Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Net Neutrality
Old 12-07-2017, 07:27 AM   #1
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
frayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 19th Hole
Posts: 2,606
Net Neutrality

Thoughts, opinions, good, bad or indifferent. My understanding is the net is pretty much like the wild, wild west and you can get/find/view about anything you want. If this changes, the ISP (Internet Service Provider) can dictate what you can get/find/view. Is this pretty much your understanding ? What is the rationale behind wanting to change it ? So ISPs can charge you additional for content ?
I know follow the money.

Just wondering if anyone is following this issue and your thoughts.
__________________

__________________
A totally unblemished life is only for saints.
frayne is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 12-07-2017, 07:33 AM   #2
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,642
Net neutrality has only been in effect for 2-1/2 years. What's different since it went into effect - meaning changes that have affected you? Me, I haven't seen any. Net, I don't expect any when it goes away.
__________________

__________________
gerntz is offline  
Old 12-07-2017, 07:40 AM   #3
Recycles dryer sheets
cooch96's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Lakewood
Posts: 463
I’m generally anti-regulation. Treating ISPs as monopolies using laws similar to those crafted to regulate Ma Bell seemed very unnecessary to me.
Dumping Net Nuetrality could mean that you can get internet services similar to cable packages: if I never use the internet for gaming, then I don’t need to pay for gaming. This can potentially free up bandwidth and lower prices.
Regulation also tends to protect the status quo, and I appreciate innovation. I saw a sci-if looking add where WiFi was all balloon and satellite mounted and one could pay for internet similar to cell phone use: by the minute or prepaid services. Gives the consumers more options.
Net Neutrality wasn’t a problem 3 years ago when when the laws were adopted. I didn’t understand why they tried to fix a problem that didn’t exist.
__________________
Why be normal when you can be yourself?
cooch96 is offline  
Old 12-07-2017, 07:52 AM   #4
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooch96 View Post
Dumping Net Nuetrality could mean that you can get internet services similar to cable packages: if I never use the internet for gaming, then I donít need to pay for gaming. This can potentially free up bandwidth and lower prices.
... I didnít understand why they tried to fix a problem that didnít exist.
Well the problem is that there was a problem that existed - two really. Net neutrality didn't fix either, but there were two problems.

The biggest problem is that, unlike cable television, you cannot continually clone an IP stream so that more people can use it. As such, pay one price make no sense, especially when there is still a comparatively enormous range between consumption of the lightest consumers and the heaviest consumers. The correct fix would have been to mandate metering as the means of selling such a service. Bowing to the pressure for unlimited service breaks the market. (A hybrid, base plus, arrangement would be fine as well.)

The other problem is that too many essential services are now available most effectively through the internet, meaning that a certain amount of internet service is akin to water, heat, and food. Therefore, making internet service unaffordable is immoral. A certain amount of the service should fall under the same provisions that once assured basic cable remained affordable. Of course, those provisions are no longer in force anymore, so the trend is toward unfairness, so expecting fairness is increasingly unreasonable.
__________________
ER'ed against my will 9/29/2017
bUU is offline  
Old 12-07-2017, 07:59 AM   #5
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooch96 View Post
Iím generally anti-regulation. Treating ISPs as monopolies using laws similar to those crafted to regulate Ma Bell seemed very unnecessary to me. ...
But for many people, the ISP is a monopoly (at least an oligopoly).

So if xyz-ISP is your only reasonable choice, and say xyz-ISP owns xyz-streaming-movie-company, but you like Netflix better. From what I understand, the Net Neutrality laws mean that xyz-ISP cannot throttle back your speed when streaming from Netflix, but give you great speed when streaming their own (inferior in other ways) xyz-streaming-movie-company.

I've heard the argument that places like Netflix are getting a 'free ride' from your ISP. Simple solution, don't offer 'unlimited' GB per month, but charge like any other utility does, by the GB. High users pay more - makes sense. So the ISP would make more money form people doing a lot of streaming.

I'm guessing the law is complex like most things Congress does, and that is only part of it, but that's what I think I've come to understand. I could use enlightenment or confirmation from anyone who does know.

As far as regulation, I'd prefer to see steps taken to open the market - natural competition usually serves the customer better than slow-as-molasses regulations.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 12-07-2017, 08:21 AM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,642
So far I haven't heard anyone say how they've been affected by NN one way/other, only what might be.

There metered use approach sounds like a good idea that neither way - open/nn - deals with.
__________________
gerntz is offline  
Old 12-07-2017, 08:29 AM   #7
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 42,500
Here's a quick and hopefully neutral look at the net neutrality debate:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nutes-or-less/
__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline  
Old 12-07-2017, 08:35 AM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by REWahoo View Post
Here's a quick and hopefully neutral look at the net neutrality debate:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nutes-or-less/
It's not. It's clearly pro-NN. But then maybe that's the meaning of your :-) .
__________________
gerntz is offline  
Old 12-07-2017, 08:56 AM   #9
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,718
This is a complicated issue but I think ERD has pointed to the most sensible way to deal with the problem - charge for data use. Hogs pay more on both ends. If I watch all my TV online I can pay the freight. If I just read email I pay less. Same for providers. I'm not sure this is a real problem for the providers now. They are making money hand over fist charging for speed (and to a lesser extent, data) now. They can adjust how they sell their services to deal with this now without throttling specific services.

The problem with eliminating net neutrality is that telecoms will be able to shape the market to their benefit and could slowly strangle innovators who challenge their favored services. I doubt that we would see egregious abuses early on but we could see a slow erosion that would affect us substantially over the long term.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:05 AM   #10
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 16,860
Did net neutrality rules ever prevent an ISP for charging by the speed of data or total data or throttling back when some data limit was exceeded? I don’t think so.

I think it’s only about giving some data types or data source preferential speeds/limits over others. So that Netscape has to pay your provider extra for streaming videos to you, for example.
__________________
Well, I thought I was retired. But it seems that now I'm working as a travel agent instead!
audreyh1 is offline  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:10 AM   #11
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff View Post
This is a complicated issue but I think ERD has pointed to the most sensible way to deal with the problem - charge for data use. Hogs pay more on both ends. If I watch all my TV online I can pay the freight. If I just read email I pay less. Same for providers. I'm not sure this is a real problem for the providers now. They are making money hand over fist charging for speed (and to a lesser extent, data) now. They can adjust how they sell their services to deal with this now without throttling specific services.

The problem with eliminating net neutrality is that telecoms will be able to shape the market to their benefit and could slowly strangle innovators who challenge their favored services. I doubt that we would see egregious abuses early on but we could see a slow erosion that would affect us substantially over the long term.
Users are currently indirectly charged more for using more data - if I'm a data hog, I need higher bandwidth, so I have to subscribe to a more expensive service. If I just read e-mail, I can pay less for lower bandwidth.
__________________
Which Roger is offline  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:17 AM   #12
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,934
Bandwidth is not necessarily an indicator of total consumption, which is what ERD and I were referring to.
__________________
ER'ed against my will 9/29/2017
bUU is offline  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:26 AM   #13
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
jollystomper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,419
Factoring into this, I believe, is the fact that nothing on the internet is truly "free". If you are not paying for it with dollars, you are paying for it with information about yourself - some of which you freely give up - that others monetize. So I always look at these things from the standpoint of "who benefits financially one way or the other" - because while the impact to us consumers is discussed, the impact to those making money off of us is not truly covered.
__________________
Current target FIRE date: Under negotiation, can happen anytime.
jollystomper is offline  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:31 AM   #14
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz View Post
It's not. It's clearly pro-NN. But then maybe that's the meaning of your :-) .
Just because the discussion leads to being pro NN, does not mean it is biased.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:37 AM   #15
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Just because the discussion leads to being pro NN, does not mean it is biased.

-ERD50
Nor that it's unbiased.
__________________
gerntz is offline  
Old 12-07-2017, 09:40 AM   #16
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz View Post
Nor that it's unbiased.
True. Is there something about that article that strikes you as hiding or misrepresenting something?

=ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 12-07-2017, 10:07 AM   #17
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
The correct fix would have been to mandate metering as the means of selling such a service. Bowing to the pressure for unlimited service breaks the market. (A hybrid, base plus, arrangement would be fine as well.)
+1

NN means someone who hogs net resources pays no more than someone who is efficient. If this were the case 50 years ago, someone who made 10 hours worth of long distance phone calls per day would pay no more than someone who used only 10 minutes.

Understandably ISPs do not like NN, but instead of charging the big data users more they want to charge big data providers, such as Netflix, more. It's not clear to me why that should be the case.
__________________
GrayHare is online now  
Old 12-07-2017, 10:28 AM   #18
Full time employment: Posting here.
CaliforniaMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 868
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about net neutrality. It does not mean providers cannot charge more for more usage, more bytes transmitted, it simply means that providers cannot charge differently because of what is contained in those bytes or who sends them. Wikipedia has a decent definition. Seems to me there has to be at least agreement on a definition before one can discuss it.

"Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.[1] For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content."
__________________
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
Life is but a dream.
CaliforniaMan is offline  
Old 12-07-2017, 10:39 AM   #19
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,439
So why don't ISPs charge heavy users more?
__________________
GrayHare is online now  
Old 12-07-2017, 10:43 AM   #20
Recycles dryer sheets
USGrant1962's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: DC area
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaMan View Post
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about net neutrality. It does not mean providers cannot charge more for more usage, more bytes transmitted, it simply means that providers cannot charge differently because of what is contained in those bytes or who sends them. Wikipedia has a decent definition. Seems to me there has to be at least agreement on a definition before one can discuss it.
+1

I'm actually kind of neutral on the issue, but I can't believe how much confusion there is surrounding this. And the "sky is falling" attitude for something that is just going back to the way it was 2 years ago is perplexing.

As CAMan and others have said - NN has nothing to do with consumer's data rates or usage. It simply says that ISPs cannot charge Netflix more for access than they charge Amazon video or Xfinity. Even under NN, your ISP can charge you for higher speed or even data usage.
__________________

__________________
Semi-ER March 24, 2017
USGrant1962
USGrant1962 is online now  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Net Neutrality imoldernu FIRE Related Public Policy 44 02-28-2015 06:21 PM
Net neutrality is dead. Bow to Comcast & Verizon. Midpack Other topics 50 02-19-2014 08:35 PM
The FCC approved net neutrality "lite" MichaelB Other topics 18 12-23-2010 09:34 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:52 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.