Opinion of Net Neutrality

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

And also some parts didn't even get the trail

[○∙◄☻¥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

[muon2]

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.

I very much remember that day. But what concerns me more is how connections through ISPs worked back then. Before the World Wide Web in 1992 most users signed up with a service like Compuserve, the Source, Prodigy, or AOL to connect to the internet (I had subscriptions to all of those at one time). These were private providers and they featured links to their partner services. If you wanted to get to some other website you had to know what you were doing, since the ISP didn't make it easy to go away from their partners.

When the WWW came along with its standardized page format and transfer protocols it became much easier. All you had to do was get to any search engine that was equipped for the WWW and you could easily navigate to other sites beyond those featured by the ISP. Before long the ISPs gave up trying to feature partner sites and those sites migrated to the WWW format. Instead ISPs and search engines switched to an advertising-based model and used page placement ads to cover costs.

What I would not like to see is a return to the pre-WWW days when navigating to non-partnered sites becomes difficult or unusually slow. I prefer to see the internet as a form of a common carrier, recognizing that there is information modification and storage at each end, but that the transaction that moves the data from place to place is more like telephone service than not.