Can someone explain(or give a link to some explanation) why people support net neutrality? It doesn't seem obviously bad for service providers to discriminate between different kinds of consumers and consumption.
Save Net Neutrality
- Thread starter SeánC
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Calradianın Bilgesi said:
It's not bad at all as long as you aren't a consumer with access to multiple providers (many Americans only have access to a single provider in their area, and therefore must use that provider if they want internet) or creator of content for consumption. It's obviously great for ISP companies.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-eu-analysis/false-paradise-eu-is-no-haven-of-net-neutrality-say-critics-idUSKBN1E92SC
I mean I don't understand why people support net neutrality. and being unable to discriminate between different kinds of consumers and consumption is definition of net neutrality? No?BenKenobi said:
What's bad about being able to offer a pack with a higher(or lower) speed for facebook or whatever you choose as a company?
How?Moose! said:
Calradianın Bilgesi said:
It's bad for the same reason utility companies aren't allowed to charge different depending on how you use water or electricity. If they could, for example, a power company might charge more money for efficient appliances vs inefficient ones, giving the consumer less reason to use less power. A water company could, for example, upcharge water used for toilets. It's pretty clear why that wouldn't be a good thing. The consumer couldn't do anything about it because utilities have enforced monopolies over their service areas, there simply is no choice for the consumer.
For removing net neutrality, it gives ISPs the power to effectively control information access by charging more, or slowing down services they don't like. Since ISPs have utility-like monopoly status, they can't simply pick the competitor to get around the slowdown or upcharge.
because elaborating an 'i don't understand' didn't make sense to me
@splintert
thank you
@splintert
thank you
Elaborating on "X doesn't seem bad," however, of course does make sense.
Firsty, I have to state that I am nor a US citizen nor IT specialist nor anyone interested in this issue, and thus I know pretty much nothing about it, but my prima facie gripe would be that if you allow to discriminate between services and allow the ISPs to monetize different services differently, it is very easy to locate the losers (those who don't fit the ISP-set pattern and are for example excessive users of that one service that is slowed down and can be fully enjoyed only after you buy that one particular service) while I don't get how to locate the winners in this case. I somehow don't believe that just because X will pay more, it will lead to Y paying less.
Firsty, I have to state that I am nor a US citizen nor IT specialist nor anyone interested in this issue, and thus I know pretty much nothing about it, but my prima facie gripe would be that if you allow to discriminate between services and allow the ISPs to monetize different services differently, it is very easy to locate the losers (those who don't fit the ISP-set pattern and are for example excessive users of that one service that is slowed down and can be fully enjoyed only after you buy that one particular service) while I don't get how to locate the winners in this case. I somehow don't believe that just because X will pay more, it will lead to Y paying less.
:upvote:BenKenobi said:
i'm not sure on this. to me 'x doesn't obviously seem bad' means when i learn or think about x i don't immediately and easily think 'ah yes that's bad'
Calradianın Bilgesi said:
I think a large part of the resistance to this change is due to who will be wielding this new power and implementing new schemes that takes the rule change into account.
Ideally offering specialized services to customers allows those customers to only purchases the services they need saving money as a result.
In practice it's like how big name game developers say nowadays that selling a game and then purchasing the DLCs gives players the freedom of the above- only buying the parts the customer likes and ignoring the rest. But nominally speaking, this has been used as an excuse to just charge more money in some cases for doing barely anything more.
Perhaps you have the good fortune of not living in a country where telecoms embody the notion of squeezing blood from stone, but here in Canada and US they are hated and distrusted for good reason.
Speculatively, I think this issue is really quite simple.
Who is pushing for this change? Large telecoms companies.
What is their core mission? To make money.
How will this change allow them to make more money?
Will it let them bring in a lot of new customers? Probably not.
Will it allow them to offer services that they previously cannot offer? Likely not, what else can they offer for a stable internet connection at reasonable speeds already being sold?
Will it allow them to charge more for things they're already doing? Money's on this one.
I might be way off the mark here, as I've also not looked particularly far into it, but the gut feeling I have is it'll be about the same as they treat TV here.
You pay for it already, but.
You want to watch sports channels? Pay some extra!
Want documentary channels? Buy our cheap monthly package!
Want to access social networking sites? Hand over some dosh!
Miss going on TWf? Only $50 a month on a limited time offer!
You pay for it already, but.
You want to watch sports channels? Pay some extra!
Want documentary channels? Buy our cheap monthly package!
Want to access social networking sites? Hand over some dosh!
Miss going on TWf? Only $50 a month on a limited time offer!
