Why shouldn’t the bandwidth hog watching YouTube and Netflix streaming movies pay more than the lurker just reading the SDMB?
No different than the toll road owner charging more for vehicles with multiple axels and less for those with only two.
That’s true, but thus far Congress has taken a fairly dim view of the FCC’s position regarding neutrality. They are unlikely to expand the FCC’s power in this way.
I already provided a cite in the Great DEbates thread, but for the sake of completeness here it is again: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/23/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20130823
Competition requires choice. Without any real choice, it’s a meaningless slogan.
Huh? When did Verizon acquire Redbox? I thought Redbox was owned by the company that also owns Coinstar.
No one has any issues with that. But why should a person streaming video from Netflix pay more than someone streaming video from their cable company’s streaming service? Why should someone using Skype pay more per minute than someone using their ISP’s proprietary VOIP service? That is the sort of behavior net neutrality is designed to prevent: discrimination (either in price or in allowed bandwidth allotted to the service) based not simply on the nature or the amount of data being used, but on the source of that data.
Assuming you are buying your highspeed internet connection from your cable provider, they may want to charge you a higher price for using more internet bandwidth to stream on Netflix to incentivize you to use their pay per view service. You then have the option of switching internet service providers if you don’t like it.
So instead I can go to my local DSL provider who will charge me more to use anything other than their PPV service? This is an improvement how?
Of course they fought it, just like they’re fighting net neutrality. Either way they’re going to fight it but at least we have some success with competition laws. Why not try it with ISPs?
You mean the government’s hands (they will, after all, pass the laws). Aren’t you afraid of lobbying? What about the NSA?
I posted a link that showed that 78% of Americans have a choice. Even so, if choice is a problem let’s foster more choice!
When I go to my local grocery store chain I pay less for store-brand items than national brand items. Is that any different? The reason I like competition over bureaucracy is that competition gives people a choice. Some people would rather pay less for an ISP that favors the ISP’s streaming service over others, some people would rather pay more for unfettered access.
Except that I’m not using more bandwidth by streaming on Netflix versus the cable provider’s streaming service (assuming the same movie at the same level of definition).
Not a real choice in most areas, unfortunately.
And as Wolfpup showed in the other thread, that ‘choice’ is more theoretical than actual in most cases. But I’d be all for more real choice, certainly. Breaking up the cable company monopoly/duopoly that prevails in most places would be a fine thing.
Are all your local grocery stores engaging in price collusion? Do they point-blank refuse to carry brands other than their store brand or generic brand? Yes, the situation is different, because the options US consumers currently have when it comes to broadband access are vastly different.
Seems ‘bought’ is the wrong word, apologies. A joint venture between Verizon and Redbox, but the point of the post stands.
The separation of carriers and providers needs to happen, or we will all suffer in the end via higher prices, more expensive services, and less choices.
AEREO is so fucked right now.
Well, it was nice while it lasted. 
*We *don’t necessarily have success with competition- but the ISPs will. This ruling is a complete victory for them, not for us. That’s why they fought so hard for it. They didn’t do it so they could give us better, or cheaper, service- they did it so they can make even more money.
Of course I’m afraid of lobbying- how do you think this ruling passed? At least with NN, lobbyists have to buy politicians to do crap like this. As for the NSA, is it really your contention that eliminating Net Neutrality will stop the NSA from using the internet to spy on us? How’s that work, exactly?
Furthermore, I
Would you like to read more? Then click here to upgrade to Verizon’s “Full Forum Pass” today for only $10/month!
Congress? Pass a LAW? A GOOD law? :rolleyes:
Surely you jest!
Pray tell, enlighten us.
Politically speaking, there is hope for Congress, because I’m sure that there are big corporations (Netflix, Yoohoo, Google, Facebook) who don’t want to be paying for bandwidth they now get for free. So for Congress it will be a matter of “whose big bribe to accept?” rather than “who’s giving out the big bribes?”
Democracy in action under Citizens United!
The DC Circuit is the appeals court that hears a large portion of appeals stemming from administrative actions of regulatory agencies located in DC. (Which is a lot of them, including the FCC.) So their decisions are binding on regulatory agencies and are thus of national importance, and are not limited by the geographic jurisdiction of the circuit.
This is why the DC Circuit is considered the most prominent and prestigious federal judgeship in the land, except for the Supreme Court.
Which means you’ll either have A) government owned and maintained backbones (Tier 1 and Tier 2) that sell freight to any ISP at standard pricing, or B) multiple ISPs running redundant fiber to every single home in the US.
Both would probably ensure lively competition, but the costs to build that infrastructure is going to be passed along to the consumer somehow. In one case the government is going to spend a shitload of money to own, build and maintain the backbone (probably recovered by the fees and ultimately profitable over time, but still) and in the other the ISP are going to have to raise exorbitant amount of money to reach parity with the big guys today, money they’d have to recover in the form of subscription fees.
Right now regulation is the right answer. It worked eventually for railroads and telcos, I suspect it’ll be fine with the internet too…at least until something better than fiber comes along.
Unless you want an internet that is managed the way the interstate system is…
The encyclopedia is not the same when Comcast denies you “M” and “S”
Out of curiosity, is there any way whatsoever that action like folks here are fearing could possibly be interpreted as de facto control of content, thus making the ISPs legally liable for whatever content they do allow through?