Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?

[Francesca R]

I am resorting to the next best thing: Regulation as a stop-gap measure to ensure fair use of the internet until we can get to that point!

I've already responded to that here:

Would you support [NN] because the solution you prefer is politically untenable? Kind of the way I support the ACA, not because it's the solution I prefer, but that it is simply the best that can get through?

It isn't like support NN means you have to stop advocating for your solution too does it?

Probably.

 

[RandFan]

Unfortunately that doesn't mean anything.

The violation is in the spoken claim about the product. Healthfraud is a great example. Green coffee a legitimate beverage. It is not a legitimate weight loss product. The legality of the transaction is linked to the vendor's claim.

Rocks are not criminalized. Claiming a special rock will cure cancer and selling it to cancer patients is criminalized.

I will concede your point.

 

[RandFan]

And I think far too many people want to ignore the bad things about the Internet.

Sure, the Internet provides wonderful resources for students, the elderly, the infirm, and the socially awkward. But it also puts local businesses at a severe disadvantage when they're already at a disadvantage to big businesses. Sure it provides access to more information in one place, but it's awash in conspiracy theories, creationism, and other woo that dominates the web. And on, and on, and on.

Mudcat apparently has me on ignore so I'm perhaps wasting my time. I never found out how the fact that there are "bad things" about the internet has anything to do with anything. There are bad things about the interent... and? Does anyone else have any idea what Mudcat proposes to do about it? Is Mudcat simply lamenting the fact that the benefits of the Internet come with costs?

Which is why I don't think some restrictions on the Internet is not uncalled for.

Doesn't the devil live somewhere in that word "some"? What restrictions and who decides? Why should the internet be singled out as opposed to Television, print ads, bill boards or radio?

I would like to see changes made in regards to the marketing of bad products and I'm not opposed to that. What does that have to do with the Internet? Why not regulate the claims that are made by advertisers irrespective of the medium?

I think it is unfortunate that this particular subthread took the direction it did. Trying to decide if the Internet is a net social good or net social bad is entirely beside the point. The Internet is here and isn't going anywhere. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. The best interest of society is to allow more speech and not less.

 

[blutoski]

Mudcat apparently has me on ignore so I'm perhaps wasting my time. I never found out how the fact that there are "bad things" about the internet has anything to do with anything. There are bad things about the interent... and? Does anyone else have any idea what Mudcat proposes to do about it? Is Mudcat simply lamenting the fact that the benefits of the Internet come with costs?

Doesn't the devil live somewhere in that word "some"? What restrictions and who decides? Why should the internet be singled out as opposed to Television, print ads, bill boards or radio?

I would like to see changes made in regards to the marketing of bad products and I'm not opposed to that. What does that have to do with the Internet? Why not regulate the claims that are made by advertisers irrespective of the medium?

I think it is unfortunate that this particular subthread took the direction it did. Trying to decide if the Internet is a net social good or net social bad is entirely beside the point. The Internet is here and isn't going anywhere. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. The best interest of society is to allow more speech and not less.

I think the reason the thread started getting into regulation is that the enforcement of Net Neutrality by saying ISPs are to act as neutral intermediaries and not interfere with user/user interactions is - ironically - itself a regulatory restriction on the ISPs' power to limit the speech of their users.

Here's a recent example from my own region... during a labour dispute with their classified employees, TELUS blocked the TWU's website from its wireline and wireless internet customers. ie: they restricted a user's right to exchange of free speech. When the CRTC (the regulator in Canada) investigated, their defense was that they have a right to do this because the network is private property, and that if the government forced them to unblock those pages and transmit the content on their network, that the government was restricting TELUS' constitutionally protected freedom of speech. (in this case: the right to not participate in a conversation they don't like)

So, this is the main argument I have been seeing against Network Neutrality: that it interferes with the ISP's right to manage content on its own property to either participate in public conversations (or refuse to) or to pursue economic goals. And that NN therefore is both a violation of their freedoms and an economic burden.

So the question that the voters are presented with is whether the public benefits of NN overcome the impact to the ISPs. My opinion is that the benefits are overwhelmingly greater than the potential costs.

 

[RandFan]

I think the reason the thread started getting into regulation is that the enforcement of Net Neutrality by saying ISPs are to act as neutral intermediaries and not interfere with user/user interactions is - ironically - itself a regulatory restriction on the ISPs' power to limit the speech of their users.

Here's a recent example from my own region... during a labour dispute with their classified employees, TELUS blocked the TWU's website from its wireline and wireless internet customers. ie: they restricted a user's right to exchange of free speech. When the CRTC (the regulator in Canada) investigated, their defense was that they have a right to do this because the network is private property, and that if the government forced them to unblock those pages and transmit the content on their network, that the government was restricting TELUS' constitutionally protected freedom of speech. (in this case: the right to not participate in a conversation they don't like)

So, this is the main argument I have been seeing against Network Neutrality: that it interferes with the ISP's right to manage content on its own property to either participate in public conversations (or refuse to) or to pursue economic goals. And that NN therefore is both a violation of their freedoms and an economic burden.

So the question that the voters are presented with is whether the public benefits of NN overcome the impact to the ISPs. My opinion is that the benefits are overwhelmingly greater than the potential costs.

Thanks. My mental congestion has cleared. Now if you could just help me out with my bronchitis.

 

[Mudcat]

No, accusing someone of being a child kidnapping rapist murderer, if untrue, is NOT "protected speech." And neither is accusing someone of being in on 9/11!

Glad you're at least somewhat capable of seeing reason.

Neither of those two things are exactly the equivalent of a creationist saying that the earth was created in 7 days, 6,000 years ago.

Agreed, a more apt comparison would be to someone promoting the view that the earth is flat and/or at the center of the universe. None of these ideas have any merit nor should they be given the same consideration as the evidence based counterparts. Anything I said so far that you disagree with?

"Illegal speech" is the very definition of censorship!

Therefore prohibiting people from falsely accusing others of crimes, shouting "Fire!" in a theater, et cetera is censorship... Yeah you didn't really think that all the way through, did you?

However, if you are making a claim and you are NOT selling a product, then no; you should not be held accountable on a legal standpoint.

I disagree. Whether you're selling a product or not, harm is still done when you go around telling people that cancer is a conspiracy of big pharmaceutical companies and distilled gecko droppings will cure it. Every person that listens to you, stops taking their medicine, gets sicker, and die is your responsibility.

Period.

And yes, even false-advertisement laws are a form of "censorship." No, it is not a "public service." Because you are not providing a "service" to the public, such as transportation.

So protecting people from harm isn't a public service? Someone should tell all the police and firemen that.

And now you are talking about yet another type of speech: Teaching creation/ID in public schools! Man, how the goal posts keep shifting.

No, the goals haven't moved anywhere. Free speech is a pretty huge end zone with more goals then you can imagine.

BTW, yes. This, too, is censorship.

And this explains a lot. No, determining that not all forms of speech is acceptable in the public area is not censorship. Determining that not all ideas are not worth consideration is not censorship. Determining that not all messages should be given voice is not censorship.

 

[Mudcat]

Mudcat apparently has me on ignore so I'm perhaps wasting my time.

Sorry, must have missed it in the avalanche of "Won't someone think of the freedoms!"

I never found out how the fact that there are "bad things" about the internet has anything to do with anything.

Maybe nothing to do with the topic of net neutrality, but I don't really understand net neutrality and got into an off topic conversation because there are a lot of things about the net that really bug me. I imagine there's a lot about the net that bug you, too.

But yeah, there was someone who compared it to water access. You get get charged certain amounts for certain amounts of usage, that's the same regardless of what you actually do with the water and that the net should be like that. I agree with that simile, but that's about all I can say that's relevant to the topic.

Is Mudcat simply lamenting the fact that the benefits of the Internet come with costs?

Mudcat laments that the pros are way outweighed by the cons.

Doesn't the devil live somewhere in that word "some"? What restrictions and who decides? Why should the internet be singled out as opposed to Television, print ads, bill boards or radio?

No, the Internet isn't singled out in comparison with those other forms of media. For example, advertisement for cigarettes isn't allowed on television, print ads, billboards, or radio. Neither is full frontal nudity, and a few other things. Applying at least some of that to the Internet is only the next logical step.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry, must have missed it in the avalanche of "Won't someone think of the freedoms!"

Maybe nothing to do with the topic of net neutrality, but I don't really understand net neutrality and got into an off topic conversation because there are a lot of things about the net that really bug me. I imagine there's a lot about the net that bug you, too.

But yeah, there was someone who compared it to water access. You get get charged certain amounts for certain amounts of usage, that's the same regardless of what you actually do with the water and that the net should be like that. I agree with that simile, but that's about all I can say that's relevant to the topic.

Mudcat laments that the pros are way outweighed by the cons.

No, the Internet isn't singled out in comparison with those other forms of media. For example, advertisement for cigarettes isn't allowed on television, print ads, billboards, or radio. Neither is full frontal nudity, and a few other things. Applying at least some of that to the Internet is only the next logical step.

Thank you for your response. It's much appreciated.

But yeah, there was someone who compared it to water access

Well played.

 

[luchog]

No, the Internet isn't singled out in comparison with those other forms of media. For example, advertisement for cigarettes isn't allowed on television, print ads, billboards, or radio. Neither is full frontal nudity, and a few other things. Applying at least some of that to the Internet is only the next logical step.

Why? It doesn't seem at all logical to me; but then I never saw the need to inflict my personal preferences and prejudiced on others.

You keep saying things are necessary, but you've yet to provide a single valid reason beyond "I don't like this".

 

[blutoski]

No, the Internet isn't singled out in comparison with those other forms of media. For example, advertisement for cigarettes isn't allowed on television, print ads, billboards, or radio. Neither is full frontal nudity, and a few other things. Applying at least some of that to the Internet is only the next logical step.

If anything, Internet distribution has been getting special treatment by being excluded from the mare's nest of content regulations that applied to broadcasting, advertising, and public performances that has accumulated over the centuries. Attempts at filtering content for community motives seem to be mostly private initiatives. NetNanny. Apple App Store content policy. That sort of thing.

And that's been fine with me: I feel we still have a clean slate for thinking extra hard about what sort of content regulation we want to do - if any.

But what's odd is the irony and internal inconsistency involved in saying that empowering the government to prohibit carriers from filtering out content they don't want the customer to experience is in and of itself 'censorship' - that's just misdirection, and would be laughable except... except that voters are so easily misdirected it could actually work. American politics seems to come down to: "Those Commies want to prohibit our God given right to sacrifice our children!"


What's feeding this is that over the last 25 years, we have been seeing consolidation and vertical strategies for which eliminating NN is the endgame. I don't think this will be a benefit to the consumer for many reasons, mostly following from Francesca R's observation that there just isn't good competition in this market, and I don't see how there ever will be. The trajectory is for further deregulation, which I think will lead to more rapid concentration of ownership and vertical integration.

 

[Nihilianth]

I've already responded to that here:

NN and competition is not an "if/then/else" statement. IF I had to choose one or the other, I would most definitely choose competition. However, I would ultimately prefer both NN AND competition.

 

[Nihilianth]

Glad you're at least somewhat capable of seeing reason.



Agreed, a more apt comparison would be to someone promoting the view that the earth is flat and/or at the center of the universe. None of these ideas have any merit nor should they be given the same consideration as the evidence based counterparts. Anything I said so far that you disagree with?

Are you moving those shifty goal posts again? Because you were advocating a LEGAL restriction of those things, on par with slander/libel. That, I do not agree with.

Socially, yes. I definitely agree that flat or young earth, creation, etc, are completely unfounded, crazy, and should not be given the same merit as actual science. But people have, and should maintain, their right to spew such nonsense.

Therefore prohibiting people from falsely accusing others of crimes, shouting "Fire!" in a theater, et cetera is censorship... Yeah you didn't really think that all the way through, did you?

I am thoroughly confused. So, what are you saying? The fact that there is a legal prohibition against people yelling "Fire!" in a theater, libel, slander, etc is....or is NOT censorship? And I am even further confused by your sentence: "You you didn;t really think that all the way through, did you?"

Considering you are attempting to make the claim that prohibited (illegal) speech is NOT censorship, and I was said it was; I am going to have to go with you, again, making the erroneous claim that illegal speech is not censorship. In addition to that, I think you somehow think that I got caught somehow. So, all I gotta say, again, please, use Google! It is your friend! Just type in the word "Censorship" in Google, THEN you can speak with me. Until such time as that happens, this conversation cannot continue.

I disagree. Whether you're selling a product or not, harm is still done when you go around telling people that cancer is a conspiracy of big pharmaceutical companies and distilled gecko droppings will cure it. Every person that listens to you, stops taking their medicine, gets sicker, and die is your responsibility.

Period.

And? What do you propose to do about that, then? Arrest them and throw them in jail? Seems pretty.....tyrannical to me. Also, a person with cancer, really has the ultimate responsibility to see a doctor. Just sayin....

So protecting people from harm isn't a public service? Someone should tell all the police and firemen that.

I cannot believe that I just read that. More, I cannot believe that someone would actually type that in all seriousness.

No, the goals haven't moved anywhere. Free speech is a pretty huge end zone with more goals then you can imagine.

WHy are you telling me this? You do realize that we have an entire code of laws that get pretty darn specific about what is "protected speech," and what is not. We also have 200 years of court decisions that have set precedence.

Having said that, despite laws and centuries setting the table on unprotected speech, we still have a very wide open speech protection in this country. The First Amendment. It is taken VERY, VERY seriously. And no type of speech should EVER be outlawed just on a passing whim. Or just because someone seriously does not like what another person is saying.

And this explains a lot. No, determining that not all forms of speech is acceptable in the public area is not censorship. Determining that not all ideas are not worth consideration is not censorship. Determining that not all messages should be given voice is not censorship.

*Psst!* Googleisyourfriend!

 

[Nihilianth]

If anything, Internet distribution has been getting special treatment by being excluded from the mare's nest of content regulations that applied to broadcasting, advertising, and public performances that has accumulated over the centuries. Attempts at filtering content for community motives seem to be mostly private initiatives. NetNanny. Apple App Store content policy. That sort of thing.

And that's been fine with me: I feel we still have a clean slate for thinking extra hard about what sort of content regulation we want to do - if any.

But what's odd is the irony and internal inconsistency involved in saying that empowering the government to prohibit carriers from filtering out content they don't want the customer to experience is in and of itself 'censorship' - that's just misdirection, and would be laughable except... except that voters are so easily misdirected it could actually work. American politics seems to come down to: "Those Commies want to prohibit our God given right to sacrifice our children!"


What's feeding this is that over the last 25 years, we have been seeing consolidation and vertical strategies for which eliminating NN is the endgame. I don't think this will be a benefit to the consumer for many reasons, mostly following from Francesca R's observation that there just isn't good competition in this market, and I don't see how there ever will be. The trajectory is for further deregulation, which I think will lead to more rapid concentration of ownership and vertical integration.

I personally find it outrageous that a private company can limit their customers' use of the internet if they happen to not like certain content, or if they view a particular website as direct competition.

I really like Francesca R's proposal of unbundling. I really respect her, as she can be quite informative. What I find irritating, however, is that, as you have stated, competition in this market may never be possible; at least in the short term. There needs to be regulation in order to save net neutrality, and further regulation in order to prevent the loss of whatever little competition there currently is.

 

[blutoski]

I personally find it outrageous that a private company can limit their customers' use of the internet if they happen to not like certain content, or if they view a particular website as direct competition.

Not defending their position, but it's probably true that they find it outrageous that we want to tell them what to do with their property.

The historical justification for regulating radio and TV was that the 'airwaves' are a limited natural resource, and its original deregulated state led to a good example of Tragedy of the Commons^WP. Specifically, radio stations blasted a loud tone on their competitors' frequencies to drown them out, and simultaneously blasted their signal louder than competitors who chose to use the same frequency to avoid static-filled bands. Stations moved around and it came down to who had the deepest pockets to outshout competitors. Listeners never knew if they would be able to find their programs tomorrow and AM was mostly loud tones. It was a shambles and the potential dried up. Frequency licensing was probably the best solution, and I think both the consumers and commerce net benefited.

(as an aside: we are starting to see this with WiFi... how many people have slow internet speeds because their neighbour's setup is blasting 90dB of wireless N ten feet outside their wall)

The point, though, is that a few businesses objected to frequency licensing. Specifically, the ones with the deep pockets and long-term plans, who felt they could blast tone on all frequencies until their competitors gave up, and then they'd have profitable local monopolies. And the reasoning was the same: what right does the public have to tell me i can't participate in free speech any way I want to? It's my equipment, my property, my speech. And if my version of free speech is silencing everybody who disagrees with me, so what?

I really like Francesca R's proposal of unbundling. I really respect her, as she can be quite informative.

That must have been proposed in a different thread? If so... no need to rehash it here probably, but if you can direct me to that thread i'd appreciate it.

What I find irritating, however, is that, as you have stated, competition in this market may never be possible; at least in the short term. There needs to be regulation in order to save net neutrality, and further regulation in order to prevent the loss of whatever little competition there currently is.

There appear to be significant barriers to entry, unfortunately. Here in Canada, the last time a new communications company decided to compete by building their own network capital was probably Clearnet back in the late 1980s; they became a 3rd wireless network beside Bell and Rogers. So: a rapidly expanding profitable market attracted exactly one competitor, changing a duopoly to a triopoly.

 

[Minoosh]

You're paying for both dial-up and broadband? Get rid of the dial-up. It's useless.]

Thanks for the specific instructions. There are a few people I hear from now and then who reach me through my dial-up address. I want them to be able to find me. I have a Facebook account and maybe that would cover such issues - except that I don't check my FB account regularly.

Netflix is a great alternative to the package deals provided by cable ISPs. (which is exactly why cable ISPs want to get rid of internet neutrality, and why NN regulations are so important. Comcast does not want to have to compete directly with Netflix. I say: "Screw Comcast, keep Netflix" for your television shows and movies.

Yes, in my case the monopoly happens to be Comcast. I don't really blame it for acting like a monopoly; it just puzzles me why the $6 to $7 daily I spend for information utilities seems to be OK with whoever regulates such things. I know I could be proactive, pick and choose, let the monopoly know I'm paying attention. In fact I got a respectable-sized check from my bank due to practices deemed unfair by, I presume, federal regulators.

I'm not really well-informed enough to make the case that I'm being gouged by information utilities. Kind of ironic, I admit.

 

[G6000]

"Net neutrality" is like insisting that every business in America have a four lane highway direct to their door, from Disney World on down to your alcoholic aunt's homemade bead necklace business operated out of her trailer. Your aunt just doesn't get the kind of traffic that justifies spending the resources to provide her with a four lane highway.

It's stupid.

However, technology is going to eventually make this entire debate moot anyway.

 

[GodMark2]

"Net neutrality" is like insisting that every business in America have a four lane highway direct to their door, from Disney World on down to your alcoholic aunt's homemade bead necklace business operated out of her trailer. Your aunt just doesn't get the kind of traffic that justifies spending the resources to provide her with a four lane highway.

It's stupid.

However, technology is going to eventually make this entire debate moot anyway.

That's the "Net Neutrality" that Comcast et.al. are trying to get you to fbe angry about.

It's not, however, the Net Neutrality anybody else is talking about. The real Net Neutrality is saying that the road you have coming to your house (which is as big as you are willing to pay for and want to have) must have the same speed limit for all cars, regardless of whether they are Ford or Fiat. And, more importantly, the same must hold true for the highway that connects your local road to everyone else's.

Comcast is fighting tooth and nail for the right to say "On our roads, Fords have no speed limit, but all other cars must stay under 10mph".

 

[Nihilianth]

Not defending their position, but it's probably true that they find it outrageous that we want to tell them what to do with their property.

The historical justification for regulating radio and TV was that the 'airwaves' are a limited natural resource, and its original deregulated state led to a good example of Tragedy of the Commons^WP. Specifically, radio stations blasted a loud tone on their competitors' frequencies to drown them out, and simultaneously blasted their signal louder than competitors who chose to use the same frequency to avoid static-filled bands. Stations moved around and it came down to who had the deepest pockets to outshout competitors. Listeners never knew if they would be able to find their programs tomorrow and AM was mostly loud tones. It was a shambles and the potential dried up. Frequency licensing was probably the best solution, and I think both the consumers and commerce net benefited.

(as an aside: we are starting to see this with WiFi... how many people have slow internet speeds because their neighbour's setup is blasting 90dB of wireless N ten feet outside their wall)

The point, though, is that a few businesses objected to frequency licensing. Specifically, the ones with the deep pockets and long-term plans, who felt they could blast tone on all frequencies until their competitors gave up, and then they'd have profitable local monopolies. And the reasoning was the same: what right does the public have to tell me i can't participate in free speech any way I want to? It's my equipment, my property, my speech. And if my version of free speech is silencing everybody who disagrees with me, so what?

The internet is not their property. It is a resource built by all of us. When it comes to the internet, I couldn't care less what a multi-billion dollar company wants or does not want.

If a company bought up all of the highways, and turned them into toll roads for a profit, they do not get to tell their customers where they can or cannot go. (or more importantly, tell you you can only drive a certain speed, because you own a certain type of car, because that car manufacturer did not pay them an extortion fee to allow you to drive the same speed if you were driving a different car from a different car manufacturer that DID pay the extortion fee.)

And I see your comparison to the airwaves, which is a great comparison. Luckily for us, we live in a republic where we can tell businesses that if their practices are harmful to society, they must change or face consequences. Luckily, we have strict governmental regulation of the airwaves which has allowed radio to remain a competitive market. Unfortunately, the ISP market is not competitive any longer, because we were too late in issuing regulations on that front. But the internet itself....the various websites and services (such as Netflix)....must remain competitive. And we must pass regulations now in order to ensure that Comcast does not get to "outshout" Netflix by eating into their profits, and/or cutting into their bandwidth to the user base, just so Comcast can promote their On-Demand services.

That must have been proposed in a different thread? If so... no need to rehash it here probably, but if you can direct me to that thread i'd appreciate it.

Not a problem. I'll have to edit this post, or make another response with a linky.

There appear to be significant barriers to entry, unfortunately. Here in Canada, the last time a new communications company decided to compete by building their own network capital was probably Clearnet back in the late 1980s; they became a 3rd wireless network beside Bell and Rogers. So: a rapidly expanding profitable market attracted exactly one competitor, changing a duopoly to a triopoly.

Yeah, it is possible...at least here int he states...to break the regional monopolistic hold that Comcast has in different areas of the country. We would have to do the same thing we did to Bell (and Microsoft) back in the 90s: using anti-trust laws to break them up into smaller constituent parts. However, the 90s were a different....less politically nutty....time than now.

If we were to do that...break up the regional monopolies....we would have to immediately implement the rules proposed by Francesca. I'll give a link, but a quick explanation form what I understand (and perhaps Francesca can explain it better than me.)

In the UK, they made rules and regulations where ISPs can only be ISPs. They cannot own infrastructure. There is an infrastructure company that owns all the infrastructure (not totally clear if that company has a monopoly on the infrastructure. I think it does.) That infrastructure company cannot, in turn, be an ISP.

The company that owns the infrastructure (the lines and the external equipment,) cannot discriminate between various ISPs. All ISPs would pay the exact same rates, and they all get to use the same lines.

Here in the states, if an ISP were to compete against Comcast, they would have to build an entirely new set of lines, and they would have to go right along the same infrastructure that Comcast already owns. If a third ISP were to enter into the market, there would have to be a third set of lines, and etc. That's just insane. The telephone poles would be virtually weighed down by highly redundant lines. (It sends chills down my spine thinking about a bad, icy winter chill....)

Essentially, the result is that it is a HELL of a lot cheaper for ISPs to start up, and to stay in business. (A lot less maintenance for an ISP to worry about. And the infrastructure company does not have to worry about ISP-type maintenance). It ensures competition. So two reasons to keep prices a hell of a lot lower, and with a hell of a lot higher quality service.

Here in North America, we are screwed by the regional monopoly system. It sucks, it is inefficient, expensive, and crappy.

ETA: Linky found!

 

[Nihilianth]

Thanks for the specific instructions. There are a few people I hear from now and then who reach me through my dial-up address. I want them to be able to find me. I have a Facebook account and maybe that would cover such issues - except that I don't check my FB account regularly.

I would email all of your contacts about your change of address. And if all of your contacts are also FB friends, all the better. But yes. Having dial-up alongside broadband is a waste.

Yes, in my case the monopoly happens to be Comcast. I don't really blame it for acting like a monopoly; it just puzzles me why the $6 to $7 daily I spend for information utilities seems to be OK with whoever regulates such things. I know I could be proactive, pick and choose, let the monopoly know I'm paying attention. In fact I got a respectable-sized check from my bank due to practices deemed unfair by, I presume, federal regulators.

I'm not really well-informed enough to make the case that I'm being gouged by information utilities. Kind of ironic, I admit.

It takes a little bit of research to find the cheapest and/or find the most efficient use of your money. For me, it is either the Triple-Play bundle (Landline phone, cable television, and internet) for $170/month.

Or:

Broadband internet from Comcast ($100/month for 105 mbs/sec, or $56/month for 26 MB/sec. I have the former option, as I use my connection for work, and the higher speeds are more efficient cost-wise.)

I pay about $50/month for my cell phone through Verizon.

And $10 (I think it went up by $2 to 12. I'll have to check on that) through Netflix.

That is a total of $162/month. Added efficient bonuses: With Netflix, I don't have to sit through 20 minutes worth of commercials to watch a 2 hour movie! AND I get to watch what I want, when I want. (Comcast does have On Demand where you can do the same thing. But again, it would cost more to use it. Also, regular television is crap. I have better things to do than to sit there and watch the same damned commercials over and over again. So the regular television portion is absolutely useless.)

If I were to go with the slower speed of 26 mb/s, I would save an additional $50/month, on top of the $10 or so I am already saving.

Sounds to me like....for your purposes....this would be the best thing to do: Get Comcast's slowest internet broadband speeds they offer. Get rid of the package deal, use a (non smart) phone, get Netflix, and establish a new email account, getting rid of your old dial-up service.

 

[Nihilianth]

"Net neutrality" is like insisting that every business in America have a four lane highway direct to their door, from Disney World on down to your alcoholic aunt's homemade bead necklace business operated out of her trailer. Your aunt just doesn't get the kind of traffic that justifies spending the resources to provide her with a four lane highway.

It's stupid.

However, technology is going to eventually make this entire debate moot anyway.

Except. It isn't. At all.