With Net Neutrality Comcast has no way to properly charge back for their cost. They will need to just charge everyone more for their service because they couldn't charge NetFlix users specifically for the increased peer contract with Level 3. In that way Ted Cruz is correct. Just as Obamacare forces people to buy insurance that includes services they can't use, Net Neutrality ends up forcing ISPs to charge all customers for services that not all customers use.
No, I don't believe that. Most ISPs would be thrilled to sell you internet that didn't support NetFlix because they would have a high expectation that your actual usage would be well below what a NetFlix user would use.I don't believe it will lower prices or keep it cheaper. I don't actually view this singularly as a financial issue, though I absolutely DO think that lack of neutrality will open the door to higher costs and more specifically, less bang for your buck.
NetFlix uses over a quarter of the entire internet bandwidth. What happens when the number grows to 30%, or more? Net Neutrality is an endorsement of a monopoly on bandwidth by the big data providers like NetFlix and Youtube. Look at it this way, if you follow Net Neutrality, then as you throttle all traffic equally then NetFlix will always have the lions share of the internet, and the start-ups will be stuck subdividing whatever remains. By allowing targeted throttling you can give more bandwidth to the little guys than you could with an across the board throttle.Now I absolutely DO think it'll be more friendly to the little guy, and I'd love for you to explain how a situation where majorly backed websites and services can pay for a faster connection while startups without such capital are forced with a slower means of delivering their serivce is somehow a more "friendly" situation than one now, where that people accessing that startups site/service would be doing so at the [relatively] same speeds that they'd be accessing the other guys.
Which I haven't been doing any more than the net neutrality side has been screaming "CORPORATIONS BAD!!"Screaming "Government Regulation bad!" over and over and over again actually doesn't prove or show anything.
No, it isn't clear. Imaginary clarity stems from the over simplification of the issue.There are verifiable, factual, CLEAR indications of companies doing things that violate net neutrality standards and are similar to the type of things people fear they will continue to do if they aren't curtailed by regulation. I can actually give you clear examples.
What? Maybe you haven't been following this debate? The issue at hand is that Net Neutrality is the government stepping into a low regulation environment. By definition I have no examples of something the government is only proposing it will do.Please give me examples of the governments over regulation of the internet?
No, again, especially the example currently in play regarding Comcast and NetFlix is not so cut and dry, as I have mentioned earlier.Are both things operating a bit off a "boogey man" principle? Sure. The difference is one boogeyman has actually shown himself to be real, with the questionable part being how much bigger it's going to grow. The other one is simply a myth that may turn out true, but has little to no actual evidence that's been provided to show that it will.