Originally Posted by rluker5
Shhh! They shouldn't hear such elegant plans.
But really, this needing unlimited internet at rates far in excess of streaming 4k video is really twisted.
I remember having dialup. That is all anyone needs, even today. I have a tracfone auto refill plan for a little over $11 that comes with 150MB data/month. Which is enough to browse the internet for 30-40 min for half of the days of the week. I have done this for a year or two at work. I should upgrade to 500MB/month for $15, but haven't gotten around to it since I don't really need it.
My mediocre cable internet at home can blow through that 150MB in 20 seconds flat and a lot here think that it is junk.
This needing access to the internet isn't the same as needing unlimited data over fiber speeds for free.
I'm not saying internet should be more expensive or slower, just that the needs argument doesn't apply here because a lack of net neutrality 1. doesn't shut down the internet and 2. doesn't censor it. The FCC censors, the gov regulates and enforces property rights. Businesses nickel and dime you. There is a difference.
I disagree. No it doesn't "shut down" the internet, but it drastically changes how it functions and not for the better for anyone but ISPs.
Businesses absolutely censor when it's in their business interests and this will be in the form of data caps with packages that bypass these caps. They want to charge me for bandwidth (speed) at which I access the internet? I'm OK with that. Data caps are asinine and fabricated for the sole purpose of segmenting the market and creating limits where there are none in order to create a new revenue model.
Net neutrality became a discussion topic in direct response to ISP's taking the first steps toward market segmentation. They introduced data caps as "trials" in specific markets and then the infamous attempt to charge netflix a special fee for access to their customers.
It was a combination of those two things that sparked peoples unrest. Data is not a finite resource. Bandwidth however can be, and they currently charge you based on bandwidth to much folks acceptance.
To the second, a paying customer should not be leveraged as an asset without their understanding and acceptance of this. If ISP's want to charge content providers for access to it's customers, then those customers should receive a reduced price on their service or at the very least know they are in a position to leverage a better price.
What ISP's want is to double dip. I get it. It's business, and in business you look for a position that grants you leverage in negotiations with other businesses in order to gain market share and profits. You don't think they do this? Cable providers use their customers as leverage when negotiating prices for advertisements on their networks. It's how I get bandwidth increases and price decreases yearly on my internet bill. I carry a cable subscription I don't use so that they can leverage better prices from advertisers. I know this and tell them to drop my subscription. They counter with a higher bill for internet only to which I say "OK" and they end up giving me what I was paying with HBO and speed increases.
And that really touches at the heart of things here for ISP's. As people cut cords companies like comcast are left with smaller metrics (and less leverage) when negotiating advertising deals. This is resulting in a loss of revenue and they are desperately searching for other forms of revenue.
The only reason net neutrality became a national talking point is because of these developments. Now, you could argue as Xenophobe does that the result of the legislation is not true to the issues that brought it to the table and I'd likely agree, though I'm not as versed in that to argue one way or the other.Edited by Aemonn - 12/7/17 at 7:56am