Net Neutrality Repeal

Originally posted by @joe-shmo
I'm afraid I'm not following?

NN...only affects CONTENT...not speed.
Let me try this way to explain. With NN or without it, ISPs were charging different rates for internets speed levels. IE...my home ISP, ATT has four levels and has been this way for years. NN had no effect on that.

NN banned ISPs from charging more for different content. (which they weren't doing to start with)

Where you are getting the speed issue is, without NN they COULD (they were not) charge more for different content...thus slowing speeds for those that didn't pay more for certain content. Your overall speed would not be slowed, only for certain sites.

It is important to note...before NN was a thing, the ISPs were not doing this.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Read the article you cited.

Not sure, but you seem to have conflated a couple of largely tangential issues.

What tangential issues have I conflated? The integral curve is the sum of its tangents.

Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
NN...only affects CONTENT...not speed.
Let me try this way to explain. With NN or without it, ISPs were charging different rates for internets speed levels. IE...my home ISP, ATT has four levels and has been this way for years. NN had no effect on that.

NN banned ISPs from charging more for different content. (which they weren't doing to start w ...[text shortened]... certain sites.

It is important to note...before NN was a thing, the ISPs were not doing this.

Not sure that you understand NN. On the first page of this thread, read the politifact article I provided the link to in its entirety.

It is important to note...before NN was a thing, the ISPs were not doing this.

Of course, if there were no intent to start doing it, then there was no reason to repeal it.

Originally posted by @joe-shmo
What tangential issues have I conflated? The integral curve is the sum of its tangents.

Even the article you cited even says the following:

The main purpose of the paper was to analyze the economic incentives for expanding and investing in new facilities, and it discussed the "impact of removing regulatory barriers" on broadband deployment. There's no mention of net neutrality or Title II—instead, the analysts looked at potential changes that could let phone companies retire copper lines more quickly in order to install fiber or speed up access to utility poles via a "One Touch Make Ready" rule.

What in your mind is the relationship between these two issues?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Even the article you cited even says the following:

The main purpose of the paper was to analyze the economic incentives for expanding and investing in new facilities, and it discussed the "impact of removing regulatory barriers" on broadband deployment. [b]There's no mention of net neutrality or Title II—instead, the analysts looked at poten ...[text shortened]... ch Make Ready" rule.

What in your mind is the relationship between these two issues?[/b]

The broadband is a finite resource? Rural America subsidizes the urban users by paying higher rates for slower service because of the lack of rural infrastructure. How is that fair and neutral? If they are able to shift broadband around to those who will pay in rural America, it will incentivize telecom companies to create the infrastructure to serve more rural (temporarily) higher paying customers. As internet service infrastructure and competition grows price per unit should decline and stabilize.

Originally posted by @joe-shmo
The broadband is a finite resource? Rural America subsidizes the urban users by paying higher rates for slower service because of the lack of rural infrastructure. How is that fair and neutral? If they are able to shift broadband around to those who will pay in rural America, it will incentivize telecom companies to create the infrastructure to serve mo ...[text shortened]... ternet service infrastructure and competition grows price per unit should decline and stabilize.

From what I can tell, your beef has to do with the relationship between end customers and ISPs, rather than about the relationship between ISPs and content providers which is what net neutrality is about.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Not sure that you understand NN. On the first page of this thread, read the politifact article I provided the link to in its entirety.

[b]It is important to note...before NN was a thing, the ISPs were not doing this.

Of course, if there were no intent to start doing it, then there was no reason to repeal it.[/b]

On the other hand...if they weren't doing it, why initiate NN?

Here is a layman's explanation.

http://www.businessinsider.com/net-neutralityfor-dummies-and-how-it-effects-you-2014-1


"Will consumers benefit from getting rid of net neutrality?
They could. Getting rid of net neutrality would allow the Verizons and Comcasts to charge content providers who want their stuff promoted. The additional revenue stream might mean free data plans for consumers. Never paying for a data plan again sounds pretty nice.


Could getting rid of net neutrality screw consumers?
It could. Consumers might lose control of the Internet; Verizon and Comcast could be the masters who dictate exactly what we're able to view online. There's also a risk for small businesses. If they can't afford to pay Internet providers to promote their content, they might go under."

Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
On the other hand...if they weren't doing it, why initiate NN?

Here is a layman's explanation.

http://www.businessinsider.com/net-neutralityfor-dummies-and-how-it-effects-you-2014-1


"Will consumers benefit from getting rid of net neutrality?
They could. Getting rid of net neutrality would allow the Verizons and Comcasts to charge conten ...[text shortened]... . If they can't afford to pay Internet providers to promote their content, they might go under."

Not sure why you didn't quote the following which is also from the article you cited:

"Net neutrality" prevents Internet providers like Verizon and Comcast from dictating the kinds of content you're able to access online. Instead, Internet providers have to treat all traffic sources equally. Net neutrality is enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC.

]For example, Comcast would probably like to promote NBC's content over ABC's to its Internet subscribers. That's because Comcast and NBC are affiliated. But net neutrality prevents Comcast from being able to discriminate, and it must display both NBC's and ABC's content evenly as a result. That means no slower load time for ABC, and definitely no blocking of ABC altogether.

In short, net neutrality creates an even playing field among content providers — both large and small — to the web. And it's great for consumers because they can access everything they want online for no extra charge.

Right now, consumers control what they see online — not Internet access providers — and that's thanks in large part to net neutrality.

On the other hand...if they weren't doing it, why initiate NN?

To regulate ISPs from doing so whether overtly or covertly. It's the ISPs that are behind net neutrality repeal. From the article you cited, it seems that the impetus for NN came from Comcast blocking BitTorrent in 2007:

Phone companies have been regulated by the FCC for the past 80 years to keep them from favoring certain conversations or "discriminating when selling services," Harvard professor Susan Crawford tells Re/Code.

Phone companies are telecommunications services, but the FCC viewed Internet providers as information services. Because the FCC deemed the two types of companies to be fundamentally different, the FCC decided to not regulate Internet providers at all.

Recently, however, the FCC became concerned that a few Internet providers have grown too powerful. For example, in 2007, Comcast got in trouble for blocking BitTorrent's access to its network. The FCC didn't want the Verizons and Comcasts of the world to become the gatekeepers of the web.

So in 2010, the FCC created something called Open Internet Rules which enforced three things:

1) Transparency. Internet access providers had to start disclosing how they were managing their networks.
2) No blocking. Internet access providers couldn't block access to legal content or applications.
3) No discrimination. Essentially, net neutrality. Internet access providers couldn't favor one traffic source over another.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Not sure why you didn't quote the following which is also from the article you cited:

"Net neutrality" prevents Internet providers like Verizon and Comcast from dictating the kinds of content you're able to access online. Instead, Internet providers have to treat all traffic sources equally. Net neutrality is enforced by the Federal Communication ...[text shortened]... t neutrality. Internet access providers couldn't favor one traffic source over another.

"Not sure why you didn't quote the following which is also from the article you cited:"...

Why are you concerned with what I quote? What you quoted only enforces what I claimed earlier. Do you want repetition?

"It's the ISPs that are behind net neutrality repeal."

LOL...good catch.

Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
"Not sure why you didn't quote the following which is also from the article you cited:"...

[b]Why are you concerned with what I quote? What you quoted only enforces what I claimed earlier. Do you want repetition?

"It's the ISPs that are behind net neutrality repeal."

LOL...good catch.[/b]

Why are you concerned with what I quote? What you quoted only enforces what I claimed earlier. Do you want repetition?

If that's what you were trying to say, you didn't do a very good job of it.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b]Why are you concerned with what I quote? What you quoted only enforces what I claimed earlier. Do you want repetition?

If that's what you were trying to say, you didn't do a very good job of it.[/b]

Maybe its just that YOU don't understand. 😉

Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
Maybe its just that YOU don't understand. 😉

You keep telling yourself that and maybe even you'll come to believe it.