Let me try a simpler explanation: Net Neutrality is keeping the internet access open like it is right now and preventing ISPs from creating tiered service in which they can pick and choose what businesses, customers, etc. can have access to each tier. The proposed rules were written by ISPs which have hi-jacked the FCC. It is not advantageous for the consumers. It is extremely disadvantageous for new users and innovation. There is a reason why Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc. are against it and Cox, Comcast, etc. are the ONLY groups for eliminating Net Neutrality. That little nugget there should be reason enough to support Net Neutrality. The argument isn't that ISPs will jack up prices on high data users. The issue is that they will charge people more to access certain services. You want internet? Fine, that's $50. Oh, you want to access Netflix? That's going to be another $10. You want ESPN streaming? NFL streaming? Vudu? Amazon Prime? Facebook? YouTube? That's another $50. Oh, and the speeds are throttled after 2GB of data. The values I posted are arbitrary, but you get the gist of it. These businesses already make billions of dollars, so let's not pretend that they're scratching to make ends meet. There are about 130+ cities in American with Municipal Broadband. ISPs fight each one of them and several laws have been passed across the country (Georgia, South Carolina) to prevent their creation, fueled by some serious lobbying by the ISPs. The FCC has actually recommended this model for underserved as the most desired going forward because it's cheaper for consumers and the speeds are faster, but it's a rare occurrence. As for losing customers, Comcast is well known already for throttling bandwidth. They're growing, not losing customers. Why? Well, the biggest reason is because there is no competition. This company has a well-known history of abusing it's powers created by what is essentially a monopoly. Instead of building out faster networks, reaching out into new areas and innovating the ISPs have collaborated and drawn maps for each other, they lobby for legislation that will prevent local government from creating networks that will provide faster services for much less costs and forced their way into the FCC to try and kill Net Neutrality. If they're allowed to end current Net Neutrality as we know it, do you really think things would be better for users? It's very simple: If you feel that ISPs should be allowed to regulate and throttle access to the internet (built out by your taxes, BTW), you are against Net Neutrality. If you feel that everyone should have equal access on the internet, you are for Net Neutrality.
It's simple really. People like Amazon Prime, NetFlix, HULU, etc; are costing these ISP's money in the way of lost Cable TV revenue. They are out to destroy them.....
Moreover those services eat up all the bandwidth requiring the ISPs to shell out billions in upgrades to infrastructure. The consumer will see rate hikes no matter what. The great lie of the people opposing the new rules is that things can continue as they are now.
Dude,it is not Netflix's fault these companies are using 30-40 year old technology while charging hundreds a month..... Do some research, America has worse internet service than some countries in Africa.
Like I said, customers have been paying enough for years anyway. Cable companies are crooks and WE have been being ripped off for decades. In any case, I SAVE money by using services like Netflix. That is why people like COX have such issues with this. They offer me 100 channels of shit for $70 a month when I can use netflix/hulu/amazon and watch what I want for far less $7.99 - $9.99.
This is silly. How can a company that provides a service that people want and buy rip anyone off. I think cable is expensive too, but nobody ever made me buy it. I chose to buy it freely. I don't think you understand this. Consumption of these services eats up a lot of your providers' bandwidth. Your provider will have to expand their network to keep pace with demand. That costs money. They are going to pass that cost on to consumers. Or they are going to pass it to Netflix and Amazon and the other stream sites, and they will pass it on to consumers. There is no scenario where the consumer will not pay more.
Only one provider in town.... Which is the problem. There is large amounts of evidence where companies make deals not to compete in cities/regions. You are missing point in which we ALREADY pay-more for shittier service as compared to the rest of the world and no, cable companies will not be able to unload all of the cost on it's consumers. Why? Research Google Fiber... Their model is the future. This issue is just the tip. Once the cable companies lose this battle, it will expand into the monopoly that they run.
Let me first say, I don't understand the issue 100% but here's how I see it and if I'm wrong, let me know. They're going to pass the cost along to consumers and that is fine. High usage consumers should pay more for the data they use. The problem is these companies are essentially monopolies and will be given the right to control not only the cost structure of content deliverers and receivers but also what content is delivered. What stops Ted Turner from bandwidth restricting Fox News if he owns a cable company. Or the Koch brothers from MSNBC. The cable companies then become the controllers of information. It's not just about cost in the long run.
Well that is true, but maintaining the status quo does not fix that very real problem. Few nations have better service than the US, and those that do are all small and have much higher population density. That allows a less infrastructure to bring high speeds to more people at less cost. If you look at nations with similar size to the US, Brasil, Russia, Australia, and China... we smoke them. The only thing that will improve that is more competition, but our model does not allow for that. Never going to happen. Lobby is too strong. They won't even lose this battle.
