We've Already Squandered Net Neutrality — And That's OK (Op-Ed)

Status
Not open for further replies.

mcashwell

Estimable
Feb 27, 2015
1
0
4,510
0
Do you hear yourself? I don't want my ISP "deciding for me." You shouldn't either. You've missed the ENTIRE point.
 

John Scior

Estimable
Feb 27, 2015
1
0
4,510
0
aLTHOUGH THE IDEA OF ADDING A REGULATORY BODY TO THE INTERNET SEEMS LKE A LOTOF RED TAPEFOR NOTHING, i'D RATHER NOT have ISP have the ability to add surcharges for things wetake for granted. When ATM's for banks first came out, there wereminimal charges, nowif you excede so many teller transactions, they charge you. Banks charge out the ass for any little thing. i am surprised they don'tcharge a "walking on the carpet" fee. Then they only pay you 1 percent for a depositand 15.9 for a credit card purchase. I am glad this is being implemented. The ISps can simply build the networks they want and charge customers a fee for what speed the ustomer wants andhow much data they use. It prevents there from beingfirst class citizens who get privledges.
 

JGeiger

Estimable
Feb 27, 2015
1
0
4,510
0
Mcash's statement rings of anti-vaxxers. "How dare you impose your vaccines on me and my child! We should have the right to get sick and spread disease!" Oh come on, give me a break. If you think its a great and reasonable practice for your ISP to selectively control the flow of internet to your home then..... well.... bless your little heart. The easiest example of these abuses are what ISP's did to netflix and Verizon all together making Google Wallet inaccessible due to having a competing product. I would rather keep these kind of things in the past rather than becoming a norm. Imagine if it got to the point where you had to proxy to many places in the web just to avoid your ISP meddling in what content you wanted delivered.
 

CoryMourning

Estimable
Feb 27, 2015
3
0
4,510
0
The very idea of ISPs, in general, is still in its infancy. I really feel the FCC jumped the gun on this. There are very few places in the US that don't have atleast 2 choices in ISPs, not to mention, the many cellular Internet providers out there. Additionally, it (coulda/woulda) should have been the next great startup to revitalize small business. Now that the FCC has expanded its power, a small starup ISP will have a harder (more expensive) time competing with the larger corporate ISPs. As long as this holds, we are likely to see fewer competitors, and as with ALL Public Utilities, you will see the providers working together in oligopolies (w/ lobbyists) to call the shots. Meanwhile, the very same FCC that wants to try to keep up with the Internet can't even update the GPS that (911) Emergency Services use. PEOPLE ACTUALLY DIE because responders can't locate them. I think the FCC's priorities are way off.
 

skit75

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2008
243
0
18,860
20
Xatos - "The problem is that the FCC, a non-elected bureaucratic entity, has decided for itself that the Internet is a public utility."

The over 4 million public responses had nothing to do with it. Nothing at all.

This vote wasn't about the majority of American internet users. It was about the minority who have been getting screwed by the ISPs for years. Nothing changes for the majority of American users. I can continue to pay $73.00mnth for ~120mbps and don't have to worry about being blocked, throttled or re-directed to my ISP's suggested website/application/product page.
 

house70

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2010
1,465
0
19,310
100
@CoryMourning, "There are very few places in the US that don't have atleast 2 choices in ISPs"
really? You don't live in the US, obviously. Or you do, but choose to ignore the stats of ISPs; even worse, you know all that, but elect to say ISP's instead of high-speed providers (not to mention broadband providers, which are even more scarce). I hope you do include the dial-up providers, and I certainly hope you make use of a dial-up service for your personal internet.
Cellular providers? Sure, you go ahead and pay overages for your limited access, and praise the "providers" for providing you that meager quota. Besides, this regulation does NOT include wireless companies, but go ahead and keep up the misinformation. You forgot to mention that this bill actually makes it possible for municipal ISPs to appear, by making prohibitive deals illegal (see TN, for instance). Get informed, son, and stop making waves when you don't know (or elect to ignore) stats.
 

mortsmi7

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2010
105
0
18,630
0
I think satellite and cellular internet falls into the bad internet category. Even dial-up could hit those low data caps in a month.
 

kyle382

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2010
8
0
18,510
0
speak for yourself staff writer. I have never hash tagged a single thing and the FCC regulations certainly did not go ignored by the "people of the internet". Especially the people that visit a website like TOMS HARDWARE.
 

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
640
0
18,930
0
"Now, think about how much less fun they would have been if your ISP had blocked some of them or preselected the "best" ones for you."

Do you seriously think that would have happened, Marsh?
 

Osmin

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2012
49
0
18,580
0
I don't know how anyone can make a negative comment without reading and analyzing the 300 plus pages of the regulation. Big companies such as Google and others pushed for this bill and probably made some good contributions to someones future election. Today big money buys elections and thus federal positions. How in the world would a republican and former lobbyist get selected by a democratic president and Senate to actually rule the same companies he lobbied for? Tom Wheeler at first tried to convince us that creating fast lanes was an acceptable option and wasn't outraged when Netflix was forced to pay toll charges. My view on the matter is that anything is better than having the monopolies without regulation rule the internet. All major cities that pay a high fee for slow service could have had fiber connections years ago if only true competition existed. It would be great if cities could get three sets of power lines, voice lines, cable lines, and fiber lines to enable true competition. The reality is that other companies would be afraid to invest in the high cost of installing the infrastructure because the established company, that had a true monopoly, would lower their prices to keep their flock from jumping ship. Therefore, the best bet is for cities to install their own fiber and provide the fastest internet for the lowest cost and allow multiple companies to compete for TV, Voice, and Data plans. As long as other companies chip in for the cost of Infrastructure and maintenance, they should be able to pass information through the fiber line. AT&T U-Verse in my area is $98 a month for 48MB download and 6MB upload. If only I could get those speeds while downloading files because I did not see a change in download speeds from the internet when I upgraded from 24MB download and 3MB upload. This may be due to possible throttling to allow uninterrupted U-Verse TV to others in my area and definitely congestion at the backbone due to lack of equipment upgrades. The separate fees we pay each month to the guardians of the backbone have made extremely fast connections available. They have consistently reported that all slow downs are the cause of local internet service providers because instead of upgrading their equipment, they pocket the money as profit. Any degradation of speed should be of the web servers you connect to and not because of your ISP bypassing important upgrades.
 

Martell1977

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2010
134
0
18,710
28
As always it was a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. I'm getting sick if choosing the lesser of 2 evils. Monopolistic ISP's or the government. A better idea is to get rid of the artificial monopolies and allow true competition. It's the same problem we had with the medical insurance, government limited competition in the market, prices skyrocketed, and they took sweeping control to fix the problem they created. Lets hope this works out better than obamacare...
 

CoryMourning

Estimable
Feb 27, 2015
3
0
4,510
0


First of all, it is NOT A BILL. This was NOT enacted by elected officials in a fair democratic process. The officials that adopted these new rules, ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE to the people. Additionally, I personally use a go-anywhere cellular Internet service with unlimited data plan. It's about the same cost as a broadband provider, but I have much more mobility with my laptop, tablet, and desktop if I have to move. Moreover, I live in a semi-rural area in the Midwest and I have changed my at-home service 3 times in the last year because I was unhappy with the companies. I've settled with the provider I have because rather than expect someone to solve the problem for me, I have negotiated for a better (cheaper) deal. I don't have any intention of implying that all is perfect, but rather, the solutions are in consumer power. I think we've made a huge mistake allowing an unaccountable agency to now decide for us, especially given the FCC can't even keep up with GPS maps, while people are DYING because Emergency Responders can't find them on the out-of-date maps. Furthermore, you are being totally disingenuous saying these rules "make it possible" for municiple providers when we know that it was possible without these rules. The fact it, now a small startup will have to endure the cost of a legal team dedicated to understanding the FCC rules that will not decrease, but rather, continue to expand over time. This gives large corporations the advantage, not matter what the rules say, because their lobbyists will now be negotiating with the FCC that IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE to you, or any other consumer. All the advantages that you think exist due to Public Utility status has never rang true of any Public Utility. The fact is, my water company is not even based in my state, let alone, the community that actually has to drink it. They are not accountable as long as their lobbyists keep the regulators happy, and my only possibility for recourse is to take a day off from work, without pay, to participate in a public forum where nothing I say is binding, nor do I have the ability to go to another provider because there aren't any. The truth, reality, and historical evidence shows that Public Utilities eventually become monopolies, or oligopolies at best, and they are accountable to no one, because they can afford the best lobbyists.
 

hizzyshizzylizz

Estimable
Feb 28, 2015
1
0
4,510
0
I would like to add one thing, Netflix used currently uses 1/3 of the US internet bandwidth. Would it not make sense that they would have to pay for using such a vast amount of the bandwidth? Also, once this deal was struck, GUESS WHAT?!?!?!, the service they provided to their customers was EVEN BETTER, because they had priority. IF a bit must be seen as bit no matter what it is, we will see buffering on CABLE TV as those bits cannot be prioritized and gaming will have higher lag times as those services cannot prioritize low latencies. We have opened a door that will lead to a huge change in how the internet works, all thanks to the government, yea woo gooooooooo net "Neutrality."
 

kiniku

Distinguished
Mar 27, 2009
58
0
18,580
0
In the guise of equality and fairness the government wants to control the internet. So now politics will be a factor in a consumer product. Fees will be added to fund internet for the "poor" also in the guise of fairness. Providers will now be able "apply" for exemptions that the bureaucracy would review. That of course opens the door to political favors from both sides. Yeah rejoice everyone. The internet is now controlled by the government.

The larger the government, the smaller the citizen.
 

john998877

Estimable
Feb 28, 2015
1
0
4,510
0
@hizzyshizzylizz: "I would like to add one thing, Netflix used currently uses 1/3 of the US internet bandwidth. Would it not make sense that they would have to pay for using such a vast amount of the bandwidth?"

Who things you've got wrong:
1. It's not "Netflix" that's using the bandwidth, it's Netflix subscribers that are using the bandwidth that they pay their ISP for.

2. Netflix DOES pay, quite substantially, for its upstream bandwidth to get its content to the ISPs that its subscribers use.
 

Brian Lovejoy

Estimable
Feb 28, 2015
1
0
4,510
0
@hizzyshizzylizz A bit IS a bit, and should be handled as such. If you have a specific type of bit that needs to be prioritized for your purposes, buy a decent router and prioritize it yourself. I could care less if Netflix is prioritized, as I don't use it. The VPN connection to my office however, is critically important to me, and I maintain the priority status of that traffic, not my ISP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS