Internet businesses ask U.S. to keep net neutrality rules

MaggieD said:

I think it makes good sense to do that.

Click to expand...

Then you are against Ajit Pai's current proposal to undo what was done in 2015. Just like most off the posters with who you have been debating in this thread.

Congratulations, it looks like you've been on our side after all.

Question though...so does that make you one of those greedy downloaders who are streaming and downloading like "wildfire"? ;-)

Slyfox696 said:

Then you are against Ajit Pai's current proposal to undo what was done in 2015. Just like most off the posters with who you have been debating in this thread.

Congratulations, it looks like you've been on our side after all.

Question though...so does that make you one of those greedy downloaders who are streaming and downloading like "wildfire"? ;-)

Click to expand...

No, it makes YOU a great explainer with a great analogy, and me the Little Smarty Pants I always knew I was.

After thinking it through, I’m not even sure net neutrality goes far enough. These services are public utilities. They should be classified and regulated the same way.

Mea culpa to all you greedy downloaders.

Slyfox696 said:

Then you are against Ajit Pai's current proposal to undo what was done in 2015. Just like most off the posters with who you have been debating in this thread.

Congratulations, it looks like you've been on our side after all.

Question though...so does that make you one of those greedy downloaders who are streaming and downloading like "wildfire"? ;-)

Click to expand...

I’m not sure people would like them regulated like utilities though. There’s a definite downside. Yes, their rate increases and profits are regulated. But they also charge for how much you use. They charge apt buildings a higher rate than residential, and businesses more than that. However, they are also forced to serve underserved areas. That would be a good thing. But OTOH, they charge more for 220 service and up.

Companies would HATE it! Their stocks would become stable, not subject to market forces but to interest rates and dividends available for payout. No, I don’t think they’d like that AT ALL.

CMPancake said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-of-each-others-cloud-services-idUSKBN1DS0TO

The whole basis of Ashit Pi's argument for killing your internet is built on the false premise that repealing Net Neutrality protections would allow businesses to thrive. If that were the case, why are so Businesses that have innovated and thrived over the Internet like AirBnB, Netflix, Amazon, Etsy, and Reddit oppose the repeal of Net Neutrality?



The repeal of Net Neutrality is Anti-consumer, Anti-American garbage that only seeks to benefit the already in power ISPs that can throttle and effectively destroy startup Internet businesses that are unable to pay the ransom that bigger businesses like Netflix and Amazon can pay for. If you truly care for not just Freedom of speech, but for freedom of business, then you should be for protecting the Internet from the big telecom companies.

Click to expand...

Of course they are, just like most people that understand what it actually is and what the regulation is actually about. Just like consumers most companies dont want it to not be protected because they know they could be on the losing end. In general Net Neutrality as always existed in ways/theory/practice but now needs protected because the risk of it getting chipped away and stifling the free market.

MaggieD said:

I’m not sure people would like them regulated like utilities though. There’s a definite downside. Yes, their rate increases and profits are regulated. But they also charge for how much you use. They charge apt buildings a higher rate than residential, and businesses more than that. However, they are also forced to serve underserved areas. That would be a good thing. But OTOH, they charge more for 220 service and up.

Companies would HATE it! Their stocks would become stable, not subject to market forces but to interest rates and dividends available for payout. No, I don’t think they’d like that AT ALL.

Click to expand...

Ultimately, consumers just want to know that they're getting what they pay for and they do not want the Internet to be sectioned off, either in ways similar to cable television or at the expense of one service in favor of another.

I could easily see an ISP trying to section off the Internet into bundles like is done with cable television, but I don't think that's the likely result of removing net neutrality. What I think is the likely result of ending net neutrality is the elimination of competitor content in favor of one's own content. All of the major Internet providers have services which compete with online services, most notably cable/satellite television. As someone who watches Playstation Vue (an Internet streaming version of cable TV), it is incredibly easy to believe my Charter ISP would degrade any Internet traffic to/from Playstation Vue, just to force me to buy their Charter Spectrum television. I think that is a VERY realistic result of ending net neutrality.

I know that you don't really need convincing anymore, but to anyone who still does, just ask yourself this question: Who would benefit from ending net neutrality? Consumers wouldn't benefit. Small business wouldn't benefit. Many of the major Internet content providers (including Netflix, Google/Youtube, Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc.) have come out in support of net neutrality. It seems everyone with a major stake in the debate is for net neutrality...with one exception, that being the ISPs. The only group who seems to stand to gain from ending net neutrality, the only group who seems in support of ending net neutrality, are the ISPs.

To anyone who still isn't sure...ask yourself why that is. And then I think you'll understand why this move by a former attorney for Verizon isn't good for this country.