My last point still stands. Your choices are limited because of government intervention in granting local franchises for cable and phone (DSL) options. Competition is usually a better option than regulation.
Net neutrality
- Thread starter ReliableOstrich
- Start date
My last point still stands. Your choices are limited because of government intervention in granting local franchises for cable and phone (DSL) options. Competition is usually a better option than regulation.
Those other regulations aren't being removed along with NN. My point is removing NN causes problems because you cannot reset the game across the board.
How does removing NN benefit consumers?
Last edited:
Likely. But they also share a border with Germany, so have direct access to the hardcore German stuff. So close, you can almost taste it. It might be limited access, if accessible at all here without NN.
And so it begins ...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-not-to-charge-tolls-for-internet-fast-lanes/
Proponents of net neutrality rules say this will harm companies that can't afford to pay tolls to Comcast and other ISPs.
"Without these rules, Internet service providers will be able to favor certain websites and e-businesses... over others by putting the ones that can pay in fast lanes and slowing down or even blocking others," over 200 business and trade organizations wrote in a letter to Pai Monday. "Businesses may have to pay a toll just to reach customers. This would put small and medium-sized businesses at a disadvantage and prevent innovative new ones from even getting off the ground."
I'm sure first first ones to be throttled will be unlawful fire sharing protocols and sites, which is fine. It'll grow from there. I'm also sure we'll see a large uptick in VPN subscriptions in the coming months.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-not-to-charge-tolls-for-internet-fast-lanes/
Proponents of net neutrality rules say this will harm companies that can't afford to pay tolls to Comcast and other ISPs.
"Without these rules, Internet service providers will be able to favor certain websites and e-businesses... over others by putting the ones that can pay in fast lanes and slowing down or even blocking others," over 200 business and trade organizations wrote in a letter to Pai Monday. "Businesses may have to pay a toll just to reach customers. This would put small and medium-sized businesses at a disadvantage and prevent innovative new ones from even getting off the ground."
I'm sure first first ones to be throttled will be unlawful fire sharing protocols and sites, which is fine. It'll grow from there. I'm also sure we'll see a large uptick in VPN subscriptions in the coming months.
Last edited:
Business's and their views of stockholders vs shareholders. Tis why the govt DOES need to get involved in many instances.
I scoff at anything supported by Google and Facebook where they are standing against monopolies.
They posture that they are in favor of NN, but being that Google is getting into the ISP game and has the capital to continue to roll out their network, they don't stand to lose as much as others if NN is repealed. Facebook probably does have some to lose, but they have the money to pay data tolls, if needed. Smaller companies will have trouble doing that.
Much of this is posturing, such as their "do no evil" slogan. Verizon and Comcast claim to be in favor of net neutrality as well, but their actions speak louder than words.
Hope you all have stock in Verizon.
But they promised they wouldn't charge different rates even if NN was rescinded!
The rules that they rescinded were just put in place in 2015 so this is probably no big deal. My understanding is that the FTC can still step in if unfair trade practices start occurring.
Going to be an awkward conversation around our house when I try to explain to the Mrs. why we need to purchase the internet bundle that includes porn.
People at work talking about this.
My standing question: This didn't exist two years ago, then it did, then nothing changed, what's gonna change now. No one (at work) can answer. Seems like another partisan issue to argue with each other over.
My standing question: This didn't exist two years ago, then it did, then nothing changed, what's gonna change now. No one (at work) can answer. Seems like another partisan issue to argue with each other over.
Probably because ISPs had not developed the model to bundle packages like cable tv or slow down speed. I fully anticipate having to select which bundle of information I want to be able to access--like cable tv--within the next 5 years.
What surprised me was that just five people made this decision. It will be interesting to see if Congress steps in with some form of legislation.
download everything you can get your sticky fingers on NOW and ration it out to yourself for the next month.
It was put in place two years ago because the ISPs were doing some shady sh...er, stuff.
Instances like ISPs blocking access to VOIP (Vontage) or Verizon blocking pro-choice text messages in 2007, or when they blocked tethering apps because they wanted to charge for their own. The list goes on - you just don't know about them unless they affected you. NN stopped all that. Now it will begin again.
https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/net-neutrality-violations-history/
I read the link and I'm still not really worried. Sounds like most of the issues cited in the article were resolved before net neutrality rules were put in place. I could be wrong but I think the market would react to anything draconian that the ISPs did and they'd feel it in their bottom line.
I still don't know how I feel about this. Some places I look seem to think no big deal others it is the end of the world.
Sure, when your ISP decides to block FaceTime or Netflix you can rest easy in that it will likely be resolved by the courts eventually. Of course, you won't have access to those apps while it works it way thru the courts, but hey, the market!
According to your article the face time battle was already fought and won before the net neutrality rules were put in place.and I would imagine anything else stupid they did would have the same result. You really think any ISP is going to block Netflix without facing a huge backlash?
Right, fought. In the future you will again have to fight for things you didn't have to under NN. That was the point of NN.
The big problems come with the data providers also being content providers. So Comcast which owns NBC can now easily give QOS to anything streaming NBC shows and throttle data or even block access to streaming for CBS's streaming service for example.
Now the courts would likely get involved if that occurred, but it's no longer illegal at this time. This ruling says that it's their pipes and they can do with it what they want.
Now the courts would likely get involved if that occurred, but it's no longer illegal at this time. This ruling says that it's their pipes and they can do with it what they want.
Reading all that...looks like the market/consumers and the FCC knocked those out.
And how long does it take people to realize this when it is being throttled back slowly? Then it takes years of evidence before, MAYBE, a lawsuit is initiated that then drives legislators to look into it. And finally, IF the little man can be show to be getting screwed by the corporation, and IF a law suit is settled for millions of dollars that may or may not be paid, any fines will be realized in pay hikes or restructured services that results in the customer's being punished.
I am all for little regulation on businesses as long as they show they can treat customers fairly. Once they show they CANNOT, then we need govt regulation/reqs. Based on the historical behavior they don't have the ability to regulate themselves.
Right, once they took them to court. So moving forward you will have to again take them to court and hope that in the current climate you win.
I got that Belem- let me clarify.
What I read was they violated existing “unofficial” , some official, existing net nutrality rules.
Similar to other laws, they sometimes get broken regardless of the law is on the book or not.
I think , and could be wrong, the consumers kept things in check before and will continue to do so.
I also think the fact this was shot down by a Trump appointed FCC does make this one of those partisan talking points where people draw lines regardless of the topic.
I’m trying to educate myself on the topic of NN, so this is just my early opinion.
What I read was they violated existing “unofficial” , some official, existing net nutrality rules.
Similar to other laws, they sometimes get broken regardless of the law is on the book or not.
I think , and could be wrong, the consumers kept things in check before and will continue to do so.
I also think the fact this was shot down by a Trump appointed FCC does make this one of those partisan talking points where people draw lines regardless of the topic.
I’m trying to educate myself on the topic of NN, so this is just my early opinion.
I don't think consumers are even a consideration in this at all. This is a battle between one kind of giant company and another kind of giant company. This is about Google vs. Comcast.
Nobody is going to charge $20/mo for Facebook, or a $1 per tweet. It's not like Comcast is going to be able to create ComcastBook and wipe out Facebook.
I'm not saying it won't affect consumers at all, I think when Netflix gets hit for it's fair share of bandwidth, that's going to affect its bottom line, and that could affect Netflix costs, or how much it spends on original programming, or whatever. But that's just life in business.
I do think it's potentially a problem in the areas that are only serviced by one ISP, but I don't see how hurting ISPs gives any incentive for them to invest in new markets. I suspect this would INCREASE ISP options in most places, which would ultimately help.
I mean, my parents and in-laws don't stream anything. They use less data a month than probably one episode of Stranger Things. But they pay $40+ a month or something to be able to send emails and look up stock prices or whatever. Why shouldn't they have an option for $10/mo no-Netflix broadband? I'm amazed that there's so much rabble rousing to unbundle cable, but people are losing their minds about the idea of unbundling internet. The people who use hundreds of gigs a month of HBO and Netflix ABSOLUTELY want people who look at cat memes to share that bandwidth cost.
It's not like I'm really AGAINST net neutrality, I just don't think it really matters that much...have things changed that much in the last two years? And I don't think it's for the benefit of consumers really either. It's just big mega corporations fighting each other.
Nobody is going to charge $20/mo for Facebook, or a $1 per tweet. It's not like Comcast is going to be able to create ComcastBook and wipe out Facebook.
I'm not saying it won't affect consumers at all, I think when Netflix gets hit for it's fair share of bandwidth, that's going to affect its bottom line, and that could affect Netflix costs, or how much it spends on original programming, or whatever. But that's just life in business.
I do think it's potentially a problem in the areas that are only serviced by one ISP, but I don't see how hurting ISPs gives any incentive for them to invest in new markets. I suspect this would INCREASE ISP options in most places, which would ultimately help.
I mean, my parents and in-laws don't stream anything. They use less data a month than probably one episode of Stranger Things. But they pay $40+ a month or something to be able to send emails and look up stock prices or whatever. Why shouldn't they have an option for $10/mo no-Netflix broadband? I'm amazed that there's so much rabble rousing to unbundle cable, but people are losing their minds about the idea of unbundling internet. The people who use hundreds of gigs a month of HBO and Netflix ABSOLUTELY want people who look at cat memes to share that bandwidth cost.
It's not like I'm really AGAINST net neutrality, I just don't think it really matters that much...have things changed that much in the last two years? And I don't think it's for the benefit of consumers really either. It's just big mega corporations fighting each other.
I don't know any Republicans personally (And most of my family and friends are) who think this is a good thing to do.
My guess is rather than lower the cost for your parents, they'll keep paying the same and everyone else will pay a lot more.
Some of the reaction by those opposed to today's decision makes me think the correct verdict was made...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/twitter-users-tell-fcc-chair-205500591.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/twitter-users-tell-fcc-chair-205500591.html
