Net Neutrality

[JonBoy]

Ok I did a lot of searching and reviewing on this yesterday after my initial post. My opinion is that this was a good decision for the free market economy (to kill NN). The government did not need to step in and force company's who own the ISP's to provide equality despite use. Now that this has been removed it will allow the ISP's to charge per usage and allow competition once again and the drive for new company's to innovate and find cheaper ways to provide using updated technology instead of the technology currently used buy these ISP's. My .02cents

I would agree with you if this were only a content-based scenario but it's not. The situation we now have would be akin to a company like Walmart, who provides shopping access to consumers, deciding that in addition to giving consumers access to name brand goods that they were going to create and give access to their own brand of groceries (Great Value). Sometime down the line they find it more profitable to either jack up the price for name brand goods (driving consumers to lower priced Great Value options) or pull those name brand products off the shelf altogether. Wait...nevermind...they already do that Where's the competition in that? My 0.02 cents

Here's a recent example of a not-so-small company trying to break into a market with an innovative technology that's meeting quite a bit of legal resistance from the large business establishment: http://www.businessinsider.com/targe...-plans-2017-10
Just one example of many and I can guarantee it happens with web content too.

[Vermin93]

To be fair, Comcast has been talking out of both sides of their mouth for quite sometime. They have publicly declared support FOR NN while in the background lobbying with millions of dollars AGAINST NN. It was clear what their real intentions were when they started throwing their money around.

Comcast saying they support “net neutrality”, while opposing and lobbying against the Title II regulations that were implemented to enforce it, was probably not a bad PR strategy.

Equally disturbing is the lobbying the telco/cable duopoly has done to stifle the development of broadband competition by municipalities, particularly in rural America.

[Man]

I would agree with you if this were only a content-based scenario but it's not. The situation we now have would be akin to a company like Walmart, who provides shopping access to consumers, deciding that in addition to giving consumers access to name brand goods that they were going to create and give access to their own brand of groceries (Great Value). Sometime down the line they find it more profitable to either jack up the price for name brand goods (driving consumers to lower priced Great Value options) or pull those name brand products off the shelf altogether. Wait...nevermind...they already do that Where's the competition in that? My 0.02 cents

The very thing you are describing is competition! It is the free market! Walmart was purchasing and selling Bills Frying Pan and making 30% margin on it. Then Walmart invests in a sourcing department and creates a frying pan that it brings in and makes 60% margin on because it does not have to invest in marketing dollars, commercials so forth like Bills Frying Pans does.
Now it is up to Bill Frying Pans to re-innovate and find cost savings in order to compete with Walmart and other retailers private label frying pans. Who knows maybe Bills becomes obsolete in the frying pan business and moves on to other ventures where they become competitive again. This is competition.

[SaltwaterSlick]

Hey I got an Idea.... Let just let the FBI investigate this to see if it is above board and legit... we can trust them, right???

[Jason]

So what's the difference in the principal behind net neutrality vs. the Affordable Healthcare Act? To me it boils down to the fact that I am either for free markets or I am not.

[JonBoy]

The very thing you are describing is competition! It is the free market! Walmart was purchasing and selling Bills Frying Pan and making 30% margin on it. Then Walmart invests in a sourcing department and creates a frying pan that it brings in and makes 60% margin on because it does not have to invest in marketing dollars, commercials so forth like Bills Frying Pans does.
Now it is up to Bill Frying Pans to re-innovate and find cost savings in order to compete with Walmart and other retailers private label frying pans. Who knows maybe Bills becomes obsolete in the frying pan business and moves on to other ventures where they become competitive again. This is competition.

Actually, it's up to Bill Frying Pans to generate the large sums of capital, lobby to re-zone, and grease the contractors to build out a network of stores and distribution chain so that they can have a store to even put their products in. What I was eluding to is when you control the store, its very easy to decide what goes in and out of it. Problem is, the telecoms "own" the infrastructure (even though we the tax payers paid huge chunks of money to build it) and now they want to decide who you the consumer get to access on that network.

[JonBoy]

So what's the difference in the principal behind net neutrality vs. the Affordable Healthcare Act? To me it boils down to the fact that I am either for free markets or I am not.

Just remember, free market works until a monopoly is formed. The true endgame of unfettered capitalism is not that much different than the true endgame of unfettered socialism...it's just a matter of who controls the money...big business or big government.

[kilroy230]

To get the government out of the regulating every thing business and let the free market determine the path, always works much better for us.

[banzai]

So what's the difference in the principal behind net neutrality vs. the Affordable Healthcare Act? To me it boils down to the fact that I am either for free markets or I am not.

This is what the entire debate is about: free markets vs regulation. I am for free markets.

The big corps will pillage and try to maximize their profits, but they will also fight among themselves while smaller companies try every angle to take some profits, too.

Meanwhile, if not restricted by regulations, tech can change in the blink of an eye and old infrastructure can be obsolete and worthless in a day.

Follow the kids. If all us old fogies did, facebook would be broke today, then who would be the next big thing? The kids will find and support the next revolutionary technology and and support it until it dominates if it is good enough. If not, they are always looking and open to new ideas and concepts.

In contrast, we old adults cling to 1931-style telephone utility regulations in hope that we can all have access to affordable fiber broadband from the Big Three that is already obsolete in comparison with what is sitting in labs waiting to be unleashed into a fair and free market.

[Man]

Actually, it's up to Bill Frying Pans to generate the large sums of capital, lobby to re-zone, and grease the contractors to build out a network of stores and distribution chain so that they can have a store to even put their products in. What I was eluding to is when you control the store, its very easy to decide what goes in and out of it. Problem is, the telecoms "own" the infrastructure (even though we the tax payers paid huge chunks of money to build it) and now they want to decide who you the consumer get to access on that network.

This is what will drive new company's to create and develop technology that will compete with or make obsolete these telecoms current infrastructure.

[JonBoy]

To get the government out of the regulating every thing business and let the free market determine the path, always works much better for us.

Not trying to be argumentative but remember that regulations such as Fair Labor Standards Act got us things like an 8 hour workday and the weekend. Without those kinds of regulations we'd still be working in horrid conditions, dealing with child labor issues and probably wouldn't have half the time luxuries we do today.

Although my participation in this thread seems contrary, I actually tend to lean towards less regulation and less government intrusion. BUT I do recognize the fact that SOME regulations are a necessary evil because frankly, when push comes to shove, businesses can't be trusted to always "do the right thing".

[JonBoy]

This is what will drive new company's to create and develop technology that will compete with or make obsolete these telecoms current infrastructure.

I don't disagree but they have to be allowed to get it to market first. If they're cut off from the get go then all the innovation in the world won't matter.

[kilroy230]

Hey I got an Idea.... Let just let the FBI investigate this to see if it is above board and legit... we can trust them, right???

Of course we can trust them it's not like they have become a political arm of the left to cover up their crimes and destroy their opposition. 😉

[Man]

I don't disagree but they have to be allowed to get it to market first. If they're cut off from the get go then all the innovation in the world won't matter.

Thats what I am not understanding...where are they being cut off at now that we will killed NN? Obama did not take away ownership he just forced equality?

[JonBoy]

Thats what I am not understanding...where are they being cut off at now that we will killed NN? Obama did not take away ownership he just forced equality?

NN forced the hands of ISPs to treat content online equally...meaning no throttling, no content filtering, no premium charging for content was allowed. Now that those rules have been rescinded, ISPs can do any and all of that including blocking access to online content from competitors or charging their customers extra for access to content they deem "premium"

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk