RE: Net Neutrality May End In a Few Weeks! An Ideological Struggle At the ISP Level? How About A Steem Powered ISP? :)
I thought ICANN was a private non profit? Either way their is a huge difference in issuing URL's for the .com space and controlling bandwidth for all internet traffic. My "depressingly contradictory and flawed" argument was that throttling of websites making them inaccessible was not an issue before the legislation in 2015, which you offered no rebuttal to. An example of this happening would be a solid argument that might convince me to change my position. Giving government control over the flow of information is scary to me. At least their are multiple ISP's so if throttling and censorship ever becomes an issue, there will be other companies competing for the business of consumers upset about the censorship. If we give government the power and they decide to abuse it, there is no recourse.
There's no competition. Either you have fiber laid down or not. And the cost to enter the space is not worth it.
The legislation arose, as you stated, from the throttling of Netflix because ISPs were threatening to destroy the streaming of Netflix if they didn't pay ISPs for the right to be a service provider.
I didn't realize that was something that needed to be said, since you said it for me.
That's exactly my point! Netflix was pissy because they had to pay more than a small website for the massive data their site used. They funded a campaign, gave it a nice name and let social media lobby the government for them. This wasn't a grassroots movement. the only companies being threatened were huge cooperations that have the majority of internet traffic. Now they can't be charged more than a small online startup. There was no cases of ISP's censoring websites or deciding what you see and don't see on the internet which is how net neutrality proponents are framing it.
Soooo, you want to pay more money to be a Netflix subscriber? Do you think the money would actually have been paid at the end of the day by Netflix? No. Consumers would have paid for it.
Do you not know how to do math, or understand how business works?
I never made an arguement about the price of Netflix or how they would pay the difference if net neutrality is overturned, so I don't know why you're assuming I "want" to pay more or I don't know math. I completely understand consumers would most likely pay the difference which is only fair. Their using the majority of the bandwidth. Right now they are being subsidized by the little guy who has to pay the same amount as Netflix for a fraction of the bandwidth. Higher Netflix subscription fee is a Small price to pay to keep government from regulating the internet.
How much does the bandwidth cost the ISPs?
The consumers of Netflix are already paying for the bandwidth.
Why should the ISP be paid a Premium by a corporation simply because that corporation is successful?
If Steemit becomes extremely successful, all end users of the internet are paying for internet access already, should Steem Inc have to pay a Premium to ISPs because they are popular? You're saying yes. I'm saying no.
Do you want to be double taxed for using the internet? I don't. I'm paying an ISP to use the internet. Webpages that I access shouldn't be paying an additional fee because I decide to view their page. Which I then would have to pay for again because I choose to continue viewing that page.
Thanks for the lively debate
Consumers are not already paying for the bandwidth. That's the point NN charges Netflix the same amount as anyone else even though no one comes close to using as much as Netflix. Its not double taxation because ISP's are not government. You keep asking questions starting with "do you want" when I want doesn't matter. This is about free markets vs. government control. I'm Willing to pay whatever the market calls for because that's the moral thing to do. Using government coercion to tell private companies what to charge is immoral and unproductive. Already since 2015 there has been a slump in innovation and internet start ups. I believe if free markets, and a free and open internet. My positions are consistent. Here's an article debunking some of the myths surrounding NN.
http://www.newsweek.com/promoted-content?prx_t=MD8DAAAAAAu9wMA&prx_ro=s
I think you're seriously missing the point that we are all paying for bandwidth on the internet. Including corporations.
Do you have a job? Does your employer have an office? Does that office have an internet connection? They're paying for use of the internet to an ISP.
By the way, ISP simply means Internet Service Provider. I'm not completely sure that you have grasped that concept yet based on your comments. By definition, that means they are providing access to the internet to people who want to consume data from the internet. Data on the internet is consumed with bandwidth.
So if I access Google, I'm using bandwidth on the internet. If I access any webpage, I'm accessing and using bandwidth on the internet. When I "stream" movies or music, I'm consuming bandwidth on the internet. The company providing that content is not pushing bandwidth out into the ether constantly. They are receiving requests, known as packets, over the internet, on their internal servers (not floating off in the interwebs somewhere).
This means when an ISP attempts to charge a corporation for having a large quantity of packets sent to them, and them sending large packets back, that ISP is now DOUBLE CHARGING those corporations. When that happens, it's no longer "the normal cost of business". It's EXTORTION.
Do you work from home, or simply access the internet from your home? Do you pay fo your internet connection? You're paying for your bandwidth, too.
Just some food for thought...