We’ll spare no expense in our efforts to serf our customers.
I know that Ad hominem attacks are a sign of weak reasoning, but I do believe that I will be forever against anything Ajit Pai is for. Even in the NFL taunting is a foul.
Some of the examples listed had nothing to do with net neutrality(Netflix, Google Wallet, Pearl Jam). Other examples aren’t going to repeat themselves. There’s no way AT&T is going to block FaceTime. It’s just too popular. Since most plans have unlimited phone minutes, AT&T isn’t going to block Skype to get people to buy more minutes. The tethering problem was a result of phone companies offering unlimited data plans, back before HD streaming was big, and being surprised at how much data their customers were using. The telecoms have long since adjusted by charging per data used, setting hard or soft data caps, or setting their prices based on higher expected data usage. Was blocking BitTorrent so bad? I’m betting the primary use was transferring pirated content.
I am not convinced this is awful yet…
certain companies use up more of the finite amount of bandwidth than others…
Facebook and twitter and youtube control what you see each time you access their systems, and have a vested monetary interest in insuring that their services can be accessed by individuals without those individuals paying the cost to access the service.
Should someone that watches 300 hours of netflix every month pay more for their internet than someone watching 5 hours? Obviously, netflix thinks they shouldn’t, but netflix isn’t incurring the cost of that person watching 300 hours of content.
I don’t think this decision is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I don’t think it’s going to come crashing down either.
Regardless of your views on it, I think it is important to acknowledge that the big names arguing on both sides of this have financial incentives that underpin their stance.
Facebook etc. police their content only if someone reports that it violates the law. Mostly, it is copyright stuff. That is perfectly fine in my book.
Volume-based pricing or limits would still be neutral between different providers of video streaming. The more relevant example would be if a monopoly local internet provider charged differently for 300 hours of Netflix versus 300 hours of some other video streaming service.
ISPs were already free to sell plans with limited data, just like your phone provider.
Somebody name me some good reasons. Give me 3 to 5 reasons how citizens benefit from this, how this isn’t just a corporate benefit. Arguing that it is okay because it puts us back where we were doesn’t cut it for me.
In my long lifetime here on earth, the party of big business never does anything that will benefit the consumer. You can take that to the bank.
Net neutrality always seemed like a solution in search of a problem. In some ways, net neutrality can make the internet more expensive for consumers, by banning mobile zero-rating.
interesting.
I do agree that monopolies often cause problems for consumers.