the standard before NN was not was not to have the federal government in control of pricing and speeds and everything regarding the internet . WIth Title 2 thats now the case. Title 2 radically changes how the internet is regulated in the United States. Incredibly scary considering all the growth from the internet before. In the language of TItle 2: Who the **** knows what 'just and reasonable' is? Its political talk for we can do whatever we want regarding charges. No private company in the world wants to do business in a marketplace governed by bullshit like whats written above. Also the standard before NN was that ISPs could throttle as long as it didn't prevent a marketplace from meeting consumer demand. This was changed with NN as now all throttling has been made illegal.
the psychology of this is interesting the hysteria, groupthink, chicken little predictions, and peer-pressure brought to bear on this issue rivals even climate change it's weird how people get so worked up over bandwidth pricing/delivery schemes
Package were treated neutrally until recently. NN was the defacto standard. People obviously want that defacto standard to continue. You trust the industry. Most of us know better. Instead of pushing back on the basic idea of NN, the debate should really be about what level of NN and how to ensure that.
no they werent. NN was never the defacto standard. You see none of these things affected competition in the marketplace so they were legal before NN. By whats written in NN, it is now illegal.
You and commodore point the same exact thing. I already replied to commodore about it. You claim never then point to QoS as to why. When was QoS implemented by the ISP and what did they use it for?
'The internet has always been neutral' (which is not a very accurate statement) so we created legislation to fix a problem that didnt exist. (and we still have companies violating technical terms to NN). Gotcha! Do you think Tmobiles violation with zero rating and ATT's DirectTV now violation with zero rating is good for the consumer?
both of those things were answered in the above statement. QoS was implemented before 2008 by Comcast and others. And it was used to provide better VOIP service among other things. read it next time. Its only 2 paragraphs. OR there is this: 'For instance, Verizon Wireless offers an “unlimited” mobile broadband plan that begins throttling a subscriber’s usage once she transmits over 22 gigabytes in a month—albeit only when the subscriber is using a congested cell tower.41 Until recently, T-Mobile offered an “unlimited” plan that throttled streaming video quality for any subscriber that exceeded a specified monthly threshold.42'
Read it long ago. So you don't know when, how, what, how widespread and yet, with that you claim never. Want to reconsider that never? As I said, until recently packages were treated neutrally and the article you pointed to support that stance. There are good reason for QoS and I have stated my position on it. QoS and NN can play together. I don't like the idea of pure NN with no user control, or title 2 even. But NN as a basic default is very important especially in a non competitive environment.
haha ok go with this line of arguing tony. its incredibly compelling. Sure I can alter the statement if you need me to. NN was not the defacto standard more than 8 years before NN was decreed. Data was being prioritized to better serve customers issues with jitter and lag. I dont know how many ISPs do this or how much (not sure why that matters). Happy? You are still wrong claiming NN is the defacto standard. its not. But none of this matters. everyone reading this gets the idea now that ISPs have been throttling for quite some time for good reason. wtf is recently? a decade ago?
Yes it is fascinating how the psychology of those against net neutrality seem to place so much trust in corporations and nebulous market forces to act in the best interest of the consumer.
I was reading some more about net neutrality and the ISP's are using the same kind of languange that we've heard from airlines and other businesses regarding "dynamic pricing schemes" and "consumer options" that will "give consumers more choice". It's the same BS that has given us stuff like "outside network ATM charges" and "carry on charges". All the other minor fees and charges that pervade our economy.
you don't have to trust anyone. The FTC is real. Anti trust laws are real. when a business practice is preventing a marketplace from meeting consumer demand then the FTC stops it. Its been this way since 1914. WTF IS GOING ON!!!!!! FTC mission statement: 'Working to protect consumers by preventing anticompetitive, deceptive, and unfair business practices, enhancing informed consumer choice and public understanding of the competitive process, and accomplishing this without unduly burdening legitimate business activity.'
Zero rating has potential uses that benefit the consumer - for example when it comes to advertising which the end-consumer should not pay for or for PSA. But for the most part it is anti-competitive as it gives an advantage of one content provider over another and skirts regulation. It also skirts privacy as the ISP or provider has to more deeply inspect packets. Regardless this is a minor tangent in the overall debate. The internet has been neutral as there has not been restrictions or discrimination by ISP's on the viewing of legal content to date. The NN rules were put into place as telecom companies were beginning to end that practice with throttling. Now that the rules are being overturned, consumers are going to get lower quality service as the ISP's begin to charge content providers for fast-lane service. This favors rich content providers over start-up or smaller ones and will inherently change the way the internet works at the detriment to innovative start-ups and consumers both. The only one who benefits here are the ISP's and that's not how regulation is suppose to work.
Again, you dodge with a pointless discussion of what the word variable means. Perhaps citing a list of anti-trust cases that were settled in a year or less would be a possible answer. I can point to numerous antitrust cases that take years. And why is that important? The large ISPs you are protecting can afford to drag such cases knowing the smaller company can't. In the mean time, the consumers are hurt waiting. Antitrust does not provide timely relief and litigation is very expensive, again favoring the large ISPs. Second as already pointed out, antitrust law doesn't address pricing, Antitrust doesn't protect against paid prioritization since monopolists are generally free to choose suppliers and set pricing without control. And antitrust cases don't normally find for harm to innovation cases. It is very difficult to prove that discriminatory practices harm innovation.
Which was because Verizon sued the governement... Again... the ISPs started this and required the government to respond. In order to to continue to treat data equally... title 2 had to be enacted. This is just a private vs public thing for you isn’t it? It seems more folks fear the ISPs than the government .
Of course not, but not many S&P500 companies have had profitability issues during this historic bull run. Obviously by treating data differently, they can be more profitable than they are.
this is ridiculous. You could try the democratic approach of convincing the people NN is needed. They apply pressure to Congress and Congress acts. Instead you went for decreeing with an un-elected official through Title 2. You will never convince the people that net neutrality is important as almost nobody was suffering from the lack of its existence. Which makes your next statement silly. You choose the path of edicts when you cant convince the electorate that the issue is meaningful enough to matter.
The majority of Americans favor net neutrality. Of BOTH parties. Instead, an un-elected official in Trump's administration is decreeing the removal of net neutrality. Poll: 60 percent of voters support FCC's net neutrality rules http://thehill.com/policy/technolog...t-of-voters-support-fccs-net-neutrality-rules New Mozilla Poll: Americans from Both Political Parties Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/...arties-overwhelmingly-support-net-neutrality/ Poll: GOP voters support net neutrality rules, oppose AT&T-Time Warner merger http://thehill.com/policy/technolog...eutrality-rules-oppose-att-time-warner-merger
