FCC Votes To Protect Net Neutrality, Reclassify Broadband

“This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech." ~ Chairman Wheeler.
 
zalazin said:
Better this than letting companies run the internet. Competition my butt! There isn't any in most areas. I live in small town USA Northern NY. For 10 Mb fiber I pay 200 a month.I have no Time Warner or Comcast. Most companies only care about their shareholders, customers are dollar signs in their eyes. You say no govt regulations, but without there would be anarchy in the streets...
Click to expand...

Heres an idea......MOVE!!!!!! Your were not born on this Earth with an inherit right to whatever kind of internet you want. Take some responsibility my God.
 
Zale00 said:
There is a massive illusion being painted right now where this is gonna "help the little guy." Its all BS, just like any government program; whichever group is in favor shall have certain wavers granted to them (like obamacare) and the rest of the regulations be applied to whomever is not in favor.
Click to expand...
Well the question comes down to whether government will do a WORSE job for the little guy than ISPs have over the past couple decades. One thing I like to point out is the price for entry level broadband has never dropped. 15 years ago $20 a month got you dial-up. Nowadays, it STILL gets you dial-up. The minimum price I've seen for broadband (minus any hidden fees) is $40-45. I agree that I think government is far too corrupt these days to be doing this primarily in the peoples' interest, but in this case we might be getting that by coincidence. I mean seriously, the bar is set so low for the ISPs right now as it is, it would be IMPRESSIVE for them to do a worse job. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the "solution" won't be bullshit either, but we're basically at rock bottom already.

Its going to kill competition because now you will have to lobby for favoritism through politicians instead of companies ripping eachothers throat out in the competitive free market.
Click to expand...
I have to stop you here, what you're describing is the way it is RIGHT NOW. ISPs have been operating as oligopolies for some time now and practically the only people represented by the government ARE lobbyists. I don't see how not changing the situation would help it.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Im not angry man and I am sure that you are since you are on the losing side of most every national debate.
Also Death Panels are not real. Keep spewing nonsense but they do not exist.
It was PolitiFacts 'Lie of the Year'.
I am glad some people are ignorant enough to still go for that garbage lie though lol!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/
Click to expand...

Hmmm..... why doesn't that politifact article mention the true lives system, thats actual part of the obamacare text? Its called politiFACT right? So because of that name it must be 100% unbiased and accurate right? Am I right? I dont understand why its not mentioning the actual text within the bill. Clearly they're an independent source, I mean with a name like politifact they must be!!
 
MavericK96 said:
LOL

Makes me wonder where these "billions of dollars" for "network upgrades" are actually going, because I sure as hell don't see the benefit. I think it's far more likely that infrastructure hasn't been updated in years and cable companies are pocketing the extra.
Click to expand...

They're upgrading the infrastructure all right... the infrastrucure of their pants to support the weight of all that money they keep stuffing into their pockets.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
This is a fantastic example of paranoid extremism.
Moment you wrote "almighty B Hussein O" it was clear where you head was at and how limited you are in your thought process.
Shout about guns all you want but let the grown ups work on the internet ok?
Click to expand...
^^ ad hom attack
I am pretty sure Steve Wozniak knows more than you about this and he supports it.
Click to expand...
^^ appeal to authority

Your post is trash. So was his if it makes you feel better. Maybe this one is too. lol :D
 
Zale00 said:
Heres an idea......MOVE!!!!!! Your were not born on this Earth with an inherit right to whatever kind of internet you want. Take some responsibility my God.
Click to expand...

Heres a concept for you!
Thats not some easy option and we shouldn't be paying out the ass for bad customer service and low data rates. As another poster mentioned things have not changed for 15 years.
To you its always the individuals fault and never a giant corporations.
 
Riptide_NVN said:
^^ ad hom attack

^^ appeal to authority

Your post is trash. So was his if it makes you feel better. Maybe this one is too. lol :D
Click to expand...

When you stress his middle name you are obviously in a specific, vocal group.
Also I do not see how posting the thoughts on someone with far more knowledge about this is trash. Atop of that the facts are already in, this is a simple thing to understand. They already started extorting companies and charts have shown the drastic effects they had. Call it trash all you want but the FCC did the right thing.
 
heatlesssun said:
Evolution, Big Bang, climate change are inherently "liberal" concerns these days. When you have right wing politicians that flat out refuse to acknowledge the almost certainty of evolution how can science be anything these days but liberally biased? Conservatives refuse to talk about it.
Click to expand...

No. Conservatives get shouted down by liberals whenever they offer a competing point of view. Any data offered is immediately decried as bogus because liberals always reject any source of such data that is not a liberal source. When there is a logical refutation to a liberal point of view the result is dodging of the issue and engaging in personal attacks against the Conservative critic. Liberals mock Conservatives and never take their concerns seriously. There is no discussing things with hard-line liberals. It invariably results in an "I'm right, you're an idiot" position. Look at some of the hateful names that have come out of the left: Teabagger, flat-earther, babykiller (yet abortion is supported by libs), etc. Yet, Liberals are supposedly "tolerant" and "more accepting" of "diversity". The only thing tolerated is like-minded thinking. The only thing accepted is doctrine that's in the Liberal playbook. Diversity is permitted only so long as everyone thinks and acts the same way. Add "race traitor" and "Uncle Tom" to the list of names. Think the data is questionable on Global Warming? Get called a "Climate Change Denier" for it. Funny that, when science by its nature is supposed to invite skepticism and stand on empirical data. But... I suppose as a Conservative I have no business talking about science because I'm not supposed to know the difference between a Planck length and a pluton.

This is why Conservatives do not like to talk to Liberals. Nobody likes to be insulted, denigrated, and talked down to as if they are uneducated imbeciles for simply holding a difference of opinion. Liberals want a conversation? Then they need to learn how to shut up and listen once in a while instead of constantly attacking people with differing ideas and then maybe people will want to talk. Otherwise, if it's just the same BS entrenched bickering that accomplishes absolutely nothing because nobody's going to budge, then it's pointless. I know I don't like wasting my time arguing with a brick wall that just sits there and calls me names. I'm fairly certain many others feel the same way.
 
Skripka said:
Regional monopolies.

And they all agree not to compete with one another in their repsective geographic boundaries. That is how. Would you like me to explain long division, too?
Click to expand...

Not really because you can't spell.
 
Phoenix333 said:
No. Conservatives get shouted down by liberals whenever they offer a competing point of view. Any data offered is immediately decried as bogus because liberals always reject any source of such data that is not a liberal source. When there is a logical refutation to a liberal point of view the result is dodging of the issue and engaging in personal attacks against the Conservative critic. Liberals mock Conservatives and never take their concerns seriously. There is no discussing things with hard-line liberals. It invariably results in an "I'm right, you're an idiot" position. Look at some of the hateful names that have come out of the left: Teabagger, flat-earther, babykiller (yet abortion is supported by libs), etc. Yet, Liberals are supposedly "tolerant" and "more accepting" of "diversity". The only thing tolerated is like-minded thinking. The only thing accepted is doctrine that's in the Liberal playbook. Diversity is permitted only so long as everyone thinks and acts the same way. Add "race traitor" and "Uncle Tom" to the list of names. Think the data is questionable on Global Warming? Get called a "Climate Change Denier" for it. Funny that, when science by its nature is supposed to invite skepticism and stand on empirical data. But... I suppose as a Conservative I have no business talking about science because I'm not supposed to know the difference between a Planck length and a pluton.

This is why Conservatives do not like to talk to Liberals. Nobody likes to be insulted, denigrated, and talked down to as if they are uneducated imbeciles for simply holding a difference of opinion. Liberals want a conversation? Then they need to learn how to shut up and listen once in a while instead of constantly attacking people with differing ideas and then maybe people will want to talk. Otherwise, if it's just the same BS entrenched bickering that accomplishes absolutely nothing because nobody's going to budge, then it's pointless. I know I don't like wasting my time arguing with a brick wall that just sits there and calls me names. I'm fairly certain many others feel the same way.
Click to expand...

Oh cry me a river, conservatives have been insulting people for years as well.
Please dont use the tired old "but they were mean" arguement when we are talking about news media and politics. Conservatives are flat out wrong on so many scientifically proven ideas. They have proven that they want to ignore it. You can point at nasty liberals all day long and I could do the same with Conservatives, but what you should be doing is being an adult and accepting scientific fact and thinking about the long term of your country. Not short term profits.
 
So since netflix doesn't have to pay for the fast lane and the monthly cost of their service went up partly because they had to pay for the fast lane, then the monthly cost should come down. Right? Yeah, not gonna happen.
 
new internet packages!

muJfxMQl.jpg
 
Phoenix333 said:
No. Conservatives get shouted down by liberals whenever they offer a competing point of view. Any data offered is immediately decried as bogus because liberals always reject any source of such data that is not a liberal source. When there is a logical refutation to a liberal point of view the result is dodging of the issue and engaging in personal attacks against the Conservative critic. Liberals mock Conservatives and never take their concerns seriously. There is no discussing things with hard-line liberals. It invariably results in an "I'm right, you're an idiot" position. Look at some of the hateful names that have come out of the left: Teabagger, flat-earther, babykiller (yet abortion is supported by libs), etc. Yet, Liberals are supposedly "tolerant" and "more accepting" of "diversity". The only thing tolerated is like-minded thinking. The only thing accepted is doctrine that's in the Liberal playbook. Diversity is permitted only so long as everyone thinks and acts the same way. Add "race traitor" and "Uncle Tom" to the list of names. Think the data is questionable on Global Warming? Get called a "Climate Change Denier" for it. Funny that, when science by its nature is supposed to invite skepticism and stand on empirical data. But... I suppose as a Conservative I have no business talking about science because I'm not supposed to know the difference between a Planck length and a pluton.

This is why Conservatives do not like to talk to Liberals. Nobody likes to be insulted, denigrated, and talked down to as if they are uneducated imbeciles for simply holding a difference of opinion. Liberals want a conversation? Then they need to learn how to shut up and listen once in a while instead of constantly attacking people with differing ideas and then maybe people will want to talk. Otherwise, if it's just the same BS entrenched bickering that accomplishes absolutely nothing because nobody's going to budge, then it's pointless. I know I don't like wasting my time arguing with a brick wall that just sits there and calls me names. I'm fairly certain many others feel the same way.
Click to expand...

Most of the gop data is rejected because it presents no scientific data what so ever. If it does present data it is produced by paid corporate shills & skewed in the corporations favor. It simply cannot pass the scientific method of testing and is usually so blatantly obvious that it is in fact insulting to even attempt to present it to a rational educated person as a tested scientific fact.
 
Zale00 said:
Heres an idea......MOVE!!!!!! Your were not born on this Earth with an inherit right to whatever kind of internet you want. Take some responsibility my God.
Click to expand...

Buying internet service isn't like buying a can of soup or a car - the "free market" ideals don't really hold up. With the reclassification of broadband to 25Mbps, the proposed TWC-Comcast merger would actually hold 56% of the broadband market. Do you think this is a positive thing?

http://nypost.com/2015/01/29/new-broadband-standards-complicate-potential-comcast-twc-merger/
 
Zarathustra[H];1041451728 said:
:rolleyes:

YOu forgot the part where they have carved up territories in order to avoid competing with eachother.

An overwhelming majority of people in the U.S. have only one choice for a "high speed internet provider". It doesn't really matter if there is another company the next town over, or down the street. They don't live there.

Thus, monopoly. Whenever a customer doesn't have a readily available competitor to choose, should they not be happy with their service/product that is a monopoly.
Click to expand...

Ok that makes sense, but that's already illegal in just about every case. How are they getting away with it?
 
Those that work for an ISP understand this is bad. All the rest that are ignorant of how the Internet works think this is a good idea. Either way, expect packet-loss and latency in the short term and jacked up prices in the long-term.
 
maverikv said:
How much kool aid do you have to drink to think that this is a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Enough to be delusional :p

Seriously though, it cuts both ways. I could see ISP's not even caring. But competition will certainly drive prices down to where they should have been from the start.
 
Zale00 said:
You know what you are right. We as human beings are forced to remain in the same place and are unable to move and make decisions to get what we want. So if I'm at a certain location. IT IS MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO GET WHAT KIND OF CABLE/INTERNET I WANT AND I WANT IT NOW!!!

Oh wait I have the freedom to relocate or make adjustments to my life? Meh screw it thats too hard, Uncle Sam come take care of me!!
Click to expand...

Found the Comcast Employee.
 
TangledThorns said:
Those that work for an ISP understand this is bad. All the rest that are ignorant of how the Internet works think this is a good idea. Either way, expect packet-loss and latency in the short term and jacked up prices in the long-term.
Click to expand...

Yeah my bad those things never happened before!:rolleyes:
 
Phoenix333 said:
No. Conservatives get shouted down by liberals whenever they offer a competing point of view. Any data offered is immediately decried as bogus because liberals always reject any source of such data that is not a liberal source.
Click to expand...

Evolution is a fundamental concept in biological sciences, sciences which are key areas of human interest and need and that have enormous public ramifications. You can't blame liberals when conservatives REFUSE to answer basic questions like belief in evolution.
 
Zale00 said:
Hmmm..... why doesn't that politifact article mention the true lives system, thats actual part of the obamacare text? Its called politiFACT right? So because of that name it must be 100% unbiased and accurate right? Am I right? I dont understand why its not mentioning the actual text within the bill. Clearly they're an independent source, I mean with a name like politifact they must be!!
Click to expand...

While I'm not claiming that they are perfect, they did win a Pulitzer Prize. What would you consider to be an "independent, unbiased" source? They fact check Democrats and Republicans alike.

Did you actually read the article, or did you just look for what you wanted to find? If all you are doing is trying to reinforce what you already believe, I doubt you'll ever challenge your preconceptions.

What, exactly, are you even claiming that these supposed panels are supposed to be doing? You are engaging in fear mongering. The government does not run "death panels." It isn't "taking over the internet." How exactly are either of these things supposedly going to happen?
 
gamerk2 said:
You don't see any competition anymore because the surviving business have gotten so large, they're impossible to compete against. No one can raise the money to compete head to head, so you're ending up with 2/3 giants in pretty much every industry. The tech industry is going through that right now, with Google/Apple eating everyone else up.
This doubles when you have infrastructure to consider, which raises startup costs even more.

The lack of competition is due to the Federal government not doing it's damn job and allowing and endless stream of corporate mergers, reducing competition and leaving giants in their wake.
Click to expand...

It is not the government's job to judge whether a company is "too big" ... if a merger doesn't violate an anti-trust law then the government should have no ability to block it ... would the auto industry be better if we broke up Ford and GM into smaller companies (maybe ... but probably not) ... being big isn't the issue (bigger companies are usually healthier than smaller companies)

When we deregulated the airlines in the 80's we ended up with lots of small carriers (that all proceeded to go bankrupt) ... we now are back to a few massive airlines and a number of smaller ones and the industry is healthy again ... it isn't beneficial to consumers or the government if we force companies to operate in noncompetitive states

We need to remove laws that prevent smaller companies from being able to start up but we definitely don't want to force all companies to be small through excess government regulation and oversight ... although I enjoy a certain degree of pricing competitiveness as a consumer I also enjoy a certain amount of profit as an employee (profitable companies do tend to pay better and provide better benefits to their employees than unprofitable ones) ;)
 
Well, the government *might* screw it up, but big business *is* screwing it up. So I'll go for the maybe over the sure thing in this case.
Oh, and you guys talking about not wanting the government to be involved. Fair enough. How about all those cozy exclusionary agreements big business has signed with all those local municipalities be rendered null and void? You guys should all be as much for that as I am, right? Open up local markets to whomever wants to get in...
 
Zale00 said:
Heres an idea......MOVE!!!!!! Your were not born on this Earth with an inherit right to whatever kind of internet you want. Take some responsibility my God.
Click to expand...
Cheap high speed internet with no baloney throttling is a human right now. The government in their competence and benevolence will protect us from these corporate crooks.
Zale00 said:
Clearly they're an independent source, I mean with a name like politifact they must be!!
Click to expand...
When I google politifact bias I get page after page of results. Which isn't to say I think they're any more biased than any place else. But I would definitely not trust that website implicitly.
 
Limahl said:
I guess all the customers who couldnt get HD streams before the "agreement" and who could after is just coincidence?
Click to expand...

Fun fact about your chart. The drop in overall performance is also the time when Netflix opened up HD streaming to all customers. Prior to October 2013 HD was only available to customers on ISP's that had the agreement in place.

http://blog.netflix.com/2013/09/highest-quality-hd-now-available-to-all.html

So yes, there would suddenly be a dip in overall Netflix performance as a result. The ISP's didn't throttle anything, Netflix just increased now much data they were using. I also find it hard to sympathize with a company complaining that ISPs want them to help foot the cost when they alone are over 30% of all internet downstream traffic.
 
AliceCooper said:
"Plain agreements among competitors to divide sales territories or assign customers are almost always illegal."

Quoted from the FTC. Unless I am misunderstanding... Could be the case, this isn't one of my areas of expertise. There might be a loophole though since they state "almost always".

http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/comp...-laws/dealings-competitors/market-division-or
Click to expand...

They get around it by having towns and cities sign agreements that they will be the exclusive provider of content for the area. That gives them the excuse not to have to tread on each other's turf. It's a mutual, under the table agreement among the major ISP's.
 
cptnjarhead said:
If you think that private businesses that strive to deliver the best products possible for the best price are the bad guy, and the Government that operates solely on forced taxation has your best interest at heart. Then you are hopelessly lost.
Click to expand...

The problem is on one hand they(Most large isps) ask for government assistance to keep their regional monopolies...but the second anyone tries to fix the problems they caused...The large isps wave the flag and say shouldn't we let the free market handle itself?

No one says the government is a saint, but the large isps are not competing in a free market either.
 
All I know is that politician or company that's coming across against anything on this list:
  • Broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
  • They may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of content, application, services, or any classes thereof.
  • They may not favor some internet traffic over other internet traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind — no paid prioritization or fast lanes.
is going to get the living shit kicked out of them on this issue: Opponents of net neutrality had better find a better argument than "Govmit bad! Wery, wery bad!"
 
SRTie4k said:
They get around it by having towns and cities sign agreements that they will be the exclusive provider of content for the area. That gives them the excuse not to have to tread on each other's turf. It's a mutual, under the table agreement among the major ISP's.
Click to expand...

Then wouldn't those towns and cities be participating in monopolistic practices due to signing a piece of paper that says "this ISP is the only ISP that can provide internet in this area,no other competition may intervene"?
 
AliceCooper said:
Then wouldn't those towns and cities be participating in monopolistic practices due to signing a piece of paper that says "this ISP is the only ISP that can provide internet in this area,no other competition may intervene"?
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But the alternative is no high speed internet in their area if I'm following this line of thinking correctly. And how long do you think those in charge would stay in charge there if they kept telling potential ISP entries into their market no? Not long. People MUST have their internet.
 
AliceCooper said:
What in the fawk are you talking about. How can multiple ISP's hold monopolies? Last I remember a monopoly is when one company controls the entire market for that service and/or good. Sure some ISP's are bigger than others, such as Comcast, Xfinity, and Charter for examples. Wait a second, I just stated three major ISP's. How can there be a monopoly when those 3 are fighting for business. Maybe if the gov would stop sticking its hands where it doesn't belong, there wouldn't be the "gov is bad" bandwagon. If ISP's are doing crap they aren't suppose to, the natural law of things is another competitor will come along and begin to take over since they will offer something better than their competition. But you don't see that now a days... Hmm maybe because the gov keeps sticking its hands in places and creating more rules, regulations, and taxes that make it harder for new businesses to start or existing ones to expand.
Click to expand...

So please tell me where this magical city in the U.S. is where I can have service from TWC, Cox, Charter, and Comcast all at the same address?
 
AliceCooper said:
Then wouldn't those towns and cities be participating in monopolistic practices due to signing a piece of paper that says "this ISP is the only ISP that can provide internet in this area,no other competition may intervene"?
Click to expand...

You gotta understand, these agreements came at a time when "the internet" was a magical thing that many areas had only heard about, and at the time everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon. Cities were standing in line asking ISP's to service their areas. They never even considered the repercussions of the non-compete clauses in the paperwork they signed when they signed on the dotted lines. All they were thinking (with help from the ISP PR guys), was "this is going to bring technology to the area, technology = more jobs, which = more votes!". All the while the ISP's are laughing all the way to the bank now that they have unrestricted access to their own patchwork of territory.

Whether it's truly legal or not if put under a microscope, I can't say. I know a lot of states have made exemptions (with campaign contributions, of course) to this monopolistic behavior.

It's an unfortunate reality in a good 80% of the US.
 
I don't think anyone here can speak intelligbly on this subject until the 330+ page document with these rules is available to the public. Right now all I see is the regurgitation of political talking points that are speculating as to the breadth of the implications made by talk radio, television, and celebrity pundits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top