re: FCC votes 3-2 in favor of Wheeler's proposal

quote:

---

the DEMs voted for free market

---

lets not pretend that ISPs live in the world of "free market"

quote:

---

Because that "corporate" sites competition and any potential new competition may not be able to afford it

---

but the other sites will go at the common speed

quote:

---

which is ultimately bad for consumers.

---

consumers always have a choice. in this scenario, they still get the "common speed" at a min, anywhere

quote:

---

consumers always have a choice

---

Potentially eliminating competition before it can even start is not giving consumers more choice. You know that.

You'll never see another Netflix, Amazon, or Brazzers ever again...

quote:

---

what's so scary about that?

let's just assume that the "common speed" of all sites is not affected. just for the sake of discussion

why do you care if some "corporate" sites pay to have faster access/download speeds? if you go there, you benefit. if you don't, it doesn't affect your internet experience at all

---

But it does, and it's very frustrating that you don't understand it yet.

If we have settled on a "common speed" of today of 5-10mbps, that is not fast enough for one 4K video stream, much less 2 if different people want to watch different things. BUT, Netflix might want to pay your ISP to give you faster speed for their site so you can take advantage of their services. So they pay Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Cox, etc. for their "fast lanes". How does a new video streaming service compete with that? Whose ransom do they pay first? How do they get enough users to pay for low-quality streaming to make it worth it to pay the ransoms to the ISPs in order to provide a service that competes with Netflix on quality? How can they possibly negotiate fees anyway, considering Netflix could just up the ante and lock them out? How can it be OK for an ISP to determine the quality of service that a separate company is able to provide?

And what happens if your ISP wants too much ransom and Netflix refuses to pay, so your monthly Netflix fee doesn't get you the same quality of service that the next guy's same fee gets him? Or does Netflix have to offer different quality packages, and the customer's choice is limited by his ISP? Why does the consumer have to suffer because two companies are fighting over who gets the next dollar? We see the same shite with TV already.

quote:

---

why do you care if some "corporate" sites pay to have faster access/download speeds? if you go there, you benefit. if you don't, it doesn't affect your internet experience at all

---

you benefit until you have to buy a subscription to said sites, which is obviously the next step.

quote:

---

but the other sites will go at the common speed

---

who determines this common speed. Whats to stop all ISPs to band together and say hey common speeds are 56k/second. Now we are back to 1998.

quote:

---

consumers always have a choice. in this scenario, they still get the "common speed" at a min, anywhere

---

tell me what choice of internet do i have in Baton Rouge. Cox.... thats it.

quote:

---

Potentially eliminating competition before it can even start is not giving consumers more choice. You know that.

---

SFP's whole spiel is that consumers have the choice of "voting with their dollars" by not paying for service at all. He is completely ignoring the fact that internet access today is as vital as electricity and water.

quote:

---

But it does, and it's very frustrating that you don't understand it yet.

If we have settled on a "common speed" of today of 5-10mbps, that is not fast enough for one 4K video stream, much less 2 if different people want to watch different things. BUT, Netflix might want to pay your ISP to give you faster speed for their site so you can take advantage of their services. So they pay Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Cox, etc. for their "fast lanes". How does a new video streaming service compete with that? Whose ransom do they pay first? How do they get enough users to pay for low-quality streaming to make it worth it to pay the ransoms to the ISPs in order to provide a service that competes with Netflix on quality? How can they possibly negotiate fees anyway, considering Netflix could just up the ante and lock them out? How can it be OK for an ISP to determine the quality of service that a separate company is able to provide?

And what happens if your ISP wants too much ransom and Netflix refuses to pay, so your monthly Netflix fee doesn't get you the same quality of service that the next guy's same fee gets him? Or does Netflix have to offer different quality packages, and the customer's choice is limited by his ISP? Why does the consumer have to suffer because two companies are fighting over who gets the next dollar? We see the same shite with TV already.

---

This. All of this. It's really not hard to understand.

quote:

---

Ok. So why are the Democrats the ones voting for less government regulation?

---

Here's what it boils down to: both the D's and R's want ISPs to be able to charge whoever for whatever, and basically kill the internet for the sake of a dollar today.

The R's want basically no regulation, which means the ISPs can make fast lanes, slow lanes, blocked lanes, whatever the frick they want. The D's are putting on this show like "look, we're trying to do at least something to preserve an 'open' internet". Unfortunately, that "something" gives ISPs the same exact rights that the R's want them to have, except it requires a tiny bit of government involvement and the R's don't like that.