B...but Net Neutrality = Big government, and big government BAD!

Tell me if I am reading the chart wrong, because here is what I'm seeing:

1) Because netflix uses a crap load of bandwidth, Comcast held them hostage until they paid a higher price than everyone else.

2) At the same time Comcast was holding Netflix hostage, download speeds under other companies (ATT, Verizon) also went down.

3) However, Netflix also experienced much faster download speeds during this same period with other companies (Cox, Cablevision, Google).

In other words, some ISPs tried to make Netflix pay, others offered Netflix *faster* speeds.

I see how this is *possibly* a problem if there were maybe one or two ISPs, but there are several and even in this instance, it looks like some tried to play hardball while others didn't. If anything, it seems to be like Netflix is the most evil company here. Why should a company which takes up the largest portion of bandwidth in the United States get to have that share of the market without paying a premium? I don't understand why Netflix shouldn't have to pay for dominating web traffic like that.

Moreover, I do not see how making the single largest user of US internet traffic pay a premium is somehow equivalent to "ISPs have the ability to throttle or outright block what I want to do on the web on a whim". Do you own Netflix or something?

I also support making people pay for luggage on flights. I like toll roads. I think people who drive more should pay higher gas taxes. It has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with the fact that I subscribe to the radical notion that people should be responsible and accountable for what they use. I don't think that a massive service like Netflix deserves to be subsidized by smaller services.

Cancer would've been cured right now if scienceoligists weren't using shitty internet. Thanks, Obama. More sick patients for him to kill.

i hear he masturbates during death panels

EXACTLY

because that's how the internet works. you happy with how it is now? do you not want it to change? then you're for net neutrality

how would you feel if you clicked on a link on yahoo, or whatever you usually go to, and uh oh you need to pay a premium to go here. that's the precedent it sets

also you're on the side of lobbyists pouring money into the likes of ted cruz and john thune, fwiw

The selective skepticism is so weird. Total trust in ISP's to do the right thing unregulated but no faith in the government whatsoever to do almost anything ever

I am happy with the way the internet is now, but I also do not believe there is anything *special* about the way it is now or that the internet "the way it is now" represents the peak of the internet.

Convince me that this is even remotely in the realm of possibility. This is wild speculation and does little to convince me that net neutrality isn't about solving a problem that doesn't actually exist.

Yeah I mean who charges for micro transactions nowadays instead of a subscription program?

There are "several" ISPs

K

Did you see the part where he dissed Sting?

you really think no added costs would come down on consumers, i.e. regular people like you and me browsing the internet? because that's... naive. to put it nicely

NN isn't about "solving problems". what we have now *is* NN. if you'd rather have comcast, att, ect as arbiters of the internet, as opposed to now, where there essentially are none, then more power to you. but don't pretend like it wouldn't be a fundamental change

Basically what they would do is slow everyone's internet down and charge for a "faster" internet which would be the internet we have right now and there's nothing consumers would be able to do about it because the nature of utilities leads to very little competition

Let me be clear: costs *should "come down to consumers". I don't just think that Netflix should pay, I think that people who use Netflix should pay. Of course costs of using up gobs of bandwidth would be borne by consumers. And let's remember that our Netflix example is the *only* real world example where such a thing was even remotely close to the realm of reality.

It is about "solving problems"; the problems associated with whatever completely unrealistic, bizarro-world abstraction that NN advocates are claiming *might* happen.

I mean, I'm normally the first person against reactive legislation once a problem already happens. I am also deeply concerned about ISP power. But I am thinking practically here, and I just don't see the concrete argument.

So you imagine: this is speculation.

Obviously there are nasty ISP monopolies and semi-monopolies. Once can acknowledge and be against this without being *for NN.

laws are to regulate what *might* happen. if the FCC allowed ISPs to not treat the internet as a public utility, its not some pie-in-the-sky assertion to suggest that they wouldn't

When have businesses every pushed the limits of morality to abuse people and squeeze every last single hard-earned penny out of them? Come on guys.

Why have laws that prevent poisoning people? Businesses would never do that.

Why have laws that prevent abusing workers? Businesses would never do that.

The burden of creating another WHOLE law, people. Oh the agony.

It would make the ISP's more money so you can pretty much guarantee that they would do it.

Are you really this naive?

Not practically speaking one cannot.

Would it though? If my ISP said they were going to significantly lower my bandwidth unless I'd pay more I'd either be screwed or would look elsewhere for a better deal because I don't want to pay anymore than I already do. I'd imagine a lot of people would feel that way.

Maybe me just accepting a lower bandwidth would make them more money.

Just playing devil's advocate

I can't say I'm shocked that jczeroman supports a policy that disproportionately benefits rich people.

This is a very weak "free market solutions!!" argument

Look at cable television. Should the Internet be like that?

The problem is, as I said, the nature of utilities leads to monopolies which is what we have with ISP's

You get like two choices in some places not even that.

And Internet has become essential to practically every household. You simply would have no other choice than to get screwed

It is a little weird that he thinks it's bizarro world that an ISP would look into taking advantage of something like this.

Of course not. That would be very scary.