How Will Net Neutrality Effect Fiverr?

[misscrystal]

It’s gone when it comes to the FCC board, however, it still has to pass through Congress

Agreed. Regardless of your stance on Net Neutrality, Congress is the only constitutional US Authority that can make laws – especially overturning a law like this. It’s not official, from a legal standpoint, until Congress approves it, and President Trump signs it.

Whether that is or is not what will happen is best left to the ongoing debate/process.

It’s hard to discuss this and remain apolitical. The reason for this entire thing is entirely of a political nature. But we can’t talk about anything political. I have to say it’s the first time I’ve heard anyone saying it would be a good thing. 🤐

[neromare]

It’s hard to discuss this and remain apolitical. The reason for this entire thing is entirely of a political nature. But we can’t talk about anything political. I have to say it’s the first time I’ve heard anyone saying it would be a good thing. 🤐

I don’t want to be a dream killer, but from my humble expertise — politics is dirty and it will make your hands even dirtier for messing with it!

[fastcopywriter]

one major impact of net neutrality regs was a historic decline in investment in internet infrastructure,

I used to live on an Island called Skye in Scotland at one of its most remote points. Because of this, the business dial-up Internet and phone system my business relied upon was serviced by individual 1930’s paper insulated copper wires (encased in rubber) which didn’t meet a more up to date junction point for 6km.

In the UK and most of the rest of the world, telecom and Internet infrastructure is already rolled out by private companies. Private companies, however, never have a vested interest in bringing the Internet to people when it will take then over 10 years to justify the investment of laying a cable. In this case, the only reason that the area I used to live in has broadband today, is due to the fact that I, my successors, and other community members, directly petitioned the government to make funding available to the private company in question.

I do not disagree that private companies do innovate. Saying, however, that private companies can only innovate when they have free reign to do whatever they want, falsely paints a picture of them being limited by a government in the first place when many are most certainly not.

I can’t remember now exactly but the first BT Open feasibility study I saw at the time, put rolling out broadband internet in my area at $15’000. That is nothing for a giant company which makes that much in ad revenue alone per day. Please do not be brainwashed by free market speak. Free markets work when there is one, What we live in now is nothing but a high surveillance plutocracy.

Private companies, however, never have a vested interest in bringing the Internet to people when it will take then over 10 years to justify the investment of laying a cable.

If there’s money to be made, they’ll bring it. If it’s a rural area, they can get satellite TV, satellite phone, satellite Internet, etc. Farmer Joe doesn’t need the highest speed internet. In fact, right now Chattanooga has the highest internet speed, but it will cost you, $500 a month. It’s not greed, we’re simply talking about a very premium package that 99.99% of us don’t need.

[fastcopywriter]

The FCC is supposed to have an overwhelming reason to change the rules and cannot do it “arbitrarily and capriciously”. So the reason the FCC gave for doing it was that supposedly net neutrality blocked research and development by internet service providers, which is a lie. They have increased the speed of Comcast many times over the past years.

So this will go to the courts first before it is allowed to take effect.

In this case, the FCC is getting out of the way. They’re changing rules the last president created, the Internet was doing fine before net neutrality, and will continue doing fine.

The fans of net neutrality will lose in court. Most lawsuits against the government are to get the government out of the way, not to keep them in the way. Who sues for more regulation and oversight?

Should I sue my electric company because when I use more electricity, my bill is higher? It’s the same with the internet. We should pay for what we use, we should have plans that fit our needs. John Doe wants to stream movies all day? Then he should pay more than those who do that less.

[danieloim]

excellent very informative publication

[misscrystal]

In this case, the FCC is getting out of the way. They’re changing rules the last president created, the Internet was doing fine before net neutrality, and will continue doing fine.

The fans of net neutrality will lose in court. Most lawsuits against the government are to get the government out of the way, not to keep them in the way. Who sues for more regulation and oversight?

Should I sue my electric company because when I use more electricity, my bill is higher? It’s the same with the internet. We should pay for what we use, we should have plans that fit our needs. John Doe wants to stream movies all day? Then he should pay more than those who do that less.

the FCC is getting out of the way.

Why even have any FCC at all then? Let it be a free for all with pirate radio and tv stations for anyone who wants one and gets herself a transmitter?

Awesome I can open my own tv station, witch tv.

[newsmike]

We only have one internet service provider that has broadband where I live so they will be able to charge $2000 a month for service if they want to.

The laws of Capitalism would prevent that from happening. Nobody makes money if only a fraction of the market can afford your product. Mass market products like the internet need to have different packages for different budgets. Comcast already does, net neutrality rules did not prevent them from charging more for faster Internet.

Furthermore, the end of net neutrality means less red tape for future ISP’s. It means a better internet for everyone!

Furthermore, the end of net neutrality means less red tape for future ISP’s. It means a better internet for everyone!

Bravo. I am shocked at the folks who comment on this issue and have literally no idea what it really does.

Bottom line is can a business charge more for a premium service? If you hate net neutrality, your fiverr gig had better be $5 with no upgrades or extras, because charging more for extra is “not fair”

The very fact that it has one of those names like “Net Neutrality” is a tip off that it is BS, Just like the “Affordable” Care Act, which skyrocketed health care costs. It is common to take a bill that does something bad and name it “The best thing ever” act.

More political BS

[misscrystal]

The end of net neutrality, what changes in the internet will we see?

Does anyone think it was running badly and needed change? I thought it worked well. All sites paid the same price to be on the internet. Seems fair to me. Some giant internet service provider companies think some sites should pay more. Some people who use the internet every day also think this. Won’t this cause some sites that are unable to pay more be eliminated and unable to be on the internet?

I have hosted sites on my home computer. Will I still be able to do that?
What about all the hosting companies we all have access to if we want a website? Will they still be there?

If fiverr still wants to be available to US residents will it have to pay a high fee for that?

[newsmike]

The end of net neutrality, what changes in the internet will we see?

Does anyone think it was running badly and needed change? I thought it worked well. All sites paid the same price to be on the internet. Seems fair to me. Some giant internet service provider companies think some sites should pay more. Some people who use the internet every day also think this. Won’t this cause some sites that are unable to pay more be eliminated and unable to be on the internet?

I have hosted sites on my home computer. Will I still be able to do that?

What about all the hosting companies we all have access to if we want a website? Will they still be there?

If fiverr still wants to be available to US residents will it have to pay a high fee for that?

The end of net neutrality, what changes in the internet will we see?

The funny thing is that it is only a couple years old. We seem to have gotten along fine online before the government decided that it needed to regulate the internet along with everything else. Lots of folks seem to think that this is some pillar on which the country was built.

[cyaxrex]

You know, it’s sad how this thread seems to have spit into a purely political left and right issue. As soon as this happens actual discussion stops.

For those arguing that net neutrality is good for business and innovation, at what point did businesses like ISPs become entitled to act as stewards of the Internet? ISP’s didn’t create the Internet. ISP’s simply grant access to it. Does a business have a right to charge premium for a premium service? Of course! The Internet, however, is not anyone’s property for them to charge for.

This is basically like having a road lined with shops and having someone from out of town suddenly appear one day and say, “Hello everyone, I now own this road. It’s going to be amazing, we’re going to put hanging baskets on the lampposts and finally put a hot dog stand by the town hall,”

Half the business owners then start clapping and cheering in celebration of the free market. The other half, however, start scratching their chin because they thought the road was free. A year later then, and the naysayers start looking silly as the new road owner really does deliver on all of his promises.

There are hanging baskets, hotdog stands, even a new bandstand. The only problem is that now the road owner wants everybody to start paying for the upkeep of the road.

Walmart, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Starbucks, are fine paying a new road maintenance fee. They, after all, like all the new improvements. The hemp clothing startup, independent bookstore, and citizens advice bureau, however, simply can’t afford the rates and are a bit miffed at the idea of paying for something they didn’t ask for.

In the end the road owner decides that those stores are letting the image of the street down and should be punished accordingly. He, therefore, decides to put a toll on their parts of the road to make people think twice about paying them a visit.

Fast forward a few years and the hemp clothing startup, independent bookstore, and citizens advice bureau, have had no choice but to close up shop or relocate to Detroit where the private road owner there doesn’t charge as high rates.

This is what happens when you hand something which everybody contributed toward building free of charge to Mr. Free Market. Everyone just ends up paying twice for what they had already. A government uses billions in tax dollars to build a tunnel and then hands it essentially FOC to a private company who puts a toll booth at the entrance and squirrels all the income it generates offshore to Panama. It’s not free market economics and it’s not a left or right political issue. It’s simply out of control corporatism with some sultry lipstick slapped on it.

[newsmike]

You know, it’s sad how this thread seems to have spit into a purely political left and right issue. As soon as this happens actual discussion stops.

For those arguing that net neutrality is good for business and innovation, at what point did businesses like ISPs become entitled to act as stewards of the Internet? ISP’s didn’t create the Internet. ISP’s simply grant access to it. Does a business have a right to charge premium for a premium service? Of course! The Internet, however, is not anyone’s property for them to charge for.

This is basically like having a road lined with shops and having someone from out of town suddenly appear one day and say, “Hello everyone, I now own this road. It’s going to be amazing, we’re going to put hanging baskets on the lampposts and finally put a hot dog stand by the town hall,”

Half the business owners then start clapping and cheering in celebration of the free market. The other half, however, start scratching their chin because they thought the road was free. A year later then, and the naysayers start looking silly as the new road owner really does deliver on all of his promises.

There are hanging baskets, hotdog stands, even a new bandstand. The only problem is that now the road owner wants everybody to start paying for the upkeep of the road.

Walmart, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Starbucks, are fine paying a new road maintenance fee. They, after all, like all the new improvements. The hemp clothing startup, independent bookstore, and citizens advice bureau, however, simply can’t afford the rates and are a bit miffed at the idea of paying for something they didn’t ask for.

In the end the road owner decides that those stores are letting the image of the street down and should be punished accordingly. He, therefore, decides to put a toll on their parts of the road to make people think twice about paying them a visit.

Fast forward a few years and the hemp clothing startup, independent bookstore, and citizens advice bureau, have had no choice but to close up shop or relocate to Detroit where the private road owner there doesn’t charge as high rates.

This is what happens when you hand something which everybody contributed toward building free of charge to Mr. Free Market. Everyone just ends up paying twice for what they had already. A government uses billions in tax dollars to build a tunnel and then hands it essentially FOC to a private company who puts a toll booth at the entrance and squirrels all the income it generates offshore to Panama. It’s not free market economics and it’s not a left or right political issue. It’s simply out of control corporatism with some sultry lipstick slapped on it.

It’s simply out of control corporatism with some sultry lipstick slapped on it.

What’s your alternative. Corporate welfare for the hemp shop? The only possible alternative to letting the market have winners and losers is letting the government pick winners and losers. And that has worked so well everywhere it has been implemented globally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra

That aside, the most frustrating thing about this is that most folks don’t even understand what it really is about. Most are afraid that their porn will be less available, or buffer. So take arms…the porn is threatened.

[ssj1236]

In all practicality, it won’t pass Congress. Not when Google and Amazon are against it. Even if it does, it shouldn’t affect us since it would be up to Fiverr to deal with the changes.

[cyaxrex]

It’s simply out of control corporatism with some sultry lipstick slapped on it.

What’s your alternative. Corporate welfare for the hemp shop? The only possible alternative to letting the market have winners and losers is letting the government pick winners and losers. And that has worked so well everywhere it has been implemented globally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra

That aside, the most frustrating thing about this is that most folks don’t even understand what it really is about. Most are afraid that their porn will be less available, or buffer. So take arms…the porn is threatened.

The hemp shop was doing fine and didn’t need welfare before someone decided to make it pay twice for what it had already. In fact, most people didn’t need welfare until out of control corporatism took away all the jobs by shipping them offshore.

As for governments choosing winners and losers, this isn’t a capitalism Vs communism argument. If anything corporatism is communism as corporatism can only exist when directly supported by the government.

Capitalism works fine when you actually allow capitalism to do its job. This means not giving government money to banks when they fail. This and other little things like having a government which pays its debts when they become due, rather than simply decide to heighten its own debt ceiling so it can keep getting in more debt.

Like I said. The minute politics come into it, actual intelligent discussion stops. Your suggesting I’m a communist/socialist. Really, though, it’s the other way round in regard to the argument at hand.

[lucycodex]

You know, it’s sad how this thread seems to have spit into a purely political left and right issue. As soon as this happens actual discussion stops.

For those arguing that net neutrality is good for business and innovation, at what point did businesses like ISPs become entitled to act as stewards of the Internet? ISP’s didn’t create the Internet. ISP’s simply grant access to it. Does a business have a right to charge premium for a premium service? Of course! The Internet, however, is not anyone’s property for them to charge for.

This is basically like having a road lined with shops and having someone from out of town suddenly appear one day and say, “Hello everyone, I now own this road. It’s going to be amazing, we’re going to put hanging baskets on the lampposts and finally put a hot dog stand by the town hall,”

Half the business owners then start clapping and cheering in celebration of the free market. The other half, however, start scratching their chin because they thought the road was free. A year later then, and the naysayers start looking silly as the new road owner really does deliver on all of his promises.

There are hanging baskets, hotdog stands, even a new bandstand. The only problem is that now the road owner wants everybody to start paying for the upkeep of the road.

Walmart, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Starbucks, are fine paying a new road maintenance fee. They, after all, like all the new improvements. The hemp clothing startup, independent bookstore, and citizens advice bureau, however, simply can’t afford the rates and are a bit miffed at the idea of paying for something they didn’t ask for.

In the end the road owner decides that those stores are letting the image of the street down and should be punished accordingly. He, therefore, decides to put a toll on their parts of the road to make people think twice about paying them a visit.

Fast forward a few years and the hemp clothing startup, independent bookstore, and citizens advice bureau, have had no choice but to close up shop or relocate to Detroit where the private road owner there doesn’t charge as high rates.

This is what happens when you hand something which everybody contributed toward building free of charge to Mr. Free Market. Everyone just ends up paying twice for what they had already. A government uses billions in tax dollars to build a tunnel and then hands it essentially FOC to a private company who puts a toll booth at the entrance and squirrels all the income it generates offshore to Panama. It’s not free market economics and it’s not a left or right political issue. It’s simply out of control corporatism with some sultry lipstick slapped on it.

I agree with this to a point, there are both sides to the coin and both need to be considered. It’s an argument over whether big corporations or the government should control and regulate the internet.

It’s a multifaceted issue, and I apologize for not knowing both sides before I asked the question. I was unaware that it was just a few years ago that it was even implemented. I should probably be much more skeptical of “the end is neigh”-ers

[newsmike]

The hemp shop was doing fine and didn’t need welfare before someone decided to make it pay twice for what it had already. In fact, most people didn’t need welfare until out of control corporatism took away all the jobs by shipping them offshore.

As for governments choosing winners and losers, this isn’t a capitalism Vs communism argument. If anything corporatism is communism as corporatism can only exist when directly supported by the government.

Capitalism works fine when you actually allow capitalism to do its job. This means not giving government money to banks when they fail. This and other little things like having a government which pays its debts when they become due, rather than simply decide to heighten its own debt ceiling so it can keep getting in more debt.

Like I said. The minute politics come into it, actual intelligent discussion stops. Your suggesting I’m a communist/socialist. Really, though, it’s the other way round in regard to the argument at hand.

The hemp shop was doing fine and didn’t need welfare before someone decided to make it pay twice for what it had already.

But in your example, someone bought the street. Correct? Then you say “The hemp shop was doing fine and didn’t need welfare before someone decided to make it pay twice for what it had already”

So in essence your argument in private property terms is that one can purchase a parcel, but then have the government regulate what you can’t and can do with it. That is the over-reaching government situation that I feel you are falling into supporting. Certainly, there needs to be regulations that prevent you from storing nuclear waste on that street, or having unsafe situations. But if I wrote a check to buy the street, why wouldn’t I be within my rights to price the hemp shop out and get 5 times the rent from a Palm steakhouse?

[cyaxrex]

I agree with this to a point, there are both sides to the coin and both need to be considered. It’s an argument over whether big corporations or the government should control and regulate the internet.

It’s a multifaceted issue, and I apologize for not knowing both sides before I asked the question. I was unaware that it was just a few years ago that it was even implemented. I should probably be much more skeptical of “the end is neigh”-ers

I was unaware that it was just a few years ago that it was even implemented. I should probably be much more skeptical of “the end is neigh”-ers

Yes, but the net neutrality argument has been going on since the net was established. Net Neutrality came in to finally put a legal definition and level of protection on what already existed to stop third parties cashing in by monopoliziung the Internet. It’s actually one of the only decent things in legal history after the Magna Carta and Constitution when it comes to legisyaltion passed specifically to legally define freedoms which people already take for granted.

[cyaxrex]

The hemp shop was doing fine and didn’t need welfare before someone decided to make it pay twice for what it had already.

But in your example, someone bought the street. Correct? Then you say “The hemp shop was doing fine and didn’t need welfare before someone decided to make it pay twice for what it had already”

So in essence your argument in private property terms is that one can purchase a parcel, but then have the government regulate what you can’t and can do with it. That is the over-reaching government situation that I feel you are falling into supporting. Certainly, there needs to be regulations that prevent you from storing nuclear waste on that street, or having unsafe situations. But if I wrote a check to buy the street, why wouldn’t I be within my rights to price the hemp shop out and get 5 times the rent from a Palm steakhouse?

But if I wrote a check to buy the street, why wouldn’t I be within my rights to price the hemp shop out and get 5 times the rent from a Palm steakhouse?

You would be perfectly within your rights. The problem is the street wasn’t owned by anyone who had a right to sell it to you in the first place.

[newsmike]

But if I wrote a check to buy the street, why wouldn’t I be within my rights to price the hemp shop out and get 5 times the rent from a Palm steakhouse?

You would be perfectly within your rights. The problem is the street wasn’t owned by anyone who had a right to sell it to you in the first place.

You would be perfectly within your rights. The problem is the street wasn’t owned by anyone who had a right to sell it to you in the first place.

So you object to being cast as a socialist, but don’t recognize private property rights. Viva Havana! 😀

In the end this is no more complicated than asking, does an airline have the right to charge more for first class seats? Do you have the right to charge more for 24 hour delivery on fiverr?

What if someone doesn’t think thats’s fair. Get the gov to regulate?

[newsmike]

I agree with this to a point, there are both sides to the coin and both need to be considered. It’s an argument over whether big corporations or the government should control and regulate the internet.

It’s a multifaceted issue, and I apologize for not knowing both sides before I asked the question. I was unaware that it was just a few years ago that it was even implemented. I should probably be much more skeptical of “the end is neigh”-ers

It’s an argument over whether big corporations or the government should control and regulate the internet.

I quite agree. And while private industry is not perfect, when you compare the 2 you generally get from private industry, FedEx and UPS, while from the government we get the US postal service. Just go to the DMV to be reminded how well the government runs things.

So the lesser of 2 evils always seems to be companies competing, as opposed to the wasteful, inefficient government.

[eoinfinnegan]

Let’s try stick to pros and cons and effects of the actual legislation

[cyaxrex]

You would be perfectly within your rights. The problem is the street wasn’t owned by anyone who had a right to sell it to you in the first place.

So you object to being cast as a socialist, but don’t recognize private property rights. Viva Havana! 😀

In the end this is no more complicated than asking, does an airline have the right to charge more for first class seats? Do you have the right to charge more for 24 hour delivery on fiverr?

What if someone doesn’t think thats’s fair. Get the gov to regulate?

So you object to being cast as a socialist, but don’t recognize private property rights. Viva Havana!

See, sorry but no…

I’m not even going to argue for or against property rights on a metaphorical street. You’re coming out with nothing but irrational examples of things which you think prove your point but simply don’t make any sense.

If I buy an airline, of course, I have a right to charge whatever I want to fly people wherever. In that analogy, however, an aircraft would be a website and the sky would be the Internet. My point is that no one can own the sky.

[newsmike]

You know, it’s sad how this thread seems to have spit into a purely political left and right issue. As soon as this happens actual discussion stops.

For those arguing that net neutrality is good for business and innovation, at what point did businesses like ISPs become entitled to act as stewards of the Internet? ISP’s didn’t create the Internet. ISP’s simply grant access to it. Does a business have a right to charge premium for a premium service? Of course! The Internet, however, is not anyone’s property for them to charge for.

This is basically like having a road lined with shops and having someone from out of town suddenly appear one day and say, “Hello everyone, I now own this road. It’s going to be amazing, we’re going to put hanging baskets on the lampposts and finally put a hot dog stand by the town hall,”

Half the business owners then start clapping and cheering in celebration of the free market. The other half, however, start scratching their chin because they thought the road was free. A year later then, and the naysayers start looking silly as the new road owner really does deliver on all of his promises.

There are hanging baskets, hotdog stands, even a new bandstand. The only problem is that now the road owner wants everybody to start paying for the upkeep of the road.

Walmart, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Starbucks, are fine paying a new road maintenance fee. They, after all, like all the new improvements. The hemp clothing startup, independent bookstore, and citizens advice bureau, however, simply can’t afford the rates and are a bit miffed at the idea of paying for something they didn’t ask for.

In the end the road owner decides that those stores are letting the image of the street down and should be punished accordingly. He, therefore, decides to put a toll on their parts of the road to make people think twice about paying them a visit.

Fast forward a few years and the hemp clothing startup, independent bookstore, and citizens advice bureau, have had no choice but to close up shop or relocate to Detroit where the private road owner there doesn’t charge as high rates.

This is what happens when you hand something which everybody contributed toward building free of charge to Mr. Free Market. Everyone just ends up paying twice for what they had already. A government uses billions in tax dollars to build a tunnel and then hands it essentially FOC to a private company who puts a toll booth at the entrance and squirrels all the income it generates offshore to Panama. It’s not free market economics and it’s not a left or right political issue. It’s simply out of control corporatism with some sultry lipstick slapped on it.

ISP’s simply grant access to it.

Yes they do…by spending their own money to build the infrastructure that they then have the right to charge for. If you build the bridge, you get to operate the toll booth.

This is not left/right as much as it is free enterprise vs nanny state-ism

[newsmike]

Let’s try stick to pros and cons and effects of the actual legislation

But we can still complain about the post office right? 😀

[newsmike]

So you object to being cast as a socialist, but don’t recognize private property rights. Viva Havana!

See, sorry but no…

I’m not even going to argue for or against property rights on a metaphorical street. You’re coming out with nothing but irrational examples of things which you think prove your point but simply don’t make any sense.

If I buy an airline, of course, I have a right to charge whatever I want to fly people wherever. In that analogy, however, an aircraft would be a website and the sky would be the Internet. My point is that no one can own the sky.

I’m not even going to argue for or against property rights on a metaphorical street.

Wait, you came up with the street and the sale of it, not me. Cmon man. So your metaphorical street has landlord/renter rights, but not private property rights?

[cyaxrex]

See what just happened? Because we’re on a private forum rather than a public one, we just got told what we can and can’t talk about.

I’d love to stay and chat about what free economics and capitalism really looks like as opposed to the strange system people cheer for in the world’s most in debt and cash poor society. I’m afraid, however, that since our discussion would be likely cencorced, I’m just going to log off and walk the dog. 🙂