My impression is that there won’t be much innovation but I may be wrong. I’d think the innovation would be mostly around how to bilk more out of the consumers.
The us govt invested billions in the telecom carriers over the years to upgrade large swathes of the country, and they didnt follow through on it, so this isnt a very convincing argument just based off of the past actions of the carriers.
Its already essentially an oligopoly with the companies acting like a cartel. I don’t find this convincing.
Transparency is good.
There are multiple logical inconsistencies in this paragraph including an appeal to authority and the guys attempting to make it out like his views are the most widely accepted ones.
I think you are wrong. How do you expect medical applications, self driving cars, etc to function if they are subject to the same lanes as others? Eventually we will need to differentiate based on the importance of things executing unless something changes with current technology
GPS already exists for one. And we seem to get by as it is now re medicine. I know you mean that in the future there will be a higher demand but I don’t see evidence of the benefits being likely to materialize. This seems like this would be missing the real issue which is the high barriers to entry, oligopoly nature, the poor overall service from isps and the lack of reason for them to really get better from a marker perspective.
Self driving cars need internet to stream maps. The GPS system tells the car where it is on the map. On top of that, they need sensors to detect lane markers and avoid other cars. I’m not sure how net neutrality hurts self driving cars though. There does not seem to be a cost or bandwidth constraint for these sorts of services.
It’s not necessarily an argument that it will hurt cars, but I think it’s a good example. There are obvious ways we can imagine the need for priority lanes. And this is also being aware the vast majority of the innovations we won’t be able to see in advance, but cars seem on track. As more and more services are on the internet, we can’t just assume there is always enough bandwidth at all times for all services. If we have critical services, like lots of cars relying on map, traffic, etc data it’s not hard to imagine a situation where Netflix priority is reduced to ensure the road system continues to work. So we have an idea we may need different lanes in the future and we also know the consumer experience didn’t change pre and post regulation of the internet under Obama. So why potentially hinder the system to continue to grow in complexity and diversity prematurely when it is just the possibility people are worried about.
Here was an interesting reply on change my view, the place I tend to go first to find arguments against what I believed. It’s a current example of how fast lanes would work with current uses. But you can see this below becoming more and more important as very consequential things, like cars driving humans around, are running through the same tube as my cat videos.
Cmv:
Here’s the thing. The Internet works as a dumb packet routing engine. It couldn’t care less what the packets contain. Net Neutrality insures that all packets are treated equally. However, IMO, not all packets are the same. Let’s say a website requires 1.5 MB of data to download and display on your computer. Let’s say you’re also downloading a movie from iTunes or Amazon Prime in the background. A typical movie download these days is 1.5GB or so for standard definition content. That’s 1000 times more data than the website. Under Net Neutrality, the network doesn’t really care about these requests. The data are placed in same type of packets and sent to your computer with no preference to the actual content you’ve requested.
Without Net Neutrality, the hope would be that the Internet could be made to discern the type of data and fast lane certain data while slowing down others. I know, it sounds bad at first, but think about it. If the website above is downloaded at 1.5MB/sec, it’s loaded in 1 second. If it’s downloaded at 300k/sec, it’s loaded in 5 seconds. Do you really notice a difference? With a big download like the movie, if you download at 1.5MB/sec, it’s completed in 1000 seconds (16:40). If it’s downloaded at 300k/sec, it’s loaded in 1:23:20. That’s a huge difference. You’ll notice that and pull your hair out in the process. By eliminating Net Neutrality, the Internet could theoretically throttle up large downloads so they complete faster while slowing down small requests so they run negligibly slower.
rentech invested 1% of portfolio into comcast. comcast is the largest broadband company in us. so just a heads up on where he is betting. lol
makes sense cuz trump hates the techies and almsot everything he does has a hint if not a blatant conflict of interest as he is very vindictive. lol
also as a heads up. comcast removed their pledge of net neutrality as soon as it was repealed by pai. hilarious.
i think now i am for net neutrality. just cuz i feel its like a road and should be a government good so no one should profit from that shit. lol. also i feel that the infrastructure is waste of money as more and more people are choosing to go mobile route. none of that fixed line bs.
I was just walking by the Comcast Center in Philly thinking about NN. I’m all for net neutrality as of right now. I believe the internet has become a utility, much like landline phones are considered today. We are currently almost in the Bell System age of telephone providers in terms of duopoly/monopoly of internet providers. We all saw (or read) how Bell Systems ended.
I actually think that if Comcast starts to screw with people more after repeal of NN, then it will lead to the company’s eventual demise.
Here’s where my ideological beliefs run into real world problems. In theory, I’m against net neutrality but in practice I have to be for it. The problem really boils down to ISPs having local monopolies. I’d love for the Internet to be truly free and allow corporations to fight for my money. But, I realistically only have two ISP options so I have no leverage when they make me pay extra for xhamster and netflix.
Again, in theory. In reality it won’t likely change anything. We’ll be stuck with the same ISPs that are consistently rated among the worst corporations in the world.
You can’t see any future innovation that requires faster lanes and new ISPs come along to meet the demand? Just because we can’t see future innovations does the mean they aren’t probable. Trying to regulate every potential harm that could occur without seeing it actually happening sounds like you’ve become a liberal! Welcome to the club haha
