Net Neutrality?

[razr390]

I'm aware of the situation. I personally like the idea of neutrality but I am not convinced that forcing people to do business in a way that we like is ethical.

I'm using "router" to be a simplification of the entire privately owned network infrastructure.

Let's say that I own a restaurant, call me a "Food Service Provider" - Do I have the right to choose which dishes I offer? Do I have the right to choose my own prices? Do I have the right to cook different dishes at different rates? Why or why not?

You have that right if you were the only food service provider. But let's say there is a similar food service provider in the area who offers:

More dishes
Faster dishes/rates
Better prices.

Now you have competition.

AGAIN, the concept is OKAY until there is competition involved, because if you do the "YOUR WAY" when there are other alternatives, you will go out of business.

ergo, Comcast owning a monopoly and KYJelly saying that he wonders how long a shitty Comcast method of business would last against Google fiber (competition, and way better)

 

[myMK6fool]

I just opened this thread for the first time and don't really know what I'm talking about... but I think I agree with troy. Yes it would be nice to have net neutrality, but doesn't Comcast have the right to sell whatever product they want, and I, as a consumer have the right to buy whatever product I want? It seems to me that if Comcast did that, then some other ISP could offer neutral service at a premium and take business from Comcast.

It's kind of like smoking in restaurants. I don't like eating in restaurants where people are smoking, but that doesn't give the government a right to tell restaurant owners that it can't be allowed. It should really be up to them as the owner of the business.

I'm not so sure the owner of a router has any rights to anything other than the privileged of high speed internet at a cost.

This specifically effects ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc. They will be able to manipulate data exchange at their discretion. i.e., say you are on AT&Ts network and you are trying to go to T-Mobile. Well...T-Mobile is a competitor of AT&T, so why not just block or slow down/interrupt the communication between the device you are on and the site you are trying to get to. Sucks for you doesn't it? With net neutrality, Comcast can't do that.

Also - smoking in a restaurant is illegal if the state says it is. The restaurant would get fined heavily. In WA you cannot be within 25 feet of a building and it's illegal to smoke in any building except your personal dwelling. This is not even moot. It's just breaking the law or not.

 

[MINIAC-17]

You are misunderstanding net neutrality. We have it right now. I pay for bandwidth and websites I frequent pay for band width. That should be enough. They want to further monopolize the industry by making it like cable tv

 

[MINIAC-17]

They want to extort money from popular websites, and it would effectively bury any startups

 

[D Griff]

I'm not so sure the owner of a router has any rights to anything other than the privileged of high speed internet at a cost.

This specifically effects ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc. They will be able to manipulate data exchange at their discretion. i.e., say you are on AT&Ts network and you are trying to go to T-Mobile. Well...T-Mobile is a competitor of AT&T, so why not just block or slow down/interrupt the communication between the device you are on and the site you are trying to get to. Sucks for you doesn't it? With net neutrality, Comcast can't do that.

Also - smoking in a restaurant is illegal if the state says it is. The restaurant would get fined heavily. In WA you cannot be within 25 feet of a building and it's illegal to smoke in any building except your personal dwelling. This is not even moot. It's just breaking the law or not.

I understand that smoking in restaurants is illegal in many places. My point is that it shouldn't be. What gives the government the right to tell business owners what they can and can't do with their own business? Whether or not I like that is irrelevant.

If the ISPs do what you're saying, what's to stop troy and I from starting a neutral ISP and becoming billionaires. Free market, yo.

 

[razr390]

I understand that smoking in restaurants is illegal in many places. My point is that it shouldn't be. What gives the government the right to tell business owners what they can and can't do with their own business? Whether or not I like that is irrelevant.

If the ISPs do what you're saying, what's to stop troy and I from starting a neutral ISP and becoming billionaires. Free market, yo.

Good luck trying to become a relative ISP when it is already monopolized by three companies.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM. These companies think they can do this and extort more money out of their customers because there are not many options, but other companies such as Google are making their own, which would diminish the monopolies. Look at the pic provided above. If net neutrality was gone, this is what it would look like.

 

[MINIAC-17]

We will probably end up being the ONLY western country not to have net neutrality.

 

[razr390]

We will probably end up being the ONLY western country not to have net neutrality.

Tis a sad world.

 

[D Griff]

Good luck trying to become a relative ISP when it is already monopolized by three companies.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM. These companies think they can do this and extort more money out of their customers because there are not many options, but other companies such as Google are making their own, which would diminish the monopolies. Look at the pic provided above. If net neutrality was gone, this is what it would look like.

Don't get me wrong, I'd definitely prefer to have it… I just don't see it as a government/political issue.

 

[myMK6fool]

Don't get me wrong, I'd definitely prefer to have it… I just don't see it as a government/political issue.

Politics run the world. So why not add the internet to it? This whole country is ran by 1% whether we have an opinion, know facts or think we know facts. Unless things are voted on, it's decided by a group of greedy group of people. Republican, Democratic, etc. It doesn't matter. Money is power, power is money. Plain, simple and sad.

 

[troyguitar]

So do you guys believe that I should be free to sell or not sell whatever food I want in my restaurant or not?

Mandating net neutrality is like mandating that McDonald's sell General Tso's Chicken. Ronald doesn't like Chinese food, why make him sell it?

 

[WAP]

I understand that smoking in restaurants is illegal in many places. My point is that it shouldn't be. What gives the government the right to tell business owners what they can and can't do with their own business? Whether or not I like that is irrelevant.

Should they have the right to have filthy kitchens and serve moldy, disease-ridden meat? What gives gubmint the right to have health inspections at restaurants and meat processing plants? Or should fatality rates at restaurants be a free-market issue.

"Hey Honey, where should we go to eat tonight?"
"Hmm, I always wanted to try that new place down the street, but I heard their body count was up to 12 this morning."
"Ok, let's go to Joe Schmo's Kitchen. He's only killed 7 since the beginning of the year."

Boom. Free market solution to no health inspectors or FDA.

 

[WAP]

^Troy, it's not what they serve, it's how they serve it.

 

[troyguitar]

^Troy, it's not what they serve, it's how they serve it.

Is it?

You are OK with Comcast deciding that you have to pay an extra $9.95 a month to have access to golfmk6.com and that you cannot see golfmk7.com no matter how much you pay because those guys are not Comcast contributors?

 

[razr390]

So do you guys believe that I should be free to sell or not sell whatever food I want in my restaurant or not?

Mandating net neutrality is like mandating that McDonald's sell General Tso's Chicken. Ronald doesn't like Chinese food, why make him sell it?

you do not understand what you are saying, or know what you are talking about.

Instead of the restaurant, think of companies like Sysco, real food service providers. Let's say that they will only sell chicken for a wholesale price, everything else, including steak, pork and organic must be purchased separately from wholesale and separate in respect to one another, for a higher rate.

Then, the restaurant will only be able to afford chicken and keep prices low (but lose customers based on the fact that not everyone wants chicken all the time), which means losing business.

At the same time, they fork over the extra cash for the extra meat packages and then they increase the price of the food in the restaurant, ALSO limiting their customer base, which means limiting income, which means losing business.

Griff said "What's stopping me and troy from making our own ISP"

Put it in terms of FSP. Would one affected restaurant go out of their way to become a food service provide? Hence making contracts and/or purchasing farms, slaughterhouses, etc.?

Exactly.