Since I refuse to pay the high prices that cable and satellite TV providers charge for their bundled services. I am by no means an avid supporter of repealing net neutrality. However in reality I really don't know much about it. Thoughts?
VOX Net Neutrality Repeal
Engadget Netflix Google Support Net Neutrality
Bloomberg How Google and FB Can Save Net Neutrality
PBS FCC Chair's Argument for Ending Net Neutrality
Inverse WEB Requires New Regs
Vittana Pros Cons
SA Pro Cons
VOX Net Neutrality Repeal
Engadget Netflix Google Support Net Neutrality
Bloomberg How Google and FB Can Save Net Neutrality
PBS FCC Chair's Argument for Ending Net Neutrality
Inverse WEB Requires New Regs
Vittana Pros Cons
SA Pro Cons
A snippet from the SA link:
Pro: Yes. Neutrality has been a core democratizing principle of the Internet since the day it was born. Internet service should be like phone service: the phone company can't make the connection worse if they don't approve of the person you're calling.
Con: But times have changed. Today Netflix and YouTube videos clog our pipes with enormous amounts of data. Or consider the BitTorrent crowd, which uses our lines to download insane exabytes of software, movies and music—illegally. Or how about Google and Skype? They've created services that let people make phone calls—for free—on networks that we spent billions to build. Why shouldn't all those services pay their share?
15 comments:
Net neutrality is essential. With so many ISPs in near-monopoly status, allowing them to self-regulate is going to be horrible for consumers and the economy.
...and terrible for Democracy.
Unless you think the ability to deny information to large swaths of people is democratic. Apparently, Republicans do.
Moose
It’s a clash between internet companies and content providers. It’s a very big fight in whic the public has a very small small dog. Yes the internet companies could discriminate but why would they want to? What they do want is, if they build bigger and better highways, they want to generate more in profits from the immensely lucrative traffic that travels on them.
—Hiram
I personally think the anti-net neutrality folks made a good argument.
Do we really want the internet clogged with many illegal file transfer, hacking, etc activities?
Or people/companies who transfer a massive a huge amount of data across the lines without paying "their fair share".
If Facebook, Google, Netflix, Amazon, etc and their users had to pay a bit more... Would those companies as huge and powerful as they are?
If those types of industries had to pay the true cost, would our neighborhood brick and mortar stores be more cost competitive?
What makes you suggest that these companies aren't paying "the true cost"?
I guess my question is do they pay any significant fees for transmission outside of their facility ISP fees. Or do us customers pay almost all those costs with our ISP fees.
I mean when we as individuals or companies use more electricity we pay a higher bill...
When we as individuals or business shop more on Amazon, stream more data, etc. How do we pay more?
Or is this just like a big spread the "peanut butter" / welfare system, where many people are being "taxed" excessively so that others can transfer and access data really cheap.
Is the guy who sits at home downloading lots of pirated movies, porn, pirated music, hacked data, etc and the service providing this actually paying the cost or are we?
"I guess my question is do they pay any significant fees for transmission outside of their facility ISP fees."
I would argue a website (generally speaking) doesn't really transmit in the way that a TV or radio station does. It's reliant on a user coming to it and requesting data from it. As such, I think you can make the argument that it's appropriate to charge those users for the transmission costs.
As internet users we pay for the size of the "tube" (RIP Ted Stevens) -- or capacity -- that we desire for connection.
(Also: do brick-and-mortar stores pay their "fair share" of transportation infrastructure costs? Under your conception of the issue, I would suggest they probably don't.)
I guess I disagree regarding B&M stores. I mean if they provide more product they pay more shipping and gas taxes. They also pay more local property taxes based on their size. They pay more income taxes based on their sales.
Not to mention all the money they pay to build or lease within our community.
Where as these online behemoths have very low costs of doing business... I am guessing that is why they are so wealthy.
"Where as these online behemoths have very low costs of doing business."
Well, yeah, it's a different business model.
That let's benefit from others paying the bills model does seem very profitable.
It is a good thing added this to my retirement portfolio awhile back. :-)
"That let's benefit from others paying the bills model does seem very profitable."
I would argue others aren't paying the bills. Amazon pays shipping and gas taxes on product delivered to/from its warehouses. It pays property tax on the facilities it owns, and income tax on its profits.
A few related links...
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Hopefully with a lower US corporate tax rate some of these games will lessen.
I do use Amazon or other online retailers when I can't easily find an item locally, but mostly I choose to support my local businesses, taxes, employees. It is a good thing Target, Cub and Best Buy are based in the Twin Cities because they get a lot of our income...
My biggest pet peeve is when people go to B&M stores to look at and touch products and then go online to save some money...
Post a Comment