What Net Neutrality's Approval Will Mean For You

[Thom457]

With Government provided "net neutrality" you can keep your ISP plan, your ISP provider and “NN" will lower your monthly ISP bill by $25.00 at least ...
Everything you regulate cost more and it won't be the companies that provide you your access that pay for the cost of regulations. Just like that $10.00 Cable bill the government promised you, the quality of what you pay for is going to fall to match the net revenue drop this causes. Network TV is regulated and see how well that turned out vs. Cable TV offerings?

 

[computertech82]

ouch. so many brain deads here. the law/regulation STOPS COMPANIES FROM CHARGING YOU MORE if you try to use your internet for netflix, youtube, and any other website the internet provider wants to block.
GROW A BRAIN CELL and comprehend the stock market crashes, major poisoning of ppl by companies, etc, etc is the LACK of regulation (regulation is a fancy word for POLICE).

 

[alextheblue]

ouch. so many brain deads here. the law/regulation STOPS COMPANIES FROM CHARGING YOU MORE if you try to use your internet for netflix, youtube, and any other website the internet provider wants to block.
GROW A BRAIN CELL and comprehend the stock market crashes, major poisoning of ppl by companies, etc, etc is the LACK of regulation (regulation is a fancy word for POLICE).

Take your own advice. ISPs aren't charging extra to use Netflix et al. They ARE charging Netflix extra for a direct interconnection that bypasses Cogent (employed by Netflix). That was a Netflix decision because Cogent was unable to cope with the demand during peak hours.

It really depends on what kind of regulations they apply to Traffic Shaping settings

Traffic shaping/QoS is a form of packet discrimination. You could still use QoS on your own network. However, net neutrality would stop this "evil packet discrimination" on the ISP's end, which during peak hours isn't pleasant to think about.

 

[kdw75]

I support the free market, but the internet was paid for with tax money. And we only have one high speed option in our small city of 75,000. So if we can't have more competition, I sure as hell don't want to have my only choice prioritizing some traffic over others.

 

[Joe W]

It really depends on what kind of regulations they apply to Traffic Shaping settings, without Traffic Shaping one would be unable to download a file while playing a game online, the spike issues would make it unplayable, same goes with any VoIP platform, I really don't think they are going to mess up with such an important feature, but at the very least the fact of imposing certain values and thresholds in a sensitive application could be enough to brake it entirely.

That's the problem I have. Most stuff i see floating around implies that they want ISPs to stop period. Bob down the street loading up on bit torrents even legit ones effect my service. Multiply that by 10, 100, 1000, etc.. then there is a problem. I ran into this quite a few years ago when Napster was big. 100 people downloading metallica songs on a T1 brings the service to a crawl.. setup traffic shaping to give napster packets low priority 'solved' the problem

In the end I'd rather not having the government getting involved at all, if we leave this matter to the ISPs as it was before we the customers have different alternatives to choose from and the ISPs will adapt themselves to not lose its clients, whereas if the government sets standards and one of this values is not good then we are screwed up because all ISPs will be forced to apply it taking away from us the choice of the type of service we want to get.

I tend to agree but with lack of competition in the ISP market we are at the mercy of the Comcasts, the verizons, etc. If there was competition i could just leave comcast and go to Bobs Internet service. The problem is it costs way too much to install the lines... it isn't like copper days where you could just get a T1 and some phone lines and setup a dialup service and expect to get a lot of customers, people want broadband.

There has to be a happy medium somewhere.

 

[d_kuhn]

Media distilled it down to this... and it's a good summary:
"The central question was whether network owners -- like Comcast (CMCSA) or Time Warner Cable (TWC) -- can discriminate what runs on their cables. The FCC's answer on Friday was: No."

Throwing out all the FUD that both sides have been throwing up... this is the bottom line. Time Warner, Comcast, and other ISP's can no long determine what runs across their lines for us... WE get to do that with our usage behavior.

 

[alidan]

god this comment section is painful to read.

does everyone here think that people for net neutrality, as in tech startups and tech companies would go against their own best interest? companies that exist on the internet want the internet slow for some reason...

<mod edit>

 

[FALC0N]

I think most of us agree that "net neutrality" is a good thing. It's all the stuff that might tag along for the ride is the part we worry about.

 

[modestalchemist]

it such a secretive bill that it only took over 20 seconds to google it. It's also only 7 pages ameded to the Communications Act of 1934.

if you can't figure out how to google. you can find it here.
http/www.scribd.com/doc/252841257/Net-Neutrality-legislation

 

[FALC0N]

Maybe, but the concern is legitimate. The government loves to over reach its authority. Then again, so do private companies. It's definitely a double edge sward