Thank you and I will look at this later. One question I have is you already hear ( not sure if true) how certain sites push an agenda or limit content from other sites; so how would this prevent or change this. I guess what I want is unlimited access to things and I will make the decision if what I read or see is actually true. Years ago when what used to be considered "unreliable sites" broke news and then we found out much of it was actually true; will NN effect this? Thanks again.
Net neutrality
- Thread starter ReliableOstrich
- Start date
Thank you and I will look at this later. One question I have is you already hear ( not sure if true) how certain sites push an agenda or limit content from other sites; so how would this prevent or change this. I guess what I want is unlimited access to things and I will make the decision if what I read or see is actually true. Years ago when what used to be considered "unreliable sites" broke news and then we found out much of it was actually true; will NN effect this? Thanks again.
It isnt about site or apps. It is about providers. If a site wants to charge to read their content or what not, or decides what types of things they allow or promote on their site, that is perfectly fine.. But without net neutrality, the providers could start doing the same. It could essentially end up like a cable package, where you have to upgrade your package or pay a premium to get certain sites. For instance, Verizon owns Hulu. So verizon also being a provider, they could basically either get rid of netflix on their plans period, or could charge customers more if they wanted netflix. And since Netflix and Hulu are competitors, it is likely they would do something along those lines. And this could obviously be applied to news sites and what not.
ETA: And even for this site. Rivals is owned by yahoo, which is owned by verizon. So, it is more than possible that Verizon could get rid of, or slow down competing sports sites. And of course, it is possible other carriers could get rid of or slown down rivals. Obviously, it would be a slow process I would think. I dont think any ISPs would start making immediate changes for things like sports site or what not. But, they would certainly be well with their rights and down the road who knows what would happen.
Last edited:
NN has nothing to do with content of the sites and what you are or are not allowed to do online as a private website, it's about how ISPs categorize and view data. That's probably the best way to think about it. The basic essence of Net Neutrality is that all data should be treated the same. No bias, no differentiation between whether you're accessing spreadsheets or movies. That ISPs shouldn't be monitoring your information and altering your service based on what data you access.
It's clear to see why ISPs don't want NN. They would rather be able to dictate what you are or are not allowed to access. Case in point, I was on a cruise ship for a work trip recently and the ship's internet service blocks streaming media, cloud-based services (Dropbox), etc. It was a miserable experience and affected work, as our team was using dropbox to host our files and we had to go find another internet source to perform our work.
In their case, I get why they do that. They're relying on satellite internet service and bandwidth is very expensive.
Those folks against net neutrality will say, "The government shouldn't be able to tell me what I can and cannot view" and that's essentially what net neutrality is trying to do: prevent consumers from getting their access limited.
The teeth of this legislation is sizable fines and lawsuits. Those will go out the door the minute NN ends. Consumers will have less of a leg to stand on when trying to fight for their rights against their service providers.
Last edited:
One could easily see a scenario where ISPs also tried to charge content providers for access to their internet customers. Kind of a reverse of the cable model.
and your child would be unable to submit their homework on time
It's no longer a luxury item. Just as once upon a time having a landline phone ceased to be a luxury and became a necessity (now of course it's neither but that's beside the point).
I guess I COULD do my job without internet access. I could go back to filling out forms using pencil and paper, researching by flipping through huge sets of books...(though I am not sure they are even available in print any more). Of course, I’d only be able to serve a fraction of my customers, and I would go broke in short order.
Thanks again that makes perfect sense now. So I guess before I sign the position I need to mess with my son and tell him how this needs to happen for the betterment of the state and if we don't end NN Rooster Teeth will collapse.
That would lead to a lot more people learning about Tor.
VPN services will see a boost as well.
Yep, I have one and rarely use it but I suspect that usage will go up. The only problem is speed is much lower via VPN.
Last edited:
Gov't regulations are drafted with and sometimes from the offices of large cooperate special interest through the political process to increase barriers of entry of much smaller upstart companies. You absolutely can not blindly trust this process even if on the surface it has the appearance of the best intended purposes in mind. Seen a good successful upstart auto, power or drug companies of late?....good luck. Often when we send in a white knight it ends up a Trojan horse.
The rates are all over the board. Introductory rates, 3, 6,12, and 24 month plans, renewable source plans, etc.
Usually the introductory rates are cheaper than a renewal rate, so many people change electric providers every year.
Right now I'm paying 10.5 cents per kwh, but bundled into that is the flat rate to Oncor, and a service charge. So actually I'm at 6.xx cents/kwh plus those charges that bring the average up to 10.5 cents.
In Austin, there is only one provider I think.
If they will block the Tribal Council after a loss, I am all for it! 
Good read for those interested
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7433334/?reload=true
Also this
https://www.wired.com/story/heres-h...cket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7433334/?reload=true
Also this
https://www.wired.com/story/heres-h...cket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits
Last edited:
A bunch of you folks crack me up considering that Net Neutrality has only been in effect since 2015 and Internet life was just fine up until then. Do you honestly think that ISP's are going to severely piss off their costumers by seriously throttling back certain content that is popular. If anything the regulations introduced in 2015 have held back on ISP's reinvesting in their infrastructure and other companies from entering the market. What motivation did that have to do so? Come back to this conversation in 2 years and all you chicken little folks will see that you were freaking out for no reason. The market place for ISP's is shifting towards wireless as companies such as Google and your cell phone providers look to seriously enter the ISP market. You want to stifle competition and choice than all you have to do is over regulate it.
Wait, the internet dies Dec 14th? Better get to downloading all the porn posthaste.
From your link:
"The FTC stands ready to protect broadband subscribers from anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive acts and practices,” acting FTC Chair Maureen K. Ohlhausen said in a statement Tuesday.
The good news is the internet won't change overnight, if it all. Blake Reid, a clinical professor at Colorado Law, says the big broadband providers will wait to see how the inevitable legal challenges to the new FCC order shakeout. The courts could shoot down the FCC’s order, or, given enough public pressure, Congress even could pass new net neutrality laws.
Last edited:
There's nothing hypothetical about what ISPs will do when net neutrality is eliminated. I'm going to steal a comment previously posted by /u/Skrattybones and repost here:
2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.
2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.
2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)
2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullsh. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace
2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)
2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.
The argument is that Net Neutrality is unnecessary because we've never had issues without it. I think this timeline shows just how crucial it really is to a free and open internet.
2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.
2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.
2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)
2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullsh. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace
2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)
2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.
The argument is that Net Neutrality is unnecessary because we've never had issues without it. I think this timeline shows just how crucial it really is to a free and open internet.
I think the argument is all of that happened, as terrifying as it was, and 98% of the population didn't notice or care. As was stated above, the courts could shoot down the FCC’s order, or, given enough public pressure, Congress could pass new net neutrality laws.
Obviously there are pros and cons to both sides of the argument, but, sweet jabeesus, all the hoopla has a certain chicken little feel to it.
You didn't notice because people were fighting the fight for you. No one can make you care.
Let’s just ask the question that’s on everyone’s minds...what will happen to the website that looks a lot like “YouTube” and sounds a lot like “YouBorn” if this issue goes the wrong way?
I should be good here in CA, but you posters in conservative states better start building a collection.
Maybe we should think of it this way - if your work filters were applied to your non-work surfing, would you be ok with it?
Not saying that's likely, but probably more likely if these rules were repealed.
Not saying that's likely, but probably more likely if these rules were repealed.
Bingo.
People only care until it affects them directly. Give it enough time, and those who weren't paying attention will finally start doing so and seeing direct impact on their pocket books.
I listed some examples on one of my earlier posts as well. There is plenty of precedence here, this is not hypothetical. Net Neutrality arose in 2015 BECAUSE these issues were surfacing and it was clear that these sorts of problems were becoming a growing trend.
That 2nd part is maddening. "Let's get rid of something that was just passed 2 years ago and if enough people get pissed off at how things are going we can try doing this again later".
That sounds like a tactic I use with my kids when they want something and I tell them just "well, maybe if this and that happen, maybe we'll do it later" just to get them to stop complaining, knowing they'll probably forget about it soon enough.
Is it correct to assume that those issues were resolved in favor of the consumer before the NN rules implemented?
I would no sooner put the government in control of the internet than I would walking my dog.
If you want real innovation....Investment in the networks.....competition(yes if one company limits access, the gives the opportunity of others to provide that access)....free market activities is far more transparent and scrutinized than government agencies and sub-agencies....and far more sound use of capital and resources.
It just amazes me that in this day and age anybody favors government over free markets.
If you want real innovation....Investment in the networks.....competition(yes if one company limits access, the gives the opportunity of others to provide that access)....free market activities is far more transparent and scrutinized than government agencies and sub-agencies....and far more sound use of capital and resources.
It just amazes me that in this day and age anybody favors government over free markets.
It just amazes me that in this day and age anybody thinks the free market is an option.
This isn’t about whether we have an FCC or FTC, its about how they will regulate the market going forward (they haven’t been hands off thus far).
Nobody should be under the impression the ISPs are lobbying for a free market. That option has been dead since FDR.
What if they charge what that is worth to everyone involved?
I’m assuming by your statement that you think your clinic is getting the service for less than it is worth right now, and that could change.
That doesn’t concern me at first blush simply because when the prices rise to create higher profits those profits encourage more investment to generate supply to meet that demand. It's the second order problem of barriers to entry that retard supply from meeting demand.
Whole 'nother set of government barriers to entry and 'thumb on the scale' market distortions driving that insanity. If we allowed a free market in medicine supply would definitely jump and prices would certainly fall. Plenty of entrenched powers are not interested in that outcome, and they'll use lobbyists to hide behind consumers and maintain it, for our own good...
I highly doubt you have 20-30 electric companies to choose from....
You have Retail Electric Providers (REP) which buys the electric from the utility company..You have many choices to choose who sends you the bill but not from where you get your electric.
Last edited:
Here's a good editorial from Business Insider.
I'm a big fan of less regulation, there are few examples where getting the government involved in business has made things better.
It always seems to hide behind the idea of "we need them to protect us".
"Government has three primary functions. It should provide for the military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves and their property. When government, in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the costs come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player."
- Milton Friedman
I'm a big fan of less regulation, there are few examples where getting the government involved in business has made things better.
It always seems to hide behind the idea of "we need them to protect us".
"Government has three primary functions. It should provide for the military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves and their property. When government, in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the costs come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player."
- Milton Friedman
Regulations in and of themselves are not a bad thing. Each regulation should be weighed on it's own merits. Some have been good and some bad, but the general idea that "regulation is bad" is an incredibly simplistic approach that doesnt take into consideration the individual purpose behind each regulation.
When the first sentence of the piece refers to the "heavy-handed "net-neutrality" regulations" it was clear on which side of the argument the writer resides.
Innovation, Belem! Innovation is the key here!
There are certain keywords you can look for in an article that tip hand on what direction it goes. Innovation is one of them.
Reading through the editorial, I'm not sure the writer knows what Net Neutrality actually is.
Data caps and throttling are alive and well right now with Net Neutrality in place. That has nothing to do with NN. Those would be a problem if only certain sites were capped or throttled, which means your ISP is monitoring your traffic and playing favorites for what sites and services you are accessing.
The essence of the term neutrality refers to the data. 1 MB of data should be considered 1MB of data, not 1 MB of Netflix, or 1 MB of Dropbox, or 1 MB of porn, etc.
A violation of NN would be blocking Netflix but not Amazon Prime Video because Amazon has a partnership with your internet provider. Or Time Warner blocking Fox News content because they are parent company of CNN.
Last edited:
To add to my last post, I haven't seen any compelling examples of innovation stifled by Net Neutrality other than pricing models or data throttling.
The pro NN have precedence on their side, as these issues are not imaginary: they've already started happening and NN was enacted to curb those issues.
Anti-NN like the editorial from Business Insider do themselves a disservice when the other side can't come up with any examples as to how NN benefits consumers and then don't list anything positive about ending NN other than tiered data plans which already exist even with Net Neutrality.
I don't consider a la carte pricing innovative, it's been around ages. I am all for discussion of the other side, but it would be nice if the opposition had some more compelling responses rather than abstract ideals about innovation, competition and pricing (profit).
The pro NN have precedence on their side, as these issues are not imaginary: they've already started happening and NN was enacted to curb those issues.
Anti-NN like the editorial from Business Insider do themselves a disservice when the other side can't come up with any examples as to how NN benefits consumers and then don't list anything positive about ending NN other than tiered data plans which already exist even with Net Neutrality.
I don't consider a la carte pricing innovative, it's been around ages. I am all for discussion of the other side, but it would be nice if the opposition had some more compelling responses rather than abstract ideals about innovation, competition and pricing (profit).
And you have satellite providers as well.
You have one cable and one DSL because of government regulation - granting franchises to providers in your area. Fortunately, innovation still happens despite government trying to kill competition.
Satellite only provides 25Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speed. That's not functional for streaming media services or households with multiple users. That could also be very challenging for work.
Based on the price for Satellite service from Hughes and Exede:
- HugesNet Satellite- 50GB cap, 25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up - $99/mo intro rate ($129/mo regular price)
- Exede Satellite - Unlimited data, 30 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up - $100/mo intro rate ($150/mo regular price after 3 months)
- Spectrum Cable Internet (Melbourne, FL) - Unlimited data, 100 Mbps down, 10 Mbps up - $45/mo intro rate ($65/mo regular price)
- Comcast Xfinity Cable Internet (Tallahassee, FL) - 1TB/mo data cap, 75 Mbps down, 10 Mbps up - $65/mo with 1-year contract, $89/mo without contract
As a basis of comparison for data usage, Netflix uses about 1GB/hour of standard def video and 3GB/hour of HD video. That means with HugesNet, you could watch about 50 hours in standard def video a month or about 16 hours a month of HD video.
While you may have choices, prices vary greatly by region and by speed requirement.
When I lived in Tallahassee (moved away 1 month ago), I only had 1 choice for internet faster than 25Mbps. We cut cord on TV service, so only option to use streaming TV service was Comcast and I detested every minute I was with them.
I'm not sure what incentive ISPs like Comcast would have to not throttle customers who try to use services that compete with their TV packages (like Playstation Vue, Sling, YouTube, etc).
I'm ok with Data Caps, but the implications of changes in NN will open the doors for crack down in the growth in streaming media and TV services.
