The FCC's Proposal To Nuke Net Neutrality

[ravewulf]

Net neutrality is telling ISPs what they can or can't do. That's not free speech. Deal with it.

Saying net neutrality is a free speech issue for what corporations can and cannot do is like saying mugging and robbery are protected by free speech.

The actual free speech issue is when ISPs decide to block or throttle content they disagree with or offer preferred status to content they favor to the detriment of content from competitors.

 

[gggplaya]

Net Neutrality has become so political, and 99% people that talk about it can't have an honest conversation about it. It's so one sided and to an extreme. So much so, they talk about "what could happen" like it's the end of the internet.
No one stops to talk about the pro's to the consumer of not having net neutrality. All of the net neutrality advocates assume the consumer has zero data caps, and ISP's have unlimited bandwidth. This may be true for now, for wired broadband networks, but you can already see some broadband networks employ data caps. Not having net neutrality allows ISP's and consumers to get around these data caps by allowing unlimited service to certain servers and apps. Like for example, if netflix were to install regional servers at comcast hubs, then comcast could allow unlimited netflix streaming because it's not congesting much of their network. You can see how this makes sense from a technical perspective, but it's also true that smaller competitors to netflix wouldn't have a chance to grow because they would be subject to data caps.

Right now, I have a Tmobile plan specifically because it's super cheap and I only get 2GB of data per month. But I get unlimited music streaming from all the popular music services. That's the main reason I have this plan, it allows me to have a cheap plan and get around the data caps, while using my phone the way I want. With Net Neutrality, those music services would have to be treated the same as all other data.

Also, from a technical perspective, currently on cellular networks, having too many people connected and streaming say youtube or netflix, causes congestion and slows down internet speeds from everyone on the same towers. Having tiered plans that limit speeds of these popular video services to say 480p quality, allows for better overall service to everyone on that tower due to technical limitations. Instituting net neutrality would allow for someone to hog data traffic on those cell towers.

There are certainly pros and cons to the consumer that need to be further discussed, but people like John Oliver and Last week tonight only like to discuss the cons to sensationalize the news. I think there should be a discussion, but a fair one, so any bill that is written and passes later would account for all the variables and not just be a blanket rule. Unfortunately politics never work that way :-(

If the net neutrality bill also instituted unlimited data caps with throttling only during times of heavy congestion, then it would make more sense. But that's a whole nother can of worms.

 

[sykozis]

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)

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.

Must be nice. I'm on a 75/75 connection as well. For me to upgrade to "Gigabit" (false advertising as it peaks at 940Mbps according to Verizon), it would cost me an additional $120 per month.

 

[USAFRet]

Must be nice. I'm on a 75/75 connection as well. For me to upgrade to "Gigabit" (false advertising as it peaks at 940Mbps according to Verizon), it would cost me an additional $120 per month.

Well...I consider the difference between "gigabit" and "940mbps" to be non-existant and not 'false advertising'.

 

[Grenadehh]

Oh goody more peopel who completely miss the point.

It doesn't matter that the OIO of 2010 and 2015 currently don't actually do anything. Yes. For a fact ISPs are still breaking the rules but it's clear when they are and they aren't doing it "as much" when it's out in the open right now, as they will go back to doing once the FCC destroys this.

The OIO and the FCC are not regulatory. These are simply protections. People that are against this, it's like when the rules got passed preventing banks from profiteering off of overdraft fees unless you actually opted in to maintain overdraft ability.

Why would you, as a consumer, be so stupid as to be against this idea, or even complain that it's not good enough? It's what we have right now. Suggest a better idea that maintains the same protections, or shut up.

 

[sykozis]

Must be nice. I'm on a 75/75 connection as well. For me to upgrade to "Gigabit" (false advertising as it peaks at 940Mbps according to Verizon), it would cost me an additional $120 per month.

Well...I consider the difference between "gigabit" and "940mbps" to be non-existant and not 'false advertising'.

940Mbps is not "Gigabit". The definition of "Gigabit" is 1,000,000,000 bits whereas Verizon is only actually providing 940,000,000 bits. Whether there is a perceivable difference or not, Verizon is not offering the service they are advertising. At the current "old customer" rate, it doesn't much matter for me since I refuse to pay what they want for it, but for someone that's willing to pay that price, that extra 60,000,000 bits might be enough to piss them off and we both know how lawsuit happy the US has become over the years. I never saw where harddrive manufacturers using 1000 vs 1024 was a problem, but someone did and filed a lawsuit over it. Someone else will likely do the same in this instance.

 

[USAFRet]

Must be nice. I'm on a 75/75 connection as well. For me to upgrade to "Gigabit" (false advertising as it peaks at 940Mbps according to Verizon), it would cost me an additional $120 per month.

Well...I consider the difference between "gigabit" and "940mbps" to be non-existant and not 'false advertising'.

940Mbps is not "Gigabit". The definition of "Gigabit" is 1,000,000,000 bits whereas Verizon is only actually providing 940,000,000 bits. Whether there is a perceivable difference or not, Verizon is not offering the service they are advertising. At the current "old customer" rate, it doesn't much matter for me since I refuse to pay what they want for it, but for someone that's willing to pay that price, that extra 60,000,000 bits might be enough to piss them off and we both know how lawsuit happy the US has become over the years. I never saw where harddrive manufacturers using 1000 vs 1024 was a problem, but someone did and filed a lawsuit over it. Someone else will likely do the same in this instance.

This is specifically what they are calling it.

"Up to..."

If someone sues?
'Well, the actual (best case) numbers are right there'