Timmeh wrote on Dec 12, 2018, 10:31:
Beamer wrote on Dec 11, 2018, 23:34:
LibertyOrDeath wrote on Dec 11, 2018, 23:18:
Let me educate...Politicians will name their bills, "Fluffy Bunny People WIN" but realize that the fluffy bunnies people might get maimed within the bill. In other words, read the fine print.
No offense, dude, but a guy who gets his information primarily from Alex Jones, QAnon, and /r/conspiracy isn't really in position to educate anyone on anything.
Do you ever see a group of silver cars and believe they're following you?
You take that back Beamer Alex the Jones is THE MAN!!!
seriously though.... Where can anyone get actual factual non politically propaganda spun information any more? I dont think it exists.
Does anyone really understand and have weighed the actual real pros and cons of Net Neutrality as its called? Or are we all just playing the drum beat of the political teams info we are being fed.
Net Neutrality is about who is better off benefiting from the internet - telecoms and cable companies, or everyone else.
Without Net Neutrality, telecos can charge what they want for bandwidth. Meaning, they can charge a lot, or they can charge nothing. There can be some benefits to consumers for this - look at T-Mobile. It doesn't count Netflix against its data cap. If you're a T-Mobile user, you can stream Netflix from the airport or the train or school or whatever, and not worry about hitting your data cap. This is pretty cool. Other providers have worked out similar deals.
The argument against that, though, is the support of Net Neutrality. Netflix is paying for that deal, and for good reason. If you're a cellphone user that consumes a lot of video, you're going to have extra incentive to lock yourself into Netflix, since it won't impact your data usage. But if you're a smaller video startup, now you're screwed. Those consumers will be hard to pry from Netflix, and you can't outbid Netflix for that exclusivity. Netflix can also make agreements to have their video be a higher quality, as cellphone companies love limiting streaming video feeds, but would let companies pay around that. Again, smaller startups have no ability to fight that. It's all about money exchanging hands, and they have less, so the rich get richer. Outside of video, this could be games - imagine if Steam decided to fight Epic and GOG by making deals with cable companies to not have their downloads count against caps, or imagine if Microsoft made deals with Comcast to make certain there was less lag on Xbox Live than whatever the PlayStation equivalent is.
Basically, the question is what is more important - that the few companies owning the bulk of internet pipes can further monetize those pipes, or that every company has equal access to the internet in order to do business. Which will lead to more innovation - letting the few companies that own and can afford to invest in the internet making more money and encouraging them to keep updating it, or making the internet more open so that the bigger, more entrenched companies can't box out smaller, more nimble and innovative ones?
Personally, I feel that the cable companies already make enough off of this, and are investing, anyway. Regulations around competitiveness are what is stifling innovation there, not ability to monetize traffic. Furthermore, the innovation we'd be likely to see wouldn't be innovation benefiting the consumer, but benefiting their bottom line, as they find new ways to monetize more, rather than investing into faster pipes. If anything, it gives incentive for them to slow things down. The regulations against competition have largely made it so that cable companies, quite famously, have no incentive to deliver better products. A better product doesn't change their revenue or bottom line much, so instead they find new ways to monetize the product they have. We still have terrible packages, enormous hidden fees, monstrously slow cable boxes that we pay huge monthly fees for, no true customer service, etc. Giving them more ability to monetize won't give the consumer any benefit, in my eyes, because they're already massively profitable without seeing any need to give consumers what they're interested in. Giving the consumers what they want would likely be worse for investors.