26 Replies to “Not So Neutral”

  1. Net Neutrality is the same concept as socialised healthcare.
    In theory, without choice everyone gets the same treatment – in reality most people get shitty healthcare except those who are more equal.
    If you want to break the internet just let gov’t run it.

  2. “Facebook only $8.99 a month”
    Really? I’ve never used Facebook. I know most people are suckers, so they do join, but I didn’t realise they were paying cash to Facebook to use them to make more money for Facebook.

  4. I’ll spell it out here. They’re arguing net neutrality is cheaper but in the graphic non net neutrality is 3 cents cheaper. The whole thing is retarded anyway because either way the net neutrality version is what we have had and will always have.

  5. One poorly made infographic doesn’t change the fact that the internet provider market is not even remotely close to being a free market, and it would be monumentally foolish to treat is as such. Repealing net neutrality will benefit absolutely no one aside from Comcast and friends.

  6. Net Neutrality is the same concept as socialised healthcare.
    – That’s the impression I get, too. Denninger is scurrilous on Net Neutrality, for cause. In effect, Netflix was a major pusher – because if everybody has a “right” to whatever’s on the ‘net, the ISP can’t charge somebody who’s downloading hundreds-of-Gigs’-worth of Netflix movies more than they charge you, despite all the bandwidth they’re guzzling. But the bandwidth still has to be paid-for – so they take it out of your hide as well as his, and you end-up subsidising his Netflix habit, to Netflix’s delight. The link refers:
    market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232605

  7. It’s interesting to me that the problems that net neutrality were supposed to fix had never, not even once, occurred. The internet was and always will be completely fine without it.

  8. Netflix and YouTube consume 45% of the bandwidth.
    They don’t want to pay for that. Free ride mo’ betta.

  9. The idea that all content is equal and should be treated equally, is crazy. Junior’s 10,000th game of Pac man is not as valuable as the software I am writing.

  10. Yeah but with massive corporate consolidation not only is there less competition now than ever, but huge overlap between content creators and distributors creates many additional lanes for scummy anti-consumer practices. Net neutrality doesn’t so much exist to fix a current problem as it does to prevent a future one, as telecom companies slowly buy out the competition while finding more creative ways to get the public to pay more for internet.
    @ Y. Knott:
    ISPs can and do charge users based on bandwidth use, and that won’t be changing any time in the future. That has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality instead exists to prevent stuff like “Hey google, how about you pay us $1 billion dollars and we’ll make your sites run faster than your competitors”.

  11. Let them all fight for every bit of data. Who knows maybe small business could get more involved.
    Let big government, big labour and big business should pull their own load, no more tax funded deals, subsidies or bailouts.

  12. All I know is that when some group carefully chooses a word like … “neutrality” … my very first impression is that actual “neutrality” … as in FREE MARKET is the polar opposite of their catchword. Kinda like the AFFORDABLE Care Act. Hold onto your wallets.

  13. Anti fascists
    Anti rascists
    Social justice
    Won’t you please think of the children? If net neutrality can save even one life…

  15. A solution looking for a problem designed by Obama the radical socialist and advanced by people who can’t do math. Trump is once again on the right course.

  16. According to Mayor de Blasio “access to a free and open internet is a fundamental right of every citizen.” Boy, those founders thought of everything when they wrote the constitution.

  17. Allan and Andrew please note that Facebook, Google, Twitter and other platforms have ACTUALLY been discriminatory in the content they choose to send to you – no actual instances of Comcast or others actually discriminating; just Wu’s fear mongering.
    Allan and Andrew – please reach out to the internet platforms and tell them to stop their actual discrimination. Vent where venting is due.

  18. “Net neutrality” is an attempt to turn the internet into the Canadian healthcare system.
    Everyone pays the same. Rationing is the order of the day. Innovation is nonexistent. And the quality is third world.

  19. Whoever made this chart has no f*cking idea what net neutrality is. It’s about whether or not companies like comcast should give preferential treatment to their own traffic relative to other traffic. I dunno about anyone else, but comcast is consistently one of the worst, if not the worst company in the USA for customer service and the internet services comcast provides are worse than third world.
    In general, USA ISPs are a joke and provide pathetic service. (Canadian ISPs are far from the best, but even they aren’t as pathetic as USA ISPs.) Not only do companies like comcast provide sh*tty worse than third-world service, they have the audacity to lobby for laws limiting competition and preventing municipalities from building networks as an alternative to the crap that comcast offers.
    The idea that companies like netflix and facebook are freeloading is a distraction. Every company or residence that connects to the internet pays someone for the connection and the amount they pay is generally dependent on the amount of bandwidth they use.
    People, think about this, if a POS company like comcast is spending truckloads of cash lobbying against net neutrality, it can’t be good for anyone but comcast. This is not about socialism or capitalism. It’s about whether or not fat lazy companies like comcast should be able to abuse their monopolies.

  20. I just checked the speed of my xfinity wifi, 37.77 Mbps download and 12.76 Mbps upload. Is that 3rd world internet? What kind of speeds do you get in Canada?

  21. To Daryl M
    It seems that your hatred for capitalistic companies has clouded your logicality.
    Your ‘logic’ appears to be if I hate x, then anything x does I must hate.
    Therefore; “People, think about this, if a POS person like Hitler is spending truckloads of cash lobbying against smoking and for vegetarianism, it can’t be good for anyone but Hitler. This is not about socialism or capitalism. It’s about whether or not fat lazy people like Hitler should be able to abuse their monopolies.”
    Moreover, your need to insert ‘f*cking’ into an ostensibly rational argument attests to your generally leftist approach (i.e., the more emotion expressed, the more ‘powerful’ the argument). And it can be assumed that, being a leftist, you just viscerally hate companies (AKA ‘monopolies’) and markets and naively love government (AKA ‘lovable lefty beaurocrats’ like Lois Lerner) regulations.
    What makes you think the municipalities will run data networks any better than they run mass transit systems? What makes you think the municipalities won’t make efficient markets difficult by giving regulatory preferences to their own networks?
    It seems to boil down to; you don’t like companies and you do like government. You reflexively attribute bad motives to companies and good motives to government, and you are ‘f*ckng’ passionate about your simple ideology.
    Essentially, for you, it IS about socialism or capitalism.

  22. People are missing the point …NET NEUTRALITY WAS LOBBIED INTO EXISTENCE BY AMERICA’S ISPs IN ORDER TO END THEIR RELENTLESS PRICE-CUTTING COMPETITION!
    The vast majority of ISP traffic today and in the future is MOBILE. By eliminating the recently imposed (in 2015) Obungler administration “net neutrality” regulations the U.S. govt did to internet ‘data’ (most of which now flows by wireless) what it did to health insurance with their “Affordable Care Act”, aka Obamacare:
    1) they made EVERYBODY pay for EVERYTHING, whether or not they use it (i.e. – TRUE example > nuns are actually forced to pay for birth control in their Obamacare healthcare insurance)
    2) their stupid regulations made it FAR MORE COSTLY and less affordable than it needed to be
    By abolishing “net neutrality” regs Americans will quickly see a return to the benefits of their HIGHLY COMPETITIVE ISP and wireless markets (unlike Canada’s), and as a result cheaper plans from U.S. ISPs offering UNLIMITED DATA with NO CONTRACTS will start competing with each other once again (like before 2015) to get consumers’ business. Here’s a true personal example of this aggressive price competition BEFORE ‘net neutrality’, which became law in May 2015 > I’m a dual citizen, half the year in Canada and half the year in the U.S. In the first week of January 2015 (about 12 weeks BEFORE net neutrality) while in North Carolina I fired Bell as my cell carrier and signed up my cell phone with T-Mobile (whose plan I still have, ‘grandfathered’) … UNLIMITED calling + UNLIMITED texting + UNLIMITED DATA (let that data thing sink in … TRULY UN-FREAKIN’-LIMITED DATA!) for US$50 per month + taxes on NO CONTRACT. (I own the ‘unlocked’ phone; they put in their T-Mobile SIM card) … and for the BEST part, it covers me with NO ROAMING CHARGES anywhere within or between the U.S., Canada and Mexico ….that’s right, UNLIMITED EVERYTHING IN 3 COUNTRIES, WITH ZERO ROAMING CHARGES for US$50 per month + tax. THAT level of price competition is the benefit of abolishing ‘net neutrality’. I’m grandfathered at that price, but that same plan NOW (since NN started in May 2015) costs US$70 + taxes if you want to get it today …. NN = the government put an end to their price competition.

  23. I thought I had seen faster speeds before so I retested in the same room as the modem and got 88.98 mbps. I have found comcast’s internet and cable to be very good and reliable. I would like to see more CFL games covered though.

  24. My speeds : 179 mbps up 26 mbps down. Shaw in Winnipeg
    A whole bunch of swinging and missing on this one. Has nothing to do with mobile data or obamacare and there really isn’t parrallels anywhere. It’s about companies agreeing to do one thing then doing another and denying it happened. There’s dozens of examples of this. Access should be universal but speeds and up/down limits shouldn’t be unlimited as there’s a cost involved. That’s NOT what net neutrality is about.
    There’s plenty examples on the internet of why it is needed. The internet should be unrestrained and free, that’s the very core of it. If I can access a service that’s better and cheaper than what my ISP offers (say for example, video calling) they shouldn’t have the right to block it.
    Net neutrality is unrestrained capitalism.

  25. So according to the chair of the FCC he is getting rid of the 1930s telephone regulations that were applied by the Obama administration to the internet in order that the internet grow and change and evolve organically with only the ‘light hand’ of government in the form of the department of commerce to keep anyone from forming a monopoly. It seems that the FCC chairman doesn’t see the need for endless rules and regulations that serve only to stifle innovation and entrepreneurship.

  26. Allan, I think you mean the other way around…
    179 download
    26 upload
    That’s what I’m getting with Shaw 150 here in Calgary.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation