Obama speaks out in favor of Net Neutrality; Ted Cruz likens it to "Obamacare"

If you are paying for 100Mbs then you should receive 100Mbs regardless of which sites you are accessing. If you don't want to pay for that much bandwidth since you don't stream then you can pay for a slower connection.

But it's not just about streaming and the amount of bandwidth that you use. If company A pays your ISP enough then your ISP can simply block traffic to any of their competitor's websites.

 

I don't look at phones as entertainment. I look at phones as a BASIC and necessary tool of communication. I look at the internet as purely an entertainment service.

Also, seems like apples to oranges. The ISPs aren't throttling speeds because they are competitors, they are doing it because those SERVICES (not competition) use more of their infrastructure.

 

Except this isn't true. We've talked about Netflix because it's the biggest newsmaker, but the issue of net neutrality is not limited to netflix, and the internet is not limited entertainment.

A great example is Amazon. If Amazon is willing to pay Comcast a free to do so, would you be ok with Comcast blocking your access to other online sales sites?

 

I agree that if I pay for 100mbps I should get that speed no matter what, UNLESS it is written in my contract otherwise. Transparency and competition would allow me to make that decision. If people had choices, and COULD leave TWC because they were throttling speeds to NetFlix, wouldn't the free market be able to essentially force TWC to stop doing that or lose a significant portion of their business?

 

Yes. Because 1) I don't shop online and 2) If I was aware of this rule, and I DID shop online...I wouldn't get Comcast.

Everything you say makes sense to me in a world with no competition. Which is why I have included the caveat that competition is essential to this issue.

I believe there are two solutions to this issue, I believe my solution is more business and user friendly.

1) Net Neutrality
2) Foster competition and allow people to make choices based on transparent information.

 

Kevoooo, you have too many assumptions.

1- There is hardly any competition. There is no free market.
2- #1 isn't going to change anytime soon. As I said, maybe advances in wireless technology increase competition but even that isn't much more competition. Plus, if that time comes, I wouldn't be surprise to hear Comcast owning ATT or some merger of the giants.
3- Internet is not just entertainment. Maybe for you? Definitely not for everyone and definitely not for any businesses.
4- The ISP owns the deliver to your home. The internet is much larger than any ISP. The ISP now want to not just be able to charge you for the speed and amount of data you get through their pipe, but control what type of service you get. In a way, it's not about you. It's about the free flowing and exchange of data as it is (for the most part) today.

I agree with some of the things you said (more competition) and hand off regulation, but reality is, there isn't going to be more competition and regulation is likely the only viable solution. Congress can pass laws to keep net neutrality truly net neutrality. I'm afraid the Cruz of this world is going to make any such attempt impossible.

 

And why is this a bad thing? You think the nfl should be forced to offer Sunday ticket to everyone? Why? If a company wants to pay to have exclusive access to a non life essential service....why is this a bad thing? When choosing a provider, I weigh the pros and cons. Pro, Sunday ticket, con satellite...okay I'll just go with cable and get red zone. I had options, I made the decision based on my needs. Why shouldn't the internet be the same way?

 

What? Every form of commerce is now 100% dependent on internet based communications.

I'm sure you guys weren't around in the 70's when the cable companies were just getting started but every one of them was built with an exclusive agreement with the cities they served. They were allowed monopolies to guarantee a payoff on the required infrastructure. That's how they came to be in a the position to dominate the competition for internet services, to the point where there is no competition. That advantage hasn't really changed, there are no alternative to the phone companies and cable companies for internet services. It's one or the other and they both came from regulated monopolies.

 

So again...why is the only solution net neutrality? Why not market neutrality?

 

I think this just comes down to you not seeing the internet the way other people do. You see it is an entertainment service. I see it is as a communication tool, a business tool, an educational tool, etc.

And your argument about just switching and the free market producing competition just don't work.

If hypothetically, Comcast restricts access to online retailer X, it would take years before a competitor could even get the structure laid down to offer competition. By then, the people they restricted access to will be out of business.

 

The only thing ever mentioned with net neutrality are big sites. I don't think any of this would affect the day to day commerce needs like processing credit cards, and such. I was under the impression this really only dealt with websites or services that used a lot of data.

If this was going to actually affect a random company from being able to process their credit cards, or send their emails, than I would understand...I don't believe that is the case...is it? In what other ways is commerce based on internet communication and how proposed changes affect such?

 

The NFL Sunday Ticket is a bad example. The NFL produces that content. As the owners of the content they should have the right to limit who they distribute it to.

Comcast doesn't own the internet, nor do they own the websites they would block or the entertainment services they would be slowing down.

Think of the internet as a toll road for a moment. The user (you) enter the toll road and pay your toll. That's your fee to the ISP. Now you exit the toll road and pull into a store. Should the toll road be able to prevent you from going to that store unless that store ALSO pays them when you exited the toll road?

 

I don't see your example as a likely scenario. Why would Comcast restrict access to some random site that can't afford to pay? They might restrict sites like NetFlix because 1) they use a lot of data/bandwidth and 2) they have the money and users to pay for it. Are you saying like, what if Amazon pays Comcast to kill a competitor?

 

So who owns the infrastructure? I posed this question in my initial comment but didn't see an answer. I don't understand the internet well enough, ie I don't understand what the role of an ISP actually is. Could you please explain?

 

Yes, to your last question.

Youtube for example has struck deals for ISPs to block your ability to access videos at another website. That's just one example.

Other ISPs have blocked access to websites that were being used by striking workers to organize. Or you would go to google.com and the ISP would be redirecting you to their own search engine so they could profit.

There have been lots of lawsuits that have dealt with net neutrality. I would encourage you to read them. I don't trust government either and consider myself a proponent of the free market, but I also accept that there are industries/cases where a free market doesn't actually exist and I don't trust the corporations any more than the politicians.

I've got to go, but I'm sure someone else can continue the conversation on with you. At least this is a productive and interesting conversation with point counterpoint instead of insults, extreme sarcasm and attacks on Israel!

 

Will do. Those examples I certainly oppose. But if there WAS truly a free market with competition, companies couldn't do this without risking losing customers. They can only do this now because there isn't competition. Still seems to me that competition is the real solution here.

 

Net neutrality is market neutrality. It is about protecting competitive markets that can be distorted by the fact that there is too little competition in providing internet access. There is no free market of internet services. The free market that does exist isn't in the access to the pipes but in what is flowing through the pipes.

Like it or not, internet access is not just about entertainment and it is becoming and essential service in modern life.

Too much of our economy, too many of our markets depend on shuttling data through the digital pipelines.

Apart from big entertainment sites, once ISPs are able to dictate what goes through their pipes and how often, there will be a very obvious and predictable move to monetize other internet traffic.

Something like throttling iTunes traffic vs. Spotify can easily become about giving preferences to Apple Pay transactions over PayPal transactions. Some ISPs can begin offering better transaction speeds for E*Trade over Charles Schwab. Some ISPs might broker deals that offer sites hosted with DreamHost increased loading speed vs. sites hosted with SquareSpace. These deals easily leak out from the largest entertainment sites into the most basic services other forms of commerce depend on.

Markets are tools to serve human ends, not ideologies to rigidly follow. Adam Smith himself wrote about the beauty and utility of markets but their limits with respect to resources upon which commerce depends. He saw that privately owned roads and bridges would logically lead to the owners of those roads and bridges using their power to distort other markets that depend on those roads. In his case, he was discussing roads and bridges, in our case, we are discussing the digital equivalent.

 

The problem is that in order to have real competition other companies will have to lay their own lines, and this just isn't going to happen.

 

If ISP's could do this (and they can), why are they not doing it now? Its pretty simple. Customers wont put up with this.

And I am a small local ISP. I can reassure you we would never consider doing this.

 

Great response. I would suggest folks get familiar with key players in the debate over the years.

One prominent proponent of net neutrality is Lawrence Lessig.

Here is an article on reviewing net neutrality:

Net Neutrality: A Guide to (and History of) a Contested Idea
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/04/the-best-writing-on-net-neutrality/361237/

Here is an article on the lack of competition in providing internet access:

Why the U.S. Has Fallen Behind in Internet Speed and Affordability
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/u...ed-and-affordability.html?abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0