[JourneyOfLife]

Originally Posted by russtcc

If net neutrality means one size fits all for bandwidth and everyone pays the same price that will never work, but it does sound like Obamacare. Investment in facilities will dry up. If you use more bandwidth you should pay more. If you use a lot of bandwidth you may get a lower cost per gig like companies that use lots of electricity pay a lower rate per kilowatt than I do. I don't have a problem with that.

Nothing is free to use or provide. If you want more speed from Comcast upgrade. Why should I pay more for you to have more bandwidth? Depending on the equipment used in a neighborhood there is a maximum speed available on the local loop. If 10 homes use up the majority of the bandwidth and the company has to upgrade its equipment who should pay for that? Everyone or those who are causing the need? I've been in the telecommunications industry since 1970. This is typical government thinking of fixing a problem that doesn't exist. If you are paying for an amount of bandwidth and not getting it you have a right to complain and get it corrected. But don't ask your neighbors to bear the cost of you wanting more speed for free.

You should read about Net Neutrality!

Your comments lead me to believe you do not understand it.

The way I understand it, the consumer could have unlimited bandwidth and it would not help!

Net Neutrality is about the content providers (e.g., web sites)!

More specifically about new startup companies that innovate and create new internet services!

The bigger picture is that the phone and cable companies are also selling content too (e.g., Pay TV Bundles). They might use their control of the infrastructure to disadvantage thier existing competition... and new competition (startups)!

Those content companies (i.e., Web sites), the web sites we access, already have fast internet services on their end and they pay for it!

Your phone and cable company want you to pay them and now... they want the other content companies (web sites), that you try to access, to pay them too (think of it as a toll fee the content provider will have to pay to keep the phone company from slowing down their response to your request). If a content provider does not pay the toll, they will put the content providers response back to you in the so called "Slow Lane". IOW, you will not like the experience because it will be slow... even if you, a customer, bought maximum bandwidth from your internet company!

So... there is concern that it will be both anti-competitive and depress innovation!

In the end, many fear, it will lead to higher cost to consumers and less choices since there could be fewer new startup companies! Many of those startups begin on a shoestring budget!

Economist call it; "A Barrier to Entry". Basically... putting up obstacles for new competition! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry

[JourneyOfLife]

Originally Posted by outlaw

Net neutrality is a Trojan horse for the FCC to bring the internet under its regulation umbrella. If the FCC "regulates" the internet and the service providers, plan on an increase of 16.5% for your cable internet bill. At least, that is what I have read.

You have been reading sound bites from the Cable and Phone Companies' Public Relations Departments and their Lobbyist!

[tomwed]

Originally Posted by outlaw

Net neutrality is a Trojan horse for the FCC to bring the internet under its regulation umbrella. If the FCC "regulates" the internet and the service providers, plan on an increase of 16.5% for your cable internet bill. At least, that is what I have read.

where did you read it?

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by JourneyOfLife

You should read about Net Neutrality!

Your comments lead me to believe you do not understand it.

The way I understand it, the consumer could have unlimited bandwidth and it would not help!

Net Neutrality is about the content providers (e.g., web sites)!

More specifically about new startup companies that innovate and create new internet services!

The bigger picture is that the phone and cable companies are also selling content too (e.g., Pay TV Bundles). They might use their control of the infrastructure to disadvantage thier existing competition... and new competition (startups)!

Those content companies (i.e., Web sites), the web sites we access, already have fast internet services on their end and they pay for it!

Your phone and cable company want you to pay them and now... they want the other content companies (web sites), that you try to access, to pay them too (think of it as a toll fee the content provider will have to pay to keep the phone company from slowing down their response to your request). If a content provider does not pay the toll, they will put the content providers response back to you in the so called "Slow Lane". IOW, you will not like the experience because it will be slow... even if you, a customer, bought maximum bandwidth from your internet company!

So... there is concern that it will be both anti-competitive and depress innovation!

In the end, many fear, it will lead to higher cost to consumers and less choices since there could be fewer new startup companies! Many of those startups begin on a shoestring budget!

Economist call it; "A Barrier to Entry". Basically... putting up obstacles for new competition! Barriers to entry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

your explanation tracks with other articles. One example is the dispute between HBO and comcast. HBO wants to independently stream their broadcast. Comcast was against it but as it turns out HBO will still charge $15 for its independent streaming. Silicon Valley is in favor of net neutrality

But in my view the last thing we need is more government regulation and especially to the depth that FCC wants to go

[Gary7]

I agree with JourneyOfLife.

In my opinion, net neutrality should not be made into a political topic.

Here are 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).

[Rags123]

General question to anyone who knows....

Generally, I think, schools, hospitals and the like buy faster broadband to be able to perform important functions. As I understand it, or think I do, they will be out of luck because this is essentially sharing it all and they will not have that opportunity ??????

[JourneyOfLife]

Most Large Companies have big IT Departments that regularly have to renegotiate communcation service contracts with Communications Companies.

Every business in America should have some level of concern about it!

BusinessWeek:
The corporate battle lines over the new federal rules for the Internet have been well established. Vocal technology startups have been leading the charge for muscular regulations for broadband access, and Internet service providers including Comcast (CMCSA) and Verizon (VZ) have been arguing loudly for more flexibility. Blue chip companies without obvious tech interests have kept a lower profile.

But a corporate alliance with subtle interests in this fight has been quietly pushing the Federal Communications Commission for strict broadband rules. In a series of meetings this year attended by representatives from Ford Motor (F), Visa (V), United Parcel Service (UPS), and Bank of America (BAC), participants urged FCC commissioners to reclassify broadband service under Title II, according to documents filed with the FCC.

BusinessWeek: Behind Closed Doors, Ford, UPS and Visa Push for Net Neutrality

[Steve & Deanna]

I'm not too keen as to let the Feds do anything about net neutrality. I'm less impressed by the present administration as I do not trust them. Best to just leave some things alone unless they are seriously needed.

[Gary7]

Originally Posted by Gary7

I agree with JourneyOfLife.

In my opinion, net neutrality should not be made into a political topic.

Here are 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).

If people side with Comcast and AT&T in the above examples and truly think what these companies did was justified and legal, then they should not support Net Neutrality.

If people think that Comcast and AT&T in the above example were doing illegal actions and were unjust in doing so, then they should support Net Neutrality.

The internet was created back in the 1960s based on the principle of net neutrality. It is cases like these where companies are challenging this principle for their own financial benefit and negatively impacting the expectations of users.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by tomwed

where did you read it?

I think Wall Street Journal.

[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.

[graciegirl]

Net Neutrality sounds like such a benign term.

My question is, will it restrict free enterprise?

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Net Neutrality sounds like such a benign term.

My question is, will it restrict free enterprise?

My feeling is that if the lack of it will give AT&T and Comcast an unfair advantage over the littler guys, then no net neutrality will restrict free enterprise. Kind of like Starbucks pushing all the little coffee shops out of business.

Bu maybe I'm thinking of fair chance and equal opportunity for all. A lot of which we've seen go down the tubes lately.

And if it comes to the point that I can't bank or watch a movie online, then my life has instantly been made 100% more difficult.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by CFrance

My feeling is that if the lack of it will give AT&T and Comcast an unfair advantage over the littler guys, then no net neutrality will restrict free enterprise. Kind of like Starbucks pushing all the little coffee shops out of business.

Bu maybe I'm thinking of fair chance and equal opportunity for all. A lot of which we've seen go down the tubes lately.

And if it comes to the point that I can't bank or watch a movie online, then my life has instantly been made 100% more difficult.

The big guys were little guys once.

[JourneyOfLife]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Net Neutrality sounds like such a benign term.

My question is, will it restrict free enterprise?

Answer the question for yourself by reading! There is a huge 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!