Internet Neutrality after Dec 14 and its impact

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

> @otto.5684 said:

>

> Let us be clear, lobbyist do not lobby to create regulations, but to remove them. Regulations are not barriers for competition, they are barriers to protect the consumer, like net neutrality, environmental protection and so forth. And the concept of regulations create stagnation has no statistical or scientific backing. It is just a statement some political hypocrites throw out with no basis what so ever, to **SUPPORT** corporations, which these politicians are funded by.

>

> If we use the last 25-30 years as evidence (small sample, but most relevant), periods of high regulations were paired with economical success and vice-versa.

>

> Note, no one is for regulations that create barriers for competition, but these are as rare as a $2 bill. Yes, there are some, but the the overwhelming majority for regulations are for the general public protection form multi billion dollar corporations and the government itself.

 

I'm reminded of a book I read by Jason Riley. It is titled "Please Stop Helping Us". It details how the current system of liberal policies are actually causing more harm to the well being of Black Americans that these policies are attempting to help. The interesting thing about all of these policies is that none of them are from private organizations. Minimum wage laws, mandatory soft-on-crime laws, affirmative action in college recruitment, the rabid denial of school vouchers in lieu of public education facilities, all of them are government sponsored regulations that overall prevent Black Americans from growing and succeeding in the States. Now, this is only somewhat related to the notion of regulations and net neutrality, but when talking about regulations, there are many clear examples of barriers for competition. The minimum wage law, in particular, was instituted to insure northern workers employment when faced with the mass immigration of Black Americans, who were experienced and skilled workers willing to work for pennies on the dollar. The simple solution was to make pennies on the dollar illegal.

 

In the more modern, we have a term for this: The [army of angry acronyms](http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-untold-story-of-what-happens-when-dirty-jobs-meets-angry-acronyms/article/2539781 "http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-untold-story-of-what-happens-when-dirty-jobs-meets-angry-acronyms/article/2539781"). Mike Rowe has a full video about it [here.](

"https://youtube.com/watch?v=qzKzu86Agg0") There is a massive series of compliances and regulations that every new business must be compliant with to start. This creates a massive barrier of entry where the average person has to spend tens of thousands of dollars just to call themselves a "business". These regulations (and likewise, the federal agencies that enforce them) were initially invented to deal with problems that initially couldn't be dealt with. Pure capitalism requires perfect knowledge, and perfect knowledge is impossible, so these regulatory agencies were made to ensure that people weren't ripping off their customers. But now, we have mass media like never before, and the ability to safely practice any sort of industry is a lot easier now. Most regulatory agencies are convoluted dinosaurs, and each agency fights for their own self interests and to insure their own income more than anything else. The "government" that you trust is essentially a series of miniature companies that don't have to deal with natural selection. The State is a ponzi scheme.

 

You're trying to deal in absolutes in a place where absolutes do not exist. Economics is a study of humanity, and as such it is going to be at least as complex as the human being. Each individual market is going to have its own properties, which will respond individually to different regulations. If you say "regulations do not hurt anyone" then there will be a dozen examples of them doing just that. To contrast, if you say "regulations only cause harm", then you're going to get a dozen examples of them helping people. While I fall on the far-right side of wanting to deregulate everything, I cannot deny that some regulations in some places are a good thing.

 

That said, I'm for net neutrality regulations myself, for the simple reason that it isn't a true competitive market. The internet is similar to the telephone industry: It is horribly impractical to have 4 different telephone poles in everyone's yard to facilitate competition between networks. Unless you live in a major city, you're likely living under a monopoly. Characteristic of monopolies, Comcast and Time-Warner are some of the most hated and distrusted companies in the United States. Handing them the reigns will end in disaster, because everything regarding them ends in disaster.

 

-------------------------------------

 

To answer the OPs question, the short answer is nobody knows. Even if net neutrality is reverted, we aren't sure exactly how these companies will respond. I don't think they are certain, either.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @"Zero Day.2594" said:

> > @Chickenooble.5014 said:

> > An ISP has to maintain an infrastructure and constantly make improvements. Why do you guys think it's a bad thing to pay more if you're using more bandwidth than everyone else?

>

> You must be one of the people that also supports RNG loot boxes

 

Yup.

[Sky.7610]

> @usnedward.9023 said:

> > @Sky.7610 said:

> >

> > Congress can mandate internet as a utility or pass legislation that net neutrality be in place.

>

> The FCC did this in 2015 (mandated the internet as a utility) and current FCC is trying to repeal this as well. Congress has had some input but really cannot control the vote but the voice of the people and congress will be there IF the ISPs start the whole gouging process. Again we have to wait and see.

>

> >

> > ISPs in the USA is hardly competitive and is more like providing illusion of competition. They do the 'nod head, wink eye' collusion where they don't leave paper trail and when one ISP decide to raise or keep price high the other follow suit. Think back to the practice of throttling where ISP say not enough infrastructure to support otherwise and all the major ISPs jump on that bandwagon of excuse despite being contradictions to field experts and as soon as they are required to remove throttling, suddenly they all have the infrastructure to support it.

> >

>

> The FCC never promoted to control ISP speed pricing and for the sake of improving technology and speeds I believe the ISPs should be able to charge for faster service thus increasing income to further advance it's technology. Do you think the government should set pricing? I don't think they should as the consumer will pay what they feel they need or jump ship to lower pricing plans from competitors.

>

> > FCC chairman have conflict of interest as he was ex isp lawyer still with their contacts and regularly receive donation funds from them. He chose the corporations money over the interest of the consumer that he was suppose to protect because there is no free market in the ISP field.

>

> I totally agree here.

 

FCC mandate can be easily overturn in leadership as we are seeing. Legislation mandate by Congress is much more difficult to repeal as it's a formal legislation.

 

We are asking not for goverment to set prices or control the sperd but as a utility, gas is gas, electricity is electricity. There is no fast electricity and slow electricity. There is more electricity ans less electricity. Just like there is 10mbps,100mbps, and 1gbit internet. However, my 100mbps internet should not be different to my neighbour's 100mbps because he decided to subscribe to "fast lane" internet. We simply want what is already bought.

 

Also in terms of advancement on technology, infrastructure and ISP spectrum, government has subsizide billions to these ISPs and yet they sit on these cash and only did a little bit with a fraction of the free cash they got when their deadline is due then turn around and say they need to charge consumers more for less because they have not enough infrastructure. To add insult to injury you can't even switch because they lobby enough to prevent competition while they collude with the remaining ISP to set price high. In some places there is no choice. One ISP is all you got. Does that sound like free market? It's not, so hoping free market principles will fix the problem would not be effective.

[Pockethole.5031]

This is a thing currently in USA (note that there are lots of people from EU on these forums). Once it comes down, people will riot. I guarantee you that.

If that shit hits the fan as far as where I am, my anger will have no limit either.

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

[StinVec.3621]

Semi-rural area near large towns and cities (literally a few minutes drive).

Single ISP as an option.

 

Was previously paying $50 USD per month for my ISP's cheapest DSL plan of 3Mbps despite the area only having the wiring to permit 1.5Mbps (about 180KB/sec download).

 

They've now informed me, once again, that they are increasing their monthly price at the end of the month (what curious timing).

 

They still refuse to update the area for faster speed as it would be too costly and the expense cannot be justified based on the subscriber count in the 'area' , but are ok with charging even more now than before for the same service, which is slower than that which is being paid for.

 

So paying for 3Mbps, getting 1.5Mbps. On top of paying outrageously for what I'm getting, they are now raising the monthly price coincidentally along side the neutrality changes and still refuse to update the area to support the speeds they are charging residents for as it would be "too costly."

 

I really do not like how things are developing and I do not see any good coming in the future in regards to this topic.

 

(edit: old per month price correction)

[Sky.7610]

> @StinVec.3621 said:

> Semi-rural area near large towns and cities (literally a few minutes drive).

> Single ISP as an option.

>

> Was previously paying $50 USD per month for my ISP's cheapest DSL plan of 3Mbps despite the area only having the wiring to permit 1.5Mbps (about 180KB/sec download).

>

> They've now informed me, once again, that they are increasing their monthly price at the end of the month (what curious timing).

>

> They still refuse to update the area for faster speed as it would be too costly and the expense cannot be justified based on the subscriber count in the 'area' , but are ok with charging even more now than before for the same service, which is slower than that which is being paid for.

>

> So paying for 3Mbps, getting 1.5Mbps. On top of paying outrageously for what I'm getting, they are now raising the monthly price coincidentally along side the neutrality changes and still refuse to update the area to support the speeds they are charging residents for as it would be "too costly."

>

> I really do not like how things are developing and I do not see any good coming in the future in regards to this topic.

>

> (edit: old per month price correction)

 

Get mad about the situation. Then call Congress and your representatives and complain. Every vote counts.

[Shrimpkin.4851]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/crtc-internet-essential-service-1.3906664

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Hi-Speed_Internet#Throttling

 

Just a couple of examples of how these issues were dealt with up here. Would be nice if it could be the same for all of you in the States. Hopefully one of the no votes flips and this doesn't happen. But I have a feeling they'll keep at it until net neutrality is gone for you.

 

: /

[Artemis Thuras.8795]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

> Wouldn't the free market take effect? If a certain company starts doing all the bad stuff won't you all just switch your provider? I don't really have a dog in this fight but if a company screws its customers it will find it has less customers, you'll get more inovation and experimentation with payment/service models with less regulation and the market will make the best of those popular and profitable (which encourages everyone to keep doing better).

>

> I would rather everyone gave the reduction of regulation a chance and if it turns out to be a kitten show vote in a government promising to regulate (yay you live in a democracy).

 

The problem with this, is many consumers in the US don't have a choice of ISP.

AFAIK the US has no laws/regulations prohibiting monopolies. (unlike the UK where we have a monopolies commission, and monopolies are essentially illegal - because competition is good for the consumer, for the exact reasons you outlined).

 

As such, many corporations can treat their "customers" like crap.

[Drarnor Kunoram.5180]

> @"Artemis Thuras.8795" said:

> > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > Wouldn't the free market take effect? If a certain company starts doing all the bad stuff won't you all just switch your provider? I don't really have a dog in this fight but if a company screws its customers it will find it has less customers, you'll get more inovation and experimentation with payment/service models with less regulation and the market will make the best of those popular and profitable (which encourages everyone to keep doing better).

> >

> > I would rather everyone gave the reduction of regulation a chance and if it turns out to be a kitten show vote in a government promising to regulate (yay you live in a democracy).

>

> The problem with this, is many consumers in the US don't have a choice of ISP.

> AFAIK the US has no laws/regulations prohibiting monopolies. (unlike the UK where we have a monopolies commission, and monopolies are essentially illegal - because competition is good for the consumer, for the exact reasons you outlined).

>

> As such, many corporations can treat their "customers" like crap.

 

The US has laws prohibiting monopolies, but ISP's are very careful to have exactly two operating in most parts of the nation. Massive cities (Houston, New York City, Los Angeles) will get up to three, but for almost everyone else, it's just two.

 

This is completely by design. They work with each other on this to avoid anti-monopoly laws while still having no competition for customers.

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

> @StinVec.3621 said:

> Semi-rural area near large towns and cities (literally a few minutes drive).

> Single ISP as an option.

>

> Was previously paying $50 USD per month for my ISP's cheapest DSL plan of 3Mbps despite the area only having the wiring to permit 1.5Mbps (about 180KB/sec download).

>

> They've now informed me, once again, that they are increasing their monthly price at the end of the month (what curious timing).

>

> They still refuse to update the area for faster speed as it would be too costly and the expense cannot be justified based on the subscriber count in the 'area' , but are ok with charging even more now than before for the same service, which is slower than that which is being paid for.

>

> So paying for 3Mbps, getting 1.5Mbps. On top of paying outrageously for what I'm getting, they are now raising the monthly price coincidentally along side the neutrality changes and still refuse to update the area to support the speeds they are charging residents for as it would be "too costly."

>

> I really do not like how things are developing and I do not see any good coming in the future in regards to this topic.

>

> (edit: old per month price correction)

 

This right here is part of the problem. Where exactly in NN under Title II does it control pricing or speed of ISPs? I will wait.

 

This is bad when people assume or think something about regulation they are pushing, without ever having actually read the thing no less understand it or its impacts. Title II has a long history and even case studies from the FCC that show Title II because of required tariffs ISPs end up charging the same price, as in not competing. It also results in areas being left to age and not be upgraded and very few expansions into rural areas. As under the regulation it actually costs them huge amounts to do this, so they just stop doing it. Maybe you should blame NN for the prices, after all, THEY ARE STILL IN EFFECT.....But yet you seem to think NN is what will give you lower prices? I have seen some mental gymnastics before, but man is that pushing it.

 

 

> @"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" said:

> > @"Artemis Thuras.8795" said:

> > > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > > Wouldn't the free market take effect? If a certain company starts doing all the bad stuff won't you all just switch your provider? I don't really have a dog in this fight but if a company screws its customers it will find it has less customers, you'll get more inovation and experimentation with payment/service models with less regulation and the market will make the best of those popular and profitable (which encourages everyone to keep doing better).

> > >

> > > I would rather everyone gave the reduction of regulation a chance and if it turns out to be a kitten show vote in a government promising to regulate (yay you live in a democracy).

> >

> > The problem with this, is many consumers in the US don't have a choice of ISP.

> > AFAIK the US has no laws/regulations prohibiting monopolies. (unlike the UK where we have a monopolies commission, and monopolies are essentially illegal - because competition is good for the consumer, for the exact reasons you outlined).

> >

> > As such, many corporations can treat their "customers" like crap.

>

> The US has laws prohibiting monopolies, but ISP's are very careful to have exactly two operating in most parts of the nation. Massive cities (Houston, New York City, Los Angeles) will get up to three, but for almost everyone else, it's just two.

>

> This is completely by design. They work with each other on this to avoid anti-monopoly laws while still having no competition for customers.

 

There are no such laws when dealing with government enforced monopolies, look at electrical, water, sewer etc etc. ISPs are the same way, local government has for a long time controlled ROWs, like I said before, do some research on this and you will understand the limited choices in ISPs. Local government gets deals with one or two ISPs and lets them install cable into the ROW for last mile, as a result local leaders get kick backs and most public buildings get free internet/phone/cable as well and for this, local regulators do not issue permits to any other ISPs to install cable.

 

Go read on the issues Google has had with installing fiber, as most locations will NOT allow them to, however Google has big pockets and huge legal teams, and have forced their way into a number of markets, after which they were sued by the other ISPs BTW. Google to get around the ROW restrictions (again, by government regulators) Google bought a wireless gigabit company, with plans to use the tech to by pass having to install actual cable in the ROW and not have to deal with its restrictions. As soon as they started trying to do this, they were sued again and also reported to the government and the other ISPs requested that Google still be regulated as if they were installing into the ROW. In one city where they got around this and were still able to install, Comcast had claimed it's networks were at max load and could not support faster speeds and that an upgrade would be to expensive. The same week Google finished it's install Comcast upped customers speeds AND reduced prices, amazing what happens when competition comes in that the government can't control.

 

What is even more funny was when ROW restrictions and regulation was passed, it was said that we needed it because if not, one ISP would buy up all the land and not allow other ISPs to install cable....The EXACT thing government is doing now with its control, this is known as regulator capture.

 

Also, as someone from Houston, we have some of the most lax laws for this, and we also don't have zoning laws like most places either. As such we actually have over 15 ISPs all over the city:

 

Frontier

 

AT&T

 

CenturyLink

 

Xfinity

 

Time Warner

 

Charter

 

Suddenlink

 

etc etc to just name a few. I have AT&T fiber 1Gbps/1Gbps for $80 a month and I am on the outer edge of the city.

[reukies.6418]

I can't believe there are people on the internet who actually do not support net neutrality...

 

There are some people who say "we were fine before net neutrality"...that is by far the worst argument. Trusting a business is stupid, if they can make more money rather than being more moral, they are gonna go to make more money.

 

The people who are okay with the extra charge for visiting certain sites don't realise that if this takes place, ISP would support the websites that paid their fees rather than those that don't. You can say goodbye to web innovations and new competitors starting up online because they will be put in the slow lane.

 

All this is doing is getting cable/TV packages for the internet where they sell website speeds. How many new TV channels do you see on cable? Exactly.

[Chamelion.9536]

> @reukies.6418 said:

> I can't believe there are people on the internet who actually do not support net neutrality...

>

> There are some people who say "we were fine before net neutrality"...that is by far the worst argument. Trusting a business is stupid, if they can make more money rather than being more moral, they are gonna go to make more money.

>

> The people who are okay with the extra charge for visiting certain sites don't realise that if this takes place, ISP would support the websites that paid their fees rather than those that don't. You can say goodbye to web innovations and new competitors starting up online because they will be put in the slow lane.

>

> All this is doing is getting cable/TV packages for the internet where they sell website speeds. How many new TV channels do you see on cable? Exactly.

 

It's just a case of where these people remember pre-2015 and don't recall anything 'bad'. Most, not all, likely didn't research what their ISP and cable companies were doing "behind the scenes" every day. I know I didn't. But what I do know is what I am learning **TODAY**, not by what I remember **IN THE PAST.**

 

Comcast. AT&T and all other ISPs exist for one major reason; to _MAKE MONEY_. If they can start politicking like they do in DC, they can offer services to those they like while throttling what they don't like. Right now, no matter where you want to surf on the net, you can get there just as easily as you can get to Google, Yahoo, Amazon or any other MAJOR web network. If we lose NN, that may no longer be the case.

 

"But... Comcast and others said they WON'T." Newsflash, reality is this; What they say.. and what they DO? Not the same. Does one HONESTLY believe that in the business/political world? Well.... I suppose now-a-days, with certain segments.. that's sadly very true.

 

The only ones against NN who are 'in the know' are those who gain to profit. '

 

C

 

 

[Chamelion.9536]

 

 

>

> Also, as someone from Houston, we have some of the most lax laws for this, and we also don't have zoning laws like most places either. As such we actually have over 15 ISPs all over the city:

>

> Frontier

>

> AT&T

>

> CenturyLink

>

> Xfinity

>

> Time Warner

>

> Charter

>

> Suddenlink

>

> etc etc to just name a few. I have AT&T fiber 1Gbps/1Gbps for $80 a month and I am on the outer edge of the city.

 

If I had such options, I would so easily ditch Comcast and look at each and every one of those choices.

 

The "It's us or no one" option is never, ever a good choice.

 

C

 

 

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

> @reukies.6418 said:

> I can't believe there are people on the internet who actually do not support net neutrality...

>

> There are some people who say "we were fine before net neutrality"...that is by far the worst argument. Trusting a business is stupid, if they can make more money rather than being more moral, they are gonna go to make more money.

>

> The people who are okay with the extra charge for visiting certain sites don't realise that if this takes place, ISP would support the websites that paid their fees rather than those that don't. You can say goodbye to web innovations and new competitors starting up online because they will be put in the slow lane.

>

> All this is doing is getting cable/TV packages for the internet where they sell website speeds. How many new TV channels do you see on cable? Exactly.

 

Yay, another person who doesn't understand or ever read NN and Title II.

 

WHERE does NN under Title II stop ISPs from charging for termination to end users? This propaganda is getting old.

 

Where are your examples of this internet with all of these levels for the whole history up until 2015/2016 of the internet? Outside of your imagination of course.

 

As for cable, it has been regulated since the 60's, the FCC and local government control and regulate prices, and the name of your local franchising authority is actually listed on the bill. The FCC regulates all pricing for channels and packages except for pay per channel, such as Showtime and HBO. This was known as the "Cable Act", what is funny is the FIRST question on the FAQ for the FCC about the Cable Act is: "I thought that all cable rates would go down under the Cable Act. Why hasn't my

rate changed?"

 

Funny that you use a regulated industry that is also regulated on prices as your negative example on pricing structure for why we need regulation. Boy these mental gymnastics are getting hard to keep up with.

[Solori.6025]

> @"Artemis Thuras.8795" said:

> > @Coulter.2315 said:

> > Wouldn't the free market take effect? If a certain company starts doing all the bad stuff won't you all just switch your provider? I don't really have a dog in this fight but if a company screws its customers it will find it has less customers, you'll get more inovation and experimentation with payment/service models with less regulation and the market will make the best of those popular and profitable (which encourages everyone to keep doing better).

> >

> > I would rather everyone gave the reduction of regulation a chance and if it turns out to be a kitten show vote in a government promising to regulate (yay you live in a democracy).

>

> The problem with this, is many consumers in the US don't have a choice of ISP.

> AFAIK the US has no laws/regulations prohibiting monopolies. (unlike the UK where we have a monopolies commission, and monopolies are essentially illegal - because competition is good for the consumer, for the exact reasons you outlined).

>

> As such, many corporations can treat their "customers" like crap.

 

^this.

I don't understand free market people when you have companies that control entire regions and wont allow competition in the area in the first place.

 

Killing neutrality wont magically make the market grow, because it cant.

 

Free Market doesn't exist in 2017 like it did in the 60's, and wont.

 

Corporations are not your friends, I don't understand why people seem to think giving a corporation the ability to designate and gauge an essential utility that has become a part of society for the good of the people will end up with them making moral decisions, and before people start saying " But the internet is not essential"

I would refer you back to the arguments of electricity, telephones, and gas. None of those are essential for human survival, but for societal norms they are ( you know, like education, business and industry). We could live in clay huts and be fine, doesn't mean we should.

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @Chamelion.9536 said:

> > @reukies.6418 said:

> > I can't believe there are people on the internet who actually do not support net neutrality...

> >

> > There are some people who say "we were fine before net neutrality"...that is by far the worst argument. Trusting a business is stupid, if they can make more money rather than being more moral, they are gonna go to make more money.

> >

> > The people who are okay with the extra charge for visiting certain sites don't realise that if this takes place, ISP would support the websites that paid their fees rather than those that don't. You can say goodbye to web innovations and new competitors starting up online because they will be put in the slow lane.

> >

> > All this is doing is getting cable/TV packages for the internet where they sell website speeds. How many new TV channels do you see on cable? Exactly.

>

> It's just a case of where these people remember pre-2015 and don't recall anything 'bad'. Most, not all, likely didn't research what their ISP and cable companies were doing "behind the scenes" every day. I know I didn't. But what I do know is what I am learning **TODAY**, not by what I remember **IN THE PAST.**

>

> Comcast. AT&T and all other ISPs exist for one major reason; to _MAKE MONEY_. If they can start politicking like they do in DC, they can offer services to those they like while throttling what they don't like. Right now, no matter where you want to surf on the net, you can get there just as easily as you can get to Google, Yahoo, Amazon or any other MAJOR web network. If we lose NN, that may no longer be the case.

>

> "But... Comcast and others said they WON'T." Newsflash, reality is this; What they say.. and what they DO? Not the same. Does one HONESTLY believe that in the business/political world? Well.... I suppose now-a-days, with certain segments.. that's sadly very true.

>

> The only ones against NN who are 'in the know' are those who gain to profit. '

>

> C

>

>

 

Or you’re falling for the scare tactics of those who support Obama’s bill from 2015. Have you read that bill itself (not the cherry picked version propaganda sites spew)? Have you read what they’re actually planning on removing? People are acting as if that bill was the **only** piece of regulation for that industry which is untrue.

[Solori.6025]

> @TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

> > @reukies.6418 said:

> > I can't believe there are people on the internet who actually do not support net neutrality...

> >

> > There are some people who say "we were fine before net neutrality"...that is by far the worst argument. Trusting a business is stupid, if they can make more money rather than being more moral, they are gonna go to make more money.

> >

> > The people who are okay with the extra charge for visiting certain sites don't realise that if this takes place, ISP would support the websites that paid their fees rather than those that don't. You can say goodbye to web innovations and new competitors starting up online because they will be put in the slow lane.

> >

> >**All this is doing is getting cable/TV packages for the internet where they sell website speeds** How many new TV channels do you see on cable? Exactly.

>

> Yay, another person who doesn't understand or ever read NN and Title II.

>

> WHERE does NN under Title II stop ISPs from charging for termination to end users? This propaganda is getting old.

>

> Where are your examples of this internet with all of these levels for the whole history up until 2015/2016 of the internet? Outside of your imagination of course.

>

> As for cable, it has been regulated since the 60's, the FCC and local government control and regulate prices, and the name of your local franchising authority is actually listed on the bill. The FCC regulates all pricing for channels and **packages except for pay per channel, such as Showtime and HBO.** This was known as the "Cable Act", what is funny is the FIRST question on the FAQ for the FCC about the Cable Act is: "I thought that all cable rates would go down under the Cable Act. Why hasn't my

> rate changed?"

>

 

That was actually the point of the post ( or at least how I took it)

 

That's what people have been opposed to, paying for lane speed, which is one of the things net neutrality prevented. The other is ISP monopolies, but that is pretty much already a thing since we really have only 3 ISP giants in the US that control most of the infrastructure for the net.

 

In that post you quoted and I guess took a different meaning to, they gave the example of paying extra to visit websites ( which could roll over to steaming, or gaming applications), which is a very big possibility we will end up doing that when the NN ends.

Same as you do for Pay per view channels like Showtime and HBO

 

 

 

[Jski.6180]

Asking some one to pay for fast vs slow and for one content more then others will push usa into more and more segregated bubbles more so then it is now. I think this is something that has been lost in this argument. Its like spiting a town hall base off of what you do on the web and willing / can pay for. Your free and open forum starts to become split up base off money and likes. Yes this happen now but at least you have a chose to go every where to say (i hope mostly helpful things) different points of views. If neutrality is lost then you will have to effectually swap isp to go to different places on the web.

 

Moving on the web needs to be looked at as a means of free speech (now the things you say with in each forum should have a set of rules) and by hampering ppl moving on the web IS an attk on free speech.

[reukies.6418]

> @TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

 

> Where are your examples of this internet with all of these levels for the whole history up until 2015/2016 of the internet? Outside of your imagination of course.

>

 

So because it hasn't happened in the past it won't happen now? There always a start for something, and it can very well happen now. So please stop talking out of your ass.

 

Tell me o great knowledge one, why then do they want to put this in place? All of the reasons they have given are clearly bs, any person with any sense of logic should be able to see that (guessing people who only talk out of their ass cannot though).

 

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @Solori.6025 said:

> > @TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

> > > @reukies.6418 said:

> > > I can't believe there are people on the internet who actually do not support net neutrality...

> > >

> > > There are some people who say "we were fine before net neutrality"...that is by far the worst argument. Trusting a business is stupid, if they can make more money rather than being more moral, they are gonna go to make more money.

> > >

> > > The people who are okay with the extra charge for visiting certain sites don't realise that if this takes place, ISP would support the websites that paid their fees rather than those that don't. You can say goodbye to web innovations and new competitors starting up online because they will be put in the slow lane.

> > >

> > > */bAll this is doing is getting cable/TV packages for the internet where they sell website speeds*/b. How many new TV channels do you see on cable? Exactly.

> >

> > Yay, another person who doesn't understand or ever read NN and Title II.

> >

> > WHERE does NN under Title II stop ISPs from charging for termination to end users? This propaganda is getting old.

> >

> > Where are your examples of this internet with all of these levels for the whole history up until 2015/2016 of the internet? Outside of your imagination of course.

> >

> > As for cable, it has been regulated since the 60's, the FCC and local government control and regulate prices, and the name of your local franchising authority is actually listed on the bill. The FCC regulates all pricing for channels and *packages except for pay per channel, such as Showtime and HBO.* This was known as the "Cable Act", what is funny is the FIRST question on the FAQ for the FCC about the Cable Act is: "I thought that all cable rates would go down under the Cable Act. Why hasn't my

> > rate changed?"

> >

>

> That was actually the point of the post ( or at least how I took it)

>

> That's what people have been opposed to, paying for lane speed, which is one of the things net neutrality prevented. The other is ISP monopolies, but that is pretty much already a thing since we really have only 3 ISP giants in the US that control most of the infrastructure for the net.

>

> In that post you quoted and I guess took a different meaning to, they gave the example of paying extra to visit websites, steaming, or gaming applications, which is a very big possibility we will end up doing that when the NN ends.

> Same as you do for Pay per view channels like Showtime and HBO

>

>

>

 

Companies currently offer packages that offer different speeds.

[Chickenooble.5014]

> @reukies.6418 said:

> I can't believe there are people on the internet who actually do not support net neutrality...

>

> There are some people who say "we were fine before net neutrality"...that is by far the worst argument. Trusting a business is stupid, if they can make more money rather than being more moral, they are gonna go to make more money.

I trust businesses more than I trust the government and I have no problem with businesses making a lot of money if the consumer and business engage in their transactions without force of threat or violence.

[Solori.6025]

> @Ayrilana.1396 said:

> > @Solori.6025 said:

> > > @TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

> > > > @reukies.6418 said:

> > > > I can't believe there are people on the internet who actually do not support net neutrality...

> > > >

> > > > There are some people who say "we were fine before net neutrality"...that is by far the worst argument. Trusting a business is stupid, if they can make more money rather than being more moral, they are gonna go to make more money.

> > > >

> > > > The people who are okay with the extra charge for visiting certain sites don't realise that if this takes place, ISP would support the websites that paid their fees rather than those that don't. You can say goodbye to web innovations and new competitors starting up online because they will be put in the slow lane.

> > > >

> > > > */bAll this is doing is getting cable/TV packages for the internet where they sell website speeds*/b. How many new TV channels do you see on cable? Exactly.

> > >

> > > Yay, another person who doesn't understand or ever read NN and Title II.

> > >

> > > WHERE does NN under Title II stop ISPs from charging for termination to end users? This propaganda is getting old.

> > >

> > > Where are your examples of this internet with all of these levels for the whole history up until 2015/2016 of the internet? Outside of your imagination of course.

> > >

> > > As for cable, it has been regulated since the 60's, the FCC and local government control and regulate prices, and the name of your local franchising authority is actually listed on the bill. The FCC regulates all pricing for channels and *packages except for pay per channel, such as Showtime and HBO.* This was known as the "Cable Act", what is funny is the FIRST question on the FAQ for the FCC about the Cable Act is: "I thought that all cable rates would go down under the Cable Act. Why hasn't my

> > > rate changed?"

> > >

> >

> > That was actually the point of the post ( or at least how I took it)

> >

> > That's what people have been opposed to, paying for lane speed, which is one of the things net neutrality prevented. The other is ISP monopolies, but that is pretty much already a thing since we really have only 3 ISP giants in the US that control most of the infrastructure for the net.

> >

> > In that post you quoted and I guess took a different meaning to, they gave the example of paying extra to visit websites, steaming, or gaming applications, which is a very big possibility we will end up doing that when the NN ends.

> > Same as you do for Pay per view channels like Showtime and HBO

> >

> >

> >

>

> Companies currently offer packages that offer different speeds.

 

This is true, this is very true.

 

For example if I pay 60 a month for 100mbps I expect to get 100mbps ( which never ever happens) and go to websites at the same speed as my neighbor who also pays for the same.

But what happens when you get fast lane packages?

Me and my neighbor could both have the same speed, but because he/she ( for you PC folks) pays for fast lane, they are getting twice the response from webpages I am.

Even though we have the same speed that we are paying for, I could be put in a lower priority and have throttled speeds. so my 100mbps ( that I never get in the first place) could go to 20, or 10. That is a possibility, and may even end up being a reality.

 

People are right now locked into ISP's that for the most party are shitty, and we are giving them the key to be worse.

 

 

[Jski.6180]

> @Solori.6025 said:

> > @Ayrilana.1396 said:

> > > @Solori.6025 said:

> > > > @TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

> > > > > @reukies.6418 said:

> > > > > I can't believe there are people on the internet who actually do not support net neutrality...

> > > > >

> > > > > There are some people who say "we were fine before net neutrality"...that is by far the worst argument. Trusting a business is stupid, if they can make more money rather than being more moral, they are gonna go to make more money.

> > > > >

> > > > > The people who are okay with the extra charge for visiting certain sites don't realise that if this takes place, ISP would support the websites that paid their fees rather than those that don't. You can say goodbye to web innovations and new competitors starting up online because they will be put in the slow lane.

> > > > >

> > > > > */bAll this is doing is getting cable/TV packages for the internet where they sell website speeds*/b. How many new TV channels do you see on cable? Exactly.

> > > >

> > > > Yay, another person who doesn't understand or ever read NN and Title II.

> > > >

> > > > WHERE does NN under Title II stop ISPs from charging for termination to end users? This propaganda is getting old.

> > > >

> > > > Where are your examples of this internet with all of these levels for the whole history up until 2015/2016 of the internet? Outside of your imagination of course.

> > > >

> > > > As for cable, it has been regulated since the 60's, the FCC and local government control and regulate prices, and the name of your local franchising authority is actually listed on the bill. The FCC regulates all pricing for channels and *packages except for pay per channel, such as Showtime and HBO.* This was known as the "Cable Act", what is funny is the FIRST question on the FAQ for the FCC about the Cable Act is: "I thought that all cable rates would go down under the Cable Act. Why hasn't my

> > > > rate changed?"

> > > >

> > >

> > > That was actually the point of the post ( or at least how I took it)

> > >

> > > That's what people have been opposed to, paying for lane speed, which is one of the things net neutrality prevented. The other is ISP monopolies, but that is pretty much already a thing since we really have only 3 ISP giants in the US that control most of the infrastructure for the net.

> > >

> > > In that post you quoted and I guess took a different meaning to, they gave the example of paying extra to visit websites, steaming, or gaming applications, which is a very big possibility we will end up doing that when the NN ends.

> > > Same as you do for Pay per view channels like Showtime and HBO

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Companies currently offer packages that offer different speeds.

>

> This is true, this is very true.

>

> For example if I pay 60 a month for 100mbps I expect to get 100mbps ( which never ever happens) and go to websites at the same speed as my neighbor who also pays for the same.

> But what happens when you get fast lane packages?

> Me and my neighbor could both have the same speed, but because he/she ( for you PC folks) pays for fast lane, they are getting twice the response from webpages I am.

> Even though we have the same speed that we are paying for, I could be put in a lower priority and have throttled speeds. so my 100mbps ( that I never get in the first place) could go to 20, or 10. That is a possibility, and may even end up being a reality.

>

> People are right now locked into ISP's that for the most party are kitten, and we are giving them the key to be worse.

>

>

 

Another question is what isp going to be the republication content provider and what isp going to be the democrat provider? That where its going to end up going and end up spiting on lines such like this. I am starting to get the feeling there is a divide and conquer operation going on in the usa.

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @Solori.6025 said:

> > @Ayrilana.1396 said:

> > > @Solori.6025 said:

> > > > @TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

> > > > > @reukies.6418 said:

> > > > > I can't believe there are people on the internet who actually do not support net neutrality...

> > > > >

> > > > > There are some people who say "we were fine before net neutrality"...that is by far the worst argument. Trusting a business is stupid, if they can make more money rather than being more moral, they are gonna go to make more money.

> > > > >

> > > > > The people who are okay with the extra charge for visiting certain sites don't realise that if this takes place, ISP would support the websites that paid their fees rather than those that don't. You can say goodbye to web innovations and new competitors starting up online because they will be put in the slow lane.

> > > > >

> > > > > */bAll this is doing is getting cable/TV packages for the internet where they sell website speeds*/b. How many new TV channels do you see on cable? Exactly.

> > > >

> > > > Yay, another person who doesn't understand or ever read NN and Title II.

> > > >

> > > > WHERE does NN under Title II stop ISPs from charging for termination to end users? This propaganda is getting old.

> > > >

> > > > Where are your examples of this internet with all of these levels for the whole history up until 2015/2016 of the internet? Outside of your imagination of course.

> > > >

> > > > As for cable, it has been regulated since the 60's, the FCC and local government control and regulate prices, and the name of your local franchising authority is actually listed on the bill. The FCC regulates all pricing for channels and *packages except for pay per channel, such as Showtime and HBO.* This was known as the "Cable Act", what is funny is the FIRST question on the FAQ for the FCC about the Cable Act is: "I thought that all cable rates would go down under the Cable Act. Why hasn't my

> > > > rate changed?"

> > > >

> > >

> > > That was actually the point of the post ( or at least how I took it)

> > >

> > > That's what people have been opposed to, paying for lane speed, which is one of the things net neutrality prevented. The other is ISP monopolies, but that is pretty much already a thing since we really have only 3 ISP giants in the US that control most of the infrastructure for the net.

> > >

> > > In that post you quoted and I guess took a different meaning to, they gave the example of paying extra to visit websites, steaming, or gaming applications, which is a very big possibility we will end up doing that when the NN ends.

> > > Same as you do for Pay per view channels like Showtime and HBO

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Companies currently offer packages that offer different speeds.

>

> This is true, this is very true.

>

> For example if I pay 60 a month for 100mbps I expect to get 100mbps ( which never ever happens) and go to websites at the same speed as my neighbor who also pays for the same.

> But what happens when you get fast lane packages?

> Me and my neighbor could both have the same speed, but because he/she ( for you PC folks) pays for fast lane, they are getting twice the response from webpages I am.

> Even though we have the same speed that we are paying for, I could be put in a lower priority and have throttled speeds. so my 100mbps ( that I never get in the first place) could go to 20, or 10. That is a possibility, and may even end up being a reality.

>

> People are right now locked into ISP's that for the most party are kitten, and we are giving them the key to be worse.

>

>

 

You’re assuming that that happened and there wasn’t something already in place to prevent it prior to 2015.

[Jski.6180]

> @Ayrilana.1396 said:

> > @Solori.6025 said:

> > > @Ayrilana.1396 said:

> > > > @Solori.6025 said:

> > > > > @TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

> > > > > > @reukies.6418 said:

> > > > > > I can't believe there are people on the internet who actually do not support net neutrality...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There are some people who say "we were fine before net neutrality"...that is by far the worst argument. Trusting a business is stupid, if they can make more money rather than being more moral, they are gonna go to make more money.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The people who are okay with the extra charge for visiting certain sites don't realise that if this takes place, ISP would support the websites that paid their fees rather than those that don't. You can say goodbye to web innovations and new competitors starting up online because they will be put in the slow lane.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > */bAll this is doing is getting cable/TV packages for the internet where they sell website speeds*/b. How many new TV channels do you see on cable? Exactly.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yay, another person who doesn't understand or ever read NN and Title II.

> > > > >

> > > > > WHERE does NN under Title II stop ISPs from charging for termination to end users? This propaganda is getting old.

> > > > >

> > > > > Where are your examples of this internet with all of these levels for the whole history up until 2015/2016 of the internet? Outside of your imagination of course.

> > > > >

> > > > > As for cable, it has been regulated since the 60's, the FCC and local government control and regulate prices, and the name of your local franchising authority is actually listed on the bill. The FCC regulates all pricing for channels and *packages except for pay per channel, such as Showtime and HBO.* This was known as the "Cable Act", what is funny is the FIRST question on the FAQ for the FCC about the Cable Act is: "I thought that all cable rates would go down under the Cable Act. Why hasn't my

> > > > > rate changed?"

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > That was actually the point of the post ( or at least how I took it)

> > > >

> > > > That's what people have been opposed to, paying for lane speed, which is one of the things net neutrality prevented. The other is ISP monopolies, but that is pretty much already a thing since we really have only 3 ISP giants in the US that control most of the infrastructure for the net.

> > > >

> > > > In that post you quoted and I guess took a different meaning to, they gave the example of paying extra to visit websites, steaming, or gaming applications, which is a very big possibility we will end up doing that when the NN ends.

> > > > Same as you do for Pay per view channels like Showtime and HBO

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Companies currently offer packages that offer different speeds.

> >

> > This is true, this is very true.

> >

> > For example if I pay 60 a month for 100mbps I expect to get 100mbps ( which never ever happens) and go to websites at the same speed as my neighbor who also pays for the same.

> > But what happens when you get fast lane packages?

> > Me and my neighbor could both have the same speed, but because he/she ( for you PC folks) pays for fast lane, they are getting twice the response from webpages I am.

> > Even though we have the same speed that we are paying for, I could be put in a lower priority and have throttled speeds. so my 100mbps ( that I never get in the first place) could go to 20, or 10. That is a possibility, and may even end up being a reality.

> >

> > People are right now locked into ISP's that for the most party are kitten, and we are giving them the key to be worse.

> >

> >

>

> You’re assuming that that happened and there wasn’t something already in place to prevent it prior to 2015.

 

Why is this a magic year? You do understand that the would changed a lot in those 2 years as well as the isp? If any thing the web as become more of a utitly then it was back in 2012 (getting annoyed that all ppl are focused on is 2015). If any thing we need rules like neutrality if not stronger version to keep isp in relation to make sure ppl rights of free speech on the web are not infringe on.

 

If any thing the tech of the isp is at the level that you can no longer "hid" your movements on the web like you could pre - 2015 (the saying your in love with). The web is very know what we are doing at all times even though they should not and now you want to give them the power to let them make ppl do what the isp wants on the web?

 

This IS THE FREEDOM quest of our times do you let the gov. chose (ppl votes) or do you like the isp chose (ppl money). THAT is the only way you should question neutrality.