No, Net “Neutrality” forcibly prevents ISPs from offering upgraded services, like dedicated bandwidth channels for streaming hi-def video.
As streaming HD video becomes widespread, this gets kind of important if you ever want video on par with TV. The lefties that support it think that if they force companies not to offer higher tiers of service, then they’ll have no choice but to simply offer everyone connections with super high dedicated speeds and they’ll reap the benefits.
It’s the equivalent of banning Overnight, Second Day, and First Class mail so long as there’s cheapo third class junk mail. FedEx doesn’t just say “ok everybody’s mail is now overnight!” because that isn’t feasible.
All it will do is cripple web development as everyone is forced down to the lowest common denominator. (Then add all the cutesy games the regulators will play with those they favor vs. those they don’t.)
Businesses pay more for the same peak speed rating because they want guaranteed bandwidth all the time. My speed is blazing at 3am but I accept that if I hop on at peak times I might get lag.
It’s a minor inconvenience until you decide to watch movies. Why should my internet choices be forced to turn my movie into a stuttering, buffering mess in order to pass email with the same priority? If I want to pay extra for a channel dedicated to real-time video without interruptions, I should be able to.
You were saying — The lefties that support it think that if they force companies not to offer higher tiers of service, then they’ll have no choice but to simply offer everyone connections with super high dedicated speeds and they’ll reap the benefits.
—
Net Neutrality does nothing to prevent someone from charging more for higher bandwidth. That’s been done for quite a while and I actually pay for higher bandwidth. I’ve got several choices, and although I could pick something less than a megabit down, I picked 16 megabits down, and have to pay more for it. That’s never been the issue with Net Neutrality.
I’ve noticed that the people who argue against Net Neutrality seem to think that it applies here, but that’s never been mentioned and has never been the argument and one will always pay more for the increased and “higher speeds” (i.e., more bandwidth). Nothing will ever prevent that from being done.
You’ve got the wrong argument there...
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And then you were saying — Businesses pay more for the same peak speed rating because they want guaranteed bandwidth all the time. My speed is blazing at 3am but I accept that if I hop on at peak times I might get lag.
—
Again, that’s a false argument. If I wanted *guaranteed* bandwidth, and the consumer version of what I have is not really *guaranteed* — then I would expect to pay more. And..., I *will* pay more — which will have absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality. I would be paying for a different kind of service, altogether, and it would cost me dramatically more. I know, because I’ve checked on it. But, in practice, I’ve got such high bandwidth right now, for what I pay, it makes no sense for me to go to the other type of service.
There’s nothing in the Net Neutrality concept to prevent these other types of services where businesses would get *guarantees* for bandwidth, of which the “consumer versions” do not get. It’s another service, altogether. That can still be sold with no limitations from Net Neutrality.
It’s another bogus argument that you’re presenting here...