D
Deleted member 93354
Guest
People who SUPPORTED net neutrality REPEAL said:But ISP's would never do that. Show me where they throttle traffic selectively. Then the FTC will handle it if they ever did.
Dumb asses.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
People who SUPPORTED net neutrality REPEAL said:But ISP's would never do that. Show me where they throttle traffic selectively. Then the FTC will handle it if they ever did.
Those laws are intentionally broad, so they can apply to a wide variety of commerce and trade. That is not something that makes them difficult to enforce across markets, it is something that makes them easy to enforce across markets.Good luck trying to get wireless carriers to abide by those laws you just posted. They are way too broad and not specific to this industry enough. Not even close really.
A lot of people in this forum should be feeling very embarrassed right now.
Even the thickest should realize this is why net neutrality should be in place.
Did you think the companies wouldn't do this?
Morons.
Well the thought process is that if you pay for X speed then you get that speed across all websites and apps. In the article it says that when you connect to Netflix you're stuck at 1.77 mbps and when your doing things not throttled then you're 6+mbps. In a net neutrality world you would get what you pay for as far as speed goes and it wouldn't matter what you are doing.
Of course the real world is different so get ready to pay more or experience rolling blackouts like AT&T is doing which is perfectly fine to me.
We pay the most because the entirety of the costs of our internet fall on the consumers... Because service providers like YouTube and NetFlix dont pay for any of it while using the vast majority of it.In this respect, Americans get dikked over, We pay more for phone and Internet services as compared to other countries and get less from the comparable services, I could see if we were actually #1 in the world to update and maintain the infrastructure, but we are far from it, so the price hikes aren't warranted.
Because service providers like YouTube and NetFlix dont pay for any of it
I guess you are unfamiliar with CDNs, settlement free peering, and the abuses.
You pay more for your internet service because the costs of those services fall nearly ENTIRELY on the consumer. The costs fall nearly ENTIRELY on the consumer because content providers like NetFlix and YouTube game the system and dont pay for their fair share.I should not have used the terminology, but I do feel this way. Allowing business to further exploit a market with little consumer choice is almost always a moronic ideal to support. This article is proof at least in some part of this.
A moronic person is not necessarily an ignorant person, so my statement could easily be interpreted as insulting to actual morons (not just ignoramus').
Those laws are intentionally broad, so they can apply to a wide variety of commerce and trade. That is not something that makes them difficult to enforce across markets, it is something that makes them easy to enforce across markets.
This is exactly why prior abuses have ended up on court, and why the sky never fell prior to 2015.
And lets make something VERY clear. NN was not meant to protect the individual consumers. NN was meant to protect the internet giants like YouTube and NetFlix, who use the vast majority of the bandwidth of the internet.... Perhaps is those highly profitable cooperate mammoths "paid their fair share" (a popular sentiment among NN supporters), then the burden of the expense wouldnt be laid entirely on the individual consumers of the internet. It may also help the little guys become more competitive with these massive monopolies.... So lets drop the notion that NN was there to protect the consumers and little guys, because it most certainly was not.
What does that have to do with YouTube/NetFlix not paying for the services they use, and those costs being forwarded along to the consumers...?Ah yes, the series of tubes philosophy. I forgot that ISP's weren't paid a hefty amount by the government to expand their infrastructure, oh wait..
This is terrible, but not really related to the overturning of Net Neutrality rules.
The Obama era net neutrality rules - from what I remember - never applied to wireless carriers, only to ground based ISP's. And even then, they had one big gaping omission which made them ineffective. They didn't apply to the borders between networks or peering sites. This is how both Verizon and Comcast extorted Netflix back in 2016, by making their streams slow to a crawl. They just sabotaged the route between their network and the network Netflix was on.
Granted, I understand why Wheelers FCC crafted the rules in this way. The peering site dilemma is a very difficult one to regulate.
We pay the most because the entirety of the costs of our internet fall on the consumers... Because service providers like YouTube and NetFlix dont pay for any of it while using the vast majority of it.
How are you not understanding this?
My god...
So-called "net-neutrality" did not apply to wireless carriers. So, I've asked this a millions times now. We don't have 'net netrality' regulations, can someone point out just a couple of examples of the negative effects of this? Wasn't this supposed to be the end of the 'free internet'? Was someone exaggerating with their hysterics over this?
So I have taken 2 insults from you and I blew them off. Keep going and you're going to need forum neutrality rules...You, as the consumer, were already paying for the services that the large mammoth corporations were using and not paying for.
Where do you think the cost of those service was falling? Do you think the ISPs were just eating the losses for years? Why do you think your individual internet and connectivity service have become vastly more expensive over the last decade? The ENTIRETY of the service costs fall on the consumers, because the content providers using the service have weaseled out of it for years.
The naivety of some people blows my mind...
Ah yes, the series of tubes philosophy. I forgot that ISP's weren't paid a hefty amount by the government to expand their infrastructure, oh wait..
Some do though. I was talking with the Embarq (Centurylink) techs and they were upset because my area has received tons of federal funds to bring broadband into the area and yet nothing has been done. Well what Embarq did was run fiber to the elementary school and then told everyone that they can't get broadband. So the area is listed as broadband connected, but you can't even get dialup in the area as the phone lines are too rotten and old to support that.So sick of hearing this. My guess is that you have little to ZERO direct knowledge of the ISP industry outside of whatever progressive conspiracy theories you read from Reddit, Anandtech, and all the other garbage sites. I work for an ISP and we receive never received anything from your mama gubment. In fact we are constantly having to pay off local and state municipalities who want to hold up expansion with permitting red tape until they make it painful enough to get their "cut".
Wow, you guys must have an antiquated phone network, and dinosaurs running them.
So sick of hearing this. My guess is that you have little to ZERO direct knowledge of the ISP industry outside of whatever progressive conspiracy theories you read from Reddit, Anandtech, and all the other garbage sites. I work for an ISP and we receive never received anything from your mama gubment. In fact we are constantly having to pay off local and state municipalities who want to hold up expansion with permitting red tape until they make it painful enough to get their "cut".
What does that have to do with YouTube/NetFlix not paying for the services they use, and those costs being forwarded along to the consumers...?
A lot of people in this forum should be feeling very embarrassed right now.
Even the thickest should realize this is why net neutrality should be in place.
Did you think the companies wouldn't do this?
Morons.
So for all those arguing that the phone carriers and ISPs are greedy corporate oligarchs, and therefore we need a centralized government bureaucracy regulating the internet, I have the following questions:
1) to what extent is that bureaucracy accountable to either voters or consumers?
2) To what extent is there overlap between corporate and government employees?
3) Is greed a phenomenon experienced purely by corporations, and the FCC is totally immune?
I think it is awesome! I think giving poor unfortunate folks a choice to receive "rolling blackouts" is great! Sign me up!
It has more to do with the fact that it should be the ISP's job to expand bandwidth across the nation and not stifle it with bullshit limits and throttling.
What does that have to do with YouTube/NetFlix not paying for the services they use, and those costs being forwarded along to the consumers...?
No one is saying the system is perfect, obviously everything has been corrupted to the point that the Onion doesn't even seem like satire anymore but I am hopeful for future generations.
Yes, it is up to you to decide how to use the bandwidth you pay for, but most of us here are not so stupid as to stream the 4K version of a video to devices that can barely do 1080. The general public, who makes up FAR more of the user base than the entirety of this user base however, is typically not so intelligent and will always pick the highest quality option even if it makes absolutely NO sense. And that needlessly wastes bandwidth. If limitations are placed so that the capabilities of the end user device are not exceeded for no gain, I have no issue. If they actually throttle the traffic so the video can;t play because the data stream is being interrupted - then I have a problem.
Sure, but that doesn't really address my points.
People in here are crying out over "see this is what you get without NN" - yet they have a number of hard and implicit assumptions in that belief system.
IMO those assumptions, which I've called out in my original question, are completely unfounded. I'm waiting on someone to justify these assumptions in a satisfactory way.
I'm guessing I'll be waiting for the heat death of the universe.
You PAID for your share. Google and NetFlix should PAY for their share, which they didnt because of prior abuse and NN.You PAID for that bandwidth. If Comcast or other ISP's cannot deliver, then they have oversold their services.
Don't all these carriers make this obvious in all their unlimited plans?
verizons gounlimited says it streams at 480p, beyond and 720p, and above at 1080p. I'm pretty sure they had similar language months ago
ATT - unlimited & more = 480p unlimited & more premium = 1080p
t-mobile - one plan =480p, one plus =1080p
sprint - unlimited basic -480p, unlimited plus - 1080p, unlimited premium =fullhd.
A lot of people in this forum should be feeling very embarrassed right now.
Even the thickest should realize this is why net neutrality should be in place.
Did you think the companies wouldn't do this?
Morons.
You PAID for your share. Google and NetFlix should PAY for their share, which they didnt because of prior abuse and NN.
Thus you, the consumer, pay the entire cost of internet connectivity. If Google and NetFlix paid their share, then internet wouldnt be as expensive for you the consumer (and tax payer).
Why are you protecting Google and NetFlix? Because they have made threats to pass the costs onto the consumers? Isnt that extortion? From massively profitable companies playing victims...
That Face When: Google and NetFlix extort the general public by telling them that they will charge them more if ISPs charge them for their 'fair share' of usage, and the general public responds by saying "That sounds fair. We as consumers and tax payers should pay the entire cost of internet connectivity ourselves, so that we dont have to pay more".
Actually heat death is a myth. Even planets orbiting stars will have tectonic stresses which generate heat. Gravity keeps going even in heat death.
Those laws are intentionally broad, so they can apply to a wide variety of commerce and trade. That is not something that makes them difficult to enforce across markets, it is something that makes them easy to enforce across markets.
This is exactly why prior abuses have ended up on court, and why the sky never fell prior to 2015.
And lets make something VERY clear. NN was not meant to protect the individual consumers. NN was meant to protect the internet giants like YouTube and NetFlix, who use the vast majority of the bandwidth of the internet.... Perhaps is those highly profitable cooperate mammoths "paid their fair share" (a popular sentiment among NN supporters), then the burden of the expense wouldnt be laid entirely on the individual consumers of the internet. It may also help the little guys become more competitive with these massive monopolies.... So lets drop the notion that NN was there to protect the consumers and little guys, because it most certainly was not.
So if Google and netflix etc gave ISP's tons of money for bandwidth, the ISP's would definitely lower our bills right?
Do you know who the behemoths are on the other side? Verizon? ATT? !?! There is no way in hell a court would touch those wireless carriers or ISPs with those laws you listed.
Do electric companies throttle power for heavy usage devices like air conditioning, hot water, or stoves and demand more money from their manufacturers? Do water companies throttle water when you wash clothes, the car or shower? No no and no. They don't. They need to upgrade their pipes if they cant handle Netflix and YouTube. Or be subject to a free market which would force those ISP companies to actually have to work for consumer's hard earned money.