31–40 of 388 posts
Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.
I'm against net neutrality. It's essentially a wealth transfer from the infrastructure industry to the ad industry. It's pretty dumb imo.
The “infrastructure industry” huh? The internet, of course, should be treated as a utility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at what ISPs do in Portugal, which lacks any kind of net neutrality. They are already trying to bundle sites and protocols like cable channels. It's not far fetched at all.
Here's a screenshot from the Portuguese ISP's pricing page: https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/923701871092441088 Exactly like a cable bundle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not convinced. Why am I supposed to take sides in a fight between two industries?
Because the ISPs control your Internet access. They don't compete with each other. Without net neutrality, they can prioritize, slow down, or block any site or content they want to. Many people cannot simply switch away. They have only one ISP to choose from. You can switch away from Facebook whenever you wish.
I am firmly in support of net neutrality, but I am also sick and tired of all the ridiculous misinformation about what it actually is. At least on Reddit, people would have you believe that the Internet is about to become Cable TV. Net Neutrality is very important to a free and open Internet, but the kind of scaremongering I see going on is absolutely insane. We won't win this fight with scary lies. Do your part and…
When SOPA was going on so-and-so years ago, there was a similar bout of over-exaggerated hysteria to get people in action. I was against it back then, but I think the last couple of years have shown that panic and outrage is what actually gets people motivated to do anything, rather than straight, boring facts. Why not harness it for something good then?
Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.
One could argue that without net neutrality, internet providers could provide substantially cheaper internet services -- e.g. just Facebook for $1 a month. However that breaks down once you consider the fact that it's not practical at all. Not to mention that providers would have no reason to offer such cheap offerings, either.
Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.
Well, Ajit Pai says it stifles investments. Apparently investments fell by 5% or so over a period of time since the Title II classification. While I love NN, I also hate no viable competition to cable/ISP monopolies. I don't think NN would be an issue if everyone had at least 3 viable choices of broadband providers. That's the right (tm) way to address it, or should I say market-based, by fostering competition via po…
1) ISPs agree not to compete; and
2) It is expensive for new entrants to build infrastructure.
It would be ideal to solve NN with free market.
But the ISPs have monopolies that prevent competition.
Making net neutrality necessary today.
I am firmly in support of net neutrality, but I am also sick and tired of all the ridiculous misinformation about what it actually is. At least on Reddit, people would have you believe that the Internet is about to become Cable TV. Net Neutrality is very important to a free and open Internet, but the kind of scaremongering I see going on is absolutely insane. We won't win this fight with scary lies. Do your part and…
You are wrong. One of the many bad consequences of this legislation is that Internet service will almost certainly become exactly like cable TV, as has already happened in places without such rules, in that you will be allowed to access a subset of the Internet for free/cheap, and will have to pay more for broader access. Why on earth would you think this would not happen? Because the tiny handful of telecom and cabl…
How about the fact that in the prior 20+ years it did not happen. Comcast was just as powerful five years ago, as they are today. The access market was just as limited in terms of competition, 5 or 10 years ago.
Your premise is that due to limited competition, it must occur. If that were how things actually worked, it would have occured before net neutrality in a very big way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a screenshot from the Portuguese ISP's pricing page: https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/923701871092441088 Exactly like a cable bundle.
I'm all for net neutrality, but it feels important to note that this is for mobile service: https://www.meo.pt/internet/internet-movel/telemovel/pacotes... Also, it looks like the same company provides gigabit internet for $50/mo: https://www.meo.pt/pacotes/mais-pacotes/fibra/net-voz Again, I support net neutrality, but it's still technically better than my Comcast.
The current net neutrality regulations apply to both fixed and mobile broadband.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/04/13/2015-07...
Is anyone actually against net neutrality? I don't think I've ever seen a con argument.
One could argue that without net neutrality, internet providers could provide substantially cheaper internet services -- e.g. just Facebook for $1 a month. However that breaks down once you consider the fact that it's not practical at all. Not to mention that providers would have no reason to offer such cheap offerings, either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the ISPs control your Internet access. They don't compete with each other. Without net neutrality, they can prioritize, slow down, or block any site or content they want to. Many people cannot simply switch away. They have only one ISP to choose from. You can switch away from Facebook whenever you wish.
Next logical question: net neutrality has existed for a very short amount of time. The Internet & Web did extremely well before net neutrality, with few instances of abusive carrier restriction over the prior decades. What is the very strong supporting evidence to demonstrate your scenario is the likely outcome? If you want to regulate something so important on the premise you're suggesting, you need to present equal…
Those prior decades were the infancy of the internet. When children go 16 years without wrecking a car, it doesn’t mean they are perfect drivers.