On Monday, net neutrality goes away. So go out with one last hurrah and enjoy a free internet while you can.

Net neutrality was always an argument between content controllers such as google, YouTube, and Facebook vs the infrastructure owners about who pays for the internet.
It had little to do with our freedom, in so much that we are already being manipulated by t Google et all to provide more data in order to serve up ads and attention.

It’s much like cable tv packages. YouTube wants those who don’t browse their offerings to subsidize those that do. Ditto for the others. Right now that is the case, but Comcast could easily change that setup. A handful of websites account for the bulk of internet traffic. What would happen if you could get cheap net access if you were barred from those sites?

I don’t understand.

I pay for my internet connection. YouTube pays for their fuck fast massive internet connection. So what’s the problem if they use a ton of traffic? They pay for it because they buy massive upload pipes.

So, if you're using it more heavily, upgrades will be needed sooner. The infrastructure is to access something free, but certain things cost Comcast infinitesimally more than other things.

In much the same way, you pay a taxi cab money to use their car for access to nominally free roads. But, if you take 3 other people, and use slightly more resources, meaning the car will have to be repaired ever so slightly sooner, the taxi cab charges a slightly higher rate.

This is no different.

So, if you're using it more heavily, upgrades will be needed sooner. The infrastructure is to access something free, but certain things cost Comcast infinitesimally more than other things.

In much the same way, you pay a taxi cab money to use their car for access to nominally free roads. But, if you take 3 other people, and use slightly more resources, meaning the car will have to be repaired ever so slightly sooner, the taxi cab charges a slightly higher rate.

This is no different.

Taxi cabs clearly state 'all passengers ride for the price of one'. If they had a problem with it, they'd charge each passenger separately. So if Comcast has a problem, it should change its pricing structure.

I still don't understand.

Comcast has to invest in infrastructure to make their service work. Ford has to invest in factories to build their cars. It's an expense of doing business. Charge enough to cover that.

The whole point of net neutrality is that the big players can afford to pay whatever extra fees cable companies want to charge. It’s the small companies that get screwed if cable companies can just decide to slow down parts of your internet. Net neutrality is about keeping the connection nothing more than a dumb pipe like most people think it is today. It would be like if you paid for electricity but your fridge company couldn’t afford to pay the power company some extra connection fees so they just sent less power to your fridge and all your food spoiled.

That's not really what people are worried about with net neutrality. There are countries without any laws at all defending net neutrality and they don't charge for how much you use, they charge for the parts of the Internet you use. Want to use social media? That's $5.99 a month! Want to play video games? That's $9.99 a month! And this is not a piecemeal thing where you just pay that price, that's on top of the price you pay for Internet each month. Net Neutrality was specifically set up to stop companies from doing this type of pricing.

In addition what about small businesses/free sites that want to show content? If Comcast starts charging a premium to have your content show up at anything above 512kbps, even though that company is not using any large amount of bandwidth, there's nothing that company can do, and no protection against it.

- No text -

And if you think companies like Comcast, who now big create and deliver the content, aren’t going to make it harder on competitors and make cord cutting less attractive, then I have a bridge to sell you.

That's not really what people are worried about with net neutrality. There are countries without any laws at all defending net neutrality and they don't charge for how much you use, they charge for the parts of the Internet you use. Want to use social media? That's $5.99 a month! Want to play video games? That's $9.99 a month! And this is not a piecemeal thing where you just pay that price, that's on top of the price you pay for Internet each month. Net Neutrality was specifically set up to stop companies from doing this type of pricing.

In addition what about small businesses/free sites that want to show content? If Comcast starts charging a premium to have your content show up at anything above 512kbps, even though that company is not using any large amount of bandwidth, there's nothing that company can do, and no protection against it.

Classic toll-road mentality, and it's been showing for months. The second it became clear what the FCC was going to do (at the behest of said companies); there were radio ads on multiple stations in DC pumping up public perception of the changes as "good for business" and thereby the economy; and through some kind of warped transitive property, good for all of us. Tiered offerings for selected services are unfortunately a pretty likely outcome. I guess time will tell, but public outcry hasn't seemed to make a dent.

~M

- No text -

As someone who has been using the internet since the mid-90's, it's definitely not a scam.

Most of what you think of as the "internet" is just part pf the larger network. Net neutrality is a decision that says "you're not a big network anymore, you're whatever the corporations say you are".

Not that they don't do that already, but this will continue the slide that is "the internet" into what is now near universally hated as "your cable package". :/

No, they pay for their infrastructure.

And generally speaking, telecom operators pay for upgrades when it is projected those upgrades can be monetized, or in the face of a catastrophic failure to predict demand (although they prefer to throttle in that case).

So, if you're using it more heavily, upgrades will be needed sooner. The infrastructure is to access something free, but certain things cost Comcast infinitesimally more than other things.

One of the most essential and expensive assets to wired telecom operators are rights of way-- much like spectrum is for wireless operators. These are assets that often are public. In principle access to these assets are granted to entities in order to enable them to offer services that benefit citizens, and with that access comes reasonable regulation-- such as ensuring equal access and reasonable pricing.

What is worthy of note is that while it's always possible to get a group of citizens out to protest a cell tower, nobody seems to be around when exclusivity deals for wired operators are hammered out, and it's resulted in a classic case of regulatory capture. Local regulation of cable and telephone operators now exists primarily to enforce exclusivity arrangements to artificially raise barriers to entry, and other requirements regarding coverage and mandatory upgrades go unmet. VZW has ongoing disputes with the municipalities of Boston, New York and others over these very issues.

Net Neutrality was an essential concept to define what a company means when it says it is selling "Internet access" and to guarantee what used to be the absolute minimum standard of service-- "best effort".

In much the same way, you pay a taxi cab money to use their car for access to nominally free roads. But, if you take 3 other people, and use slightly more resources, meaning the car will have to be repaired ever so slightly sooner, the taxi cab charges a slightly higher rate.

That is literally NOT how taxis work. It is how illegal taxis work.

So, if you're using it more heavily, upgrades will be needed sooner. The infrastructure is to access something free, but certain things cost Comcast infinitesimally more than other things.

In much the same way, you pay a taxi cab money to use their car for access to nominally free roads. But, if you take 3 other people, and use slightly more resources, meaning the car will have to be repaired ever so slightly sooner, the taxi cab charges a slightly higher rate.

This is no different.

Almost all cable networks and infrastructure build-outs were done with subsidies, or at the very least charters from the local governments. And, after they got the people to pay for it, they almost always have a legal restriction that means only they are allowed to be the cable company in that area totally removing choice and competition.

A government subsidized business with government protected monopoly power should be subject to government regulation.

Also, your car analogy is pretty misleading. even though both are fractionally higher uses, the mechanical and moving parts are far more susceptible to load-variable wear than Cable equipment, which in almost all cases has no internal moving parts.

So, if you're using it more heavily, upgrades will be needed sooner. The infrastructure is to access something free, but certain things cost Comcast infinitesimally more than other things.

In much the same way, you pay a taxi cab money to use their car for access to nominally free roads. But, if you take 3 other people, and use slightly more resources, meaning the car will have to be repaired ever so slightly sooner, the taxi cab charges a slightly higher rate.

This is no different.

Taxi cabs clearly state 'all passengers ride for the price of one'. If they had a problem with it, they'd charge each passenger separately. So if Comcast has a problem, it should change its pricing structure.

I have never seen a Taxi with such a sign or policy. I'm not saying it does not exist, but it's a regional variable at best.

So, if you're using it more heavily, upgrades will be needed sooner. The infrastructure is to access something free, but certain things cost Comcast infinitesimally more than other things.

In much the same way, you pay a taxi cab money to use their car for access to nominally free roads. But, if you take 3 other people, and use slightly more resources, meaning the car will have to be repaired ever so slightly sooner, the taxi cab charges a slightly higher rate.

This is no different.

Taxi cabs clearly state 'all passengers ride for the price of one'. If they had a problem with it, they'd charge each passenger separately. So if Comcast has a problem, it should change its pricing structure.

I have never seen a Taxi with such a sign or policy. I'm not saying it does not exist, but it's a regional variable at best.

They are everywhere, and that’s literally how Taxis work. As narcogen said, if your taxi charges more for more people they are being shady.

that’s literally how Taxis work. As narcogen said, if your taxi charges more for more people they are being shady.

OK, I'm glad you have had an experience, but I'm telling you your experience is not universal. Taxis are mostly controlled by some sort of local commission that sets rates and the way they work does vary. I only have to go as far as Right here in Atlanta, for example. http://www.atlantacheckercab.com/rates.html

I have traveled quite a bit and it's really not shockingly unusual. It seems more common in places with a lot of flat rates set up, but maybe that's just a weird anecdotal correlation.