Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?

[Ts RedVeX]

Has this board become a communist hatchery or something?

If you remove restrictions and regulations from ISPs and one of them decides to charge more than another ISP for service no better than that provided by the cheaper ISP, then the former ISPs customers simply move to the cheaper ISP, just like you would start doing your groceries at Aldi's that has just opened in your town that previously only had Waitrose. Unless you are some sort of a communist snob. Your collective perception of all ISPs is only relevant when they are all "equall" due to this so called "net neutrality".

This natural competition would also force companies to get optic fiber connected right to your house or apartment rather than only to the "box" that is currently situated a couple of blocks away, or use satelite technology all together. That would mean connections tens of thousands times faster than your current 50Mbps. What are you even on about debating which site would work slower?!

[MacJae]

If you remove restrictions and regulations from ISPs and one of them decides to charge more than another ISP for service no better than that provided by the cheaper ISP, then the former ISPs customers simply move to the cheaper ISP, just like you would start doing your groceries at Aldi's that has just opened in your town that previously only had Waitrose. Unless you are some sort of a communist snob. Your collective perception of all ISPs is only relevant when they are all "equall" due to this so called "net neutrality".

Removing "restrictions and regulations" doesn't necessarily lead to more competition. If you have a choice between two ISPs, one of which allows access to YouTube but not Netflix, and one that is the other way around, they aren't selling quite the same product.

Additionally, the U.S. market for ISPs is non-competitive across large areas of the country due to under-regulation. The major ISPs own the broadband infrastructure, building more is expensive (and redundant in many cases; having a dozen lines providing the same service to your house is a waste if you only need one), and since the market hasn't been regulated to provide for local loop unbundling in the same way it has in swathes of Europe and the UK (where there is effectively a much more competitive market due to proper government regulations), there effectively is little or no competition because the options are so limited.

This natural competition would also force companies to get optic fiber connected right to your house or apartment rather than only to the "box" that is currently situated a couple of blocks away, or use satelite technology all together. That would mean connections tens of thousands times faster than your current 50Mbps. What are you even on about debating which site would work slower?!

Because the companies that own the infrastructure have relatively little incentive to invest in infrastructure, when it's much easier for them to squeeze consumers and companies for money. Effective competition in this field requires effective regulation to enable it. As long as that's not the case, the U.S. (unlike Europe, where the EU has regulated for a more effective market) is effectively not even a free market, but a duopoly.

But regardless of the lack of competition, the conceptual problem with removal of net neutrality is that it effectively grants ISPs the power of censorship if they want to. To borrow the use of the "communist" hyperbole that gets thrown around, I don't think anyone here would like to live with censorship like they get in China or North Korea either, even if the censors are corporate. While that also touches on a debate about the power that information companies like Google and Facebook wield, there's no reason to add to the potential number of information hurdles people must face. That information should be equally free to consumers is the core of net neutrality. Removing it actually weakens the protection of freedom of speech. (That doesn't mean I think that this move alone will do much overall, but it could easily be part of a slippery slope.)

[Gillian]

Good post ...

[giovanni_hotel]

Has this board become a communist hatchery or something?

If you remove restrictions and regulations from ISPs and one of them decides to charge more than another ISP for service no better than that provided by the cheaper ISP, then the former ISPs customers simply move to the cheaper ISP, just like you would start doing your groceries at Aldi's that has just opened in your town that previously only had Waitrose. Unless you are some sort of a communist snob. Your collective perception of all ISPs is only relevant when they are all "equall" due to this so called "net neutrality".

This natural competition would also force companies to get optic fiber connected right to your house or apartment rather than only to the "box" that is currently situated a couple of blocks away, or use satelite technology all together. That would mean connections tens of thousands times faster than your current 50Mbps. What are you even on about debating which site would work slower?!

In what world is one ISP provider going to make less profit just to have more customers than its rival???
Whatever cable and internet service provider you use to access the internet, they're going to screw you for the almighty dollar.

Where most of us live there's only about 2 or 3 major ISP providers anyway. There is no competition, it's all been consolidated.

I bet you're the type of person who thinks toll booths are cool too.

[GroobySteven]

I use internet in both the US and the UK.

In the UK I have a choice between BT, Virgin, Sky and a few others. My speeds are fucking awesome and I pay maybe $60 for a bundle with other stuff.
In the US ... in one of the biggest cities (LA) I have no choice. The cable companies (Time Warner and Spectrum) have split the areas up each taking one. You have no choice. You have one internet provider and we pay over $80 a month not for the fastest speed we can get (with no bundles) and it's massively different to what we have in the UK. Like 10x slower in the US.

I think the end of net neutrality will bring some good points, and some bad points - but don't expect your internet to get better, or cheaper. There is no competition in the USA

[smalltownguy]

I use internet in both the US and the UK.

In the UK I have a choice between BT, Virgin, Sky and a few others. My speeds are fucking awesome and I pay maybe $60 for a bundle with other stuff.
In the US ... in one of the biggest cities (LA) I have no choice. The cable companies (Time Warner and Spectrum) have split the areas up each taking one. You have no choice. You have one internet provider and we pay over $80 a month not for the fastest speed we can get (with no bundles) and it's massively different to what we have in the UK. Like 10x slower in the US.

I think the end of net neutrality will bring some good points, and some bad points - but don't expect your internet to get better, or cheaper. There is no competition in the USA

and so does net neutrality will affect differently in uk & usa . bravo

[Toadily]

This is just another thing that the "Trump experiment" will have to be reversed once the country sees the mistake, this will maybe open the eyes of the dumbest Trump supporters. He is not looking out for the people but just for his rich supporters.
This has corruption written all over it, he emptied the swamp so he could fill it with his predators the others were not corrupt enough
He has proven once again he is the worst President ever.

[Ts RedVeX]

I know that in primary schools they usually teach 1-dimensional thinking in mathematics classes, but as soon as you go to a higher school you find out that there is also another another dimension, and they teach you about vectors. Then you go to a uni, an it turns out that you can have n-dimensional spaces and matrices..

Simply because you use Internet for Netflix and not Youtube, or vice versa, does not mean that there needs to be a law telling your ISP to enable both, so that your neighbour, who wants to use Internet from the same ISP as you for Youtube will also be happy. All you need is two different ISPs and you can use one, and your neighbour can use the other. This is why you are totally wrong saying that you do not want multiple lines connected to your house, for you may one day decide you want to go on Youtube too. Moreover, having separate lines for Netflix and Youtube, apart from making ISPs independent from eachother, means that you and your neighbour are not going to lag one-another's connections while using your services of choice. Of course, in a free market, rather sooner than later, a third, fourth and an "nth" ISP will emerge, which is going to allow streaming from both youtube and Netflix, which will force your and your neighbour's ISP to either adapt and enable both services, or close down all together. That is how free market works without any written laws, restrictions or "rights". Needless to say, if a new line is to be built in the ground, then it is definitely not going to be a copper wire, but an optic-fiber one. The speeds offered by that technology are incomparable to those offered by metal wires, and only for that reason people will probably chose the new ISPs as soon as their services are available, who are going to be connecting that technology to customers' home rather than only to a hub a couple of kilometres away, and then sell it by bullshit advertising it as "fiber". I hope you see that the problem of ISPs "lack of incentive to invest in infrastructure" disappears by itself at this point.

If you only have two ISPs in wherever you live, then it is most likely due to over-regulation rather than under regulation. If you read Stavros's original post, it says that this Federal Communications Commission are debating scrapping internet neutrality, not implementing it. This means that this internet neutrality is the reason why you have not a competitive market and only 2 ISPs to chose from, rather than what you suggest. Scrapping that communist law is key to making the market more free to ISPs and development of their services towards new, faster technologies.

As to the concept of letting ISPs "do what they want", I cannot see anything wrong with someone who establishes a company running it as he likes. That is what freedom is all about.

I agree that probably nobody here would like to be censored and that is exactly why I think scrapping this "internet neutrality" is a step forward to less censorship and not the other way around. Of course, it is only a drop in the ocean compared to how many other regulations need to be scrapped. And scrapping regulations is what Trump had promised before becoming president, so in this case, he is a man of his word, and that deserves respect if you take a look at what is happening in politics these days.

[buttslinger]

...... He is not looking out for the people but just for his rich supporters......

ANYTHING done during this administration's term will be done to redistribute money from the middle and lower class to the rich donors. Trust that law like Newton trusted Gravity.

His white trash supporters will be among those hurt worst.

As I understand it this rule will just make it difficult and slow to get on google or gmail if your Provider has an interest with Microsoft, say. When they hook up cable to your house, it comes wide open. It costs them (you) money to block the good channels so you will pay them more. This is more of that.
I have most of my utilities automatically paid because they are so regulated, no way would they cheat me. But not Verizon, they will rob you blind if you don't keep an eye on them.

[filghy2]

This natural competition would also force companies to get optic fiber connected right to your house or apartment rather than only to the "box" that is currently situated a couple of blocks away, or use satelite technology all together. That would mean connections tens of thousands times faster than your current 50Mbps. What are you even on about debating which site would work slower?!

And the only thing that has prevented us from having this utopia is a pesky rule that all traffic must be treated equally? Yeah right.