How to Comment at the FCC on their Dumb Internet Fast Lane Idea of Net Neutrality

[swc2001]

Ok so I wrote them at two places. One where we were told about here... and an email to
[email protected]
I recommend doing both as well. Put you address and other info in the email as well.

 

[swc2001]

So let me ask this..... when is this going down? How is it going down?
Should we write our congressman as well?
Kinda confused really!!

 

[veraderock]

I don't think it would hurt to contact your congressman. The more pressure to kill this thing the better!

 

[cereal killer]

I don't think it would hurt to contact your congressman. The more pressure to kill this thing the better!

+1 We'll have to wait a few more weeks until those useless tools return from vacation though.

 

[kodiak799]

Unfortunately, I disagree with you entirely. First of all, most of these companies have monopolies in their area -- they willfully refuse to compete with each other. So you can throw your competitive pricing right out of the window.

First off, I specifically mentioned lack of competition and that's entirely different from the net neutrality argument. Because of lack of competition, they're going to make the same money in either scenario so the only question is who pays. Net neutrality in that regard is actually anti-consumer because it forces them to subsidize certain content types and other users.

It's not double dipping. Again, you appear to be unfamiliar with how many industries operate. There's really nothing superior or advantageous about all revenues coming from the destination/end-user. The pipeline owner is going to get $50 per user one way or the other - limiting how they collect that $50 has no real advantage (except to the people currently being subsidized who, like the unlimited abusers, tend to be the ones whining the loudest because they know they're getting a good deal).

It's funny to see people take the side of Netflix and Youtube. Those two sites account for like 2/3 of internet traffic which has spiked demand for bandwidth and forcing companies to add/upgrade capacity much earlier than planned or otherwise needed. And this entire debate really boils down to Netflix and Youtube don't want to pay a penny for the infrastructure and pushing Net Neutrality arguments to keep the free ride going.

 

[kodiak799]

They already have a fast vs slow lanes as paid for by consumers. So now they want BOTH sides of the connection to pay for fast lanes.

It's very simple to understand, really. They can continue to charge the same "low" price for their users, and then Netflix will pass on its cost to its users. That way only the people who watch Netflix ultimately pay for the extra bandwidth required - which is superior to charging a little more to everybody.

Stinks if you're a Netflix user, but it's fair. I don't understand why everyone is fighting so hard to subsidize Netflix and its users.