Net Neutrality Repealed: How much are you willing to pay for LetsRun?

adiBRO wrote:

Disqus.

My life would be better without letsrun.

$0 wrote:

$0!!!!!

LRC pays for access to Comcast Verizon and AT&T customers. Telco customers pay as well.

U.S. infrastructure falls further behind!

That has been the one constant among those working for net neutrality – a never-ending search for something bad to happen that they can blame on deregulation. Horror story after horror story is pedaled. Absent a return to net neutrality, internet service providers will block content, throttle some back and even function as a censor. No one ever asks why they would do that. What would be the economic advantage to blocking content? Couldn’t another internet service provider simply lure customers away by offering the blocked content? Similarly, why would they throttle content? As divided as America is today, one thing we all agree on is there is nothing worse than a slow computer. What advantage would an internet service provider get from slowing the computers of its customers? And why on earth would we go out of our way – as Democrats in Congress are doing – to prevent something that’s never going to happen?

With midterms looming and Trump-hating on the decline politically, Democrats have looked to net neutrality as an issue that might attract low-information millennial voters.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate minority leader, said the internet has become a necessity, which means government can’t just let internet service providers charge whatever they want for what he considers as essential a public service as roads or utilities.

Well, at least Congress acting would be better than unelected Obama admin goons.

Not a single bloody cent

Worst Fears Never Came To Roost wrote:

Democrats are trying to blah blah blah....

Meanwhile you're attacking each other, instead of realizing there is NO difference between the two parties.

They are simply two sides of the very same worthless coin.

Divide and conquer is in action right in front of your eyes, if only you were paying attention.

Airline deregulation won't work either wrote:

Absent a return to net neutrality, internet service providers will block content, throttle some back and even function as a censor. No one ever asks why they would do that.

What would be the economic advantage to blocking content? Couldn’t another internet service provider simply lure customers away by offering the blocked content?

Similarly, why would they throttle content?

I can't believe we are still having to explain these things to people. Sorry if that sounds mean and your ignorance is not your fault, but it's frustrating.

ISPs have about 50 million reasons to block and throttle content, all having to do with being able to charge more to un-block and un-throttle it. Other ISPs wouldn't necessarily undercut them because many Americans only have a choice of 1 or 2 ISPs so there's no competition or it's easy to collude to keep prices high.

Example 1: ISP blocks or throttles all video (youtube, netflix, hulu) while peddling their cable subscription as an alternative. Or similar idea, they get paid by hulu to throttle netflix only for their 'basic' package. So customers have to pay for netflix twice, once to netflix and once to their ISP for an upgrade to the premium package, even though hulu works fine on basic.

Example 2: (less likely but possible) Flotrack signs a deal with Comcast or whoever to block access to Letsrun in their basic package.

Final comment, ISPs and phone carriers have been caught many times over the past 20 years throttling different kinds of content.

This is correct. Follow the money. ISPs aren't going to sink millions into legal fees for nothing. Don't be so obtuse.

Also correct. It blows my mind why anyone would be 100% devoted to any political party. They don't care about you, they care about your vote.

On a phone to the airport, so not going to go into a lot of detail, but the theory is that if ISPs do indeed have market power (which has never been sufficiently demonstrated to a degree that would suffice in the world of antitrust), then they can already extract monopoly profits without having to throttle. It's called the single profit monopoly theorem. (It's not universally accepted, but it at least makes sense.) So the real point would be to have price discrimination and differentiated service, which is often a very good thing. It means you don't pay a high flat rate to subsidize someone else. True, the ISPs could just charge everyone pro rata, but research shows that consumers hate that.

Bottom line for me is that net neutrality MIGHT be necessary, but the FCC didn't come close to justifying it. Marketplace intervention by government should be a last resort when it's clear that it's needed, not a preemptive strike against something that may never happen. And the FCC should leave antitrust regulation to the professionals.

The Senate passed a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution on Wednesday that, if signed by President Donald Trump, would restore the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) net neutrality regulations.

The Senate passed the CRA, S.J. Res. 52, 52-47.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act

Obviously the best system is a tightly controlled, government-run Internet, highly taxed on corporations who exploit its use, with the savings and revenue then passed on to the people. But USA will never allow this to occur.

No, the solution is to treat internet access like we do electricy, water, natural gas, that kind of stuff.

The commercial by one of the companies who wanted to kill "obama's law" even said "water, air, internet, we need it to live," yet they wanted to turn internet access into cable TV. Is that what everyone wanted? You'd rather use Verizon's video app instead of YouTube or Netflix?

Net Neutrality isn't 'heavy handed' regulations on the internet. It states that the internet can't be turned into different levels depending on how much you want to spend. Something like 90 percent of all people in the US, and 99.9 of all tech companies understand that. All but three Republicans still voting to kill it/Obama, should tell you everything you need to know.

Oh, and Pie Sh*t can eat one.

Single monopoly profit sounds like BS and has nothing to do with this scenario. ISPs aren't selling a product or set of products, they are selling access to other people's products. So by killing net neutrality, you allow the ISPs to start extracting revenue that used to go to Netflix and so forth.

Net neutrality is 100% justified from all angles, one of which is that ISPs have a history of abusing their positions as middlemen. I'm not against toll roads but if they cut a deal with Honda to charge everyone else's cars twice as much, I have a big problem with that.

And let's be clear, nobody is against people who use more bandwidth paying more. If I want to drive a heavier truck down the road that causes more wear and tear, okay, charge me a bit more than a compact car. But don't charge me more to drive a Dodge than a Honda of the exact same size. That's bull and it's anticompetitive.

After repealing Net Neutrality I started using proxy https://buy.fineproxy.org/eng/individualproxy.html and thereby it helped me to resolve many Internet Security issues. Now I have access to the blocked content and stay anonymous. I think it's the only way to bypass any restrictions.

Cool story, bro.

Or, this one:

The Supreme Court said today that Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Gorsuch "would grant the petitions, vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and remand to that court with instructions to dismiss the cases as moot." But four justices need to agree to take a case, and Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh had recused themselves.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110518zor_o759.pdf

Most posters here are immature trolls living in their mom's basements who can't even afford the $35 registration fee at their local hobbyjogger 5k. So what makes you think they're going to pay for LetsRun?

I'm a mature troll living on my own since the age of 18 (35 years) and I would NEVER pay anything to access the letsrun site.