My first thought was about mystery shoppers who live and/or shop in rural areas. My second thought was about impacts on education. Am I a terrible person?

No, you're a human person.

My biggest concern is impact on lower-income folks. Mystery shopping brings it home -- I did a prepaid VISA debit card shop. So these are often used by people who need a credit card but can't qualify for one. And they pay through the nose for fees to buy it, fees if they use it, fees if they don't use it....

Same thing with people who have no cars and have to buy food at a convenience store or gas station -- they pay a fortune!

The rich get richer....

I don't understand how net neutrality will affect mystery shopping or poor people, I'm not trying to be funny but can someone explain to me how poor people will be affected?

This. This is why I started the thread. (I surmise that multiple outcomes are possible and that the intrepid shoppers here have great ideas on how we may cope if we encounter issues with access or connectivity.)

Some projections or prognostications indicate that it will be more difficult for some persons to access the internet. How and why has it been difficult? Recently, news which seems to be real indicates that some students must drive to places that offer wi-fi access so that they can complete their online homework and other projects. If they need a driver, someone else is affected because th driver must stop what they are doing and transport a student to internet access. Are students who have limited computer or internet access at a disadvantage directly or indirectly compared to other students who have greater access? Will efforts to extend affordable access to all students be able to continue? In other news which seems to be real, some people cannot afford to pay the increasing costs of having and using smart phones and computers.For example, the cost of pay-by-the-minute phone cards have risen in recent months. Even though the higher priced cards provide more minutes and data, the customer must pay a higher initial cost for the new cards. Can people pay the higher cost of the cards? Do people experience disruptions due to money? Disruptions due to lack of use or interest are not relevant here. Can people pay higher costs for devices and continuous service plans with major providers?

I live in a rural area, but not completely in the sticks. In my town, I have my devices and there are access points at public libraries, coffee shops, restaurants, hotels, and FedEx Kinkos. Mystery shoppers who travel to my town have many opportunities to print and report. However, if you are traversing my state, you might want to think carefully about when each report is due. You may be in and out of range. You may be hours from the next access point and have to wait awhile to submit reports. If you forgot mandatory paperwork, such as LOA, you may be in serious trouble. Some towns do not have printing opportunities, or their libraries might not open at all on the day you are there, or the only ff restaurant might be busy and your connection might be maddeningly slow. Will this have any negative impact on mystery shoppers who live and/or work in areas that have less access and fewer opportunities than my small town?

What are other possible outcomes for us?

@Shop-et-al wrote:

This. This is why I started the thread. (I surmise that multiple outcomes are possible and that the intrepid shoppers here have great ideas on how we may cope if we encounter issues with access or connectivity.)

Some projections or prognostications indicate that it will be more difficult for some persons to access the internet. How and why has it been difficult? Recently, news which seems to be real indicates that some students must drive to places that offer wi-fi access so that they can complete their online homework and other projects. If they need a driver, someone else is affected because th driver must stop what they are doing and transport a student to internet access. Are students who have limited computer or internet access at a disadvantage directly or indirectly compared to other students who have greater access? Will efforts to extend affordable access to all students be able to continue? In other news which seems to be real, some people cannot afford to pay the increasing costs of having and using smart phones and computers.For example, the cost of pay-by-the-minute phone cards have risen in recent months. Even though the higher priced cards provide more minutes and data, the customer must pay a higher initial cost for the new cards. Can people pay the higher cost of the cards? Do people experience disruptions due to money? Disruptions due to lack of use or interest are not relevant here. Can people pay higher costs for devices and continuous service plans with major providers?

I live in a rural area, but not completely in the sticks. In my town, I have my devices and there are access points at public libraries, coffee shops, restaurants, hotels, and FedEx Kinkos. Mystery shoppers who travel to my town have many opportunities to print and report. However, if you are traversing my state, you might want to think carefully about when each report is due. You may be in and out of range. You may be hours from the next access point and have to wait awhile to submit reports. If you forgot mandatory paperwork, such as LOA, you may be in serious trouble. Some towns do not have printing opportunities, or their libraries might not open at all on the day you are there, or the only ff restaurant might be busy and your connection might be maddeningly slow. Will this have any negative impact on mystery shoppers who live and/or work in areas that have less access and fewer opportunities than my small town?

What are other possible outcomes for us?

I don't really think that anything will change, we only had net neutrality for a few years. Now keep in mind that I am not as well versed on the subject as you are but a lot of money is made on the internet through advertising and online sales. I doubt that anyone would want to see that change. Here's hoping!

@pammie8223 wrote:

I don't understand how net neutrality will affect mystery shopping or poor people, I'm not trying to be funny but can someone explain to me how poor people will be affected?

While I hate to respond to a political post as I don't feel like they have a place on a mystery shopping forum, this is a topic that affects mystery shoppers specifically, especially video shoppers.

Poor people are actually more affected than middle class or upper class people. While a person with a high income can afford a doubling of their information access prices, and middle class people can either make changes in their budget or scale back content, poor people cannot make thoae choices. The restriction of access is at least of a big deal as coat of access. Let's say I am extremly liberal and I own the local cable company. I can block access to the Fox News website if I want. Or worse, let's say I am exteemely conservative and don't believe in welfare? Boom, I can block access on my network to any goverment benefits site. Now poor people are definitly affected. On a more practical scale, most access to basic websites would not change, as they are not hogs of bandwidth. But what if I am too poor to afford cable so I pay $10 a month for a basic Netflix account. With no more net neutrality my internet provider can now charge me $20 a month jist to acceas Netflix. Now my only affordable entertainment is no longer affordable.

As a mystery shopper, what I am more concerned with is the ability to upload video. I imagine ftp access will be one of the first things to get a surcharge and I would guess hotels will block it altogether as it would be an added fee for them that would have very little use among their guests.

On a more practical basis, the problem will be things like Netflix paying millions to cable providors to gain faster access than their competitors. So now Netflix has great video, Hulu gets surpressed and is unwatchable, then goes out of business. Or, take DirecTVNow, which I am a subscriber of. It is owned by ATT, so now on ATT networks they can surpress Sling, Playstation Vue, and their other competitors in order for them to gain subscribers and their competitors to lose them.

On the flip side, the arguement is that the owner of the network should be able to do with it as they see fit.

And in the end, it might just be bad business for companies to start restricting traffic and access and we end up with no change.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2017 07:55PM by bgriffin.

@bgriffin wrote:

@pammie8223 wrote:

I don't understand how net neutrality will affect mystery shopping or poor people, I'm not trying to be funny but can someone explain to me how poor people will be affected?

While I hate to respond to a political post as I don't feel like they have a place on a mystery shopping forum, this is a topic that affects mystery shoppers specifically, especially video shoppers.

Poor people are actually more affected than middle class or upper class people. While a person with a high income can afford a doubling of their information access prices, and middle class people can either make changes in their budget or scale back content, poor people cannot make thoae choices. The restriction of access is at least of a big deal as coat of access. Let's say I am extremly liberal and I own the local cable company. I can block access to the Fox News website if I want. Or worse, let's say I am exteemely conservative and don't believe in welfare? Boom, I can block access on my network to any goverment benefits site. Now poor people are definitly affected. On a more practical scale, most access to basic websites would not change, as they are not hogs of bandwidth. But what if I am too poor to afford cable so I pay $10 a month for a basic Netflix account. With no more net neutrality my internet provider can now charge me $20 a month jist to acceas Netflix. Now my only affordable entertainment is no longer affordable.

As a mystery shopper, what I am more concerned with is the ability to upload video. I imagine ftp access will be one of the first things to get a surcharge and I would guess hotels will block it altogether as it would be an added fee for them that would have very little use among their guests.

Thank you for the explanation, Net Neutrality has only been in force for about 2 or 3 years hopefully getting rid of it won't make a difference.

That's not entirely true. In 2004 or 2005 the FCC introduced principles called network freedom that was the basis for net neutrality. There was no formal policy but they were able to fine companies based on those principles when they were found to be in violation. Additionally the ATT BellSouth merger included Net Nuetrality compliance before the FCC woild sign off on it. The only thing that happened in 2014 is that those princples were turned into formal FCC regulations.

I can't fathom anyone being for this bill....

I've been slowly building up my home automation system that I connect to for free via wifi. These ISP's now have the ability and its within the law for them to block, throttle and/or charge for this kind of freedom, in favor for their own 'home security' solution (i.e. Xfinity Home).

This may trickle into our already inflated pricing for internet and their new privilege to block, throttle and/or charge for accessing certain sites to their choosing. I can only imagine if there's a push to ban or limit the privacy allowed through VPN providers and proxies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2017 08:15PM by Tarantado.

If calls and emails to the FCC along with most polls are to be believed, 80% of the public is against the change and believes internet providers should be regulated as utilities. Internet has gone from being a luxury to practically a necessity. I know the difficulties faced by older relatives who either cannot or will not learn how to use a computer.

@Tarantado wrote:

I can't fathom anyone being for this bill....

Actually it's........not a bill. A bill is a law passed by Congress. This is just an FCC regulation. Or, actually, it is the removal of an FCC regulation. And, as Lisa said, public opinion polls show that something north of 80% of the country did not want a change to the regulation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2017 12:12AM by bgriffin.

I wanted to add to the great examples bgriffin provided. Another concern is the use of fast and slow lanes which turn the internet in the U.S. into pay to play will adversely impact small business start ups and entrepreneurs. Here is an interesting article describing some of the possibilities based on what has happened in other parts of the world.

[www.slate.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2017 04:48AM by LisaSTL.

In my opinion, there has been a lot of fear-mongering regarding the change in net neutrality. You are not, all of the sudden, going to have to start paying for things that were free before. McDonald's could charge $25 for a hamburger right now. Why don't they? Because no one would buy it. The same thing will happen with some of the paranoia scenarios that are out there right now.

Whether or not this will affect you is based on one question: Do you use netflix or equivalent frequently? If you do, then prepare to pay a little more. Is the answer no? Then you have nothing to worry about. In fact, you might like this change, if your answer to that question is no. Netflix and those websites drain ISP's considerably, and that affects you, as the non-Netflix user, with slower speeds. Get those Netflix or equivalent users on another server, which is now possible with this change, then your speeds will be better. Video streaming has really taken off over the last few years, and it is draining ISP's. Why should they not have the right to charge a little extra for people to use them when it drains their infrastructure?

In regards to affecting mystery shopping, I suppose it could hurt video shoppers maybe, but even that is a stretch. The websites of MSC's carry such a low bandwith profile on the internet that they will not even be on the radar to be on a tier structure. It's not going to affect mystery shopping. If anything, it will make your MSC's website faster, because its not contending with Netflix or equivalent anymore.

Students driving for wi-fi access? That's what their campus computer lab is for.

Everything is going to be fine...... unless you rely on Netflix or equivalent heavily.

As I stated before the major problem is not one of increased fees. It's a problem of equal access. Companies that want to limit Netflix can do so already by data caps. I believe we have a 100GB limit per month at my house. That would effectively shut down even moderate Netflixers. To get a bigger cap they already have to pay more. Equal access is the much bigger issue. From companies blocking the type of information they don't like to a pay to play model for information providers.

Also not everyone has the resources to hang out while their kids sit in school a few extra houra each night to do homework.

"You are not, all of the sudden, going to have to start paying for things that were free before."

Sorry, but does it matter whether the price increase is immediate or incremental over 12 to 24 months if the end result is still a price increase?

It is not paranoia to believe a change like this will eventually offer great benefit to the providers while costing the consumer a lot whether that is money or lack of access. Honestly, if industries could police themselves do you truly believe we would have most of the regulations we do now?

Who will profit by the lack of freedom of access?

(you can pretty much ask the money question of all current political appointments and orders)

[fortune.com]

[blogs.edweek.org]

oops. the url thingy dint wurk

Seriously, though. This opinion in Education Week touches on Net Neutrality and effects on STEM and academic freedom, generally. So there is more to consider than students and their school computer labs. What will happen to the relationship between industry/businesses and schools? Now, some industries and business are heavily involved in education. There are professors of practice, guidelines for how the business world wants graduates to be or perform upon graduation, and global interfaces.

And to add: looks like the Russians interfered with the representation of what the public wanted on this issue. That means online identities were stolen.

The majority of the public did not want this. It's not over.

[www.bloomberg.com]

I am a newer Netflix user (less than 5 months) and my rate already went up by less than $1. (not that I am equating that with the net neutrality situation) But I had streaming through the cable company and it was horrible. It always went out or gave error codes. So, I happily signed up with Netflix. When you say be prepared to pay more, how much could Netflix cost in the future? I pay $10 and some change for mine.

While I cannot say the prospect of higher rates is not daunting, my bigger concerns are access being limited and the stifling of smaller businesses. Right now my rates for things like TV and cable are crazy enough yet what actually pisses me off more than the rates are the number of times the providers blow smoke up customer's skirts. Example, several years ago cable could be connected directly to our TVs. Now a cable box must be rented for $7 per month per box. The cable company had the gall to say it benefited customers because it reduced piracy. Uh no, it benefits the cable company because it reduces piracy AND allows them to collect more money from their customers. Providers spend a lot of money promoting themselves so I'm sure every change or increase will be accompanied by the same sort of bullshit.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2017 03:33AM by LisaSTL.

@SunnyDays2 wrote:

I am a newer Netflix user (less than 5 months) and my rate already went up by less than $1. (not that I am equating that with the net neutrality situation) But I had streaming through the cable company and it was horrible. It always went out or gave error codes. So, I happily signed up with Netflix. When you say be prepared to pay more, how much could Netflix cost in the future? I pay $10 and some change for mine.

It's not quite that simple. Price increases could come in 2 ways or not at all. Let's say Netflix decides to pay the big ISPs hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure their traffic flows at the highest rate, meaning you get better picture quality. That cost would obviously be passed down to the consumer. Or, ISP's could decide to charge an access fee for Netflix. Or for any video service. Or some. There's a graphic floating around somewhere that shows a provider in one of the European countries where you have to pay an extra 5 Euros a month to access social media, and another 5 Euros a month to access email, etc. So maybe they charge an extra $5 a month to stream video. This is the ISP charging it, not Netflix or Hulu or whoever. The charge is separate from your actual monthly charge for the service. Or, if you ISP has a competing video service they might not charge extra for Netflix, but instead they could slow the speed down so that the video quality is poor, meanwhile their video service gets great video quality. All of these things are illegal under Net Neutrality laws but not if they are successfully repealed.

I'm glad to see this topic here. Net neutrality is so complex, and the repeal has so much potential for abuse, everyone who relies on the Internet needs to understand the ramifications. As to the arguments about how everything worked prior to regulations, they are no longer relevant. Either by choice or necessity the vast majority of the public becomes more reliant on the Internet all the time. All you have to do is compare your own online presence from 2003 or 2004 to today.