{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/25/2018 4:24:52 PM
32
Net neutrality is hard to understand because certain parties want it to be hard to understand. It suits their agenda.
Companies that depend on the internet to operate should pay for fast lanes to get their product to customers. Customers that use a lot of bandwidth should pay more for their service.
It's really that simple to me.
English
-
Here's the problem, though. If that happens, what becomes of smaller businesses that would need the internet to operate (Independent shops, Etsy-type entities, etc)? They won't have the capital to pay for said fast lanes, and as such, can be strangled out.
-
I'm sure the cost would depend on bandwidth usage just as it does for the end consumer.
-
In an ideal situation, maybe. But in the world of corporate profiteers, there's a decent chance that the small companies would get forced out of operation because they aren't as exploitable. Big companies with large client bases both pull more money (thus can be milked more), and also are more connected to people (so are easier to squeeze)
-
Like Walmart and local businesses?
-
Exactly like Walmart has done to local businesses. Except that, in this case, the ISP can double-dip the pot, and double-screw the customer all at once
-
Can you clairfy that please? the double dip part.
-
So, let's say ISP A decides to charge, say...Amazon more money for "fast-lane" access. They get more money that way. Then, they charge the customers (us) for the "shopping package". Which gets them still MORE money. Then we get screwed again because Amazon has to raise prices to compensate for the increased cost of operation
-
As consumers we do bear the burden of the costs, it doesn't matter if it's itemized as a shopping package or if it's considered in total bandwidth. I think the crux of the matter is in Amazon's streaming movies. Not the average shopper who spends time shopping on it.
-
The crux of the matter is how much money the ISP can get, plain and simple. And the core concern is that we're bearing the burden of the cost, PLUS the company can now legally charge for both the mere presence of the internet AND itemize "services"
-
Yes, and if they charge too much they lose customers.
-
In theory, yes. However, companies also can easily prey on customers with things like forced exclusives (want Netflix? Gotta get Xfinity. Want Hulu? AT&T), restrictive contracts, and, depending on area, being the only strong provider
-
that would open the field to smaller providers whom could advertise they don't do that. This is really a fight between big businesses who are using fear tactics for public support. The bottom line is the consumer is and will always pay for the costs. The fight is over which large company keeps more of the profit.
-
You do realize that said smaller companies have little to no traction, right? They would have to get permits for lines (not cheap at the best of times), not "cross" larger providers who could easily scuttle them, and somehow have enough money to afford taxes, fast-lane fees, etc
-
As a small business owner.. I do.
-
So that puts a hole in the "smaller companies" idea, because the larger companies can just scuttle efforts to take off. And, worse for said companies is that there's no way to really break from the crowd as far as product is concerned. Internet is internet, whereas small stores in physical content can have unique items
-
Edited by BenjyX55: 1/25/2018 4:31:54 PMWere they struggling to do so before?
-
Research back to the beginning of the disputes. Check out the company names involved in lawsuits. It annoys me that it takes 15 minutes to get an email through the internet now because of all the streaming services. If large companies like Netflix and Amazon have to pay for direct lines to hubs .. I think it's a good thing.
-
So the content providers should have to pay more to the networks because the networks are bad?
-
If they rely on the networks for their product to reach the consumer, it's not unreasonable for them to be expected to incur the costs of that business.
-
And they do pay the networks for their connection. What you're proposing is essentially that they be forced to pay extra for that connection to be honored by the network. In this scenario, they aren't paying more because technical contsraints are slowing their connection, but because the network is intentionally throttling their connection.
-
I'm saying if they use a large amount of bandwidth, they should pay for it. If selling them private lines to large hubs to free up the smaller hubs it's better for everyone. It's directing traffic to keep from bogging down smaller hubs.
-
But it will only end up negatively impacting everyone. Larger content providers would see their cost of doing business increase dramatically, while smaller entities would be unable to pay at all. The result would be reduced competition and higher user costs.
-
I disagree
-
Based on what?
-
Based on the research I have done. Going back to when this all started, looking at the lawsuits. It basically comes down to the amount of bandwidth used. Smaller entities don't use the amount of bandwidth that large companies such as Netflix, Hulu and other streaming services do.
