Or what if Comcast decided to favor one content source, say, Hulu, and throttle another, say, Netflix. Of course, Comcast owning Hulu wouldn't e a concern...
DId you know net neutrality has never been implemented ever? the first thing tom wheeler wanted to look at was zero rating and he never managed to finish his investigation. He was in power for over a year with net neutrality in tact and never once was he able to use it. If your concern is speed of justice, then net neutrality seems like a terrible choice. TO answer your question, it depends how long it takes the FTC to do their investigation (same as net neutrality). They investigate if a practice is hurting a market place and then forbid such practice if it is. Supposedly, Pai's proposal expedites this process but i don't know what that entails. then the FTC can take a look and if its hurting the marketplace and customer demand they can stop the practice and all similar practices. That's the proposed process. Did you read it?
Those innovation exist because of NN. If we didn't have it then de facto, AOL would have never allowed there to be a Skype or Facetime. Anti-trust laws do not stop companies at all when they want to dominate market share. I know this as I have met with legal advisors over the years who work with these companies and the fine is worth the risk. (At least until the US starts charging real fines). Mark Cuban is defending his own interests with this spin. Bottom line is I pay for 100MB of bandwidth. And I have to buy my own router to get decent speed as the one they provide sucks. So now they want to also add charges based on how I use that 100MB? And they are going to charge companies money to communicate with me based on how much revenue they can get out of them? And I have no choice. I work for a start-up, if we have to negotiate paying fees to every ISP to enable us to communicate with users, that would cripple us. Not just from the payments we have to make in order to use the bandwidth the consumer has already paid for....but also in the management of trying to work with ISPs. I can tell you to the entrepreneurship community - taking internet access away from startups and giving it to mega content providers so they can defend their subpar services is going to result in America being less competitive globally.
Again, answer the question... how long does do antitrust court proceedings take. More precisely, how many years do they take? You are the one suggesting that NN isn't needed because antitrust laws are protection enough... so, answer the question?
I did. I said it depends on how long the investigation takes. I even prefaced the sentence with 'to answer your question'. The FTC can propose a preliminary block until the matter has been settled in court. So if they wanted to, I imagine they can act very quickly.
no . i explained there is a variable. Here is what a variable is: an element, feature, or factor that is liable to vary or change. As there is a variable, the answer varies.
this is an actual pricing map for internet on your phone in Portugal, a country without NN laws Here's New Zealand Alternatively, here's a US mockup. With the monopolies that control the US's internet, this is a very real possibility
Looks like the entire process has been compromised and should be considered invalid. Also looks like the FCC had become deeply partisan. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...in-investigation-of-fake-net-neutrality-foes/
Those aren't pricing maps. It's zero rating. We have it in the US. People love it. Why do people keep using these examples of zero rating in other countries when they can just use US examples. For example T-Mobile saying pokemongo wont count against data limit or at&t saying DTV NOW won't count against data limit. This is like the 5th time in this thread someone has gotten the Portugal thing wrong...... then kingcheetah follows it up with a fake photo. Wtf. Stop with the misinformation. If you think zero rating is wrong because it hurts the marketplace , that's fine but then the FTC can stop it.
But if you use their branded x-mas lights you can save 15%. Of course they have been shown to be a fire hazard.
Again.... it was Verizon who sued the government which started this whole process. The ISPs are looking at ways to become even more profitable in an environment where there is little competition. These companies have garnered very little trust that this is about the consumers.
Good article on how the new rules will crush small business and innovation in this country: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/business/net-neutrality-small-businesses.html
The internet has always been neutral. It's like asking if companies became less profitable after the big bang. It's nonsensical. Fact is everyone knows what ending NN means - businesses will have to pay to reach consumers and that will create barriers of entry to start-ups that don't exist today. This is why Russia is lobbying so hard for the end of NN. They understand how much of a competitive disadvantage it will put America at. Check out this open letter from the start-up community - it's basically every VC and incubator in NY & SF. http://www.engine.is/startups-for-net-neutrality/ Why do you want to kill American innovation is beyond me.
NN was indeed the defacto standard. Again, we wouldn't need to be so concern about NN if there are robust competition. 1 or 2 providers isn't it. Just trust me doesn't do it. Our internet sucks because years ago the US believed wireless could provide the competition to wire. We need NN and we need to remove the barriers to starting new ISP players.
