FCC poised to destroy net neutrality

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New York Times

[free my dawg]

Heil der Dollar.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Someone has to pay for the bigger pipes.  If not the content providers then it would have to be the ISP subscribers.  Since the subscribers don't need bigger pipes between themselves and the ISP right now, they see little to no reason to pay for extra for stuff they don't see.  I really don't see a problem here.

[Хahar 🤔]

There are too many vested interests that benefit from neutrality for it to disappear.

[Zioneer]

Again? Doesn't something related to net neutrality pop up every six months?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Again? Doesn't something related to net neutrality pop up every six months?

Typically its some outside group arguing against it. To the best of my recollection, this is the first time the FCC has come out as openly opposed to it.

[bedstuy]

This is one of those issues where I don't think anyone but a handful of people understands it.  But, as far as I can tell, the people against net neutrality are people with a huge vested economic interest and the people against it are engineers and more objective experts.  I basically side with the nerds over the media oligarchs.

Someone has to pay for the bigger pipes.  If not the content providers then it would have to be the ISP subscribers.  Since the subscribers don't need bigger pipes between themselves and the ISP right now, they see little to no reason to pay for extra for stuff they don't see.  I really don't see a problem here.

Someone already pays for the networks to exist.  We've found a way to do that.  The data capacity of the internet keeps expanding and doesn't necessarily create expenses out of proportion with the current economic model.  Remember, a bigger pipe is actually cheaper on a bit per second basis.

[Person Man]

Ehhh...the bigger they get, the harder they fall. Its just going to be really painful when it happens.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Someone has to pay for the bigger pipes.  If not the content providers then it would have to be the ISP subscribers.  Since the subscribers don't need bigger pipes between themselves and the ISP right now, they see little to no reason to pay for extra for stuff they don't see.  I really don't see a problem here.

Someone already pays for the networks to exist.  We've found a way to do that.  The data capacity of the internet keeps expanding and doesn't necessarily create expenses out of proportion with the current economic model.  Remember, a bigger pipe is actually cheaper on a bit per second basis.

Ah yes, the Cheaper by the Dozen syndrome.  And while it is true that per item they are cheaper, the greater quantity does mean there is an increased cost.  We went thru a long period where we had glut of backbone capacity because of the internet bubble that popped in 2000.  That's done.  Increased capacity needs to be paid for by someone or the ISPs won't do it.  Indeed, they shouldn't do it.  Yet because the data needs of individual subscribers haven't expanded past the advertised size of their local pipes to the ISP, those subscribers reluct and resent footing the bill for increased backbone.  Indeed, since it is the massive central source content providers that are creating the demand for increased capacity, it makes sense that they be the ones to pay for it.

[bedstuy]

Someone has to pay for the bigger pipes.  If not the content providers then it would have to be the ISP subscribers.  Since the subscribers don't need bigger pipes between themselves and the ISP right now, they see little to no reason to pay for extra for stuff they don't see.  I really don't see a problem here.

Someone already pays for the networks to exist.  We've found a way to do that.  The data capacity of the internet keeps expanding and doesn't necessarily create expenses out of proportion with the current economic model.  Remember, a bigger pipe is actually cheaper on a bit per second basis.

Ah yes, the Cheaper by the Dozen syndrome.  And while it is true that per item they are cheaper, the greater quantity does mean there is an increased cost.  We went thru a long period where we had glut of backbone capacity because of the internet bubble that popped in 2000.  That's done.  Increased capacity needs to be paid for by someone or the ISPs won't do it.  Indeed, they shouldn't do it.  Yet because the data needs of individual subscribers haven't expanded past the advertised size of their local pipes to the ISP, those subscribers reluct and resent footing the bill for increased backbone.  Indeed, since it is the massive central source content providers that are creating the demand for increased capacity, it makes sense that they be the ones to pay for it.

Maybe, I'm not an engineer so I'm not really sure either way.  But, I've heard that advances in fiber optic technology, cellular data and WIFI are basically keeping pace with the internet and web.  This was in a lecture by one of the inventors of the internet I attended a few years ago. 

But, again, there's the engineering perspective and the democratic perspective.  You don't want the structure of the internet controlled by mega-corporations like ComcastNBC who both own huge media empires and control the infrastructure to access media.  It's a horrible precedent for consumers.  The democratic nature of the internet has allowed new business and ideas pop up and challenge the large corporations.  I really worry about letting those principles fall by the wayside. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Someone has to pay for the bigger pipes.  If not the content providers then it would have to be the ISP subscribers.  Since the subscribers don't need bigger pipes between themselves and the ISP right now, they see little to no reason to pay for extra for stuff they don't see.  I really don't see a problem here.

Someone already pays for the networks to exist.  We've found a way to do that.  The data capacity of the internet keeps expanding and doesn't necessarily create expenses out of proportion with the current economic model.  Remember, a bigger pipe is actually cheaper on a bit per second basis.

Ah yes, the Cheaper by the Dozen syndrome.  And while it is true that per item they are cheaper, the greater quantity does mean there is an increased cost.  We went thru a long period where we had glut of backbone capacity because of the internet bubble that popped in 2000.  That's done.  Increased capacity needs to be paid for by someone or the ISPs won't do it.  Indeed, they shouldn't do it.  Yet because the data needs of individual subscribers haven't expanded past the advertised size of their local pipes to the ISP, those subscribers reluct and resent footing the bill for increased backbone.  Indeed, since it is the massive central source content providers that are creating the demand for increased capacity, it makes sense that they be the ones to pay for it.

Maybe, I'm not an engineer so I'm not really sure either way.  But, I've heard that advances in fiber optic technology, cellular data and WIFI are basically keeping pace with the internet and web.  This was in a lecture by one of the inventors of the internet I attended a few years ago.

The technology is not the problem.  The problem is who is going to pay for all that hardware.

[Indy Texas]

Someone has to pay for the bigger pipes.  If not the content providers then it would have to be the ISP subscribers.  Since the subscribers don't need bigger pipes between themselves and the ISP right now, they see little to no reason to pay for extra for stuff they don't see.  I really don't see a problem here.

Someone already pays for the networks to exist.  We've found a way to do that.  The data capacity of the internet keeps expanding and doesn't necessarily create expenses out of proportion with the current economic model.  Remember, a bigger pipe is actually cheaper on a bit per second basis.

Ah yes, the Cheaper by the Dozen syndrome.  And while it is true that per item they are cheaper, the greater quantity does mean there is an increased cost.  We went thru a long period where we had glut of backbone capacity because of the internet bubble that popped in 2000.  That's done.  Increased capacity needs to be paid for by someone or the ISPs won't do it.  Indeed, they shouldn't do it.  Yet because the data needs of individual subscribers haven't expanded past the advertised size of their local pipes to the ISP, those subscribers reluct and resent footing the bill for increased backbone.  Indeed, since it is the massive central source content providers that are creating the demand for increased capacity, it makes sense that they be the ones to pay for it.

Maybe, I'm not an engineer so I'm not really sure either way.  But, I've heard that advances in fiber optic technology, cellular data and WIFI are basically keeping pace with the internet and web.  This was in a lecture by one of the inventors of the internet I attended a few years ago.

The technology is not the problem.  The problem is who is going to pay for all that hardware.

If we had been operating under that regime 10 years ago, we likely would not have YouTube today. They never would have been able to pay those higher fees as a small startup.

ISPs and cable companies are more opposed to innovation than just about any incumbent firms I can think of. They aren't reluctant to invest in new capacity because of a pricing issue. They're reluctant to invest in new capacity because that eats into their profits.

[MaxQue]

Someone has to pay for the bigger pipes.  If not the content providers then it would have to be the ISP subscribers.  Since the subscribers don't need bigger pipes between themselves and the ISP right now, they see little to no reason to pay for extra for stuff they don't see.  I really don't see a problem here.

Someone already pays for the networks to exist.  We've found a way to do that.  The data capacity of the internet keeps expanding and doesn't necessarily create expenses out of proportion with the current economic model.  Remember, a bigger pipe is actually cheaper on a bit per second basis.

Ah yes, the Cheaper by the Dozen syndrome.  And while it is true that per item they are cheaper, the greater quantity does mean there is an increased cost.  We went thru a long period where we had glut of backbone capacity because of the internet bubble that popped in 2000.  That's done.  Increased capacity needs to be paid for by someone or the ISPs won't do it.  Indeed, they shouldn't do it.  Yet because the data needs of individual subscribers haven't expanded past the advertised size of their local pipes to the ISP, those subscribers reluct and resent footing the bill for increased backbone.  Indeed, since it is the massive central source content providers that are creating the demand for increased capacity, it makes sense that they be the ones to pay for it.

Maybe, I'm not an engineer so I'm not really sure either way.  But, I've heard that advances in fiber optic technology, cellular data and WIFI are basically keeping pace with the internet and web.  This was in a lecture by one of the inventors of the internet I attended a few years ago.

The technology is not the problem.  The problem is who is going to pay for all that hardware.

The ISP. It's like if a store would ask his manufacturers and distributors to pay for maintenance on the store. It's an investment on better service.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Someone has to pay for the bigger pipes.  If not the content providers then it would have to be the ISP subscribers.  Since the subscribers don't need bigger pipes between themselves and the ISP right now, they see little to no reason to pay for extra for stuff they don't see.  I really don't see a problem here.

Someone already pays for the networks to exist.  We've found a way to do that.  The data capacity of the internet keeps expanding and doesn't necessarily create expenses out of proportion with the current economic model.  Remember, a bigger pipe is actually cheaper on a bit per second basis.

Ah yes, the Cheaper by the Dozen syndrome.  And while it is true that per item they are cheaper, the greater quantity does mean there is an increased cost.  We went thru a long period where we had glut of backbone capacity because of the internet bubble that popped in 2000.  That's done.  Increased capacity needs to be paid for by someone or the ISPs won't do it.  Indeed, they shouldn't do it.  Yet because the data needs of individual subscribers haven't expanded past the advertised size of their local pipes to the ISP, those subscribers reluct and resent footing the bill for increased backbone.  Indeed, since it is the massive central source content providers that are creating the demand for increased capacity, it makes sense that they be the ones to pay for it.

Maybe, I'm not an engineer so I'm not really sure either way.  But, I've heard that advances in fiber optic technology, cellular data and WIFI are basically keeping pace with the internet and web.  This was in a lecture by one of the inventors of the internet I attended a few years ago.

The technology is not the problem.  The problem is who is going to pay for all that hardware.

The ISP. It's like if a store would ask his manufacturers and distributors to pay for maintenance on the store. It's an investment on better service.

Actually, supermarkets around here routinely charge stocking fees to manufacturers for shelf space that is either expanded or at eye level where it will catch the shopper's eye.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If you ignore infrastructure costs, ISPs have 97% profit margins. Needless to say, they can pay for plenty of infrastructure upgrades, but they're greedy bastards. Cable providers generally have a monopoly in their area.

The fact that the FCC is deciding to make the problem worse means that the FCC is the total pawn of large multinationals and doesn't give the slightest crap about consumers.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you ignore infrastructure costs, ISPs have 97% profit margins. Needless to say, they can pay for plenty of infrastructure upgrades, but they're greedy bastards. Cable providers generally have a monopoly in their area.

The fact that the FCC is deciding to make the problem worse means that the FCC is the total pawn of large multinationals and doesn't give the slightest crap about consumers.

That's a mighty big IF.