I pay $60 for 60/20. I don’t live in an area that Comcast serves so I’m lucky. For some reason, here in mason county, you only have one cable provider wherever you live. I guess our choice in cable / internet starts when you look for a home.
Luckily the provider in our area has never slowed down Amazon video or Netflix on purpose, like Comcast started doing a few years ago.

Its the metered amounts that get me the most...you can forget ever hooking your Direct TV up, you have to limit things like youtube, and you can forget Skype or Netflix!

There's a lot of confusion here.  If you have experience with MPLS, multi-protocol-label switching, you know not all packets are equal on the internet.    You're generally not going to notice that your email came in three seconds late because a voice call or video call was trumping it  COS1 vs COS 3/4. 

This is true for a private service (intranet). Not on the internet as there is no QoS (Quality of Service). Service Provider A is not going to place my voice/video traffic over your data traffic. As you know MPLS circuits are quite expensive compared to an typical internet connection you get from your cable provider. This is why you see MPLS circuits for business and not home users.

Telecommunication companies have spent millions of dollars so they can make billions. Net Neutrality means everyone has equal access to the internet. You currently pay for how fast you want to connect to the internet, not how fast your data moves through the internet. 

To me the Burger King commercial was an excellent way of explaining what Net Neutrality is about.

QoS/COS (class of service).  Everyone else here is talking about the plumbing if the internet.  Yes it costs more to get to Mayberry than it does to 101 Wall Street in Manhattan.   It has nothing to do with net neutrality.  Simple economies of scale.   Large companies yielding of investment made to build the internet. 

Listen I get it.   The debate will never be won because the language has already been defined.  Of course everyone wants to be neutral and free.  It's the American way right?   I happen to disagree.  The American way is capitalism.   You pay for what you use.   And at least in the case of First Responders and Fed Govt, yes there is a fast lane on the internet.

Burger King did have a few laughs, but what about every other commodity that isn't first come first serve?   Healthcare, First Class Airline tickets, hotels, concert seating.   I don't think there has been an analogy that could trump the framing of the conversation of equal internet for all.  But we hardly have equal anything for all in this country.

DK

PS please understand I hate being the anti net neutrality voice.  But blindly arguing for net neutrality through ignorance (not stupidity) is IMO naive at best.  And please this is not at all a personal attack on anyone, but nor is it as simple as paying $26 for a burger. 

I do not know enough on Net Neutrality to comment on it.  I was just using this thread to make rants about things like I always do. 

I paid $25 for unlimited internet from AT&T in 2011 in Pasadena with 5/3 speeds.  I paid what I thought was a ridicules $45 in Las Vegas in 2013 for 11/5 unlimited...$45, those were the days

No one can or will, including my current provider or any of the other 3 I have had over the last 5 years, explaine to me why it is twice as expensive and this is what I really don't get METERD for me living 5 miles outside of Mayberry...and it is NOT for the folks in Mayberry!

To me that seems like a $26 Whopper!

But blindly arguing for net neutrality through ignorance (not stupidity) is IMO naive at best.  And please this is not at all a personal attack on anyone, but nor is it as simple as paying $26 for a burger.

You have your opinion like everyone else. Not sure why you feel people are ignorance to net neutrality. I guess one can say that about anything.

Now you have to pay.   100MBPS, $50 a month.   1GPS $100 per month, whatever it might be.  You pay for what you receive just like any other commodity in the marketplace. 

Then why did the providers spend so much on lobbying to have it changed?  They certainly didn't do it because they want to earn less.  The subscribers aren't going to be the winners.

I’m going into this eyes wide open.  I have an opinion on a subject.  I’m talking about net neutrality.   I’m talking about providers/telecommunications companies maximizing their profit on a huge investment.  Fast lanes on the internet will be build and paid for.     Most on this string are saying my home internet cost is too xxxx high.   Those are different topics.   

DK

Most on this string are saying my home internet cost is too xxxx high.

Yes, a portion of the outcry is, "My Internet access is already too costly."  That's simply a preface to the following statement, "Don't make Internet service more expensive."  We haven't seen the full impact of eliminating net neutrality.  But be assured, the result will be more money flowing into Internet service provider (ISP) pockets.

Who will provide this additional money?  The companies with a large Internet presence, like Amazon, Facebook, Find a Mate, youtube and the like.  Without net neutrality, the ISPs can deliberately speed up or slow down traffic to or from specific websites.  The ISPs will increase their charges and Amazon, facebook and others will just pass the increased costs on to their customers.  Our request that Internet service not be more expensive will be honored.  But it will cost us more to buy from Internet merchants.  We see little difference.

Will the body of Internet end user subscribers contribute to the ISPs' windfall?  Sure, if the ISPs decide to charge more for accessing some web sites, like those that stream full motion video or those that seem to be more valuable to you.

I stand by my statement that the end of net neutrality is a way for rich people to get richer.

I see your point, but if I am paying $115/month so someone else can have cheaper Netflix I aint down with that...But I will have to do a lot more research before I can comment on the situation.  Should I pay the same amount for the internet as someone who uses 100 times more data then me?  Or someone that needs speeds that are 10 times faster then mine?

Most on this string are saying my home internet cost is too xxxx high.

Yes, a portion of the outcry is, "My Internet access is already too costly."  That's simply a preface to the following statement, "Don't make Internet service more expensive."  We haven't seen the full impact of eliminating net neutrality.  But be assured, the result will be more money flowing into Internet service provider (ISP) pockets.

Who will provide this additional money?  The companies with a large Internet presence, like Amazon, Facebook, Find a Mate, youtube and the like.  Without net neutrality, the ISPs can deliberately speed up or slow down traffic to or from specific websites.  The ISPs will increase their charges and Amazon, facebook and others will just pass the increased costs on to their customers.  Our request that Internet service not be more expensive will be honored.  But it will cost us more to buy from Internet merchants.  We see little difference.

Will the body of Internet end user subscribers contribute to the ISPs' windfall?  Sure, if the ISPs decide to charge more for accessing some web sites, like those that stream full motion video or those that seem to be more valuable to you.

I stand by my statement that the end of net neutrality is a way for rich people to get richer.

Now this is a fantastic well reasoned response.  So lets continue.  Are you going to say that Amazon, Facebook, and Google pay for the "internet" that they use?   See the slight little difference there?  You're calling the ISP's bad guys.  ISP's are calling content providers bad guys.   That is the root of net neutrality. 

You want to talk about rich getting richer?

AT&T 232.177B
Verizon 223.227B
Comcast 200.037B
Facebook 552.104B
Alphabet (Google)  818.823B
Amazon  675.609B

So your argument that the rich get richer is correct, but the ISP's are not the villains.  The content providers and virtual companies are.    Just my opinion, I sincerely hope this helps with the debate.   Net neutrality enriches the virtual content billionaires, not the ISP's that created the internet.     Charging the content providers for their use of the internet is the intent of the latest legislation/legislative ideas. 

DK

Should I pay the same amount for the internet as someone who uses 100 times more data then me?  Or someone that needs speeds that are 10 times faster then mine?

I'm not familiar with your ISP's rate structure and it probably hasn't changed since Internet neutrality was eliminated, but you and that "someone else" probably pay for bandwidth or data speed.  You're both probably paying for capability, not necessarily use.  People who want more speed are usually willing to pay more for it. 

My ISP hasn't made any pricing changes to residence subscribers since net neutrality was eliminated.  I pay quite a bit for GB service to my residence.  It's a lot more than my neighbor pays.  But I use the new fiber facility, he doesn't.  But without net neutrality they can charge their customers more for connecting to youtube, or Netflix than they do for connecting to our email providers.

I have no knowledge of this topic, but something in the last post caught my eye. "Charging the content providers for their use of the internet is the intent of the latest legislation/legislative ideas."

I am not sure what this means.  PelletFan is a "content provider" correct?  So if some other pellet forum pays more, does that mean that access to PF is slowed down making it harder to load the site or view it or whatever the term would be? 

I don't know much about this topic either but my head was heading in a similar direction as Kristin's.  Here is where I see this going.

ISP will increase the prices to host websites.  The small guy will no longer be able to pay for it.  Thus, internet content will diminish leaving us with content primarily provided by large companies that will pay anything to advertise their goods or stories.

I sure hope I am wrong.

I sure hope I am wrong.

You are not wrong.

I have no knowledge of this topic, but something in the last post caught my eye. "Charging the content providers for their use of the internet is the intent of the latest legislation/legislative ideas."

I am not sure what this means.  PelletFan is a "content provider" correct?  So if some other pellet forum pays more, does that mean that access to PF is slowed down making it harder to load the site or view it or whatever the term would be?

It gives the the ability to charge PelletFan more to reach viewers quickly, or charge users more if they want to reach PelletFan.

The idea of Net Neutrality is that all content providers are equal and can’t be slowed down by the network providers.