- 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.
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: