OT - Net Neutrality has now been removed.

[SheltonChoked]

I see the opposite of your power company argument. Repealing NN is going to allow ISP's to charge more to consumers that use the internet and stream more, as well as the content providers that are the ones that need the high speed. Use more, pay more.

Sure it's not fair to us consumers, but as I understand it's not necessarily fair to the ISP's that are having to put millions into infrastructure in order for streaming services like Netflix to work (streaming services are supposedly taking up 50% of internet usage now)

Why shouldn't Netflix have to pay the ISP a fee when it costs the ISP's millions more to deliver their content than it does for them to deliver elitedawgs

I don't know how you get your internet, but I pay for Bandwidth. I pay for 100 Mbps. I should be able to use that in any legal way I wish. I can pay more for 1 Gbps, or less for 18 Mbps. Before Net Neutrality, I could not watch Netflix after work because it ate up 60% of all backbone traffic, and my ISP at the time would throttle them. That's not my problem. I pay for 100 Mbps. I should be able to stream at that rate all day.

If all I wanted to do was look at elitedawgs, I could pick a lower plan, I didn't. And I should be able to get those bits, and not pay extra for some over others.

[Johnson85]

I don't know how you get your internet, but I pay for Bandwidth. I pay for 100 Mbps. I should be able to use that in any legal way I wish. I can pay more for 1 Gbps, or less for 18 Mbps. Before Net Neutrality, I could not watch Netflix after work because it ate up 60% of all backbone traffic, and my ISP at the time would throttle them. That's not my problem. I pay for 100 Mbps. I should be able to stream at that rate all day.

If all I wanted to do was look at elitedawgs, I could pick a lower plan, I didn't. And I should be able to get those bits, and not pay extra for some over others.

Can a state not regulate internet providers? I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the issue, but to me it seems like if you have used gov't granted eminent domain rights (or just franchises allowing you to use public rights of way), then the decision on how to regulate should be at the state level. Alternatively, if you're using federally auctioned spectrum, then maybe there should be some federal requirements. But if the ISP isn't using a federally granted right or privilege, then I'm not clear on why the federal government should regulate it? I guess maybe for the really large companies that are ISPs and content providers/owners, maybe it should be an antitrust issue.

[BulldogDX55]

Can a state not regulate internet providers? I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the issue, but to me it seems like if you have used gov't granted eminent domain rights (or just franchises allowing you to use public rights of way), then the decision on how to regulate should be at the state level. Alternatively, if you're using federally auctioned spectrum, then maybe there should be some federal requirements. But if the ISP isn't using a federally granted right or privilege, then I'm not clear on why the federal government should regulate it? I guess maybe for the really large companies that are ISPs and content providers/owners, maybe it should be an antitrust issue.

The ISPs make non compete deals with each other and generally have the country divided up into neat sections with very little overlap. I don't think a state would have the ability to forced an ISP to provide to a certain area. Also, smaller ISPs can't really do anything truly independent because they rent the hardware from the big boys, and if they do become a hassle, they just get bought out.

[Johnson85]

The ISPs make non compete deals with each other and generally have the country divided up into neat sections with very little overlap.

Pretty sure there would have to be an antitrust exemption for them to do this. I'm guessing you are referring to maybe how cable companies used to work, when they were treated more like a utility than they are now?

I don't think a state would have the ability to forced an ISP to provide to a certain area.

States have much more leeway than the feds. Unless there is a preemption issue, they can require service in a certain area as a condition of being allowed to serve in a different area. They may not have the law set up to do this, but they can.

[Tbonewannabe]

I don't know how you get your internet, but I pay for Bandwidth. I pay for 100 Mbps. I should be able to use that in any legal way I wish. I can pay more for 1 Gbps, or less for 18 Mbps. Before Net Neutrality, I could not watch Netflix after work because it ate up 60% of all backbone traffic, and my ISP at the time would throttle them. That's not my problem. I pay for 100 Mbps. I should be able to stream at that rate all day.

If all I wanted to do was look at elitedawgs, I could pick a lower plan, I didn't. And I should be able to get those bits, and not pay extra for some over others.

So now the corporation can charge you for your bandwith which is the actual service you are paying for and they will also get to charge the companies you are accessing for the right to do business with you. This will in turn force the companies to either take an increase in Expenses and cut into their profit or the actual outcome of increasing what you pay. The only thing this does is either 1) take away choices from you in the form of possibly no Netflix if you have Comcast or 2) It cost you more to access Netflix if you have Comcast.

All regulations aren't bad. I know a lot of people in the banking industry hate all the regulations but if a large percentage of mortgages weren't set up to screw the customer then it wouldn't be necessary.

[Johnson85]

So now the corporation can charge you for your bandwith which is the actual service you are paying for and they will also get to charge the companies you are accessing for the right to do business with you. This will in turn force the companies to either take an increase in Expenses and cut into their profit or the actual outcome of increasing what you pay. The only thing this does is either 1) take away choices from you in the form of possibly no Netflix if you have Comcast or 2) It cost you more to access Netflix if you have Comcast.

All regulations aren't bad. I know a lot of people in the banking industry hate all the regulations but if a large percentage of mortgages weren't set up to screw the customer then it wouldn't be necessary.

You are going to pay for more bandwidth regardless. Everybody is using more bandwidth, so somebody is going to have to pay to install more bandwidth or some people are going to have to pay more to avoid being throttled and the ones that don't will get throttled or just have a right to less bandwidth to begin with.

Net Neutrality might not be bad, but I don't think it's going to suddenly create a wasteland like people are freaking out about.

[Tbonewannabe]

You are going to pay for more bandwidth regardless. Everybody is using more bandwidth, so somebody is going to have to pay to install more bandwidth or some people are going to have to pay more to avoid being throttled and the ones that don't will get throttled or just have a right to less bandwidth to begin with.

Net Neutrality might not be bad, but I don't think it's going to suddenly create a wasteland like people are freaking out about.

It will not create a wasteland but it will give the big Telecom corporations the ability to create a Revenue stream that is not currently there. People streaming entertainment at the pace we do now is still relatively new which is why those corporations poured in more than $160 Million dollars into politicians pockets to get the Net Neutrality reversed. The corporations will charge someone and I hate to break it to you but eventually it is the people who get on the internet. You might not care about a few dollars here or there but it will add up for people that use it. I now even just buy my movies on Itunes and stream them instead of buying Blurays.