Opinion of Net Neutrality

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The thing is, someone needs to pay for bandwidth.  If not content providers, it will have to be content consumers.

You mean consumers might have to pay ISPs for internet connections?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

Compared to what came before, it was an 8 lane interstate,  I doubt that there are many here who remember when a 2.4Kbps was a high speed home computer connection.

86 million 45 Mbps each direction connections were promised by 2006. That certainly didn't happen. Hardly anyone has 45 Mbps up even today, and there probably still aren't 86 million connections that are 45 Mbps down.

http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's some more updated information. Apparently it's $400 billion now, and we're supposed to all have gigabit connections.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394.html