What are the benefits of ending Net Neutrality?

[Tony Trick-Pony]

It literally goes back to what it was before before an Obama policy changed it. Competition drives prices down. This is a concept lost on most leftists.

Well, they'd rather fear-monger and get people upset so they can keep their anti-productive socialist policies going.

Others want it to stay just because Obama put it in and everything he touched was gold.

Lefties just love their regulations when it comes down to it.

Fans of freedom?

Not really.

But they lost here.

[JimRaynor]

It's going to make the internet like a cable company. Want Facebook and YouTube. Sorry can't get both they are in different packages. You can get both but you have to buy the two packages. It's going to kill off competition and innovation. This isn't being done for the consumers benefit that's a given.

It did protect the common man because it put in place regulations I named above. If it didn't have an impact why would they get rid of it despite overwhelmingly popular support?

That's why I'm saying. These companies can claim they aren't gonna do it but without the protections in place they're free to do it.

This paranoia is ridiculous. The internet worked just fine in 2000-2010 and we also had YouTube and Netflix back then.

What you people don't understand is that Comcast and or Verizon could've long had made you pay for the amount of internet you use, that was never against the law, in fact Verizon and Att have been doing this for the longest when they made you pay for 3, 5, or 10 gigs of data, until they finally realized what made the most sense was unlimited everything for all.

There's a cost risk for each action. If making people pay for YouTube or Facebook causes YouTube or Facebook to lose 30-50% of their subscribers/viewers they won't even come close to that idea.

Like I said earlier this is a battle between big corporations. Netflix, Google, Facebook vs Verizon, Comcast, ATT, etc...


Funny how one side says this plan is for the corporations! Meanwhile literally every single big corporation that's not an ISP is completely against getting rid of net neutrality.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

[QUOTE=JimRaynor;18335863]This paranoia is ridiculous. The internet worked just fine in 2000-2010 and we also had YouTube and Netflix back then.

What you people don't understand is that Comcast and or Verizon could've long had made you pay for the amount of internet you use, that was never against the law, in fact Verizon and Att have been doing this for the longest when they made you pay for 3, 5, or 10 gigs of data, until they finally realized what made the most sense was unlimited everything for all.

There's a cost risk for each action. If making people pay for YouTube or Facebook causes YouTube or Facebook to lose 30-50% of their subscribers/viewers they won't even come close to that idea.

Like I said earlier this is a battle between big corporations. Netflix, Google, Facebook vs Verizon, Comcast, ATT, etc...


Funny how one side says this plan is for the corporations! Meanwhile literally every single big corporation that's not an ISP is completely against getting rid of net neutrality.[/QUOTE]

For me, this is where the idiocy gets to ridiculous levels.

"Ending net neutrality will help the big corporations and smash the little guys."

Yet, all the big corporations want to keep net neutrality.

I mean...

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Only internet providers win everybody else loses

This^^^^^^%%

[Sugar Adam Ali]

It literally goes back to what it was before before an Obama policy changed it. Competition drives prices down. This is a concept lost on most leftists.

This has nothing to do with competition. If anything it will stifle the competition as lesser websites will be at a huge disadvantage compared to major sites like espn, foxnews, etc.

Internet providers will start charging websites for easier, faster access. They will charge so high so only major companies will afford it, and those are most likely under the same corporate umbrella as the internet providers.

[jaded]

This fight has been ongoing for a long time. Comcast got sued for throttling torrent users in 2007...FCC policed it. I'm not sure today's vote means a complete hands off policy by the FCC and less than an hour after the vote results were published...the state Attorney Generals for Washington and New York announced that they were suing the FCC over the decision. Let's hope the ISP's won't be able to rape the consumer.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

This has nothing to do with competition. If anything it will stifle the competition as lesser websites will be at a huge disadvantage compared to major sites like espn, foxnews, etc.

Internet providers will start charging websites for easier, faster access. They will charge so high so only major companies will afford it, and those are most likely under the same corporate umbrella as the internet providers.

And so they will punish the consumer?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

And so they will punish the consumer?

Yes.. say you have Comcast, Comcast will cut deals to Disney, but may **** Netflix if they come out with there own streaming site.

Like sometimes satellite or cable companies can’t get along with a certain channel and can’t make a deal and they drop the channel. then the consumers are upset and complain. This will happen on the internet.. Comcast will charge Netflix and others for access to their customers, or may even shut them out completely.
Netflix’s major enemy is cable n satellite, who also happen to be the internet providers..now these companies can cut access to Netflix and force consumers to their streaming sites,,


All this does is allow the internet providers a nice monopoly over the internet. They will all be setting up their own little fiefdoms. You see this same thing in health insurance, as health insurance isn’t allowed to be sold across state lines. So each state has 2 or 3 major players and they have a nice monopoly

[JimRaynor]

Yes, they will slowly start implementing changes under our noses. People are in a buzz right now but it will die down and we will slowly get fcuked over. 90% of people have no idea what NN really is. They hear "obama era regulations" and just assume its bad.

Why would they spend so much time and money to overturn regulations if they werent going to legally fcuk people over.

You're part of that 90% who has no idea what NN is.

"They" will **** us

Why would "they" spend so much money.

You're treating this like some big conspiracy, it's not.

"They" ie ISP's would want these laws over turned not because they're looking to **** you, but so they could charge big corporations like google, Netflix, or Facebook more money for using far more bandwidth than anyone else.

If anyone is going to **** you, it will be Google, Facebook, Netflix, or YouTube if they decide to make people pay for their services.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Yes.. say you have Comcast, Comcast will cut deals to Disney, but may **** Netflix if they come out with there own streaming site.

Like sometimes satellite or cable companies can’t get along with a certain channel and can’t make a deal and they drop the channel. then the consumers are upset and complain. This will happen on the internet.. Comcast will charge Netflix and others for access to their customers, or may even shut them out completely.
Netflix’s major enemy is cable n satellite, who also happen to be the internet providers..now these companies can cut access to Netflix and force consumers to their streaming sites,,


All this does is allow the internet providers a nice monopoly over the internet. They will all be setting up their own little fiefdoms. You see this same thing in health insurance, as health insurance isn’t allowed to be sold across state lines. So each state has 2 or 3 major players and they have a nice monopoly

Actually Trump made it to where health insurance CAN be sold across state lines.