Do you support Net Neutrality?
So should banks not be able to charge for late charges/fees/interest rates? If the user uses a substantial amount of bandwidth they should be charged more. Therefore, since Netflix uses the MOST amount of bandwidth than any other site, besides a select few. They should get charged more. If it works on the consumer end then it should work on the business end too!
You seem to have no idea how the internet works or how one's internet service works. If if someone pays for a 100 megabit per second download rate from their ISP then that individual will not be able to exceed a 100 megabits per second download rate regardless if that person connects to debatepolitis, netflix, or any other website.Netflix just like everyone else pays for a certain download and upload speed.Netflix, just like many websites pay for a higher upload and download speed than every one does so that they can handle more users.If a ISP's bandwidth is getting bogged down it is because that ISP sold more than what they are capable of delivering.
That's the way deregulation and markets are supposed to work. That's also why we have cell phones. When the government broke up Ma Bell's monopoly and put telephone communication out in the market, at first there was chaos. Eventually order came as well as innovation and today we have smart phones and everyone carries them around in their pocket. That will come to an end with so called net neutrality.
Cruz says that land lines are regulated by the government under title 2, what ever that is. Net neutrality wants to put cell phones under title 2, treating them like a utility, taxing them and regulating them. They make noise that it's about competition between ISP's and quality of service but those issues should be left to the market. The market took care of AOL and likewise, in an unregulated market, the best competitors win in the end.
However, in Netflix's case. It uses 1 GB/Hr. Remember Cell Phone plans start at only 2GBs for data not including promotions. Family plans start at 10 or maybe 20 depending on your carrier. So you can't watch much Netflix on Phone's service. Got it? Good. Now, most ISPs have monthly data caps at around, 350 GB. That's a lot!!!! Before all of this streaming stuff. No one hit the data caps, though they did exist. You couldn't reach it! It was impossible even with illegal downloads. Now however, lets say you watch Netflix 8 hours a day for 30 days. You would use up 240 GB of data!!!! That's nearly 70% of all your data, for ONE device! If you have a family, or younger kids, or teenagers at home. You can easily break the barrier. Verizon sends out notifications when you reach your limit at 75% and 90% levels. Then they start to slow down your internet until the next cycle.
Again, this is not discriminating against data.
If you paid for a 350 GB cap then whatever I choose to do to use up that 350 GP cap should happen at my paid speed except in instances of legitimate network congestion issues. if I get to 240 GB's, nearly 70% of my data cap, my speeds on something like Netflix or Hulu should remain exactly the same as it did at 40 GBs. If you break the barrier then yes, throttle my speeds or even cut it off (since it's a cap).
But while I still have data available in my cap I should maintain the same speeds whether I'm watching Hulu or Netflix, playing Xbox live, downloading large pieces of data, or any other legal activity unless there's a legitimate network congestion issue that requires those speeds to be slowed down as the only means of alleviating the congestion.
This is my understanding as well. But, it is also my understanding that these caps are nebulous, at best. Throttling is fine, but not if the plan is "unlimited". If the plan is advertised as "unlimited", then it should be unlimited. If there is a cap, that's fine too, just say so and say where the cap is.It has not been proven to me, that the ISPs currently do this. I need to see proof that ISPs have throttled data in that case. As far as my research goes, they only do this after you hit data caps.
This is my understanding as well. But, it is also my understanding that these caps are nebulous, at best. Throttling is fine, but not if the plan is "unlimited". If the plan is advertised as "unlimited", then it should be unlimited. If there is a cap, that's fine too, just say so and say where the cap is.
Because it has the potential to be one? :shrug:Looking at the poll, this seems to be a political issue....why?
Because it has the potential to be one? :shrug:
Because it has the potential to be one? :shrug:
I do not believe they should have to provide unlimited bandwidth if they don't want to, but yes, they should have to tell the truth, whatever that may be. Saying that "those who know know better" is weak. Telling companies to not use words like "unlimited" when that is a lie is not an unreasonable expectation.Should they have to? Why would they need to educate an unsuspecting public? Usually the people that use the internet other than surfing will know about data caps due to their own research and their own internet usage. The majority public does not even know how to do this or what a data cap is. I'm sure if you look in the fine print it's there. But I agree, somewhere other than the fine print there should be a nice message stating you only have 350 GB so use wisely or something like that. They can word it nicely so its not mean.
I don't think I've ever been as personally annoyed by the results of a DP poll as I am right now. The results shouldn't be 80% to 20%, but 99% to 1%, and that 1% should be made up exclusively of isp shareholders and upper management. This is how I've come to define politics: the art of selling a terrible idea to the public in such a way that it has the people arguing against their own interests.
I believe that everyone who voted "no" are trolling me. And by "me" I don't mean people who hold my position on this topic, I mean me...personally.
I didn't vote at all because there is no middle option. I support the concept, but I don't trust the government to pull it off without somehow sticking me with more costs and restrictions of their own. Replacing one bad for another is not necessarily progress, or proper protection.I don't think I've ever been as personally annoyed by the results of a DP poll as I am right now. The results shouldn't be 80% to 20%, but 99% to 1%, and that 1% should be made up exclusively of isp shareholders and upper management. This is how I've come to define politics: the art of selling a terrible idea to the public in such a way that it has the people arguing against their own interests.
I believe that everyone who voted "no" are trolling me. And by "me" I don't mean people who hold my position on this topic, I mean me...personally.
I didn't vote at all because there is no middle option. I support the concept, but I don't trust the government to pull it off without somehow sticking me with more costs and restrictions of their own. Replacing one bad for another is not necessarily progress, or proper protection.
So you don't believe should have a different opinion about this topic?
Why are you so emotionally invested in the idea that you need to be right?
Pretty Simple. It's a topic that has been going around this forum lately.
If not, Why?If so, why?
I don't normally hold this kind of position, but no. Unless you have a specific stake in the profitability of an isp, there is no conceivable reason to be against NN.
I have no problem in theory with the basic definition of net neutrality - that ISPs should treat all data moving across their networks equally. ISPs should also treat their own content the same as everyone else's. Anything else is essentially anti competitve. No idea how you achieve that in the real world.
Caveat. Not having a background in network engineering I don't know that that is technically the best way to run a network which may also complicate the picture.
I don't think I've ever been as personally annoyed by the results of a DP poll as I am right now. The results shouldn't be 80% to 20%, but 99% to 1%, and that 1% should be made up exclusively of isp shareholders and upper management. This is how I've come to define politics: the art of selling a terrible idea to the public in such a way that it has the people arguing against their own interests.
I believe that everyone who voted "no" are trolling me. And by "me" I don't mean people who hold my position on this topic, I mean me...personally.
I am against it because I don't believe the FCC should have that kind of power and I don't trust the current administration to use technology wisely. Nobody should after the Obamacare website debacle.