Quote:
Posted by Fysez
(Post 801947)
For example, with net neutrality, ISPs are dictated like monopolies. Even mom-and-pop ISPs. It makes it super hard for new companies to come in if they don't already have a load of money to pay for proving that they aren't interfering with connections.
Another example is that under the Title II, the FCC can add new regulations and internet "laws" without consent from the ISP, and without us as users, rendering the ISP business model a terrible business to even get into.
Really it's more about how net neutrality is implemented than it is about not messing with how you view content. Even before net neutrality, there was nothing wrong with the internet, these ISPs didn't make it a goal to force you to pay more money for services.
|
Da hell is a "mom and pop ISP?" Are you talking about the people who set up the little tents in the back of a walmart parking lot and the little hole-in-the-wall stores in the back of a mall? Sure their service is cheap, but their quality is just as low as their price. Like Simons said, ISPs are essentially monopolies. They have strongholds over different regions of the country. If you live in California, your only option is Comcrap if you want decent internet connection. If you live in Oklahoma, your only option is Cox if you want decent internet connection.
Well no, ISPs arent going to charge their own customers more money; that's not the point in removing net neutrality. Their goal is to suck money from websites or throttle speeds for that website if they refuse to pay -- sounds no different from a ransom. And if Netflix and other websites are forced to pay criminal amounts of money to ISPs, then Netflix and other websites will have no choice but to charge their customers more for their services. So yes, the burden will in many cases circle back to the households.
Will it be the end of Facebook and Google? No, they can afford to be robbed by ISPs. It will sting a lot, but the big players of the internet will continue to operate. The problem will be for the 99% of the rest of the websites on the internet that don't make enough revenue to pay the mobsters. If ISPs choose to bully all websites (rather than picking and choosing the big ones), a lot of the small to medium sized websites would be severely damaged.
And from a business model perspective, ISPs demanding money from Netflix and Google makes no sense in the value chain (hence all of the above criminal references). ISPs provide value to their customers (us, the internet service subscribers), therefore we pay the ISPs for their infrastructure. But why should websites pay ISPs when ISPs do not add value to the websites' content? ISPs are only threatening to forcibly degrade the value of the websites' content.
Quote:
Posted by Ghettoicedtea
(Post 801956)
The net was more free without net neutrality. Now its basically Facebook, Netflix, Amazon and Google that control the internet. Also notice how the main corporations who bitch about it are the ones i just listed. They dont want to lose their power
|
Explain to me how F, N, A, and G "control the internet." Just because these are some of the most popular and most profitable website corporations doesnt mean they have any power over the rest of the internet. The only argument here would be Google, because they are a search engine; but Google does a fair job at not manipulating search results to discriminate against websites.
(On the other hand, Facebook manipulating their newsfeed makes them a ****ing hypocrite for supporting net neutrality). However, removing net neutrality will give ISPs substantial power over literally the entire internet.
