The FCC's Proposal To Nuke Net Neutrality

Status
Not open for further replies.

compprob237

Distinguished
May 17, 2009
352
35
18,890
39
Requiring ISPs to be transparent isn't going to make them rip off the consumer less. Ok, maybe it will slightly reduce it but still we'll merely be aware of how much they're ripping us off or fiddling with traffic. It's like becoming aware of how much we overcharge for medicine compared to the rest of the world. Just because we're aware wont allow us to do anything about it when it's one of a few options and they're essentially the same.

Here's my current options: AT&T (and I'm far from their repeater) which is laughably slow (has been for decades), Comcast which is absolutely faster than AT&T, or dial up. If Comcast decides to create a "Pay $20 extra/month to get normal speeds when streaming Netflix/Amazon" my other option is AT&T or Dial up. AT&T can barely stream a 1080p movie here and Dial up is incapable of streaming anything unless I want to buffer for 8 hours.

Perhaps the restriction on transmission lines is what needs to be lifted or changed? That isn't part of net neutrality but it is definitely a major contributing factor to the lack of competition. When a local or state government is restricting the number of transmission lines of each type to one then you're left with no competition on those lines. That is the problem we're having right now. Go figure, this is not part of Net Neutrality (even though many claim it is) but has been a problem going back a few decades to the Telecom act of '96.

I'm definitely getting on the phone with my State Rep so they're aware of my displeasure with this.
 

jonronnquist

Prominent
Sep 8, 2017
7
0
510
0
Not content with destroying the American dream, poisoning its diet, perverting its healthcare system, bankrupting its treasury, ruining its reputation abroad, and assassinating its middle class, corporate America is now going to obliterate the only thing it hasn't yet gotten its hands on. Who would have figured?
 

ravewulf

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
928
0
18,980
0
Pai and the other Republicans there don't give a damn about public opinion because they're getting paid (in one form or another) by the ISPs.
 

manleysteele

Reputable
Jun 21, 2015
286
0
4,810
14
Net neutrality is a farce. An ingenious solution to a non-existent problem. I don't appreciate the overt political attacks in violation of the terms of service.
 

jonronnquist

Prominent
Sep 8, 2017
7
0
510
0


Didn't stop you from squeezing your own ten cents worth of wisdom in though, did it?
 

rnowotny1966

Prominent
Nov 23, 2017
1
0
510
0
poor americans - You are ripped off so much.
You pay much more for phone and internet then we in europe.
For instance I pay $50 for 200MBit down, 20MBit up per month (and thats real, almost no overbooking of the lines)
We have several competitors, also for glassfiber nets - that keeps the prices low.
WITH neutrality.
They canceled the monopol for the lines several years ago - and that was good.
So keep it up, fight it !
yours sincerely
Robert (from Vienna / Austria)
 

nalaniel

Prominent
Nov 23, 2017
1
0
510
0
200Mbit / 20Mbit, 26 dollars per month. According to speed tests, I am getting almost exactly this speed (193 Mbit, 19.4 MBit).
My other options are....for example: 100 Mbit / 100 Mbit for 18 dollars a month. And some other slower options.
Czech Republic in middle of Europe.

So yeah, options are possible, but there needs to be smart regulatory body for this kind of stuff.
 

withrow1289

Prominent
Nov 23, 2017
1
0
510
0
Uh no I pay $70 for 1 Gbps up and down. No idea what you are talking about. Several ISP's are building out 1 Gbps service. Certainly takes time though.
 

manleysteele

Reputable
Jun 21, 2015
286
0
4,810
14
Bandwidth is not found, lying on the ground, for anyone to pick up and claim. Cell towers don't grow out of the ground, either. Who do you think pays for the cell towers and cable plants that are the basis of the internet? Here's a hint. It's not the government. I'm just glad I don't get as much government as I pay for.
 

TJ Hooker

Illustrious
Herald

There were already a number of cases of ISPs selectively throttling (maybe even blocking, can't remember) content based on source/type of traffic prior to NN laws being introduced. Not accurate to call it a non-existent problem.
 

mihen

Commendable
Oct 11, 2017
229
21
1,695
1
Freedom = more regulation? Your logic falls short on me.
The FCCs mission is quite simple. To regulate RF in order to prevent interference. Pai has an incredibly simple method for getting more competition. Reduce the barriers to competition at the federal level and leave regulatory burden to the departments that were meant to handle it.
 

sykozis

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2008
1,751
1
19,865
37


Killing off net neutrality won't create competition. In my area, we peaked at 25mb/s prior to net neutrality. Since the introduction of net neutrality rules, we've gone from 25mb/s to 700mb/s (falsely advertised as Gigabit internet). Since most areas seem to have laws limiting the number of services that can share a pole, allowing ISPs complete, unregulated control of the internet is harmful to consumers. AT&T and Comcast had already made it known that they intended to charge content providers for access to their customers, as well as charging their own customers an additional fee for access to competing content providers. Since there is no competition, consumers will get screwed. This seems to be the agenda for the current administration.

Proper regulation pushes competition. Deregulation of an industry that has already expressed a desire to abuse it's position, results in consumer abuse, as has been a stated desire of ISPs.

Now, please show me 1 example of deregulation driving competition..... The automotive industry is among the most regulated industries in the US. As new regulations are pushed, competition increases.
 

ravewulf

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
928
0
18,980
0


Should we make murder and robbery legal then? That would be more freedom in the same sense you're using it. Or more accurately, anarchy.

Just as we have laws on what individuals can and cannot do, we need regulations to say what corporations can and cannot do.
 

sykozis

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2008
1,751
1
19,865
37


Corporations don't have any implied right to free speech. Nor do they have any right to discriminate.
 

TJ Hooker

Illustrious
Herald

The whole point of laws are the government telling people/entities what they can and can't do. By your logic, the very existence of code of law in the US (of which the constitution is a part of) would be a violation of the 1st Amendment...


As established in the Citizens United case, in the US corporations do have a right to freedom of speech. Not saying the outcome of that case was necessarily a good thing, but it is what it is.
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
Mar 16, 2013
113,356
1,889
155,190
18,565


Oh, I'm sorry.
You were commenting on how crappy we have it?
From my FiOS bill.


75/75 almost always returns as 82/83 or thereabouts. No monthly bandwidth cap.
I'm about to upgrade to gigabit, for maybe $60/month.
 

shrapnel_indie

Distinguished
What ELSE is part of Net Neutrality that isn't being said? We are only hearing (the fear-mongering) of how companies will throttle certain types of data going across the net, unless we pay "extra" to enable good data rates for certain services or content providers. Is it just the throttling part that is being removed? or, is there more than that being removed? If more, why are we NOT hearing about those bits? Is it because those bits were the evil part of Net Neutrality they didn't want us to know about? Are those bits benign and/or have no real purpose? (if benign and/or no real purpose, why were they there in the first place?)
 

Vishlod

Commendable
Dec 18, 2016
5
0
1,510
0
old problem...
"Some controversial cases of application-based traffic shaping include bandwidth throttling of peer-to-peer file sharing traffic." = hence all the comments on pirate bay "omgosh seeeeed!"
 
NET NEUTRALITY is a good thing, and Pai has a conflict of interest. Pai worked for Verizon, but now works for the FCC. Verizon has THROTTLED networks illegally but now wants Net Neutrality done away with via the FCC?

No chance he's being paid off by Verizon?

His lies about "competition blah blah" are just an excuse for ISP's to find loopholes.... what is so difficult to understand about the fact that an ISP should NOT monitor your traffic? They should simply be a gateway service to the Internet.

If you think Net Neutrality is a bad thing you clearly haven't done your research. And this is before we even start a discussion about BIG BROTHER monitoring your traffic.
 
TRANSPARENCY.. what a misleading term. They talk about the ISP being transparent when it actually means that YOUR DATA is transparent as per the above article about them knowing if you are watching Netflix or whatever.

And "can't grow without offering meaningful benefits"? Like what? We just want the bandwidth to access the network. THAT. IS. ALL. What they really mean is the ability to adjust pricing in THEIR FAVOR, again finding loopholes possibly to raise prices on existing contracts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS