Originally posted by raleighherdfan:
Originally posted by HerdandHokies:
Originally posted by raleighherdfan:
Originally posted by HerdandHokies:
Originally posted by raleighherdfan:
Yes. Having the freedom of choice to charge more (or less) for a product or service you are providing is good for growth. Imagine a business that doesn't charge a fee for providing another's product or service? (you cant. its basic business 101) Its a basic distributorship model in any other business or industry. It happens everyday. Whether you are buying groceries, or tennis shoes.
You think you still wont pay more for this service because of this potential ruling in the long run?? You are dreaming. Net neutrality does nothing to insure additional competition in your market. You are one of the sheep that blindly falls for cool marketing phrases like "net neutrality", dreams regulation insures equality, fairness, and lower prices.
Regarding your first point, I can't think of a utility that does selectively charge extra (or reduce service) for one use or another. My water bill is the same per gallon whether I run laundry or take a shower. My gas bill is the same per unit for heating as for cooking.
For improving competition this doesn't do that for the ISPs, it improves competition for the content creators/providers. Comcast can't reduce service to Netflix now to shake them down for money, and (and this is the point), the next Netflix doesn't have to worry about Comcast doing that when they're looking for investors.
This post was edited on 2/25 5:07 PM by HerdandHokies
You are wrong HH on both points. There are absolutely different rates charged for individuals who use utilities. Industrial/business clients also pay more or less based on their usage compared to individuals. Rates for individuals in one municipality may have a different rate structure based on that areas usage despite being next door to another municipality using the same company's service. As an individual you may or may not be charged more for peak- off peak usage times in your area or different seasonal rates due to higher/lower demand in your area. (you most likely are) This is exactly what the ISPs were considering establishing as demand on bandwidth continues to be gobbled up and used. ISPs attempt to establish this way of billing is no different than any other business which owns its means of transporting products or services to the end user.
Another simple analogy of this situation would be the use of transport companies. Why do delivery companies charge different rates for size and weight of packages? Should the govt prevent what rates FedEx, UPS, USPS charge you or other package clients for shipping packages to the end user? (I would imagine some idiots would say "Yes"). Based on these types of rate systems, producers actually have more leverage in negotiating better rates for their product's delivery......not less. Prices paid are driven down as a result. Such "protection" regulation limits the ability for both sides to negotiate the best price/ service for all their businesses.
Of course it does not improve competition for more ISPs. I never said it did. In fact this type of regulation insures to limit it even further as it further reduces opportunity for new competition into that side of the market (that actually needs it). The view that this regulation only limits how the current ISPs can charge content producers is naïve and incredibly stupid. Suggesting this "improves" the competition for producers of content is also very misguided. It ultimately will raise the cost they pay (you pay) and raise the cost for entry for new players into this area simply based on ever increasing demand on a system that will now face headwinds for additional bandwidth build out. Raised cost=lower ROI=greater risk=slowed bandwidth build-out by ISPs= fewer players in the content side of business.........
HH. If you are "investing in a new Netflix" and bandwidth has become more limited because price/rate controls reduced the platforms to transport your new product...ultimately reducing the amount of content that can be carried/transmitted to your potential new customers (aka SALES).......do you really think that makes the "new Netflix" a viable investment?
There is a big part of me that believes the powers on both sides of this debate actually supported this stupid idea behind closed doors. (its probably why the reps caved again). It turns the ISPs into a bigger utility type industry, guaranteeing their monopolies; while also helping to establish a new monopoly system on the content side as well.
I'm not sure if you're being intentionally dense or if you are just extremely unintelligent, but try and understand how nonsensical your analogy is.
If an ISP wants to charge you, the customer, extra for using over a certain amount of data then they can. Mobile data carries already do this. It's not popular because it doesn't make sense to cap
overall data use when high traffic data use is all that really matters, but it's possible. ISPs already charge more for faster internet, and charge more for business class internet. Data speeds are already slower during peak hours. ISPs already charge different customers different rates. None of that is going to change.
This is about preventing ISPs from throttling the content providers A) Because they have vested interests in those providers competitors or B) So that they can shake down those companies for money to get into the so called 'fast lane.'
This would be exactly the same as your electric company going to GE and Samsung and saying "Well, a whole lot of your customers are using our electricity, so unless you pay up we're going to make sure your competitor's products work with our electricity but yours do not." I'm the customer. I'm paying for the electricity. Why should the electricity provider tell me what I can use it for? They can charge me more if I use more of course, or charge differently at different times, but not control the end use.
Likewise, I'm the customer. I'm paying for 30 Mbps internet speed. Why should the ISP be allowed to tell me what I can use it for? They can charge me more for faster internet, or put in the contract that if I go over X GB in a month I get throttled, but allowing them to block or degrade access to companies they compete with (the classic, and likely, example being Comcast degrading Netflix to promote Hulu) is bad for everyone.
First. You were the one who first attempted to claim electric companies don't charge you or others different rates at different times based on usage and demand (or threaten to reduce service if the rates are not paid)............THEY DO. Do you not think that the manufacturing plant or other small business in your community, for which you may buy products services from, pays a different rate for its electric than you do based on their usage and demand? Of course they do. In this case you are both customers of the electric company's service with varying rates and demands being necessary to meet both your needs. What would the electric company do to your favorite restaurant if they suddenly refused to pay their electric bill simply because you pay for your electric usage, while also being a customer for their sandwiches to consume?
Second. Does Comcast not own it's bandwidth? Do they not build it out, manage it, etc? Netflix wishes to use Comcast service to transmit their product. Whether
you pay for 30mbps is really pointless here IMO. Because Comcast needs to have the capacity to carry it all for all customers (you and Netflix in this case). Its not just about what you suck up, its also about what Netflix puts out.
You are both customers of Comcast and as such Comcast should have the ability to charge for the various service levels (speeds) they provide for all customers on both sides of the equation if they desire.
Third. As far as the argument that Comcast shouldn't be allowed to restrict web sites/services to you from the other "customer" simply based on what you pay for: Good grief man. This already happens regularly across the entertainment/content industry. Content providers/networks have frequently been pulled off cable company line ups or satellite providers because the two party's couldn't agree on a contract for fees on distribution of content regardless of what the consumer "pays for". Do you not remember the disputes between CBS and TimeWarner Cable which almost resulted in a large chunk of NFL games and other programming unseen by customers? How about Dish Networks dispute between Fox and Dish pulling some local sports programming in some markets because they couldn't agree on fees???? I also lost a couple channels available to me when I switched from TWC to ATT despite my wife's desire we have them. This is really no different. Its business. Its competition.
Fourth. As I told Penn. Some "degrading" scenario where Hulu pays Comcast to slow Netflix or other collusion type situation in varying ways between these parties probably falls under FTC anti trust law now. Net Neutrality as a regulation offers no more protection to you from this type of illegal business dealing. Furthermore. Just like the utility industry.........these rates and fees will eventually be charged anyway to
all parties who use ISPs services. Some new powerful govt internet rate commission will see to that.
What's not intelligent is that some actually think this will protect them from greater monopolized industry, higher rates, slower speeds, and poor customer service. Whats not intelligent is some believing this will create more competition and a greater number of content providers when the history of converting past industries into "public protected utilities" or "govt protected monopolies" shows no such occurrence long term.
