Trump FCC is doing away with net neutrality,

[Peter.]

I'd be willing to wager that both of you have a device in your pocket right now that has broadband access... I'd also be willing to wager that both of you live in an area where you could purchase and operate such a device... from several ISPs (such as Sprint, T-mobile, ATT, and Verizon).

I don't get it. Your argument seems to always fall back to 'you have options so it won't be manipulated, trust me, free market capitalism is perfect.' Despite endless evidence already of ISP's manipulating consumers even before Net Neutrality. What could possibly make you think that allowing ISP's even more freedom to do as they please, which you can bet your house on will be to do whatever they see fit to make more money, a good idea? 'It's right because it's capitalism' isn't a valid argument.

The internet is more or less a utility. It's far too important to the everyday lives of people across your country to ever be considered anything else. Regulations like net neutrality, that ensure this vital part of people's lives cannot be manipulated to favor the economic or political interests of the wealthy elite, is vital.

Your example of comparing the internet to food is a textbook example of a false equivalency. If I go to a supermarket and there are 3 brands of jam that are all way too expensive all of a sudden, I'll just not buy jam. Or go to a supermarket down the street with different suppliers.

Imagine not being able to view your favorite news outlet because your ISP in your apartment, who you signed a one year contract with already, took money from a political party to block that site. Time to swit.., oh no they bribed your options, too? Better go grab your credit card to pay your ISP $50 extra this month to use GTPlanet to tell us that people in favor of it were right all along.

 

[Exorcet]

Your example of comparing the internet to food is a textbook example of a false equivalency. If I go to a supermarket and there are 3 brands of jam that are all way too expensive all of a sudden, I'll just not buy jam. Or go to a supermarket down the street with different suppliers.

I think the point was that lack of regulation didn't lead to one supermarket taking over an area and raising prices to insane levels. There is no false equivalence there, it's a pretty reasonable comparison.

Imagine not being able to view your favorite news outlet because your ISP in your apartment, who you signed a one year contract with already, took money from a political party to block that site. Time to swit.., oh no they bribed your options, too? Better go grab your credit card to pay your ISP $50 extra this month to use GTPlanet to tell us that people in favor of it were right all along.

If they took money to block a site, they could just as well take money to remain neutral. That's not unthinkable is it? The market forces don't have to be negative. If the political party in your example represents a government entity, then you're not really making a case against repealing regulation as far as I'm concerned. I want to keep the government from having too much power over the industry anyway. They shouldn't be able to strike deals with these companies or manipulate them. The problem here is that repealing Net Neutrality is only a tiny step in that direction. I don't see much real gain from it and there will be plenty of avenues left to abuse with it gone. Still, just keeping what we have now because that's easier doesn't sit well with me either.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean when you say that an ISP will be bribing your options. It's going to pay competitors to keep out? That sounds pretty expensive for them.

 

[Peter.]

I think the point was that lack of regulation didn't lead to one supermarket taking over an area and raising prices to insane levels. There is no false equivalence there, it's a pretty reasonable comparison.

The food industry has and probably will never be in the state the internet industry is. It's food. Competition will always be there because barriers to entry are relatively minimal. I can't get together with a couple mates, or get a bank loan and start providing internet next week, now can I?

If they took money to block a site, they could just as well take money to remain neutral. That's not unthinkable is it? The market forces don't have to be negative. If the political party in your example represents a government entity, then you're not really making a case against repealing regulation as far as I'm concerned. I want to keep the government from having too much power over the industry anyway. They shouldn't be able to strike deals with these companies or manipulate them. The problem here is that repealing Net Neutrality is only a tiny step in that direction. I don't see much real gain from it and there will be plenty of avenues left to abuse with it gone. Still, just keeping what we have now because that's easier doesn't sit well with me either.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean when you say that an ISP will be bribing your options. It's going to pay competitors to keep out? That sounds pretty expensive for them.

Who is going to pay your ISP to remain neutral? The neutral party? Imagine you're in a swing state, and democrats and republicans are bank rolling your ISP's to speed up or slow down other news outlets. In one area NBC, CNN are sluggish all of a sudden, but Fox and any other affiliates run swimmingly. In another area Breitbart is blocked. Most people wouldn't even know how they're being manipulated, and wouldn't be able to 'pay them to remain neutral' if they did anyway.

Government regulation isn't bad just cause. They don't always get things right, but this regulation is specifically designed to promote fairness, allow competition, and block manipulation. Without Net Neutrality, Facebook could have paid money to your ISP years ago to block Snapchat, or slow it down in its infancy, possibly killing it altogether. Youtube could have done the same and cripple Vimeo, Streamable, or Twitch.

 

[Omnis]

They will do that with or without net neutrality.

For some reason this whole net neutrality thing makes me think of someone running out of a house screaming “fire” when all that’s going on is someone lit the fireplace.

👍 All net neutrality does is make a giant cartel out of internet service provision. Then you'll really NEVER get an alternative.

All the people with a hard-on for net neutrality are just upset that their porn and torrent consumption may no longer be subsidized by older people who actually pay for things.

 

[Exorcet]

Who is going to pay your ISP to remain neutral? The neutral party?

I'd hope no party. Consumers can though. The traditional way would be through paying for preferred internet services, but people could also get together and collectively support neutral ISP's.

Imagine you're in a swing state, and democrats and republicans are bank rolling your ISP's to speed up or slow down other news outlets. In one area NBC, CNN are sluggish all of a sudden, but Fox and any other affiliates run swimmingly. In another area Breitbart is blocked. Most people wouldn't even know how they're being manipulated, and wouldn't be able to 'pay them to remain neutral' if they did anyway.

Well if the site is blocked, that's probably a good indicator that you're service is being controlled. If the services varies so widely from place to place, then that provides you a method to test each ISP. Testing of products and services and then reporting this information out is nothing new. It's done for practically everything, so it could be done for internet censorship.

Government regulation isn't bad just cause.

Right, it's bad primarily because you have to fund it whether you agree with it or not. It's also bad because when the government has a lot of power because then laws can swing 180 degrees depending on who gets elected every 4 years. Right now the law is on your side with Net Neutrality being in place, but the opposite situation could easily come to be.

They don't always get things right, but this regulation is specifically designed to promote fairness, allow competition, and block manipulation. Without Net Neutrality, Facebook could have paid money to your ISP years ago to block Snapchat, or slow it down in its infancy, possibly killing it altogether. Youtube could have done the same and cripple Vimeo, Streamable, or Twitch.

It's not like the only way to prevent these things is through government regulation. The advantage that existing regulation has is that it is established. That it is there makes it easier to work with than coming a new system that you have to design from the ground and that makes it much more appealing for a lot of people. I understand that. I still want to try to fixing what I see as problems though. My way, with consumers having more direct power, also requires a bit more responsibility on their part. That's potentially a stumbling block if people aren't willing to take that responsibility, but the option is still there.

 

[wfooshee]

I'd be willing to wager that both of you have a device in your pocket right now that has broadband access... I'd also be willing to wager that both of you live in an area where you could purchase and operate such a device... from several ISPs (such as Sprint, T-mobile, ATT, and Verizon).

I would never even consider using that device as my primary means of Internet access.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'd hope no party. Consumers can though. The traditional way would be through paying for preferred internet services, but people could also get together and collectively support neutral ISP's.

Only if one is available in your area. In the city where I live (in telecoms terms) you have the choice of mast (O2 and so on) or a single cable provider. If that cable provider decided to choke/filter use based on their commercial preferences then there'd be no other choice.

Well if the site is blocked, that's probably a good indicator that you're service is being controlled. If the services varies so widely from place to place, then that provides you a method to test each ISP. Testing of products and services and then reporting this information out is nothing new. It's done for practically everything, so it could be done for internet censorship.

Not if your current ISP censors such practices... you can't see what you can't see.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I would never even consider using that device as my primary means of Internet access.

So then you've just gone back to his original line of...(paraphrasing), "you have issues with the main two providers or so, because you don't like what the other smaller options have to offer."

I agree though that I wouldn't use them either.

 

[Exorcet]

Only if one is available in your area. In the city where I live (in telecoms terms) you have the choice of mast (O2 and so on) or a single cable provider. If that cable provider decided to choke/filter use based on their commercial preferences then there'd be no other choice.

A large enough consumer response might be able to change that, or at least pressure the lone ISP to better serve its customers. It would take organization though, you'd need to get a lot of people on the same boat with a consistent message and make sure that they don't give up after a week.

Not if your current ISP censors such practices... you can't see what you can't see.

Outright blocking of sites would be hard to get away with, if you go to an address and nothing shows up, then it's pretty clear what is happening. Also, even if you're unable to get to a specific site directly, the content can be shared on another site. An ISP might block internetcensorship.com (I made that up), but someone could post articles from there on facebook.

Then you also have media beyond the internet like TV and print which wouldn't be subject to the same control.

 

[TenEightyOne]

A large enough consumer response might be able to change that, or at least pressure the lone ISP to better serve its customers. It would take organization though, you'd need to get a lot of people on the same boat with a consistent message and make sure that they don't give up after a week.

Nope, they've had the monopoly on phones here for over a hundred years and are legendarily good at ignoring customers. The very fact that they have the monopoly is what enables them to act like that. They were three weeks late for our last service appointment but did give me the option to cancel it.

Purdy phone boxes though. Swings and roundabouts

 

[Peter.]

A large enough consumer response might be able to change that, or at least pressure the lone ISP to better serve its customers. It would take organization though, you'd need to get a lot of people on the same boat with a consistent message and make sure that they don't give up after a week.

Nothing short of boycotting the internet altogether would ever make a difference, which is not an option. Corporations do not care about consumer happiness unless profit margins are threatened, and in a case where people have limited to no alternatives, they will use your complaints as toilet paper.

Outright blocking of sites would be hard to get away with, if you go to an address and nothing shows up, then it's pretty clear what is happening. Also, even if you're unable to get to a specific site directly, the content can be shared on another site. An ISP might block internetcensorship.com (I made that up), but someone could post articles from there on facebook.

Then you also have media beyond the internet like TV and print which wouldn't be subject to the same control.

I could also maybe hear someone talking walking down the street. Information can't be erased from existence, yes, but leaving it up to the ISP's to block the avenues if they so please is a bad idea. Also, TV is a terrible example, as it's the mother ship of censorship and manipulation of info. TV media outlets exist almost entirely to push the agendas of the people in charge and their friends, and TV is already setup in such a way that forming an unbiased media outlet and going toe to toe with the big boys is essentially impossible.

 

[Exorcet]

Nope, they've had the monopoly on phones here for over a hundred years and are legendarily good at ignoring customers. The very fact that they have the monopoly is what enables them to act like that. They were three weeks late for our last service appointment but did give me the option to cancel it.

Purdy phone boxes though. Swings and roundabouts

View attachment 694795

Nothing short of boycotting the internet altogether would ever make a difference, which is not an option. Corporations do not care about consumer happiness unless profit margins are threatened, and in a case where people have limited to no alternatives, they will use your complaints as toilet paper.

What about offering to help pay for the establishment of a competitor in whatever area? If it went through that would be a big hit to profit margins, so whether or not the companies cared about consumers wouldn't matter. I don't want to downplay the idea, it would be a significant undertaking and require a lot of organization and cooperation on the part of those that would be impacted. It wouldn't be practical for small regions, though these groups could potentially cooperate to increase their chances. I guess you could think of it as a consumer's union.

I could also maybe hear someone talking walking down the street. Information can't be erased from existence, yes, but leaving it up to the ISP's to block the avenues if they so please is a bad idea. Also, TV is a terrible example, as it's the mother ship of censorship and manipulation of info. TV media outlets exist almost entirely to push the agendas of the people in charge and their friends, and TV is already setup in such a way that forming an unbiased media outlet and going toe to toe with the big boys is essentially impossible.

The point of bringing up TV is that your ISP wouldn't necessarily control it. It's a different avenue of information. TV itself is controlled sure, but if the TV provider has a different agenda from the ISP, then it can provide a path around internet censorship.

That's not really satisfactory for me though. I'd rather have internet users find a way to pressure ISP's into avoiding censorship.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What about offering to help pay for the establishment of a competitor in whatever area? If it went through that would be a big hit to profit margins, so whether or not the companies cared about consumers wouldn't matter. I don't want to downplay the idea, it would be a significant undertaking and require a lot of organization and cooperation on the part of those that would be impacted. It wouldn't be practical for small regions, though these groups could potentially cooperate to increase their chances. I guess you could think of it as a consumer's union.

This is becoming ridiculous. Get a group of people together to build their own fibre/server infrastructure at, presumably, a cost that's affordable? That's the answer to an ISP choking information? That's presuming that you even get the permission to break ground. Let's say you got roughly 100,000 homes to sign up for trenching covering hundreds of square miles at £60 per month-per-household, that's £72 million per year in investment. You really think you'll hire/build/manage for that? Pie in the sky.

 

[UKMikey]

This is becoming ridiculous. Get a group of people together to build their own fibre/server infrastructure at, presumably, a cost that's affordable? That's the answer to an ISP choking information? That's presuming that you even get the permission to break ground. Let's say you got roughly 100,000 homes to sign up for trenching covering hundreds of square miles at £60 per month-per-household, that's £72 million per year in investment. You really think you'll hire/build/manage for that? Pie in the sky.

I wonder how they'll email each other to organise all of this while boycotting their service provider.

 

[mustafur]

This is becoming ridiculous. Get a group of people together to build their own fibre/server infrastructure at, presumably, a cost that's affordable? That's the answer to an ISP choking information? That's presuming that you even get the permission to break ground. Let's say you got roughly 100,000 homes to sign up for trenching covering hundreds of square miles at £60 per month-per-household, that's £72 million per year in investment. You really think you'll hire/build/manage for that? Pie in the sky.

 

[Peter.]

What about offering to help pay for the establishment of a competitor in whatever area? If it went through that would be a big hit to profit margins, so whether or not the companies cared about consumers wouldn't matter. I don't want to downplay the idea, it would be a significant undertaking and require a lot of organization and cooperation on the part of those that would be impacted. It wouldn't be practical for small regions, though these groups could potentially cooperate to increase their chances. I guess you could think of it as a consumer's union.

You think it would be easier to start providing internet with you and a couple of your mates, or a thousand other, not-wealthy people for support, than to just tell the fat cats running these ISP's "No, you can't exploit the public, that third new private jet can wait."?

 

[TenEightyOne]

The first is limited at 200Mbps and requires some kind of dish to be fastened to the house and the second works rooftop to rooftop. Not sure how well that translates to open countryside. Both look workable in small-scale, I'm not sure they scale up so well.

 

[mustafur]

200mbps is better then what I can possibly get right now.

 

[Exorcet]

You think it would be easier to start providing internet with you and a couple of your mates, or a thousand other, not-wealthy people for support, than to just tell the fat cats running these ISP's "No, you can't exploit the public, that third new private jet can wait."?

I think I've made it clear that there are hurdles with the idea. It's certainly not easier to go create your own ISP, no.

This is becoming ridiculous. Get a group of people together to build their own fibre/server infrastructure at, presumably, a cost that's affordable? That's the answer to an ISP choking information? That's presuming that you even get the permission to break ground. Let's say you got roughly 100,000 homes to sign up for trenching covering hundreds of square miles at £60 per month-per-household, that's £72 million per year in investment. You really think you'll hire/build/manage for that? Pie in the sky.

Ridiculous? It sort of follows the same idea as government funded projects except your participation is voluntary. Instead of everyone paying taxes to have their infrastructure built and maintained, they can willingly get together to have infrastructure built and maintained. That of course brings up the problem of people not willing to join in, which would reduce the amount of money available, but I don't think it sounds silly in concept at all.

 

[Danoff]

Broadband access that usually is capped after so many Gb's. Even on "unlimited" plans. Something Internet through a wire probably hasn't seen in years.

Really?

You know just as well as everyone here that if this plan goes through, prices go up because of the greed of a couple of fat cats, speeds to certain sites will be throttled or sites will be blocked completely.

I don't think you understand how economics works then. They're greedy now. They won't get more greedy later. If they could jack the price up on you now, they would. Net Neutrality is not keeping your ISP fees low.

I don't get it. Your argument seems to always fall back to 'you have options so it won't be manipulated, trust me, free market capitalism is perfect.' Despite endless evidence already of ISP's manipulating consumers even before Net Neutrality.

Show me where I said that it won't be manipulated.

What could possibly make you think that allowing ISP's even more freedom to do as they please, which you can bet your house on will be to do whatever they see fit to make more money, a good idea? 'It's right because it's capitalism' isn't a valid argument.

Well... it would be (because capitalism is freedom from oppression). I don't need it though. I like progress. Government regulation stifles progress.

The internet is more or less a utility. It's far too important to the everyday lives of people across your country to ever be considered anything else. Regulations like net neutrality, that ensure this vital part of people's lives cannot be manipulated to favor the economic or political interests of the wealthy elite, is vital.

Not really no. Do you have a mobile water fountain that spits water out of your pocket everywhere you go? Do you receive your electricity from multiple carriers simultaneously? Can either be sent to your house wirelessly with zero change to the local infrastructure near your property? It's not a good analogy.

...although... solar panels are causing some interesting ripples in the residential electricity market.

Imagine not being able to view your favorite news outlet because your ISP in your apartment, who you signed a one year contract with already, took money from a political party to block that site. Time to swit.., oh no they bribed your options, too? Better go grab your credit card to pay your ISP $50 extra this month to use GTPlanet to tell us that people in favor of it were right all along.

Gosh, that would be super bad for business. It might result in boycotts and would put tons of market pressure on alternatives. The more they do that, the more gobs and gobs of money someone makes by offering anything else. And there are plenty of ways to achieve that.

I would never even consider using that device as my primary means of Internet access.

...and yet, you have it. You wouldn't consider it now because you like your other options better. But it is viable (I've done it, several times, several ways).

This thread is hilarious. Full of people saying that have no choices, and yet, when their choices are presented to them (and there are quite a few), they dismiss those choices because they don't like them as much. This thread is the epitome of first world problems.

 

[Dennisch]

Really?

I don't think you understand how economics works then. They're greedy now. They won't get more greedy later. If they could jack the price up on you now, they would. Net Neutrality is not keeping your ISP fees low.

We will see what will happen. I predict price hikes and throttled speed or access. You think the opposite.

 

[Joey D]

Really?

Plenty of ISP have data caps under unlimited plans, especially with mobile data. I have AT&T for my phone and for a time I paid for an unlimited plan for my data. After 10 GB of data used it was throttled to the point where a website wouldn't even load if I was on mobile data. It made it impossible to use it until the month reset. When I confronted AT&T about it, their response was "you still have unlimited data". They eventually just switched it to 30 GB per month without ever changing my bill, so I continued to pay for unlimited but didn't get unlimited.

I agree that plans should be tiered though, but if you pay for unlimited you should get unlimited.

...and yet, you have it. You wouldn't consider it now because you like your other options better. But it is viable (I've done it, several times, several ways).

This thread is hilarious. Full of people saying that have no choices, and yet, when their choices are presented to them (and there are quite a few), they dismiss those choices because they don't like them as much. This thread is the epitome of first world problems.

I think you need to look and see if they're reasonable choices though. I could switch to dial-up, but would that be a viable solution? Probably not since the modern internet isn't designed for it. A DSL connection is better, but depending on your needs that may not work. I think when looking at choices, you need to compare apples to apples with regards to speed. In many areas you only have one choice of high-speed providers, even though you have a choice to go with a low-speed provider.

If I could manage with DSL, I'd switch, but I can't function on that because of my job. I'd wager many people are in the same boat. For someone who just wants to browse Facebook though, they really don't need $100 a month Internet connection, even if many of them do for whatever reason. I suspect it's the same reason people buy $2000 MacBooks to like statuses.

Like I said, I'm sure some regulation somewhere allows a company to monopolize an area which I still think is the issue that needs to be addressed first before repealing net neutrality. We've manage to work the market where there's little to no competition. That's not good for a supply v. demand economy. No matter how big the demand, those regulations don't allow for a greater supply.

I'd like a more open market for services, even with utilities I'd like a more open market. Choice is a great thing, but when those choices are stifled there's a multitude of issues that can arise, many of which will burn the customers.

 

[Danoff]

I think you need to look and see if they're reasonable choices though. I could switch to dial-up, but would that be a viable solution? Probably not since the modern internet isn't designed for it. A DSL connection is better, but depending on your needs that may not work. I think when looking at choices, you need to compare apples to apples with regards to speed. In many areas you only have one choice of high-speed providers, even though you have a choice to go with a low-speed provider.

If I could manage with DSL, I'd switch, but I can't function on that because of my job. I'd wager many people are in the same boat.

I'm in that boat. Although my employer pays for their internet connection at my house. Given your salary, your employer covering an internet connection that enables you to work is pretty minimal. They'd probably take it out of your salary ultimately, but at least you wouldn't have to pay tax on it.

So let's examine how reasonable my choices are for personal internet use. Work internet use is a different animal. I have google fi, which gives me sprint and t-mobile coverage (2 ISPs for anyone keeping track), and charges me $10/gb of data. I sit right at about 1gb of data per month using my phone. My personal internet connection costs $40/mo, which buys me 4gb of data through google fi. Not a ton for sure! But could I live within that. I'd cancel netflix (there's another gb worth of monthly fee right there), so it would be bad for that company. I'd stop streaming pandora (another half gig of monthly fees), so it'd be bad for that company. I'd watch a lot less youtube, so it'd be bad for google at least in that respect. It would for sure change how I use the internet, but it's totally viable for maintaining communications with friends and family, reading the news, even commenting on discussion boards. I used my phone service internet connection (tethered to a laptop) as the primary means of connecting to gtplanet for 2 years while I was working in an office in which I did not want personal traffic going through my work internet.

It's a choice. it's not a wonderful choice, but it's not like the internet just shuts down even if your home internet connection does. Can't endlessly send photos to dropbox? First word problems.

There's another, obvious, solution to throttling websites - which is that there will be hacked workarounds. You'll vpn to an external site to branch out to an unfiltered web. It won't be worth it for cable companies to try to clamp down on it either - kinda like how movie studios can't keep their discs encrypted for more than... like... an hour after release. That kind of thing can even be baked into firmware in devices.

Prices aren't going to skyrocket, or they would be now. There is no net neutrality price control. Access to the unfiltered web can't be reasonably stopped. And each one of us has access to several ISPs. There is no doom and gloom here. In the end, government regulation is always something to be vary wary of in terms of stifling innovation. It can be hard to see in the first implementation, but these types of regulations have a tendency to bloat and expand. I hate the idea of giving lobbyists access regulations for internet access.

 

[TenEightyOne]

IRidiculous? It sort of follows the same idea as government funded projects except your participation is voluntary.

Why would the government fund it?

Instead of everyone paying taxes to have their infrastructure built and maintained, they can willingly get together to have infrastructure built and maintained. That of course brings up the problem of people not willing to join in, which would reduce the amount of money available, but I don't think it sounds silly in concept at all.

As I pointed out to you, even if everyone wants to join there isn't enough money.

 

[Joel]

Well... it would be (because capitalism is freedom from oppression). I don't need it though. I like progress. Government regulation stifles progress.

Full of people saying that have no choices, and yet, when their choices are presented to them (and there are quite a few), they dismiss those choices because they don't like them as much. This thread is the epitome of first world problems.

I know your underlying opinion is it's private property and the ISPs can do what they want but the way you're arguing it's in the consumer's best interest is rather confusing. Are consumers getting undeserved wishlist service due to regulations, or are regulations holding back a wave of innovation that would lead to better service? Because you yourself acknowledge the regulated wishlist service is better than alternatives. What is it and/or what better alternatives do you foresee?

It feels like an intentional obfuscation, I highly doubt you actually believe consumers will get better service from their ISPs. But you know "it's their private property" won't convince people, because they know that private property is not as simple as Ford paying to have a factory built.

This thread is hilarious.

It certainly is funny that so many people's lived experiences lead them to believe deregulation isn't necessarily a net positive for consumers. I wonder what could cause so many people from different parts of the world to misunderstand "basic economics".

I'm starting to wonder if perhaps the iron-clad tautology of human rights and economic ideology invented by a half dozen Mises Institute and Ayn Rand fans on a car racing forum a decade ago might not actually have solved all societal questions!

 

[Danoff]

I know your underlying opinion is it's private property and the ISPs can do what they want but the way you're arguing it's in the consumer's best interest is rather confusing. Are consumers getting undeserved wishlist service due to regulations, or are regulations holding back a wave of innovation that would lead to better service? Because you yourself acknowledge the regulated wishlist service is better than alternatives. What is it and/or what better alternatives do you foresee?

It feels like an intentional obfuscation, I highly doubt you actually believe consumers will get better service from their ISPs. But you know "it's their private property" won't convince people, because they know that private property comes with

Both. Respecting property rights is in consumers' best interest and will result in better service.

It certainly is funny that so many people's lived experiences lead them to believe deregulation isn't necessarily a net positive for consumers.

That's not the funny part. That's the sad part. The funny part is where people claim they have no options, and then pretend that's the case simply because the other options aren't as good.

See the humor?

I wonder what could cause so many people from different parts of the world to misunderstand "basic economics".

Public schools?

I'm starting to wonder if perhaps the iron-clad tautology of human rights and economic ideology invented by a half dozen Mises Institute and Ayn Rand fans on a car racing forum a decade ago might not actually have solved all societal questions!

I understand why people value what they have over what they can get. It's called loss aversion. That's a lot of the reason why people cling to net neutrality.

 

[Exorcet]

Why would the government fund it?

They don't have to. The analogy is people pooling money to get more done than they could individually.

As I pointed out to you, even if everyone wants to join there isn't enough money.

Where? If everyone joined in there would certainly be enough money. It's just that there is could be some difficulty in getting everyone on board.

 

[TenEightyOne]

They don't have to. The analogy is people pooling money to get more done than they could individually.

Got that.

Where? If everyone joined in there would certainly be enough money. It's just that there is could be some difficulty in getting everyone on board.

As above:

That's presuming that you even get the permission to break ground. Let's say you got roughly 100,000 homes to sign up for trenching covering hundreds of square miles at £60 per month-per-household, that's £72 million per year in investment. You really think you'll hire/build/manage for that? Pie in the sky.

There's another problem too - once you've put that LAN together (if you could, which would be impossible for so little money) you have to get the central connection(s) out to an NAP. The only line out is with the company who you've set up against?

Do we buy their line as they go bankrupt (unlikely given the size of their business)?

 

[Joey D]

So let's examine how reasonable my choices are for personal internet use. Work internet use is a different animal.

I can agree that you have choices with regards to personal internet usage. I still think the options can be limiting though. The modern internet is designed for X speed and it will continue to ramp up speeds more and more with every generation of a webpage. I can't imagine trying to browse GTP on a 56k connection. Granted, people don't have to do most things on the net, but I could see a problem still arising with regards to the lack of choice for your personal internet browsing.

There's another, obvious, solution to throttling websites - which is that there will be hacked workarounds. You'll vpn to an external site to branch out to an unfiltered web. It won't be worth it for cable companies to try to clamp down on it either - kinda like how movie studios can't keep their discs encrypted for more than... like... an hour after release. That kind of thing can even be baked into firmware in devices.

I'm not so sure about that. There's still a big push when companies catch people running torrents and I have to imagine if people are finding a workaround the companies will hunt them down to stop them. There's also a legal aspect to it too, I'm guessing with their lobbying power they could help railroad through a law regarding circumventing filtered content.

With regards to net neutrality, I think one of my big hang ups with it (besides the choice aspect) is that once it's repealed these companies will use their lobbying powers and dollars to push through laws to support their practices. I hate lobbying because I think it goes against a representative form of government. Congressmen should represent their entire district, not the will of a company that throws money at them. Obviously this is a whole other issue in itself.

While in theory the open market should allow for more competition and better innovation, I just think in reality some company's are shady and will push for regulations that benefit them and will ultimately make you get their service no matter what price they set because the other options are just no longer legal (like the VPN). Like I said, it's part of a bigger issue that probably needs to be looked at.

 

[Exorcet]

As above:

You can come up with a scenario where the idea won't work. That doesn't mean that the idea can't work. You are identifying real concerns and issues that need to be addressed, but you're not demonstrating anything definite with your example there. Why only 100,000 homes? Why only £60 per house? People aren't limited to cooperating with only their nearest neighbors, nor only paying a similar rate to an existing internet connection.

There's another problem too - once you've put that LAN together (if you could, which would be impossible for so little money) you have to get the central connection(s) out to an NAP. The only line out is with the company who you've set up against?

Do we buy their line as they go bankrupt (unlikely given the size of their business)?

This might take care of itself given some of the undesirable traits of isolated NAP's.

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/...es-plan-to-break-out-of-equinixs-gilded-cages

Neutral data centers are apparently coming up on their own and could potentially lead to more competition for smaller and isolated communities by reducing the cost of bringing internet access points to them. I'm not terribly familiar with internet infrastructure and I don't want to make myself out to be, but in this case it looks like we're naturally headed in a direction that most people should like. If a lot of people got behind this model and went out of their way to support, it could greatly speed up growth as well as increase our collective influence over it.