Net Neutrality in Danger?

[Jimmy Higgins]

link

Net neutrality, or Open Internet, is the principle that all web traffic should be treated equally and your internet company can’t interfere with your traffic.


While Trump did not talk about the issue during the campaign, the appointment of vocal net neutrality critic Jeffrey Eisenach to head the technology transition team indicates the direction his administration could take.

“What Trump appears to be doing on internet and privacy policy is basically allowing the swamp to decide our digital future, allowing crocodiles to eat up our rights,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, which advocates for consumer online privacy. “What the big cable and phone companies want Trump to do is to turn the internet over to them to run as a private fiefdom.”

As we have seen, the establishment of net neutrality a couple years ago, when we finally saw an end to Comcast hijacking the tubes, the Internet has survived. No one was targeted. Equal access to the signal for all.

Well, looks like that is going away too.

Well, at least we'll still have habeas corpus.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Well, at least we'll still have habeas corpus.

I'm sure there will be an "emergency" and that'll be suspended.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Or we will have chicken little with net neutrality going away. It won't have an impact on the Internet.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Or we will have chicken little with net neutrality going away. It won't have an impact on the Internet.

Why wouldn't it? Comcast can charge websites to load at a regular speed and slow down the ones that don't. (See: Netflix) Talkfreethought may have to start paying internet providers for access.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Or we will have chicken little with net neutrality going away. It won't have an impact on the Internet.

Why wouldn't it? Comcast can charge websites to load at a regular speed and slow down the ones that don't. (See: Netflix) Talkfreethought may have to start paying internet providers for access.

The biggest concern for Comcast was one of it's biggest rivals using its infrastructure to deliver the competing product. Comcast won't care about this site. And Comcast and Netflix came to an agreement after.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Or we will have chicken little with net neutrality going away. It won't have an impact on the Internet.

What the fuck are you talking about. Services will become more expensive as companies like Comcast are big on kinking the internet line along the last ten miles unless companies like Netflix pay up. And who pays for that toll? We do.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Or we will have chicken little with net neutrality going away. It won't have an impact on the Internet.

What the fuck are you talking about. Services will become more expensive as companies like Comcast are big on kinking the internet line along the last ten miles unless companies like Netflix pay up. And who pays for that toll? We do.

So you want the infrastructure to deliver these new services to you but you don't want to have to pay for it?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What the fuck are you talking about. Services will become more expensive as companies like Comcast are big on kinking the internet line along the last ten miles unless companies like Netflix pay up. And who pays for that toll? We do.

So you want the infrastructure to deliver these new services to you but you don't want to have to pay for it?

Oh goodness... I keep forgetting that Internet is free to people on Comcast's network. No one pays for it at all.

The model is you pay for the access to put or receive something on the Internet. Netflix and Hulu pay to upload content onto the Internet. A consumer pays to access the content. What Comcast wants to do is make Netflix and Hulu pay more to allow a consumer to access the content (that the consumer is alreayd paying for to have the right to access it). Netflix didn't need to pay more to get the information used by others. That is Net Neutrality.

What people like you want is to have Netflix pay to upload and then pay again for people (who are already paying to have access to the Internet) to be able to download it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So you want the infrastructure to deliver these new services to you but you don't want to have to pay for it?

Oh goodness... I keep forgetting that Internet is free to people on Comcast's network. No one pays for it at all.

The model is you pay for the access to put or receive something on the Internet. Netflix and Hulu pay to upload content onto the Internet. A consumer pays to access the content. What Comcast wants to do is make Netflix and Hulu pay more to allow a consumer to access the content (that the consumer is alreayd paying for to have the right to access it). Netflix didn't need to pay more to get the information used by others. That is Net Neutrality.

What people like you want is to have Netflix pay to upload and then pay again for people (who are already paying to have access to the Internet) to be able to download it.

But your argument is who has to pay for the services underneath is what is called into question. This issue happens a lot in business where if you are using another company as your distribution model you pay that distributor for your product.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Why wouldn't it? Comcast can charge websites to load at a regular speed and slow down the ones that don't. (See: Netflix) Talkfreethought may have to start paying internet providers for access.

The biggest concern for Comcast was one of it's biggest rivals using its infrastructure to deliver the competing product. Comcast won't care about this site. And Comcast and Netflix came to an agreement after.

Why not? It doesn't have to add anyone to it's preferred website list. Comcast can easily slow down or block all non-preferred websites. If talkfreethought pays a fee they can be accessed through Comcast. -- It's the same model they use for cable TV. Cable TV in my city does not carry all the broadcast stations.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Oh goodness... I keep forgetting that Internet is free to people on Comcast's network. No one pays for it at all.

The model is you pay for the access to put or receive something on the Internet. Netflix and Hulu pay to upload content onto the Internet. A consumer pays to access the content. What Comcast wants to do is make Netflix and Hulu pay more to allow a consumer to access the content (that the consumer is alreayd paying for to have the right to access it). Netflix didn't need to pay more to get the information used by others. That is Net Neutrality.

What people like you want is to have Netflix pay to upload and then pay again for people (who are already paying to have access to the Internet) to be able to download it.

But your argument is who has to pay for the services underneath is what is called into question. This issue happens a lot in business where if you are using another company as your distribution model you pay that distributor for your product.

But do you pay for the content of a phone call?

 

[coloradoatheist]

The biggest concern for Comcast was one of it's biggest rivals using its infrastructure to deliver the competing product. Comcast won't care about this site. And Comcast and Netflix came to an agreement after.

Why not? It doesn't have to add anyone to it's preferred website list. Comcast can easily slow down or block all non-preferred websites. If talkfreethought pays a fee they can be accessed through Comcast. -- It's the same model they use for cable TV. Cable TV in my city does not carry all the broadcast stations.

And if they do it, they will lose long term. People won't use Comcast as an Internet provider and will open up the market for the other competitors.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But your argument is who has to pay for the services underneath is what is called into question. This issue happens a lot in business where if you are using another company as your distribution model you pay that distributor for your product.

But do you pay for the content of a phone call?

Businesses use different models on how to pay things all the time. Some restaurants charge by individual items, some do buffet style. Are buffet places wrong to charge that way?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Why not? It doesn't have to add anyone to it's preferred website list. Comcast can easily slow down or block all non-preferred websites. If talkfreethought pays a fee they can be accessed through Comcast. -- It's the same model they use for cable TV. Cable TV in my city does not carry all the broadcast stations.

And if they do it, they will lose long term. People won't use Comcast as an Internet provider and will open up the market for the other competitors.

How many high-speed providers do you have in your area?

- - - Updated - - -

But do you pay for the content of a phone call?

Businesses use different models on how to pay things all the time. Some restaurants charge by individual items, some do buffet style. Are buffet places wrong to charge that way?

Those are physical items and the restaurant pays the distributor for the product. The distributor does not pay the restaurant.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And if they do it, they will lose long term. People won't use Comcast as an Internet provider and will open up the market for the other competitors.

How many high-speed providers do you have in your area?

- - - Updated - - -

But do you pay for the content of a phone call?

Businesses use different models on how to pay things all the time. Some restaurants charge by individual items, some do buffet style. Are buffet places wrong to charge that way?

Those are physical items and the restaurant pays the distributor for the product. The distributor does not pay the restaurant.

There are several providers out here and the big ones could lose market share if they stopped providing internet. So again, you want companies to invest in the facilities to provide you a service, but balk at them trying to pay for it?

 

[coloradoatheist]

And if they do it, they will lose long term. People won't use Comcast as an Internet provider and will open up the market for the other competitors.

How many high-speed providers do you have in your area?

- - - Updated - - -

But do you pay for the content of a phone call?

Businesses use different models on how to pay things all the time. Some restaurants charge by individual items, some do buffet style. Are buffet places wrong to charge that way?

Those are physical items and the restaurant pays the distributor for the product. The distributor does not pay the restaurant.

I was using it as example of different pricing mechanisms. But retail is more similar and manufacturers have the issue of how do they sell their merchandise. Do they open up their own store or rely on another store to sell it for them. Grocery stores have long time been known to use slotting fees to get better spots on the aisle.

 

[JonA]

Netflix and Hulu pay to upload content onto the Internet.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

How many high-speed providers do you have in your area?

- - - Updated - - -

But do you pay for the content of a phone call?

Businesses use different models on how to pay things all the time. Some restaurants charge by individual items, some do buffet style. Are buffet places wrong to charge that way?

Those are physical items and the restaurant pays the distributor for the product. The distributor does not pay the restaurant.

There are several providers out here and the big ones could lose market share if they stopped providing internet. So again, you want companies to invest in the facilities to provide you a service, but balk at them trying to pay for it?

Um, they seem to being doing just fine without charging for content and Comcast is not losing money.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh goodness... I keep forgetting that Internet is free to people on Comcast's network. No one pays for it at all.

The model is you pay for the access to put or receive something on the Internet. Netflix and Hulu pay to upload content onto the Internet. A consumer pays to access the content. What Comcast wants to do is make Netflix and Hulu pay more to allow a consumer to access the content (that the consumer is alreayd paying for to have the right to access it). Netflix didn't need to pay more to get the information used by others. That is Net Neutrality.

What people like you want is to have Netflix pay to upload and then pay again for people (who are already paying to have access to the Internet) to be able to download it.

But your argument is who has to pay for the services underneath is what is called into question.

It is being paid for locally by the uploader and by the downloader at the point of use. The local internet companies themselves are paying for the ride in between the two local access networks over longer trunk lines.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But your argument is who has to pay for the services underneath is what is called into question.

It is being paid for locally by the uploader and by the downloader at the point of use. The local internet companies themselves are paying for the ride in between the two local access networks over longer trunk lines.

But the argument is about who pays for what throughout the whole path. The whole problem is that Netflix is relying on it's competitor to deliver its product.

- - - Updated - - -

How many high-speed providers do you have in your area?

- - - Updated - - -

But do you pay for the content of a phone call?

Businesses use different models on how to pay things all the time. Some restaurants charge by individual items, some do buffet style. Are buffet places wrong to charge that way?

Those are physical items and the restaurant pays the distributor for the product. The distributor does not pay the restaurant.

There are several providers out here and the big ones could lose market share if they stopped providing internet. So again, you want companies to invest in the facilities to provide you a service, but balk at them trying to pay for it?

Um, they seem to being doing just fine without charging for content and Comcast is not losing money.

Short term, but Comcast has to worry about long term. Netflix itself is the primary driver driving up the costs and bandwidth on the Internet.