What’s the consensus view here? Good that it’s going bye bye or bad?
bad - but im of the opinion that the internet is at this point as much a utility as electricity. Cable lobby is stifling innovation and using the regulatory system to dig itself in an keep competition out. Time for some trust busting if you ask me.
im not sure. i think bad, broadband companies just hating on tech success. it can be argued that it will stifle progress as tech companies typically invest in progress so tech companies should have all the money imo.
i think its more like a road though. should people pay depending on the amount they drive? or should it be free for all.
basically do you believe in toll roads? (also these toll roads would not cause traffic)
the pro is hopefully the broadband companies will build out infrstracture to allow more data.
the con is. expect tech companies to charge higher rates.
^ i agree partially, but NN is larger than just bandwidth. Its about allowing ISPs the ability to determine winners & losers and treat different content differently.
It would be like allowing the electric company to charge different rates or put through different levels of power depending on what you had plugged in based on what they determine. I also would like them to crack down on the marketing of speeds… this “up to 100mb/s” stuff is a joke… i dont think ive ever gotten more than 20mb/s and my equipment is able to handle way more.
I’m not certain. In theory, net neutrality seems different than in legislative practice. I think it is notable that Mark Cuban thinks it is a good thing it is going away. I find his points persuasive and, as a result, really am not sure anymore about this issue. But I’m not sure about most issues, so I guess I should have known I didn’t understand it well enough when I had a definitive view lol
good for ISPs bad for consumers
Bad. I’m not about to pay to use individual websites. We’ll probably be asked to pay a fixed price (say $5) to use social media, $5 to use emails, $5 to use gaming sites, and etc…
I’m not sure if it is good or bad, assuming there will be reasonable fair practice laws in place. If Comcast sabotages its competitors by say by restricting bandwidth for competing services, then that’s obviously bad. However, if a system is implemented that non discriminately penalizes bandwidth hogs, maybe that’s not bad.
I’m not really sure they would even do that. They’ve gotten a lot of money to do that for years but they just ended up sitting on it.
i wouldnt trip. pretty sure we gonna get 69g soon. giggity
We’re talking about corporations. There’s 100% chance you are gonna get (more) screwed.
There are corporations on each side, though. Their interests aren’t all aligned
Their interests are aligned in that they are all on the side of cannibalizing humanity for increased profit. They will compete with each other, for who gets to screw you over the most.
^see that’s the cold hard truth but look at amazon. such an amazing company.
-
profitless. subsidizes customer needs. main focus is customer satisfaction.
-
appreciating investment. despite having no profits. stock price keeps going ip.
-
heavily invests and kills other companies.
its like a charitable organization designed to kill all other companies for the benefit of the customer. its amazing
So how is it the truth when competition encourages people like Amazon and Walmart before them? Surely since we are analysts, we shouldn’t just assume corporation is bad. Alfie I thought you were better than this!
This is being marketed as intended. You have to be careful with the difference between mega bytes and mega bits.
1 Megabyte = 8 Megabits
Telecoms are advertising in megabits and they will never change it to megabyte because most consumers won’t know the difference. So if one company advertises 10 megabytes and another says 80 megabits, consumers will think that the 80 is faster even though they are the same.
This is what internet looks like in Portugal without # NetNeutrality
. If this isn’t appealing, speak up: http://on.mash.to/2A6sn9P
SAD