[CFrance]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

The big guys were little guys once.

There are anti-monopoly laws for a good reason. They are to protect the consumer from those perhaps formerly smaller businesses who became big and greedy and left the interests of the public behind. There is a need for checks and balances.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. ATT&T and Comcast can still remain big and develop new technologies. They just don't have to do it by crushing everyone else out of existence. We get new technologies from the little guys too. And from universities. I don't believe that keeping the big guys from pushing the little guys out of existence is going to stymie technological advances.

[Gary7]

Originally Posted by outlaw

"The internet was created back in the 1960s based on the principle of net neutrality. "

Really? I thought it was created to provide emergency communications for DOD.

Outlaw: You are correct that the Department of Defense was the sponsor of the creation of the internet.

When the internet was created there was a technology decision that had to be made. Will the the data networks make decisions as to which data packets will be given priority during the transmission? Since data packets go through multiple (unknown when transmitted) servers on the internet, the decision was to treat all data packets the same regardless of origin, destination, or types of data. This principle has been carried forward in time.

The name “Net Neutrality” began to be used in reference to this principle around 2003.

With reference to my examples above, Comcast and AT&T made decisions as ISPS to override this principle.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by CFrance

There are anti-monopoly laws for a good reason. They are to protect the consumer from those perhaps formerly smaller businesses who became big and greedy and left the interests of the public behind. There is a need for checks and balances.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. ATT&T and Comcast can still remain big and develop new technologies. They just don't have to do it by crushing everyone else out of existence. We get new technologies from the little guys too. And from universities. I don't believe that keeping the big guys from pushing the little guys out of existence is going to stymie technological advances.

I think.............It is somewhere in the middle between what you think and I think.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I think.............It is somewhere in the middle between what you think and I think.

I think... you are right!

[Rags123]

"
Originally Posted by graciegirl View Post
I think.............It is somewhere in the middle between what you think and I think.

CFrance

think... you are right!



I believe you two might agree with what the FCC was GOING to try and do, but now.....who knows ????

"But the White House's move also undermined weeks of work by the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission to develop an alternative policy, which he has said in private meetings could preserve a free and open Web while also addressing concerns by the Internet providers. Because of the unprecedented nature of the FCC's compromise proposal and its controversial nature -- critics fear it would not prevent Internet providers from slowing down content they don't like -- the agency held a flurry of meetings with a wide range of groups, including major tech companies, lobbyists, consumer advocates and the telecom industry to see if it could bring a broad coalition together around its plan, according to a half-dozen people familiar with the discussions.

In the days before the president's statement, the agency's efforts appeared to be working. Some tech companies, including at least one major firm, and several tech interest groups showed signs of warming to the outreach by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. They and Wheeler scheduled a series of critical meetings on Monday at the FCC to discuss their differences. Talk emerged of working out language in a letter that would clarify the sentiments of all involved and help build consensus for Wheeler's plan."

How Obama’s net neutrality comments undid weeks of FCC work - The Washington Post

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by JourneyOfLife

Answer the question for yourself by reading! There is a amount of information about it.


The only recommendation I would have to avoid sources that are mainly political. Often they have other axes to grind too that just end up distorting the issues!

JourneyOfLife: You are right and the Wall Street Journal has been carrying stories about net neutrality for at least a year and never have they said anything good about it. I view Wall Street leaning to anything that supports flow of the free markets, irrespective of political nuances .

They continue to report for instance that AT&T decision to halt expansion because they are concerned about the effect of FCC regulations. A broader view of the business climate clearly demonstrates that many corporations are holding cash for the past six years because they are uncertain about
the business climate due to regulations policies , etc. This issue is more of the same

[JourneyOfLife]

Below is a video/audio podcast link to a discussion about Net Neutrality from TWIT TV.

TWIT is a Internet TV company, TWITs shows are tech oriented. (TWIT has a Roku channel and it can be accessed via web browser).

The participants in the discussion are 2 small ISPs and a Internet Video/Audio Streaming company (TWIT) along with a couple of other knowledgeable folks familiar with Net Neutrality.


You can watch it (video) or listen (Audio only).... The format is debate/discussion... so listening to the audio only version works out ok.

These are people that have an interest in the outcome... so they express their opinions too.


The Net Neutrality discussion link. This Week in Tech 484 | TWiT.TV

[tomwed]

What a coincidence. I watch twit and remember the good old days when i watched the tech tv with my sons. I put that episode around 4 am but feel asleep. I will say that I started the show with one opinion that seemed to shift as each expert spoke. This is not an easy subject to follow. I don't want the 2 big cable and phone companies to make the decisions and charge what ever they want but how to do that is not obvious. That a common carrier was once a barge never occurred to me too.

[JourneyOfLife]

Here is an interesting bit of research. This information can be found in other areas, but this is a little more up to date.

Here is who owns what!

Pay TV Subscriber Leichtman Research Group | Press Releases
Broadband Internet Subscribers (Fixed Line) Leichtman Research Group | Press Releases

Cellular in terms of data! It will probably never be an adequate substitute for a good fixed line data solution for uses that are data intensive! The real power of cellular data is "ROAMING Geographically"! Think along the lines of "best tool for the job"!


The traditional Pay TV providers will fight tooth and nail to eliminate their competition and protect their Lucrative Pay TV/Adverstising Businesses.

Matter of fact there are two very common practices:

1) Eliminate existing direct competitors... Buy them out. Look at the numbers in those links above and study them. Think about current merger plans and the follow on mergers if the Comcast/Time Warner and AT&T/Direct TV Mergers are approved. The critical part here is they control the communications infrastuture to the home!

2) Erect Barriers to entry that will make it more difficult for new competitors to enter the market. This is about new IPTV (Netflix, Crackle, Youtube, etc) and Video Advertising. The new competitors today and startups of tomorrow will need the consumer to have access to their offering. IOW, controlling the home comm link means they can in effect control what you can access (specifically your experience. speed, bandwidth, reliabilty, etc)!

There will probably end up being a 4 company oligopoly in Fixed and wireless internet, Fixed and Wireless Phone, and Fixed and Wireless Pay TV/Advertising.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly

[blueash]

Thought experiment:

Think of the internet as an infinite supermarket. All the shelves stretch out at eye level from your left to right. Every possible product in the world is on that eye level shelf in front of you. You imagine "purple scarf" and every possible purple scarf for sale appears in front of you with no advantage to any particular style or price unless you imagine "purple scarf of fun fur under $15" In that case only those scarves appear, in no particular order. You can fine tune your request or look at all the scarves in this infinite eye level shelf.

There is a company however that does not own the single shelf which stretches infinitely at eye level nor the all products being sold, although it may own some. It has no control over the shelf. Instead this company owns two features.
1. It controls the door you need to go through to get inside the store. This is your service provider, Comcast opens the door so you can explore inside the internet. You pay Comcast for your door pass
2. It controls how fast the shelf moves to show you the choices which are still all at eye level and equally visible. This is your speed. You pay Comcast more if you want faster shelves.

This is how the internet works now. You pay a provider for access and speed. Now the providers have an idea. They would like to change the way the shelf works. Some products in the store will no longer be at eye level. Nothing will be removed from the store, but the provider would like to offer your company the opportunity to have your product be right at eye level while your competitors are at knee level, or need a ladder. In other words placement would no longer be neutral. Further as I wish to remove the item from the shelf for my use, some products can be made to be easily removed and others are mysteriously stuck to the shelving requiring much longer for me to get the product into my cart. Again, the provider would be happy to allow you the manufacturer to pay it to use WD40 under your product so it is easy to obtain. Don't pay the provider and the shelf where your product goes is down at shoe level on a really sticky shelf. Of course the provider might even choose to have his own products be the only ones at eye level owning all the great product placement slots for himself. Provider is not saying you can't sell stuff in the store, it is just not going to be easy for the customer to get at it and really hard to get it off the shelf.

As of now, the provider cannot do either of these things. The providers just control the door and the speed. They complain that so many people coming into the store all want the same products which uses a lot of their shelf space. They want make more money of course. So if the provider could just get control of the way the products are presented on the shelf, wouldn't life be better?

This of course is how the supermarket industry works. Manufacturers of cereal and diapers pay the chains for placement War for Retail Shelf Space; Battle for Shelf Placement; Fight for Slotting Fees: It
Right now Comcast controls a door into the internet supermarket. They also control how well my shopping shelf rolls. But they do not control what products are in the store or how they are presented to me. Preserving that is what preserving net neutrality means. It is the way it has always worked in this country. Why is this an issue? Because there presently is no definitive rule preserving it and Comcast and other similar providers are ready to grab control of the shelves.

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by blueash

Thought experiment:

Think of the internet as an infinite supermarket. All the shelves stretch out at eye level from your left to right. Every possible product in the world is on that eye level shelf in front of you. You imagine "purple scarf" and every possible purple scarf for sale appears in front of you with no advantage to any particular style or price unless you imagine "purple scarf of fun fur under $15" In that case only those scarves appear, in no particular order. You can fine tune your request or look at all the scarves in this infinite eye level shelf.

There is a company however that does not own the single shelf which stretches infinitely at eye level nor the all products being sold, although it may own some. It has no control over the shelf. Instead this company owns two features.
1. It controls the door you need to go through to get inside the store. This is your service provider, Comcast opens the door so you can explore inside the internet. You pay Comcast for your door pass
2. It controls how fast the shelf moves to show you the choices which are still all at eye level and equally visible. This is your speed. You pay Comcast more if you want faster shelves.

This is how the internet works now. You pay a provider for access and speed. Now the providers have an idea. They would like to change the way the shelf works. Some products in the store will no longer be at eye level. Nothing will be removed from the store, but the provider would like to offer your company the opportunity to have your product be right at eye level while your competitors are at knee level, or need a ladder. In other words placement would no longer be neutral. Further as I wish to remove the item from the shelf for my use, some products can be made to be easily removed and others are mysteriously stuck to the shelving requiring much longer for me to get the product into my cart. Again, the provider would be happy to allow you the manufacturer to pay it to use WD40 under your product so it is easy to obtain. Don't pay the provider and the shelf where your product goes is down at shoe level on a really sticky shelf. Of course the provider might even choose to have his own products be the only ones at eye level owning all the great product placement slots for himself. Provider is not saying you can't sell stuff in the store, it is just not going to be easy for the customer to get at it and really hard to get it off the shelf.

As of now, the provider cannot do either of these things. The providers just control the door and the speed. They complain that so many people coming into the store all want the same products which uses a lot of their shelf space. They want make more money of course. So if the provider could just get control of the way the products are presented on the shelf, wouldn't life be better?

This of course is how the supermarket industry works. Manufacturers of cereal and diapers pay the chains for placement War for Retail Shelf Space; Battle for Shelf Placement; Fight for Slotting Fees: It
Right now Comcast controls a door into the internet supermarket. They also control how well my shopping shelf rolls. But they do not control what products are in the store or how they are presented to me. Preserving that is what preserving net neutrality means. It is the way it has always worked in this country. Why is this an issue? Because there presently is no definitive rule preserving it and Comcast and other similar providers are ready to grab control of the shelves.

Here's a much simpler thought experiment ...

Imagine you're a centralized powerful government and that, because of a statist view of the world, wants to control everything ... especially because you think the poor rubes are not bright enough to make their own choices, plus its your duty to make everything "fair." Thus, the only solution is for the Government to take full control of the Internet but give them platitudes about how it's good for them so call it something that sounds nice, like "Net Neutrality."

Perhaps add a new slogan too , maybe something along the lines of "If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet."

[Tennisnut]

Originally Posted by blueash

Thought experiment:

Think of the internet as an infinite supermarket. All the shelves stretch out at eye level from your left to right. Every possible product in the world is on that eye level shelf in front of you. You imagine "purple scarf" and every possible purple scarf for sale appears in front of you with no advantage to any particular style or price unless you imagine "purple scarf of fun fur under $15" In that case only those scarves appear, in no particular order. You can fine tune your request or look at all the scarves in this infinite eye level shelf.

There is a company however that does not own the single shelf which stretches infinitely at eye level nor the all products being sold, although it may own some. It has no control over the shelf. Instead this company owns two features.
1. It controls the door you need to go through to get inside the store. This is your service provider, Comcast opens the door so you can explore inside the internet. You pay Comcast for your door pass
2. It controls how fast the shelf moves to show you the choices which are still all at eye level and equally visible. This is your speed. You pay Comcast more if you want faster shelves.

This is how the internet works now. You pay a provider for access and speed. Now the providers have an idea. They would like to change the way the shelf works. Some products in the store will no longer be at eye level. Nothing will be removed from the store, but the provider would like to offer your company the opportunity to have your product be right at eye level while your competitors are at knee level, or need a ladder. In other words placement would no longer be neutral. Further as I wish to remove the item from the shelf for my use, some products can be made to be easily removed and others are mysteriously stuck to the shelving requiring much longer for me to get the product into my cart. Again, the provider would be happy to allow you the manufacturer to pay it to use WD40 under your product so it is easy to obtain. Don't pay the provider and the shelf where your product goes is down at shoe level on a really sticky shelf. Of course the provider might even choose to have his own products be the only ones at eye level owning all the great product placement slots for himself. Provider is not saying you can't sell stuff in the store, it is just not going to be easy for the customer to get at it and really hard to get it off the shelf.

As of now, the provider cannot do either of these things. The providers just control the door and the speed. They complain that so many people coming into the store all want the same products which uses a lot of their shelf space. They want make more money of course. So if the provider could just get control of the way the products are presented on the shelf, wouldn't life be better?

This of course is how the supermarket industry works. Manufacturers of cereal and diapers pay the chains for placement War for Retail Shelf Space; Battle for Shelf Placement; Fight for Slotting Fees: It
Right now Comcast controls a door into the internet supermarket. They also control how well my shopping shelf rolls. But they do not control what products are in the store or how they are presented to me. Preserving that is what preserving net neutrality means. It is the way it has always worked in this country. Why is this an issue? Because there presently is no definitive rule preserving it and Comcast and other similar providers are ready to grab control of the shelves.

Thank you for your insight. Free enterprise only works when there is free enterprise. The internet is a basic utility and, fortunately, other utilities are regulated. I feel fortunate that this action by the regulators.

[Gary7]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

Here's a much simpler thought experiment ...

Imagine you're a centralized powerful government and that, because of a statist view of the world, wants to control everything ... especially because you think the poor rubes are not bright enough to make their own choices, plus its your duty to make everything "fair." Thus, the only solution is for the Government to take full control of the Internet but give them platitudes about how it's good for them so call it something that sounds nice, like "Net Neutrality."

Perhaps add a new slogan too , maybe something along the lines of "If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet."

If someone does not want the government involved with the internet, then this same person supports the actions of Comcast and AT&T in the following four examples of violations of net neutrality:

- In 2007 Comcast blocked people from sharing digital files of the King James Bible and public-domain song recordings. (Fox News)

- In 2007, Comcast started blocking its customers from trading files on BitTorrent (peer-to-peer file sharing) by intercepting the data transmitted between the user downloading a file and the file’s host website and thus disconnecting the user from the host. (Fox News)

- In April 2012, Netflix charged that Comcast was restricting access to popular online video sites, in order to promote Comcast's own Xfinity TV service, giving Comcast product an unfair advantage against other Internet video services. (PC Magazine)

- In September 2012, AT&T was accused of violating net-neutrality rules, by restricting use of the video-conferencing Apple application "FaceTime" to certain customers. The application which could be used over Wi-Fi signals was restricted to only be used over cellular connection for customers who have a shared data plan on AT&T and excludes those with older unlimited or tiered data plans. (New York Times).

[JourneyOfLife]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

Here's a much simpler thought experiment ...

Imagine you're a centralized powerful government and that, because of a statist view of the world, wants to control everything ... especially because you think the poor rubes are not bright enough to make their own choices, plus its your duty to make everything "fair." Thus, the only solution is for the Government to take full control of the Internet but give them platitudes about how it's good for them so call it something that sounds nice, like "Net Neutrality."

Perhaps add a new slogan too , maybe something along the lines of "If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet."

Rules of Thumb and Adages do not always translate to the "Best Balance" in our real world where there are very real conflicts of interest (usually power and money)!

Ever wonder why the "Big Government, Overreach.. via Regulation" red flag gets waved?

Because most people know very little about the issue in the communications industry... most know absolutely nothing about it. However, by shouting something that distract some people by way of "Emotional Political Rhetoric"... it distracts them and gets them focused on some other aspect of the issue!

Besides, the FCC Chairman is a lifelong Communications industry insider! So, once his brief tenure at the fcc ends, where do you think he will go?

LA Times:
A Washington insider with close ties to the media and telecommunications, is expected to be tapped as the next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

Tom Wheeler, who has headed lobbying associations for both the cable television and mobile phone industries, is the leading candidate to succeed Julius Genachowski as chairman of the regulatory agency, Washington insiders confirm.

D.C. insider Tom Wheeler likely to be nominated to head FCC - Los Angeles Times

[rp001]

Originally Posted by Indydealmaker

Net neutrality offers some much needed protections for consumers. However, the reality of business is if sources of revenue are blocked for the broadband providers, that lost income will come from somewhere else.

There is No Free Lunch and every time the government steps in "to save the day", the cost of that lunch ends up skyrocketing.

This is a no win proposition. Once the FCC can rule the internet, you can be sure that internet regulations will be voluminous.

I've never seen so much paranoia described before, some even to justify corporate America once again taking individual's rights for a profit to Wall Street thieves!