Why you were on the side of Net Neutrality

[pc747]

Last week @dgstorm posted an article on net neutrality that got strong arguments from both sides of the board. Even better was we had a staff member (@grenefroggie ) who works in the industry who provided some great insight against net neutrality. I can't help but feel like this battle for Net Neutrality was a battle between Comcast and the cable companies vs Netflix. After reading an article from the Verge where Netflix just pulled a 180 it made me wonder if Netflix was not the face of this argument would people still feel as passionate? So I ask this to those who were in favor of net neutrality and Title II, how much did Netflix influence your decision?

Source: Is Netflix s commitment to net neutrality a lie The Verge

 

[grenefroggie]

Also keep in mind that other folks posted from the industry and were insightful as well, whether I agree with them or not.

 

[pc747]

I will admit I sided with Netflix all the way. Comcast customer service have been sucking and I already had in my mind that I wanted to cut the cord and my biggest fear was companies like Comcast slowing down their network making it hard to use companies like hulu, netflix, sling tv, or other companies that would make that possible. I was willing to overlook the entire law because for me it was important to make sure companies like netflix live. But this further proves that the market just needs to be allowed to compete unimpeded. Netflix seems like they will be able to just do fine in other countries playing by those rules so obviously they would have done fine here. Plus if history has told us over and over no matter how good the idea is do not sign unless the document (or bill) in its entirety will be of benefit. Just because the bold letters say you are about to get $1,000,000 does not mean that is the case as the small letter could say you would then owe back 2,000,000. So knowing now what we know now would you change things or leave them as they are.

 

[pc747]

Also keep in mind that other folks posted from the industry and were insightful as well, whether I agree with them or not.

Agree.

I think some times we look at the sweet and miss out on the meat and veggies. A good debate and discussion is always good. I personally would hate to live in a society where we all have the same views and ideas as that would not spur innovation. If we after learning all the facts collectively choose to go left so be it. But nice to get good point of views from both left and right [sides of the argument] and learn from each other as it is easy to miss or even overlook something.

 

[grenefroggie]

I agree. Sadly, often times people think the only correct perspective is their perspective. I agree with arguments on both sides. I made the bold move to make my point about Wireless ISPs on an ArsTechnica story. While the person who replied to my comment sympathized, he basically told me my industry was a total waste of time and effort.

I beg to differ. Cellular service is not an answer. It will never be an answer as long carriers keep charging extreme prices for metered usage. I believe in paying for what you use, but all metered usage is to a cellular company in the US is a cash cow. We're getting gouged.

 

[pc747]

I agree. Sadly, often times people think the only correct perspective is their perspective. I agree with arguments on both sides. I made the bold move to make my point about Wireless ISPs on an ArsTechnica story. While the person who replied to my comment sympathized, he basically told me my industry was a total waste of time and effort.

I beg to differ. Cellular service is not an answer. It will never be an answer as long carriers keep charging extreme prices for metered usage. I believe in paying for what you use, but all metered usage is to a cellular company in the US is a cash cow. We're getting gouged.

Are we though, getting gouged?
We want American jobs, great benefits, good pay, and job security. Remember when Motorola built a plant in America...people scream "finally a plant in America". All was well until we saw the price of the Moto X.
Am I saying the widget (phone,service, etc) cost what they are charging, no but when you add in the cost of health insurance, wages, parts, and keeping it maintained then yes you have the cost. The issue is when a company over project and fail to adapt quick enough. When a large corporation like Comcast hedge their bets on large cable packages and the market shifts and they can not adapt fast enough they do what ever they can to stall or slow the market. Unfortunately for customers that mean shoving packages down our throat while inflating the bill. As a result customers get mad and look somewhere else and Comcast is doing everything they can to keep the customer from walking out the door and going across the street to their competitor even if it means keeping the competitor from building.
The reality is we need our company to profit. They profit we profit they lose we lose, simple as that. In the end the market should dictate and the companies that are able to react will profit. As a customer I ask that you meet my demands and provide great service, if you do that ill pay but if not I'll go elsewhere. If you try and force your view on me the I'll go somewhere else.

 

[grenefroggie]

I do not have literature to prove it, but I think to an extend, yes we are gouging. Metered billing versus speed rating. I would rather have a constant 5Mbps than unlimited speed for metered data.

With speed limits, you can effectively calculate how much a customer will cost in a given month and base your pricing on that cost, plus profit. With metered usage, I can charge you what I want for the first 15GB and then charge out the backside for overages.

So yeah, even after accounting for operating costs, most people are getting gouged.

 

[kodiak799]

With speed limits, you can effectively calculate how much a customer will cost in a given month and base your pricing on that cost, plus profit. With metered usage, I can charge you what I want for the first 15GB and then charge out the backside for overages.

So yeah, even after accounting for operating costs, most people are getting gouged.

I wonder if this isn't a negative externality resulting from a seemingly well-intentioned 4G spectrum rule with throttling and tethering. Offering unlimited data would open the floodgates to people replacing their home ISP - a service that most people pay at least $45/month for in addition to mobile...so we're talking like $80 at a starting point for such a service.

Also, when you look at the last spectrum auction it raised $45B (with even more valuable low frequency spectrum auctions to come). That's $150 for every cell phone in the US, and that's just ONE auction and just the price to play before tens of billions more spent to build out that spectrum.

Agreed, however, that 2 gigs of data for $40 or whatever is a rip-off....should be like 15gigs or something for that price.

 

[kodiak799]

Who or why would anyone really oppose Net Neutrality? Like clean air - how could you not support and be passionate about clean air?

The issue was there's not been an assault or attack on Net Neutrality. But just like clean air (probably not the best example), valid counterpoints or arguments get dismissed, even mocked, as supporting big business over clean air.

There are almost always big money interests on both sides of the issue, but one side tends to easily carry the day because it smashes dissent with this massive ideal that can't be debated. It becomes "prove to me you aren't or won't cause harm" - the old "can't prove a negative" - which is totally backwards when it comes to expensive and cumbersome regulation.

And with so much dissatisfaction with cable service and what they charge, it was fish in a barrel for Netflix to make this about net neutrality. The children, think of the children!

 

[grenefroggie]

I wonder if this isn't a negative externality resulting from a seemingly well-intentioned 4G spectrum rule with throttling and tethering. Offering unlimited data would open the floodgates to people replacing their home ISP - a service that most people pay at least $45/month for in addition to mobile...so we're talking like $80 at a starting point for such a service.

Also, when you look at the last spectrum auction it raised $45B (with even more valuable low frequency spectrum auctions to come). That's $150 for every cell phone in the US, and that's just ONE auction and just the price to play before tens of billions more spent to build out that spectrum.

Agreed, however, that 2 gigs of data for $40 or whatever is a rip-off....should be like 15gigs or something for that price.

While I think offering unlimited data would indeed sway more customers to go the mobile route, I still think it is more effective to have a wired service to the house, distributing connectivity to more connected devices (alarms, fridges, coffee pots etc). Having a router distributing connectivity to these devices makes more sense to me. Remember, wireless, even with carrier aggregation, still has physical limits.

Time will tell. We'll see who actually uses their spectrum, and who just sits on it. Rules or no rules, there are companies that buy just to squat until someone offers the right price.

I agree, 2GB for $40 is a rip-off.

 

[kodiak799]

While I think offering unlimited data would indeed sway more customers to go the mobile route, I still think it is more effective to have a wired service to the house, distributing connectivity to more connected devices (alarms, fridges, coffee pots etc). Having a router distributing connectivity to these devices makes more sense to me. Remember, wireless, even with carrier aggregation, still has physical limits.

You're just using your phone (or other LTE device) as the modem to connect your router to the interwebz. VZW already sells these (lol, I wonder if I could cancel my voice plan and hook this up on my $30 unlimited data).

 

[grenefroggie]

Ewww. Gross. I am being a bit of a hypocrite I will admit. My house is fed by a 24Ghz gigabit wireless link, but it is dedicated. Speedtest results in my signature are a testament to only half of the available capacity. But it is a point to point link.

I believe in wireless, just not like my mobile phone type wireless, with data caps and overage charges.

 

[kodiak799]

Ewww. Gross. I am being a bit of a hypocrite I will admit. My house is fed by a 24Ghz gigabit wireless link, but it is dedicated. Speedtest results in my signature are a testament to only half of the available capacity. But it is a point to point link.

Yeah, WTH - are you running a bitcoin mining operation or something? Global spam clearing house?

 

[grenefroggie]

I used to. BTC mining uses very little bandwidth, but tons of GPU power when I was doing it. Not done it in a while. But I am a cord cutter (pun indeed intended). I also work for an ISP. I run some servers for friends, I run a Plex server, which I access remotely. And many other things.

 

[pc747]

Who or why would anyone really oppose Net Neutrality? Like clean air - how could you not support and be passionate about clean air?

The issue was there's not been an assault or attack on Net Neutrality. But just like clean air (probably not the best example), valid counterpoints or arguments get dismissed, even mocked, as supporting big business over clean air.

There are almost always big money interests on both sides of the issue, but one side tends to easily carry the day because it smashes dissent with this massive ideal that can't be debated. It becomes "prove to me you aren't or won't cause harm" - the old "can't prove a negative" - which is totally backwards when it comes to expensive and cumbersome regulation.

And with so much dissatisfaction with cable service and what they charge, it was fish in a barrel for Netflix to make this about net neutrality. The children, think of the children!

That happens a lot because we are so passionate about our side and whether it be business or politicians they drive home talking points. They hire speech writers and find ways to put out what a side wants to hear. I am trying hard not to allow this to become a political debate because that is not the debate we want.
It reminds me of the old school yard. When it is just you or I we really do not want to throw in fact most of the time we can talk it out. Will we walk away agreeing completely, no, but we can agree on the important things and/or at least have a better understanding where the other is coming from. But when you throw in a couple of instigators we are now smashing each other's beak and in the principals office.
What I enjoy about a free place to respectfully talk about ideals and issues is that you can learn from each other and come away with a better overall understanding. But without rules and guidelines you get the idiots who have nothing better to do but start up a war where everyone is yelling and name calling and no one is listening. I enjoy and encourage information especially stuff we may have overlooked. Again it is easy to latch on to the bold talking points but overlook what we are giving up. So here is my question to you guys. How do we take this and make it where it is a fair (or the closest to fair as possible) open competition while protecting the consumer. Because at the end of the day that is what we want is choice. Take a way choice and you will never get great service. But give me a choice and I'll find my own great service eventually because the cream will always rise to the top.