consumers already bare that cost, why should the providers bear it too You and tall sure know crap about business. It's scary to think idiots like you are in favor of destroying American innovation to provide welfare to massively profitable corporations
Title II was awesome at creating competition before with Ma Bell...... We must protect the small mom and pop outfits like Google, Facebook, and Netflix!!!!!
Well of course they would. Stop being dense on this issue. There is nothing positive about Net Neutrality, you shill.
Why should it be illegal for ISPs to prioritize packets more sensitive to delays (VOIP, video streaming, gaming) over those that are less so (email, web browsing)?
Netflix: Comcast is throttling us. Comcast: no we aren't. You: of course you would say that comcast There are a few positives but they don't nearly out weigh the negatives. I don;t agree with you that there is nothing positive about net neutrality.
Comcast was caught throttling BitTorrent as far back as 2007 and found guilty in 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101900842.html https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/01/fcc-to-investigate-comcast-bittorrent-blocking/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-formally-rules-comcasts-throttling-of-bittorrent-was-illegal/
And the benefits of no net neutrality? Perhaps the solution would be for ISPs to divest their content businesses and allow them to be Switzerland-like pipes for internet... Then there would be no reason to throttle... and they can focus on providing connectivity for all instead of being tempted to provide faster connectivity for their own content.
Sorry, but you are wrong here. Are you at all directly knowledgeable in this field ? They reduced mobile data. Verizon Fios is optical wired, not wireless mobile. There are also very good reason to cap wireless speed, not just because of limited bw and expensive data rate, but small viewing display doesn't need as large a BW.
So all of the major ISPs seem to be against net neutrality (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc.), yet you're trying to sell the idea that removing net neutrality regulations that are in place right now is going to increase competition. I find it very hard to believe that these companies are pushing for changes that are going to increase their competition in local markets, it doesn't pass the smell test.
Providers shouldn't bear any cost? tallanvor said it best. This is just one of many topics that you're completely clueless about. Video traffic accounts for over half of internet traffic. Your precious little Clutchfans.net is not going to get put into a slow lane. No ISP seriously considered creating fast or slow lanes of internet traffic. That was nothing but scare tactic liberal propaganda. Only morons would pass legislation to fix problems that doesnt exist in the first place. If you want to debate net neutrality, do it intelligently. American innovation is not going to get destroyed ... nevermind the fact America doesnt even own the internet in the first place. You do realize the internet encompasses more than America, right? You understand this so why would you say something so mindless?
tallnvor, we must protect the consumers of these companies. Do you work for ATT or Comcast or just knee jerk because you see net neutrality as a government regulation and hence a FREEDOM issue?
Comcast spent a lot of money on ted Cruz to oppose net neutrality because they want more competition.
Compare your speeds on comcast with fast.com versus speedtest. Fast.com is powered by netflix. Speedtest uses different servers. Now with Comcast being all buddy buddy with Netflix things have changed, but don't for a second think that comcast wasn't playing dirty. They are the dirtiest.
I see a marketplace working better than just about every other marketplace in the country and I see idiots want to totally change the rules regulating this marketplace for the purpose of having 4 or 5 massive companies save money at the expense of everyone else. Its moronic. Comcast's main competition is not smaller ISPs. Its Google, Amazon, Netflix. Same with AT&T. That why they keep purchasing up content providers. Being regulated by the FCC instead of the FTC (like everyone else) is a huge disadvantage and leads them to regulated differently. The data collection debate was pefect example of this. Google and Facebook could collect and sell your data without permission but not ISPs. If the ISPs could of stayed under the ruling thumb of the FTC, this would of never happened. zero-rating is another example of why ISPs don't want to be under the FCC and an advantage they have on Google and NEtflix.
Being declared a common carrier has benefits to them, but comes with responsibilities. They can't have their cake and eat it, too.
but from the standpoint of best providing bandwidth to the customer, isn't it more efficient to prioritize packets for critical services like VOIP or streaming or gaming, vs email/web browsing?
That would require compromise. Clearly me sending out my email or sending a post to cfbbs is just as important as some kid playing Battlefield. ISP's should be agnostic to all data, regardless if it could provide a better experience to the end user.
