5 Replies to “The best explanation for Net Neutrality I have seen.”

  1. Miguel, I beg to differ. I support net neutrality. What worries me is that new startups won’t have the ability to compete with existing companies because existing companies will be able to buy faster access.

    Say you come up with a better streaming site, one to take on YouTube. You don’t censor you videos, or demonetize gun vids or anything else. You launch it but every one of your videos takes 10 minutes to load because YouTube has purchased all the streaming video bandwidth. You don’t have the ability to compete on equal footing.

    It allows existing websites and internet providers to act as a cartel to freeze out competition by deliberately slowing down un-favored competitors.

    It would be like Starbucks buying all the trucks in America and making deliveries to independent coffeehouses go by horse drawn cart.

    I don’t like anything that can lend itself to a monopoly or cartel.




    0



    2
    1. Ending net neutrality Would work out if the majority of America was not under a ISP monopoly. As it is it is the only thing protecting people from being extorted by their local ISPs.Ending net neutrality would allow local ISP to double charge for services allready paid for. I allready paid for the bandwith, charging me extra because it is something I want is extortion. It is none of their business what i want do do with the internet connection I already paid for.The current system allows for peak time charges as well as bandwith limits both of these solutions could deal with the addressed problems without makeing it their business what I am doing the bandwith I paid for. The fault lies with the unrealistic system of charging people for theoretical maximum bandwidth speed rather than a guaranteed minium speed with a bandwith total.
      They are using the current priceing system to hide the fact they aren’t moving to improve their infiltructure until the old one wears out. They are just upping the individual bandwith caps on their routers every few years to justify their price increases, by selling theoretical maximums they can push the blame on to the customers for using to much bandwith rather then admit they are over selling what their network can realistically handle.




      0



      0
  2. One comment I saw was “it will be legal for ISPs to charge more to post to social media”. Sure….just like it is legal for mobile phone companies to charge more to call certain numbers. And since it’s legal to change to a company that doesn’t do that, I’m unaware of any company that does.




    0



    0
    1. And until the monopoly ISPs have on their respective regions is ended there will be no free market regulation. Net neutrality is necessary because those monopolies are allowed to exist. Right now internet consumers have little more choice then telephone users did in the days of Ma Bell, once one can choose between ISPs like they can choose between cell providers or parcel delivery services net neutrality will be unnecessary.




      0



      0
  3. As a guy who works in IT and deals with the telecom providers at the top level with peering agreements, this is completely wrong.

    It would be much more accurate of you have two different post office but both are housed in the same building and the same guys run both of them. Plus there will never be another company for mail delivery as the government has granted them an exclusive monopoly in your area (one by cable one by phone).

    When you go to ship your package, the guy looks up where it is going and says, “Sorry this address isn’t in your service package for mail. If you want to ship to this address you have to buy all these things you don’t want and it will cost you triple.” Something like that.

    Basically, the companies will be able to slice and dice the internet into tons of little segments and charge you a fortune to access them. Oh, you like Netflix, more money. There is a new technology that allows something neat but we don’t want to compete with it and want you to use our service, so we will restrict it and slow it to crawl while steering people to our services instead. Want to make a new company, well people won’t be able to reach you instead you pay for “service availability” to all the different providers.

    It won’t be the consumers getting to pay for a fast lane for better service, an individual person doesn’t have the purchasing power to get anything. It will be the providers making a “racket” that companies have to pay so that people will be able to reach them unless that company is big enough that people would through a fit not being able to reach. Getting rid of net neutrality is going to allow the telecom to suck tons of money out of people’s pockets and offer no benefit. With them operating as monopoly they don’t have to compete and wish to operate at monopoly pricing.

    This change will be horrible for the good of the Internet. If you are outside the business you just don’t know how truly horrible dealing with the telecom operators is.




    0



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .