Opinion of Net Neutrality

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

This is something I diverge with Libertarians on. Then again they don't really know what it is and assume it is an EVUL GUVMENT REGULASHIN

Do you know what it is though?

It's the principle that all data is treated equally and without special or unfavorable treatment. For instance, just because Comcast doesn't like Cats.com, doesn't mean that they can throttle bandwidth to slow it down, or itemize certain sites, etc

This is the basic idea. Net Neutrality has been the governing rule of Internet traffic since its formation. This only changed in early 2014, when Verizon successfully got a court to agree to strike down Net Neutrality rules.

The key problem here is that Comcast is not just the company that provides access to content, but it's also a major content provider itself. It is a giant media conglomerate. The same goes for second place ISP Time Warner, which Comcast is currently attempting to merge with. Comcast, for example, owns NBC, Bravo, E!, USA, Telemundo and many more TV channels. It also despises Netflix, Hulu and other streaming services, because these are significantly cutting into cable revenue.

So what happened immediately after Net Neutrality rules were struck down? Comcast significantly reduced Netflix download speeds to the point where Comcast customers could not reliably use the service. It held its customers' traffic for ransom until Netflix agreed to make a major cash payment. Sucks to be a Comcast customer, huh?

Complicating the problem: The American broadband industry is incredibly monopolistic. According to FCC statistics, 38.7% have access to no more than one ISP capable of delivering speeds of 10 Mbps or more -- a pretty basic level that allows people to reliably stream Internet video. And 74.7% of Americans have access to no more than one ISP capable of delivering 25 Mbps speeds. If Comcast f---s with your Internet traffic and blocks you from viewing Netflix, you literally don't have a choice but to let them. What are you going to do, cancel service? And start new service with who, exactly?

And, of course, Comcast and its ilk get huge taxpayer subsidies to build its infrastructure and get favorable treatment when it comes to accessing utility poles. (Upstart ISPs like Google Fiber are required to dig to lay cable, which is 10 times more expensive than using utility poles. Which is why there are virtually no upstart ISPs.) No competition and free money from the government? No wonder why Comcast is such a profitable company despite having some of the absolute worst customer service of any company in the country.

The FCC is currently looking into regulating broadband Internet as a Title II utility (like your phone company is), which would give it the legal authority to once again enforce net neutrality rules. It's also looking to stop Comcast and the rest of the cable industry's attempt to kill municipal broadband -- that's when local communities decide to build their own fiber optic networks to compete against them. No fewer than 20 states have laws that prohibit municipal broadband networks -- laws written, of course, by cable industry lobbyists.

I'm rather optimistic that the FCC will have some success in shaping Internet rules over the next two years. Chair Tom Wheeler has made a lot of moves lately away from the cable industry line and towards the demands of the 81% of the public that supports net neutrality. The agency has the power to fix the problem without getting the Comcast-friendly Republican congress involved. This is one issue where public lobbying and protest has actually made an impact on the government. So that's pretty cool.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

If Comcast is going to build the infrastructure, it needs to be able to make it from someone.

Comcast didn't even build that infrastructure on its own. It relies heavily on government subsidies and special government access rights to build its network. Many communities have been wired on a 1:1 match. And yet, Comcast wants exclusive say over how that partially public-funded network, run over public utility poles, is used.

If Comcast cannot keep up with building infrastructure and still make a profit, then it has no business being in the industry. This isn't anything more than an above-and-beyond cash grab.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Not The Onion: Comcast Changes Customer's First Name to Asshole; is Really Sorry

(Fixed Link - TF)

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Horrible neutrality

Okay what's wrong with it

Without ISPs being able to "discriminate" against certain users, costs have to go up for everybody and that makes the Internet less accessible.  Its the same reason why people's water is metered. 

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with discriminating against users. It's about discriminating against content. The water metering analogy doesn't make any sense.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

If Comcast is going to build the infrastructure, it needs to be able to make it from someone.

Comcast didn't even build that infrastructure on its own. It relies heavily on government subsidies and special government access rights to build its network. Many communities have been wired on a 1:1 match. And yet, Comcast wants exclusive say over how that partially public-funded network, run over public utility poles, is used.

If Comcast cannot keep up with building infrastructure and still make a profit, then it has no business being in the industry. This isn't anything more than an above-and-beyond cash grab.

$200 billion of taxpayer dollars went to pay for broadband in the 1990s.
Cable internet is typically $60-$100 a month these days.
And then Comcast and the like want to have the Internet paid for a 3rd time by the content providers like Netflix.
We the people already paid for it twice.

Moderate's comments make more sense than yours, tho not by much since apparently those governments were dumb enough to give money without securing any ownership stake.

But "We the people already paid for it twice" is like complaining about the expense of adding lanes to an interstate when traffic increases because we already paid to build the initial interstate.  Now I'm fairly neutral about how we pay for the extra bandwidth, but someone is going to have to or it won't get built.

That would be true if the first time, the money went to build an 8 lane Interstate and the Oregon trail got built instead.

And also some parts didn't even get the trail