Community Chat

[pigletsmom]

---

@RainCityWoman wrote:

I guess if you are okay with bigger entities regulating where you go on the Internet and how long you can stay there while they hold the monopoly on their share of the internet, then by all means, don't defend net neutrality. I for one believe that the demise of net neutrality moves us that much closer to Big Brother. 

---

But cable TV is regulated and yet I have Spectrum already telling me what I can and can't watch based on what I'm paying. If I want the higher channels I have to pay for a digital package and a box. This very channel hosting this board is now on an upper tier.

I guess it wouldn't surprise me that somewhere down the road this could happen with the internet slowly. But right now I don't see why they would. Cable does it because there are fees involved between channels and providers. So basically Google would have to tell Spectrum that they can't allow people to use the site unless Spectrum pays for it first. Seems unlikely.

As to speeds I don't stream very often and when I do my speed is ok. For all of the people trying to cut the cord and get everything over the interenet? Maybe they need to pay more for hogging up the bandwidth.

[garmer]

---

@Noel7 wrote:

---

@garmer wrote:

---

@Hippiified wrote:

@esmerelda 

Of course not. That is a different service.  But if you have broadband, you should get the same speed as anyone with broadband.

---

You pay for what speed you want. It's always been that way. My carrier offers 4 different levels. The faster the service, the more it costs. I've been happy with the least expensive tier since broadband became available.

It's usually gamers that need the higher speeds. I'm no gamer, so I'm glad I am free to choose a less expensive option.

---

@garmer

It’s more than paying for speed.  It can also be charges for access and better deals for corporations while stifling small business.

---

My reply was only addressing the statement that everybody's broadband speed should be the same. Nothing more. 

[Hippiified]

---

@garmer wrote:

It's no big deal. The market will keep things in check just as it did before NN.

There are different levels of broadband, like it's always been. Faster speed costs more money. 

The only thing hard to understand was all the fussing about it. People can't find the big bad thing because it doesn't exist. All hype. 

---

No, I don’t think the market kept things in check before NN.

@garmer

[Hippiified]

---

@garmer wrote:

---

@Hippiified wrote:

@esmerelda 

Of course not. That is a different service.  But if you have broadband, you should get the same speed as anyone with broadband.

---

You pay for what speed you want. It's always been that way. My carrier offers 4 different levels. The faster the service, the more it costs. I've been happy with the least expensive tier since broadband became available.

It's usually gamers that need the higher speeds. I'm no gamer, so I'm glad I am free to choose a less expensive option.

---

You’re right, @garmer

I was not specific enough there.

[garmer]

---

@Ms tyrion2 wrote:

---

@garmer wrote:

The repeal of NN = less govt oversight and regs.

---

---

Whoa there. My short post was in reference to this:

" I for one believe that the demise of net neutrality moves us that much closer to Big Brother." 

I'm done. Not going to quibble with people who claim to not understand NN... 

Carry on... 

[RainCityWoman]

---

@garmer wrote:

The repeal of NN = less govt oversight and regs.

---

As in repealing any of the EPA, airplane, offshore drilling, or medical and pharma restrictions.. Less oversight means you expect the players to do the right thing on their own. Not going to happen, and who are the losers then?