Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll simplify it for you. OUR INTERNET SPEEDS SUCK, AND IT'S THE FAULT OF THE COMPANIES WANTING TO CHARGE SITES MORE TO HAVE THEIR CONSUMERS HAVE BETTER ACCESS.
In America, I'm currently paying $75.00/month for 30 mbps (we're using download speeds).
Hong Kong, FOUR YEARS AGO, introduced a 1 gbps plan. That's 33.333 times faster than here in the US. Guess how much that cost? $26.00/month.
The companies have already basically admitted to that. They want to create fast-lane/slow-lane internet where those who don't pay, get shoved to the side.
The ISP has an investment,overhead, employees, etc. it has every right to seek a return. Who is anyone to tell it to give away its service to non payers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW
Do you understand the concept of public utility? Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Power, water, sewer, telephone, etc. are all regulated even where the providers are private. Why is the internet special?
I don't want the internet politicized, which is exactly what government regulation brings.
Stop asking government to solve problems that don't exist.
THERE IS NO PROBLEM TO SOLVE.
There is only fear-mongering to manipulate the ignorant into giving the government more control to use badly and harm us all.
Of course there is a problem to solve.
Question:
If you started a business on the Internet and set up a website, would you expect that people would be able to access it without you having to pay extra money (on top of your domain name registration, any maintenance costs, etc)?
Because right now? You can do that.
Everyone can do that. The Internet is neutral.
If net neutrality ceases to exist, so do all but the wealthiest businesses and content providers' abilities to reach the public with their goods and services.
I liken it to Walmart coming to town, only instead of the local businesses having to compete with them like they do now, Walmart has the ability to render those businesses completely invisible.
Sound like a good idea?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I had the thought today about this-the nature of the internet makes it just about impossible to block or impede various websites, despite all the bedwetting about cable and internet providers selling off preferential access. Are your favorite sites no longer accessible? You do understand that the capacitiy of the internet is increasing all the time, it's not a zero sum commodity, and doesn't need to be regulated into "fairness". Net "neutrality" backers, don't worry, there's plenty of internet and they are making more all the time.
If your favorite sites are so difficult to access (remember dial-up?) that you no longer can enjoy them, does it matter if they exist anymore?
That's the issue. Of course you can "make more Internet."
What you cannot make is access. Or, more accurately, speed of access.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
You're right, a free unregulated internet IS the way to go. So why do you oppose that?
I oppose the plan to do it, which is using the FCC (already controlled by the big companies) to do it. Solution is to let the market be free, and get government out of it. Having the FCC be the watchdog will ensure a win for any big corporation most of the time as they can consolidate their grip on the industry even more by using government regulators to crush the competition via regulations.
Free and unregulated is the way to go for the internet. Nobody should be regulating the internet, including the FCC/government. Only thing they should do is punish fraud and uphold contract laws.
Let the market run free, if a company decides to slow down websites not paying for the fast lane the market will react accordingly. For example in a city if Company A decides to slow down X website (A popular forum) because X website doesn't want to pay for a fast lane, but the other companies do not, then consumers will flock to those companies resulting in Company A loosing money. Eventually Company A will either revise this or go bankrupt.
That is the free market. Facebook pays Comcast extra and Comcast is able to lower their price, or offer more speed, or have a big party.
Government enforced "fairness" never works. Which cube rat gets to decide what is fair?
Next you will tell us "If you like your internet, you can keep your internet".
All that net neutrality laws do is ensure that providers cannot charge companies extra fees to get better speeds.
Which is a good thing if you want equal access to all the information on the Internet. Or would you prefer that only the companies with the deepest pockets get to offer you content at a tolerable speed?
We are chatting about this on City-Data. C-D is a free site. If C-D cannot afford to pay off Comcast, TWC, and every other provider in the country in order to get decent delivery speeds, will you sit around waiting 10x longer for pages to load?
The pages at C-D load just as fast as the pages on Facebook right now BECAUSE of net neutrality.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Unless you're a high ranker in the ISP world, I can`t imagine why you wouldn`t support net neutrality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
