revenues on the cable side by the provider.

especially when the cable provider flat refuses to unbundle the video package, and forces the cable sub to purchase far more than they want, in order to get the channels they do want.

again, we're talking about something that should be designated as a public utility, because it is.

you're trying to defend bad policy, so you could be the world's greatest debater, and you still couldn't win with the hand you're playing from.

 

[RU4Real]

no, that's not what you said.

and my analogy was spot on, otherwise you could have pointed out the flaw in it, which you couldn't, so you didn't.

everything else you said was total BS as well.

it's not the responsibility of the internet subscriber to cover or subsidize any lost or dwindling revenues on the cable side by the provider.

especially when the cable provider flat refuses to unbundle the video package, and forces the cable sub to purchase far more than they want, in order to get the channels they do want.

again, we're talking about something that should be designated as a public utility, because it is.

btw, you're getting your ass handed to you in this debate because you're attempting to support something that can't credibly be supported.

you could be the world's greatest debater, and you still couldn't win with the hand you're playing from.

You're a fussy little thing, aren't ya?

If the internet subscriber stops paying for cable content and, instead, consumes that same content over the IP network, then they will absolutely pay for it. You can argue against that simple fact all you want, but you'll be doing it in a vacuum, because I've wasted more than enough time on you.

You want something for nothing. Tough Titties, Teletubby. Ain't happenin'.

 

[StyleKnight]

Everyone needs to stand up for net neutrality. This is huge for small businesses. We do not want big telecom as the gatekeepers deciding who will be allowed to have access to their customers.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

You're a fussy little thing, aren't ya?

If the internet subscriber stops paying for cable content and, instead, consumes that same content over the IP network, then they will absolutely pay for it. You can argue against that simple fact all you want, but you'll be doing it in a vacuum, because I've wasted more than enough time on you.

You want something for nothing. Tough Titties, Teletubby. Ain't happenin'.

dude, you've really gone off on a tangent.

trying to change the subject are you?

if you want a discussion on the pricing of current cable nets migrated to the net, and without a current cable subscription for said channels, then that's a whole different subject.

but that's not what we're discussing here, and it has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality or title II.

 

[RU85inFla]

I'm light years from ignorant on the subject. I've been at the forefront of this industry from Day 1. I just know the difference between the real issues and the bullshit ginned up to get clicks from the same people who think that someone is giving away RVs for free on Facebook.

We have Al Gore in the house with us tonight. Welcome Al!!!

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Part of the problem is that content consumers want it both ways. They want to cut the cord and not pay Verizon, et al, for content delivery but they also don't want those same companies to charge for accessing content delivered on their IP networks.They're seeing their revenue projections go all sideways because the premium services are cutting deals with Amazon and Netflix, and their costs associated with network utilization have increased.

It's like everything else - if you want something really cool, you have to pay for it. I think that the network providers would be happy to restructure their pricing models in a number of different ways, but if one of those ways is to accommodate people who want to ditch their cable TV and get all their content over the IP network then you have to be prepared for the reality that your data plan is going to cost 100 bucks per connection.

You're right.. but not in the way you think.

Its more like NJ roads. We, the drivers and taxpayers, have already paid for the roads and for a trust fund to maintain those roads... but the politicians took those funds and bought votes and lined eachothers pockets with it.

The cable companies grew fat on sweetheart deals with municipalities.. designed to eliminate competition. They used the excessive profits to buy out the little guys and raise prices for customers. they built out infrastructure needed to grow their product lines (channels), which would produce more ad revenue and bought content producers.

Now their profit margins are in jeopardy.. so they want to change the rules.

Similarly.. the gas tax was in jeopardy from electric cars and telecommuting.. and jobs leaving the state along with the people who commute... so the politicians changed the rules... they raised the gas tax.

The politicians refuse to spend within their means and the cable companies want to avoid doing the same.... so they want to change the rules.

The want to OWN the internet like the old networks own the airwaves and like they own the cable broadcast in their geographic regions. Once they own it.. and destruction of net neutrality will do that.. you can expect rationalizations to raise broadband rates and at the same time Netflix and content distributors like it will have to pay the cablecos for access to their customers.... and that will mean they will raise rates.

 

[Wolv RU]

Everyone needs to stand up for net neutrality. This is huge for small businesses. We do not want big telecom as the gatekeepers deciding who will be allowed to have access to their customers.

Agreed. If the ISPs are struggling to keep up with bandwidth demands, they should just charge more for bandwidth usage. Charge $120 for internet service for someone who constantly streams video. That is an entirely separate concept from prioritizing some over others.

 

[Wolv RU]

There are some alluring appeals in the net neutrality thing, but its really just another ginned-up crisis - a pre-desired solution looking for a problem to solve. The whole thing originates with sketchy characters who want gov to control the internet.

John Fund wrote about that in the WSJ, I have another link w/o the paywall

"The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney’s agenda? “At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies,” he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. “But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

A year earlier, Mr. McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that “any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself.”

With that foundation, a "movement" was strategically created.

"The “media reform” movement paid for research that backed its views, paid activists to promote the research, saw its allies installed in the FCC and other key agencies, and paid for the FCC research that evaluated the research they had already paid for. Now they have their policy. That’s quite a coup."

John Fund: The net neutrality coup
http://www.ocregister.com/2010/12/22/john-fund-the-net-neutrality-coup/

No surprise Obama admin worked hard to gain power over internet. The FCC's Ajit Pai is portrayed as a villian when he's a hero.

Don't think for a minute the gov wants control over internet to protect your freedom. Geez lol.

Urging people to support or not support something just because the people associated with it may be wrong on other issues is not very convincing. It is possible for a person to be wrong on 99 issues but right on the 100th, even if that is by accident.

The problem is that there is still going to be government control even without net neutrality due to the monopolies on the infrastructure. If NN is eliminated and people have a choice to use or not use those that adopt a new prioritization policy that is one thing, but it does not seem that this will be the result.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

If NN is eliminated and people have a choice to use or not use those that adopt a new prioritization policy that is one thing, but it does not seem that this will be the result.

Agreed. If you are a comcast customer in New Jersey.. you have.at most, a 50-50 chance of having the option of switching to FIOS. Otherwise, for high speed broadband, you are locked into Comcast.. or Cablevision.. or.. whoever. And when they make a decision to throttle Netflix until Netflix pays them X dollars per subscriber.. they make that decision for their subscribers who now cannot access Netflix as intended.... even though they may be buying some upgraded speed internet from Comcast or whoever is their cable/IP provider.

Now for Rutgers fans.. think of that as BTN being extorted or suffer throttling to NJ cable/broadband subscribers.

With NN.. the relationship between customer and IP is clear. Sure, they can charge more for more bandwidth use.. or throttle use at some point. But the problem for cablecos is that they are also competing with mobile providers as 4G LTE becomes 5G LTE. And many of those providers do throttle at some point.. but how long will it be fore they can provide no-limit high speed bandwidth and LTE hotspots customers cna boot the cablecos from their homes completely?

But.. there you have competitors with aligned interests... both mobile providers and cablecos would love to boot NN and start charging the Netflix of the world for access to their customers. And that's another reason to preserve NN in US LAW.