• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Positive Benefits to Ending Net Neutrality...

MrWonka

MrWonka

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
12,130
Reaction score
7,253
Location
Charleston, SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
First, let me just start by saying I do not support ending net neutrality. However I do feel as though there are a number of problems that net neutrality creates, and I'm not entirely certain that there are better solutions.

1.) Fake News. For most of the last 200 years getting information out to the general public was kind of difficult. There were like 5 television channels and maybe 10 newspapers or magazines that were distributed across the entire country. Now obviously there are downsides to this. You have too much control over information in the hands of a relatively few people. However, you could argue that it made it much easier to prevent the spread of patent nonsense. You had someone who was relatively responsible checking and double checking everything that was printed, and with very little competition the pressure to get scoops and stories out there first wasn't as high which allowed for less shotty journalism.

Liberals fear that major corporations will block news sources they like and make it harder for good independent news sources to get through, but when you look at where most corporations seem to be rejecting political groups is on the Right-wing side. Look at all the corporations that are disavowing the NRA. Looking at what happened when sponsors started pulling their adds from Bill O'Reilly. I tend to think it's far more likely that ending net neutrality would result in sites like InfoWars being blocked than Huffington Post.

2.) Throttling of Netflix. Everybody loves Netflix cause it's so cheap, and there are no commercials and whatnot, but here's the thing. Seven years ago I cut the cord on cable because I thought $70/ month was too much for cable and internet. I decided I only really needed internet so I ditched cable, got a digital antenna, and Netflix. I saved myself about $25/month, and I thought I was really smart. Today, however, my high-speed internet bill all by itself is $65/ month. When you add Netflix on top of that I'm actually paying more, and I still don't get ESPN or Comedy Central. That's still less than the $125/ month it would cost to get internet and cable, but I'm not saving any money over what I paid seven years ago anymore. Why?

Because cable companies have to pay to maintain the same exact infrastructure whether they're providing you just internet, just cable, or both. So everytime someone gets ride of cable they have no choice, but to make up for it by raising the price of the internet just a little bit. Furthermore, Cable television costs the same to produce regardless of how many people subscribe to it. Fewer subscribers result in a higher price per viewer.

By allowing companies to throttle Netflix, Hulu, Sling, Vue... You force those services to pay the cable companies more. That will increase the price of Netflix, but it will reduce the cost of high-speed internet to match it. Furthermore, those of us who don't use Netflix, and don't do a lot of internet gaming will be able to buy cheaper packages for the internet. By forcing people to pay more specifically for what they use, the result is that those of us who don't use as much will get it cheaper instead of subsidizing the usage of others who use way more.

Now, you could certainly argue that the internet is a public good, and we really should be to a certain extent subsidizing it to ensure that everyone has a reasonable amount of access to it. But realistically...I don't have Netflix, and I don't do any online gaming, and I'm tired of paying a **** load for internet just so nerds can play Call of Duty cheaper, and women can watch Beauty and the Beast for the 400th time.
 
Last edited:
I believe economies of scale favor the public sector. The physical layer should be the responsibly of the public sector.

The positive benefits of public sector ownership, could be, redundant, fiber optics communications that are underground, along with other "conduits to markets".

Capital intensive projects is what State Capitalism, is Good for.
 
danielpalos said:
I believe economies of scale favor the public sector. The physical layer should be the responsibly of the public sector.

The positive benefits of public sector ownership, could be, redundant, fiber optics communications that are underground, along with other "conduits to markets".

Capital intensive projects is what State Capitalism, is Good for.
Click to expand...

Yes, the state of the Highways in America make me really think handing over the Internet Infrastructure to "Government" is a great idea...
 
Renae said:
Yes, the state of the Highways in America make me really think handing over the Internet Infrastructure to "Government" is a great idea...
Click to expand...

Private roads are usually worse.

And,

we went to the Moon, last millennium via Government initiative and command economics. the private sector is still looking for a profit motive.

The Only reason we are not on Mars, is because Nixon gave us an alleged, War on Drugs, instead.
 
MrWonka said:
First, let me just start by saying I do not support ending net neutrality. However I do feel as though there are a number of problems that net neutrality creates, and I'm not entirely certain that there are better solutions.

1.) Fake News. For most of the last 200 years getting information out to the general public was kind of difficult. There were like 5 television channels and maybe 10 newspapers or magazines that were distributed across the entire country. Now obviously there are downsides to this. You have too much control over information in the hands of a relatively few people. However, you could argue that it made it much easier to prevent the spread of patent nonsense. You had someone who was relatively responsible checking and double checking everything that was printed, and with very little competition the pressure to get scoops and stories out there first wasn't as high which allowed for less shotty journalism.

Liberals fear that major corporations will block news sources they like and make it harder for good independent news sources to get through, but when you look at where most corporations seem to be rejecting political groups is on the Right-wing side. Look at all the corporations that are disavowing the NRA. Looking at what happened when sponsors started pulling their adds from Bill O'Reilly. I tend to think it's far more likely that ending net neutrality would result in sites like InfoWars being blocked than Huffington Post.

2.) Throttling of Netflix. Everybody loves Netflix cause it's so cheap, and there are no commercials and whatnot, but here's the thing. Seven years ago I cut the cord on cable because I thought $70/ month was too much for cable and internet. I decided I only really needed internet so I ditched cable, got a digital antenna, and Netflix. I saved myself about $25/month, and I thought I was really smart. Today, however, my high-speed internet bill all by itself is $65/ month. When you add Netflix on top of that I'm actually paying more, and I still don't get ESPN or Comedy Central. That's still less than the $125/ month it would cost to get internet and cable, but I'm not saving any money over what I paid seven years ago anymore. Why?

Because cable companies have to pay to maintain the same exact infrastructure whether they're providing you just internet, just cable, or both. So everytime someone gets ride of cable they have no choice, but to make up for it by raising the price of the internet just a little bit. Furthermore, Cable television costs the same to produce regardless of how many people subscribe to it. Fewer subscribers result in a higher price per viewer.

By allowing companies to throttle Netflix, Hulu, Sling, Vue... You force those services to pay the cable companies more. That will increase the price of Netflix, but it will reduce the cost of high-speed internet to match it. Furthermore, those of us who don't use Netflix, and don't do a lot of internet gaming will be able to buy cheaper packages for the internet. By forcing people to pay more specifically for what they use, the result is that those of us who don't use as much will get it cheaper instead of subsidizing the usage of others who use way more.

Now, you could certainly argue that the internet is a public good, and we really should be to a certain extent subsidizing it to ensure that everyone has a reasonable amount of access to it. But realistically...I don't have Netflix, and I don't do any online gaming, and I'm tired of paying a **** load for internet just so nerds can play Call of Duty cheaper, and women can watch Beauty and the Beast for the 400th time.
Click to expand...

Oh, dang, they've got you convinced that those price increases are due to cost, and not shareholder value... ;)

How about instead, demand that the internet be declared an essential service (because let's face it, in 2018 it is), and get that monthly fee down to something everyone can afford? Have Netflix / Hula / whoever to add a buck onto their service to pitch in to the overall network, and call it a day? It's not about nerds wanting to play cheaper, just the same price...it's the ISP's who are milking you guys.
 
danielpalos said:
Private roads are usually worse.

And,

we went to the Moon, last millennium via Government initiative and command economics. the private sector is still looking for a profit motive.

The Only reason we are not on Mars, is because Nixon gave us an alleged, War on Drugs, instead.
Click to expand...

Harldly but thanks for playing.
 
MrWonka said:
First, let me just start by saying I do not support ending net neutrality. However I do feel as though there are a number of problems that net neutrality creates, and I'm not entirely certain that there are better solutions.

1.) Fake News. For most of the last 200 years getting information out to the general public was kind of difficult. There were like 5 television channels and maybe 10 newspapers or magazines that were distributed across the entire country. Now obviously there are downsides to this. You have too much control over information in the hands of a relatively few people. However, you could argue that it made it much easier to prevent the spread of patent nonsense. You had someone who was relatively responsible checking and double checking everything that was printed, and with very little competition the pressure to get scoops and stories out there first wasn't as high which allowed for less shotty journalism.

Liberals fear that major corporations will block news sources they like and make it harder for good independent news sources to get through, but when you look at where most corporations seem to be rejecting political groups is on the Right-wing side. Look at all the corporations that are disavowing the NRA. Looking at what happened when sponsors started pulling their adds from Bill O'Reilly. I tend to think it's far more likely that ending net neutrality would result in sites like InfoWars being blocked than Huffington Post.

2.) Throttling of Netflix. Everybody loves Netflix cause it's so cheap, and there are no commercials and whatnot, but here's the thing. Seven years ago I cut the cord on cable because I thought $70/ month was too much for cable and internet. I decided I only really needed internet so I ditched cable, got a digital antenna, and Netflix. I saved myself about $25/month, and I thought I was really smart. Today, however, my high-speed internet bill all by itself is $65/ month. When you add Netflix on top of that I'm actually paying more, and I still don't get ESPN or Comedy Central. That's still less than the $125/ month it would cost to get internet and cable, but I'm not saving any money over what I paid seven years ago anymore. Why?

Because cable companies have to pay to maintain the same exact infrastructure whether they're providing you just internet, just cable, or both. So everytime someone gets ride of cable they have no choice, but to make up for it by raising the price of the internet just a little bit. Furthermore, Cable television costs the same to produce regardless of how many people subscribe to it. Fewer subscribers result in a higher price per viewer.

By allowing companies to throttle Netflix, Hulu, Sling, Vue... You force those services to pay the cable companies more. That will increase the price of Netflix, but it will reduce the cost of high-speed internet to match it. Furthermore, those of us who don't use Netflix, and don't do a lot of internet gaming will be able to buy cheaper packages for the internet. By forcing people to pay more specifically for what they use, the result is that those of us who don't use as much will get it cheaper instead of subsidizing the usage of others who use way more.

Now, you could certainly argue that the internet is a public good, and we really should be to a certain extent subsidizing it to ensure that everyone has a reasonable amount of access to it. But realistically...I don't have Netflix, and I don't do any online gaming, and I'm tired of paying a **** load for internet just so nerds can play Call of Duty cheaper, and women can watch Beauty and the Beast for the 400th time.
Click to expand...

I build these networks and know traffic flows. Believe me, bandwidth needs are growing faster than anyone outside of our industry can possibly imagine.
 
OlNate said:
Oh, dang, they've got you convinced that those price increases are due to cost, and not shareholder value... ;)

How about instead, demand that the internet be declared an essential service (because let's face it, in 2018 it is), and get that monthly fee down to something everyone can afford? Have Netflix / Hula / whoever to add a buck onto their service to pitch in to the overall network, and call it a day? It's not about nerds wanting to play cheaper, just the same price...it's the ISP's who are milking you guys.
Click to expand...

You damn skippy they are, they are overselling their networks, and the thing is they are selling to BOTH sides of the connection, and some of those ISP's think they should get a third or more bites at the connection. They would have any problem with Netflix or any other streaming service if they didn't oversell their networks because they would throttle to the contracted bandwidth whichever side was slower.
 
danielpalos said:
I believe economies of scale favor the public sector. The physical layer should be the responsibly of the public sector.

The positive benefits of public sector ownership, could be, redundant, fiber optics communications that are underground, along with other "conduits to markets".

Capital intensive projects is what State Capitalism, is Good for.
Click to expand...

One huge problem with public control is their ability and propensity to charge based on ability to pay - how long before internet service is X% of annual AGI or assessed property value instead of $X/month based on connection speed?
 
OlNate said:
Oh, dang, they've got you convinced that those price increases are due to cost, and not shareholder value... ;)
Click to expand...

Contrary to the popular belief of many super liberals you do not get rich in this country by gouging people. You get wealthy by making a very small amount of money off of millions of people. Competition from other sources like Direct T.V and Dish networks do a pretty effective job of preventing cable companies from radically overcharging.


OlNate said:
How about instead, demand that the internet be declared an essential service (because let's face it, in 2018 it is), and get that monthly fee down to something everyone can afford? Have Netflix / Hula / whoever to add a buck to their service to pitch into the overall network, and call it a day? It's not about nerds wanting to play cheaper, just the same price...it's the ISP's who are milking you guys.
Click to expand...

No, it really isn't. This is one instance where your socialist beliefs don't match reality. By charging one flat rate for everyone to use a common good, you motivate people to use as much of that good as they possibly can. It's like going to a buffet where everyone pays a flat rate for all they can eat. Everyone eats way more than they normally would and usually ends up wasting a ton of food. You almost always get charged more than you would at other restaurants, either that or the food ends up being really really poor quality. Now, at least with a buffet there are certain limiting factors which help a lot. There's only so much a person can realistically eat in a sitting.

Now I'll grant you that there are certain aspects of the internet that are an essential service, but Netflix, Hulu, online gaming, even Spotify are not part of that, and if you seriously think having them add a buck to their service to pitch in is really going to cover the cost you're living in a dream world. If you use the power of government to force these prices down I guarantee you that you're going to end up with poor quality service. I realize most cable companies already have poor customer service, but you will end up with slower speeds, more network down time... with no motivation from private companies to improve the quality of their networks they won't make the investments.

A better solution would be to subsidize basic internet. Put in place requirements against throttling content based on political positions, and require that any ISP wanting to throttle a specific site must apply to the FCC to do so and demonstrate why that website is using an excessive amount of bandwidth, but allow for excessive and unessential services like Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, online gaming... to be billed accordingly.

Spotify is a perfect example. My buddy has unlimited data. He has Spotify and regularly drives around playing music nonstop. Like his phone is just always playing and whatever blue tooth speaker he's closest to will pick it up for him. He doesn't even know that he can download songs to his phone rather than constantly re-stream them. I, on the other hand, do not have unlimited data. As a result, I'm more careful about making sure I'm on wifi when possible, and download the handful of playlists I'm listening to a lot currently for when I'm not. I don't use anywhere near the bandwidth he does, but's really not cramping my style at all.

I love Spotify, but it is not an essential service, and if we were both using it responsibly there would be absolutely no reason why ISPs would need to be constantly upgrading their networks to get more bandwidth. The prices would level off.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
One huge problem with public control is their ability and propensity to charge based on ability to pay - how long before internet service is X% of annual AGI or assessed property value instead of $X/month based on connection speed?
Click to expand...

That is a special pleading issue that is up for debate. With public sector responsibility, infrastructure would be built as needed; regardless of profit motive.

With the scale economies the public sector can bring to bear, there is no reason to believe the private sector will be unable to find arbitrage opportunities, with any economies of scale they can muster, to their profit motive.
 
OlNate said:
Oh, dang, they've got you convinced that those price increases are due to cost, and not shareholder value... ;)

How about instead, demand that the internet be declared an essential service (because let's face it, in 2018 it is), and get that monthly fee down to something everyone can afford? Have Netflix / Hula / whoever to add a buck onto their service to pitch in to the overall network, and call it a day? It's not about nerds wanting to play cheaper, just the same price...it's the ISP's who are milking you guys.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) presents a key problem. What "one can afford" varies based on their ability to pay (income and assets?). Taxation now varies between negative rates/amounts and very high rates/amounts. Be very careful what you ask for or you might just get it.

What other private goods/services should be socialized and priced based on one's ability to pay? Should my car payment be based on my ability to pay or on the value of the car? Should my rent be based on my ability to pay or on the value of the property?
 
Vadinho said:
I build these networks and know traffic flows. Believe me, bandwidth needs are growing faster than anyone outside of our industry can possibly imagine.
Click to expand...

Right, I mean do you seriously need to stream everything on demand all the time. If you know you want to watch something, set it to download. Have it download during non-peak hours, and it can be available on your hard drive anytime. Computer Memory is insanely cheap, let's use it. It's very similar to what electric companies are trying to do with in-home batteries.
 
danielpalos said:
That is a special pleading issue that is up for debate. With public sector responsibility, infrastructure would be built as needed; regardless of profit motive.

With the scale economies the public sector can bring to bear, there is no reason to believe the private sector will be unable to find arbitrage opportunities, with any economies of scale they can muster, to their profit motive.
Click to expand...

That is precisely what we are doing - debating the merits and pitfalls of socializing vs. regulating internet service providers.

Public infrastructure is not built based on needs it is built based on the whims of elected officials. We have poor maintenance of existing roads and bridges. When my private internet is down I can (and do) demand a discount or switch providers - when the public roads are full of holes, detours and lumpy patches I have no such options.
 
Last edited:
MrWonka said:
Contrary to the popular belief of many super liberals you do not get rich in this country by gouging people. You get wealthy by making a very small amount of money off of millions of people. Competition from other sources like Direct T.V and Dish networks do a pretty effective job of preventing cable companies from radically overcharging.




No, it really isn't. This is one instance where your socialist beliefs don't match reality. By charging one flat rate for everyone to use a common good, you motivate people to use as much of that good as they possibly can. It's like going to a buffet where everyone pays a flat rate for all they can eat. Everyone eats way more than they normally would and usually ends up wasting a ton of food. You almost always get charged more than you would at other restaurants, either that or the food ends up being really really poor quality. Now, at least with a buffet there are certain limiting factors which help a lot. There's only so much a person can realistically eat in a sitting.

Now I'll grant you that there are certain aspects of the internet that are an essential service, but Netflix, Hulu, online gaming, even Spotify are not part of that, and if you seriously think having them add a buck to their service to pitch in is really going to cover the cost you're living in a dream world. If you use the power of government to force these prices down I guarantee you that you're going to end up with poor quality service. I realize most cable companies already have poor customer service, but you will end up with slower speeds, more network down time... with no motivation from private companies to improve the quality of their networks they won't make the investments.

A better solution would be to subsidize basic internet. Put in place requirements against throttling content based on political positions, and require that any ISP wanting to throttle a specific site must apply to the FCC to do so and demonstrate why that website is using an excessive amount of bandwidth, but allow for excessive and unessential services like Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, online gaming... to be billed accordingly.

Spotify is a perfect example. My buddy has unlimited data. He has Spotify and regularly drives around playing music nonstop. Like his phone is just always playing and whatever blue tooth speaker he's closest to will pick it up for him. He doesn't even know that he can download songs to his phone rather than constantly re-stream them. I, on the other hand, do not have unlimited data. As a result, I'm more careful about making sure I'm on wifi when possible, and download the handful of playlists I'm listening to a lot currently for when I'm not. I don't use anywhere near the bandwidth he does, but's really not cramping my style at all.

I love Spotify, but it is not an essential service, and if we were both using it responsibly there would be absolutely no reason why ISPs would need to be constantly upgrading their networks to get more bandwidth. The prices would level off.
Click to expand...

My friend...you know I love most of what you have to say, but I'm not with you on this one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-more-money-off-them/?utm_term=.6c5b39f772cb

Here's another approach:

Internet in America: The biggest problem, a lack of competition, could be solved by a radical idea - Business Insider

There are always options...it just depends on whether your priority is to do what's good for the customer or the shareholder.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is precisely what we are doing - debating the merits and pitfalls of socializing vs. regulating internet service providers.

Public infrastructure is not built based on needs it is built based on the whims of elected officials. We have poor maintenance of existing roads and bridges. When my private internet is down I can (and do) demand a discount or switch providers - when the public roads are full of holes, detours and lumpy patches I have no such options.
Click to expand...

The point is, our Moon landing, Hoover Dam, or the Tennessee Valley Authority, are capital intensive and required State Capitalism.

What you claim as a problem, is due to right wing "tax cut economics" and starving the beast through across the board cuts to government spending.
 
danielpalos said:
The point is, our Moon landing, Hoover Dam, or the Tennessee Valley Authority, are capital intensive and required State Capitalism.

What you claim as a problem, is due to right wing "tax cut economics" and starving the beast through across the board cuts to government spending.
Click to expand...

Yep, with more (unlimited?) taxation everything will be fixed. All we need to get wonderful ISPs is for a select few to pay more taxes.
 
We already went to the Moon and back, last millennium. That is all the proof I need.

Why do you want private sector involvement in infrastructure?

It is capital intensive and can best be accomplished by the public sector, on a not for profit basis.
 
MrWonka said:
By forcing people to pay more specifically for what they use, the result is that those of us who don't use as much will get it cheaper instead of subsidizing the usage of others who use way more.
Click to expand...

Is this why Obamacare worked out so well?
 
danielpalos said:
the right wing has even less; especially in alleged, Right to Work States.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's terribly not being forced to pay a union you don't want to join, to represent you, to spend your money on politics you don't agree on... that's why everywhere unions aren't forced on people they collapse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom