Right now your internet price is based on everyone else's demand for service. If you don't stream a ton, you are paying more because people like me love netflix and watch hundreds of hours of streamed content every month. The end of net neutrality will ultimately bring about an ala-cart internet model where people who use more pay more. We won't be paying by speed. We will pay by data used. I value streaming content, so if Amazon Prime and Netflix want to charge me more, because the providers are charging more for the greater use of resources, I'll happily pay it. Right now you and I are paying for the internet habits of everyone, and for all the content companies that don't own the infrastructure they need to deliver hd feature films to us. Net neutrality maintains that inequitable system. Ending it will spread the burden around.
Well put, but my point of view comes from the other side. The desire for faster download speed is already being paid for. If people don't have the need for HD content then they pay for a slower download speed which is cheaper than the people who pay for the highest download speed for that content. What providers want to do seems like double dipping to me. It is an unnecessary money grab in my opinion. Net neutrality has brought on great innovations and has brought you the content you wanted from multiple sources. I don't see a need to change that.
Preventing Cable Company Fuckery Perfect, the thing about Obama hiring the top lobbyist as the head of the FCC should be criminal. I like how he put it as letting a dingo babysit your toddler.
Net neutrality = more government interference in communications. The reason prices are what they are now is because current restrictions placed by state and local government stifle competition by only allowing one or two companies to operate in any given region. Imagine the price war if TimeWarner, Cox, Charter, Eatel, Cablevision, etc. all were allowed to operate in Baton Rouge. Net neutrality calls for even more government interference in this industry. How do you fix unfair rules? Add more rules! Typical progressive bullshit. Drop net neutrality, open up local markets, and let free enterprise do its thing. If a company charges more or throttles certain traffic all you have to do is shop around. Self-regulation works when consumers are free to choose.
You literally do not understand the issue of net neutrality one single bit. Net neutrality is open markets. It is keeping things the way it is right now which is why the new rules changes should not be allowed to take root. They were practically written by the ISPs after placing a Lobbyist for the ISPs at the head of the FCC. Net Neutrality is simply equal access to the internet. Be it Facebook or some random startup, they all have equal access to the internet. Equal access leaves people free to innovate and places new companies on equal footing with the big companies. Google, Facebook, etc. are all for net neutrality, which seems counter to their own business. They understand that not keeping the internet neutral will stifle innovation. Without an open internet, they would have never gotten off the ground. It has nothing to do with broadband market share. Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, TimeWarner are free to offer service anywhere they like. They choose to stay out of each other's way so they can continue to offer shitty service for high prices.
Net neutrality is not about open markets. Net neutrality is government regulations forcing internet companies to charge all of their customers equally. It is government interference in the free market to force their version of equality. The more important issue is market share. A large majority of municipalities and/or parishes/counties in the U.S. have a deal with a cable company to give them an exclusive right to operate in their area. Cox has that contract with EBR. Sure, you have alternatives from some of the phone companies, but not from other cable providers. If Cox had to compete with ten other cable internet providers in EBR they would be forced to lower prices/improve services regardless of the lack of "neutrality" regulations. Any company that throttled bandwidth or denied services would quickly lose customers. Simple example... LUS (Lafayette Utilities System) created a competitor to Cox in Lafayette. They began offering Gigabit broadband forcing Cox to begin pushing forward with their fiber network by 2016. Proponents of Net Neutrality claim that without it cable companies will jack up prices on high data users. The more likely scenario is a continuation of the tiered plans that are already in place so that supply and demand determine price. Companies will always offer their services as cheaply as possible while still making a profit... not to mention that Net Neutrality rules will be written by the highest bidder, just like ObamaCare was written by the insurance companies.
