Yesterday, Republican opposition in Congress folded in the face of popular support for Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality means that your ISP (Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision, TWC, etal) is prohibited from charging different rates to visit certain websites, or charging websites to get faster delivery over an ISPs network. The NN movement wants the FCC to treat broadband Internet like a public utility (called "Title II") to maintain equal access among the sites that Internet users can visit and publish.
NYTimes:
| Republicans hoped to pre-empt the F.C.C. vote with legislation, but Senate Democrats insisted on waiting until after Thursday’s F.C.C. vote before even beginning to talk about legislation for an open Internet. Even Mr. Thune, the architect of draft legislation to override the F.C.C., said Democrats had stalled what momentum he could muster. |
This is big for two reasons:
1) Although nothing is yet set in stone, NN may be preserved in some form, without some raidcal hair-brained overhaul to 'enhance' the free Internet.
2) Popular support (with 11th hour help from Silicon Valley) beat beack a major industrial lobby on the Hill in favor of consumers and entrepreneurs. A rare occurrence, to say the least.
More from the Times:
In mid-October, the tech activist group Fight for the Future acquired the direct telephone numbers of about 30 F.C.C. officials, circumventing the agency’s switchboard to send calls directly to policy makers. That set off a torrent of more than 55,000 phone calls until the group turned off the spigot on Dec. 3.
In November, President Obama cited “almost four million public comments” when he publicly pressured the F.C.C. to turn away from its paid “fast lane” proposal and embrace a new regulatory regime.
Since then, the lobbying has grown only more intense. Last week, 102 Internet companies wrote to the F.C.C. to say the threat of Internet service providers “abusing their gatekeeper power to impose tolls and discriminate against competitive companies is the real threat to our future,” not “heavy-handed regulation” and possible taxation, as conservatives in Washington say.
|
Here, Consumerist blog breaks down, in Comcast's own words, why NN needs to be preserved. In short, Cable companies, who enjoy monopoly status in many markets, are experiencing troubling trends in their overpriced and subpar tv service, including falling revenues and subscribers despite raising prices. They can only raise prices so much, and need an unregulated monopolized Internet in order to be able to raise revenues from their broadband-only subscribers.
Consumerist: 2 charts from Comcast show why NN is vital - (
New Window )
Why?
Quote:
will be a disaster.
Why?
Just my opinion, but I feel it will stifle innovation and take the biggest technological advancement of our lifetimes and regulate it like a utility.
Consumers now have a voice and control. If you don't like your ISP because they block content or are too slow, too expensive, etc. you change providers.
think about the changes in dynamics of the web in just a few short years - and the changes from downloading on torrent sites to streaming. That is significant in how you access and "use" content.
In my experience the government cannot keep up with that.
It takes them forever to enact legislation and in general I prefer smaller government.
I do not oppose many things about net neutrality, but from what I've read about this propose it will over regulate the web.
Quote:
will be a disaster.
This. Nothing like "fixing" something that isn't broken.
Well, when the rest of the world including many "backward" countries have faster, cheaper web service, I'm not sure I would regard ours as "not broken"
Consumers now have a voice and control. If you don't like your ISP because they block content or are too slow, too expensive, etc. you change providers.
You don't have a choice, because ISPs are the same as cable companies in many places, which enjoy monopolies or near monopolies dating back to last century. That worked for cable tv, a luxury by all accounts. But in the 21st century, cable companies bring these monopoly privileges to necessities, like broadband Internet.
Quote:
In comment 12152004 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
will be a disaster.
Why?
Just my opinion, but I feel it will stifle innovation and take the biggest technological advancement of our lifetimes and regulate it like a utility.
Consumers now have a voice and control. If you don't like your ISP because they block content or are too slow, too expensive, etc. you change providers.
think about the changes in dynamics of the web in just a few short years - and the changes from downloading on torrent sites to streaming. That is significant in how you access and "use" content.
In my experience the government cannot keep up with that.
It takes them forever to enact legislation and in general I prefer smaller government.
I do not oppose many things about net neutrality, but from what I've read about this propose it will over regulate the web.
Are you sure you read this thread right?
does not hold water
because currently
US is ranked 11th in average internet speed
so it's "innovation " is lagging behind many of the other countries in the world
also the fastest internet available in US now is in Chattanooga which offers a gigabit per second broadband at 70 bucks a month
and is drum roll please .. a public utility company
While I agree we need an open, unregulated Internet, this doesn't fit the needs of everyone. In my area, we have only one provider: Comcast. That's it. Unless I want to go with DSL and these aren't the dark ages. I do a lot of work from home and need a high speed connection. DSL won't cut it. So I can either pony up the money to Comcast, who has me over a barrel, or move.
Quote:
Consumers now have a voice and control. If you don't like your ISP because they block content or are too slow, too expensive, etc. you change providers.
While I agree we need an open, unregulated Internet, this doesn't fit the needs of everyone. In my area, we have only one provider: Comcast. That's it. Unless I want to go with DSL and these aren't the dark ages. I do a lot of work from home and need a high speed connection. DSL won't cut it. So I can either pony up the money to Comcast, who has me over a barrel, or move.
+1
does not hold water
because currently
US is ranked 11th in average internet speed
so it's "innovation " is lagging behind many of the other countries in the world
also the fastest internet available in US now is in Chattanooga which offers a gigabit per second broadband at 70 bucks a month
and is drum roll please .. a public utility company
Do you understand the difference between "innovation" and "cost of capital"? It's a lot cheaper/easier for South Korean telecoms/cable giants to increase speeds across their entire networks then it is for US companies which cover vastly larger geographic areas.
The reason the US isn't "#1" in speed has little to do with innnovation.
Not yet. If it were so easy to deliver reliable broadband Internet to homes over LTE, ISPs would do it.
Quote:
Consumers now have a voice and control. If you don't like your ISP because they block content or are too slow, too expensive, etc. you change providers.
While I agree we need an open, unregulated Internet, this doesn't fit the needs of everyone. In my area, we have only one provider: Comcast. That's it. Unless I want to go with DSL and these aren't the dark ages. I do a lot of work from home and need a high speed connection. DSL won't cut it. So I can either pony up the money to Comcast, who has me over a barrel, or move.
I'm in the same boat. 105 mbs from Comcast or 3 mbs from AT&T isn't a choice.
Quote:
or WiFi (which is connected to cables/fiber) is certainly faster, you do have a growing number of options in many areas due to the rapidly improving speeds of LTE. So there are options for high speed internet beyond the traditional cable modem.
Not yet. If it were so easy to deliver reliable broadband Internet to homes over LTE, ISPs would do it.
Define "easy". From a technical standpoint it can be largely done. From a practical standpoint it's extremely expensive to handle the necessary capacity (and get approval for the large # of cell sites that would be required).
This seems to be the point people are missing. There isn't a choice to "just leave it as is" (my preference). Given the choice between money rules taking over or regulating and maintaining open access at the same level for all, I'll take the regulation.
The one change I'd like to see, as was alluded to by Dunedin above, is the opening of markets to real competition. The charges right now are excessive and service is sometimes spotty. Sure, we have a choice; internet under monopoly conditions, or no internet at all.
this is wireless technology that is rolling out in test in San Fran
it offers speeds 1000 times faster than current LTE ..
if this proof of concept test works
then your mobile company will be offering high speed internet and cable tv to home users via wireless
Artemis, Dish Ink Deal for Super-Fast Wireless in San Francisco - ( New Window )
Quote:
Because if it isn't, net neutrality should remain. Problem is they ARE trying to change it by ISPs being allowed to control traffic. It's a choice of lesser of two evils. Either keep net neutrality by regulating it, or blow it up and allow monopolies to control it.
This seems to be the point people are missing. There isn't a choice to "just leave it as is" (my preference). Given the choice between money rules taking over or regulating and maintaining open access at the same level for all, I'll take the regulation.
The one change I'd like to see, as was alluded to by Dunedin above, is the opening of markets to real competition. The charges right now are excessive and service is sometimes spotty. Sure, we have a choice; internet under monopoly conditions, or no internet at all.
This is the point why I mentioned Google Fiber. Google is going to end up winning out on this whole thing. They don't have the entrenched interests/limitations that the ISPs do which makes them dig in. Google is rolling out high speed internet across middle America to test it out and it won't take them too long to go after the big markets. And they get to be both an ISP and a content provider. So they get to sit on both sides of the fence. It is in their best interest to allow for high speed access to digital properties, that's where their real money is made. If the interests in forcing regulation to not cap data to sites, that's fine for them, they want you to be connected at all times to the internet (and if you go to Google properties, all the better). If the decision goes the other way, then they can play favorites towards Google content. Smart or lucky, they will end up being well ahead of the ISPs within the next few years as they ramp up their infrastructure.
And what would be stopping them from violating NN (without Title II reclassification) to intentionally drive you to Google content?
Yes, but at a significantly inflated cost for what remains pretty low bandwidth.
But Larry said "do no evil";)
All I'm saying is that they are playing the ISPs and politicians perfectly. They are looking at 2020 and beyond, the ISPs are looking at 5 years ago and politicians are doing what they do. You have a generation now that is entering college who have only known the internet, you will have another generation within 10 years going to college who only know about iPhones and constant connectivity (including my kids). Google is in the best position to provide what they want/expect. It is what it is.
Quote:
.
And what would be stopping them from violating NN (without Title II reclassification) to intentionally drive you to Google content?
Nothing, that's why they win either way.
Lots of details we deserve to know. Post the bill online and give everyone a chance to see it before any vote.
Quote:
In comment 12152072 Shecky said:
Quote:
Because if it isn't, net neutrality should remain. Problem is they ARE trying to change it by ISPs being allowed to control traffic. It's a choice of lesser of two evils. Either keep net neutrality by regulating it, or blow it up and allow monopolies to control it.
This seems to be the point people are missing. There isn't a choice to "just leave it as is" (my preference). Given the choice between money rules taking over or regulating and maintaining open access at the same level for all, I'll take the regulation.
The one change I'd like to see, as was alluded to by Dunedin above, is the opening of markets to real competition. The charges right now are excessive and service is sometimes spotty. Sure, we have a choice; internet under monopoly conditions, or no internet at all.
This is the point why I mentioned Google Fiber. Google is going to end up winning out on this whole thing. They don't have the entrenched interests/limitations that the ISPs do which makes them dig in. Google is rolling out high speed internet across middle America to test it out and it won't take them too long to go after the big markets. And they get to be both an ISP and a content provider. So they get to sit on both sides of the fence. It is in their best interest to allow for high speed access to digital properties, that's where their real money is made. If the interests in forcing regulation to not cap data to sites, that's fine for them, they want you to be connected at all times to the internet (and if you go to Google properties, all the better). If the decision goes the other way, then they can play favorites towards Google content. Smart or lucky, they will end up being well ahead of the ISPs within the next few years as they ramp up their infrastructure.
I don't disagree. However, how is Google Fiber going to serve rural America? The simple answer is, it isn't because there's no way it could be cost effective. If you live in a city/fairly heavily-populated area you're fine. Otherwise, you're still SOL.
I liken it to the older problem of rural electrification/telephone service. That took a long time to fully implement, and it was the government doing it. This is just the sort of project that only the federal government can/will do. If we depend on private business to do it, it won't happen on the scale that's needed.
Another example is the national highway system. If the profit motive was considered, we'd still be hiking through the woods. Making internet access a utility can help move it toward universal access at a (hopefully) reasonable bandwidth.
I think that's attainable only via wireless; wired just can't cope with the ultimately vast network that would be needed.
This is good enough for now - what happens next will determine how bad things are (or will get). Could have been much, much worse.
Quote:
In comment 12152115 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12152072 Shecky said:
Quote:
I don't disagree. However, how is Google Fiber going to serve rural America? The simple answer is, it isn't because there's no way it could be cost effective. If you live in a city/fairly heavily-populated area you're fine. Otherwise, you're still SOL.
I liken it to the older problem of rural electrification/telephone service. That took a long time to fully implement, and it was the government doing it. This is just the sort of project that only the federal government can/will do. If we depend on private business to do it, it won't happen on the scale that's needed.
Another example is the national highway system. If the profit motive was considered, we'd still be hiking through the woods. Making internet access a utility can help move it toward universal access at a (hopefully) reasonable bandwidth.
I think that's attainable only via wireless; wired just can't cope with the ultimately vast network that would be needed.
You mean like this?
http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-tests-ultra-high-speed-wireless-internet-technology/ - ( New Window )
Lots of details we deserve to know. Post the bill online and give everyone a chance to see it before any vote.
Websites are already registered through ICANN.
C'mon, that's patently false - most of them understand full well how the tubes work.
(in case you thought I was serious - see here)
Quote:
In comment 12152139 Matt in SGS said:
Quote:
In comment 12152115 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12152072 Shecky said:
Quote:
I don't disagree. However, how is Google Fiber going to serve rural America? The simple answer is, it isn't because there's no way it could be cost effective. If you live in a city/fairly heavily-populated area you're fine. Otherwise, you're still SOL.
I liken it to the older problem of rural electrification/telephone service. That took a long time to fully implement, and it was the government doing it. This is just the sort of project that only the federal government can/will do. If we depend on private business to do it, it won't happen on the scale that's needed.
Another example is the national highway system. If the profit motive was considered, we'd still be hiking through the woods. Making internet access a utility can help move it toward universal access at a (hopefully) reasonable bandwidth.
I think that's attainable only via wireless; wired just can't cope with the ultimately vast network that would be needed.
You mean like this? http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-tests-ultra-high-speed-wireless-internet-technology/ - ( New Window )
It's a possibility, but what is the ratio of distance to a wireless transmitter and bandwidth drop-off? Unless this technology can provide adequate bandwidth under all conditions (i.e., mountainous, forested, wide coverage area, etc.) then we still arrive at the concerns and show-stoppers I voiced above.
Hopefully it will provide significantly better coverage than cell service. As an example, our cell service is dependent on a separate, home-based receiver (mini cell tower) that channels the cell signal via the internet. Without it, we have no cell service available.
how does rural america get their broadband and wireless phone service??
because of all those taxes on my cell phone and cable bill
i always found it ironic that federal taxes pay for some farmer in nebraska to have cell phone and internet service so he can watch fox news and he rail against the federal government
I think high speed internet's a bigger issue for cities, where the cost of construction/laying fiber and higher cost of labor can't be justified without charging a lot more for the service. WWAN/MAN solutions have been tried a few times over with lukewarm success, and at much slower rates. I think they're going to hit the ceiling in terms of how much they can practically get done given the congestion and frequencies being used.
Quote:
I liken it to the older problem of rural electrification/telephone service. That took a long time to fully implement, and it was the government doing it. This is just the sort of project that only the federal government can/will do. If we depend on private business to do it, it won't happen on the scale that's needed.
how does rural america get their broadband and wireless phone service??
because of all those taxes on my cell phone and cable bill
i always found it ironic that federal taxes pay for some farmer in nebraska to have cell phone and internet service so he can watch fox news and he rail against the federal government
Perhaps I misunderstand, but it sounds like you're saying, "I've got mine; fuck everyone else."
I think high speed internet's a bigger issue for cities, where the cost of construction/laying fiber and higher cost of labor can't be justified without charging a lot more for the service. WWAN/MAN solutions have been tried a few times over with lukewarm success, and at much slower rates. I think they're going to hit the ceiling in terms of how much they can practically get done given the congestion and frequencies being used.
I agree, hence my statement that the only entity who can do such a widespread effort is the federal government. People of a certain persuasion love to say that government is useless, but (to reiterate from above) this is exactly the sort of project that needs such an entity in order to get done.
In order to try to forestall the usual suspects, how to do it, will it be done properly, will it be done in a timely manner, what will it ultimately cost, etc. are all reasonable questions, but not at this point in the debate.
Has regulation of the phone company helped? Has regulation of any utility made it better or more crippled by bureaucracy and had more taxes added to it?
Has regulation of the phone company helped? Has regulation of any utility made it better or more crippled by bureaucracy and had more taxes added to it?
The people of California probably have a few opinions on deregulation of utilities...
umm no
i am saying that many of those rural red staters who hate the federal government are the very ones getting subsidized cell phone and cable service courtesy of the federal government .
That's the crux of the problem. We don't yet know what a regulated internet would look like. My guess is that there'll be a high volume of scare stories from one side and pollyanna-like "everything will be ducky" stories from the other side.
Until an actual, agreed-upon regulatory environment is set, we're just whistling into the wind.
Quote:
are valid, but I don't think they'll ever really be addressed. Just like any other service, it's difficult to justify the cost/benefit to a private provider when there's so few customers allocated to so much infrastructure.
I think high speed internet's a bigger issue for cities, where the cost of construction/laying fiber and higher cost of labor can't be justified without charging a lot more for the service. WWAN/MAN solutions have been tried a few times over with lukewarm success, and at much slower rates. I think they're going to hit the ceiling in terms of how much they can practically get done given the congestion and frequencies being used.
I agree, hence my statement that the only entity who can do such a widespread effort is the federal government. People of a certain persuasion love to say that government is useless, but (to reiterate from above) this is exactly the sort of project that needs such an entity in order to get done.
In order to try to forestall the usual suspects, how to do it, will it be done properly, will it be done in a timely manner, what will it ultimately cost, etc. are all reasonable questions, but not at this point in the debate.
Doesn't depend on how essential internet actually is? Highways and phones, etc are essentials but internet and cable? IMO, not so much.
Quote:
Perhaps I misunderstand, but it sounds like you're saying, "I've got mine; fuck everyone else."
umm no
i am saying that many of those rural red staters who hate the federal government are the very ones getting subsidized cell phone and cable service courtesy of the federal government .
Ok, gotcha. That's why I prefaced my statement with the disclaimer. Of course, that fits neatly into the "no more government, but don't dare touch my social security/disability/social welfare etc."
increase the speed of their internet is in for a huge disappointment.
the federal government defined (REGULATED) broadband service as 25 megs per second
so either internet providers have to raise their speeds to 25 megs
or they can no longer call their service broadband
so umm yes government will get companies to increase the speed of their internet service
Quote:
In comment 12152288 jcn56 said:
Quote:
are valid, but I don't think they'll ever really be addressed. Just like any other service, it's difficult to justify the cost/benefit to a private provider when there's so few customers allocated to so much infrastructure.
I think high speed internet's a bigger issue for cities, where the cost of construction/laying fiber and higher cost of labor can't be justified without charging a lot more for the service. WWAN/MAN solutions have been tried a few times over with lukewarm success, and at much slower rates. I think they're going to hit the ceiling in terms of how much they can practically get done given the congestion and frequencies being used.
I agree, hence my statement that the only entity who can do such a widespread effort is the federal government. People of a certain persuasion love to say that government is useless, but (to reiterate from above) this is exactly the sort of project that needs such an entity in order to get done.
In order to try to forestall the usual suspects, how to do it, will it be done properly, will it be done in a timely manner, what will it ultimately cost, etc. are all reasonable questions, but not at this point in the debate.
Doesn't depend on how essential internet actually is? Highways and phones, etc are essentials but internet and cable? IMO, not so much.
The internet is every bit as much a "highway" as any concrete or asphalt strip. And is you think that phones are essentials, take a closer look at just where phone service is going.
The internet has become the primary information and communication source for a large portion of the population. Add in the Internet of Things and you have a far more essential service that either of your examples.
Strictly speaking, cable companies can do this, because they have monopolies over access to the market in many areas.
So new regulation by FCC (which will entrench existing regulation that telecom lobby was prepared to jettison) will make sure that ISPs cannot abuse their monopoly power over broadband Internet.
And yes, in our society, broadband Internet is considered more of a necessity (and will be more so before the end of the decade), closer to telephone and power, and further from luxuries like cable television.
You portray the internet as if it were a static entity when it's anything but. It's influence on our daily lives is huge and will only grow. Instead of trying to nitpick using mature technologies (phone - any future development is absolutely internet-centric), do some reading on what's coming up, regardless of delivery options, within the next five years.
Even if it isn't as important as electricity or telephone (yet), it is certainly more important than cable television. But companies that received a monopoly for cable television decades ago are now also in charge of broadband Internet access.
So FCC preserving NN aims to temper this, to make sure that these cable tv monopolies don't overly abuse or exploit their privileged position as ISPs.
The same people that spy on and collect all your communications, promised you that you can keep your doctor and to lower the cost of college are now promising you that the secret takeover of the internet is good..
Some people never learn.
The same people that spy on and collect all your communications, promised you that you can keep your doctor and to lower the cost of college are now promising you that the secret takeover of the internet is good..
Some people never learn.
Take your political claptrap elsewhere. Stop fucking up a decent thread.
I'll let Zuckerberg state it for me:
"Argue all you want about the impacts of the Internet, but I don't think anyone would refute that access helps improve lives. The Internet is the highway buildout of our era. It provides new roads into medical advice and even crowdsourced medical care, educational tools, communication and job opportunities (to the tune of billions of potential dollars)."
There's lots more like this out there; all you have to do is use the internet.
I don't think this does much to increase the BB internet infrastructure.
There's lots more like this out there; all you have to do is use the internet.
Cute.
Quote:
It's well documented that the US lags well behind other first-world nations in broadband internet infrastructure.
I don't think this does much to increase the BB internet infrastructure.
Sure doesn't warrant that the providers should get to make even more money hand over fist than they already do, either. Americans are underserved in this area, and pay exhorbitant prices on top of that.
Nope. Despite nondiscrimination being the overall rule of the road, there are always some folks who don’t play along.
Comcast got in trouble for throttling subscribers’ legitimate content a few years ago, for example. Others have been accused of blocking different legitimate traffic. And AT&T, Verizon, and others have said that they would love to charge for fast-lane access if it were permissible. The problem is there.
Why is Title II reclassification needed to make this happen?
Because the old rules were able to be thrown out in court based on the technical legal arguments. One of the few paths left available to the FCC for future regulation, in that case, was reclassification.
There was nothing preventing cable tv monopolies from extending those GOVT GRANTED PRIVILEGES of a non-competitive market to broadband Internet. Title II will hopefully bring things back in line.
Consumerist: What you need to know about NN vote tomorrow. - ( New Window )
If there was some absolute assurance that the FCC would stick to net neutrality, there wouldn't be much of an issue (other than for the ISP's).
Quote:
There's lots more like this out there; all you have to do is use the internet.
Cute.
To the point, rather.
The whole point is that the ISPs were prepared to dictate net content (unless you pay a fee). Comcast signs a deal with Netflix, TWC signs a deal with Hulu, Cablevision launches their own service etc. No HBO GO on Verizon, only Showtime. No Showtime app on RCN. If you have Google fiber, you can't access blogs that are not from google-owned blogspot... that's a world without Net Neutrality.
That's the world that ISPs want. Imagine if you couldnt call your friend on the phone without paying an extra exorbitant fee because you both have different telephone companies.
Quote:
what we need is more government involved in something that's not broken. What would be nice if the most open and transparent administration in history decided to allow the masses to actually read the regulations instead of just dressing them up in flowery language like "neutrality" and "fairness". If it's so good, why not allow the public to see it?
The same people that spy on and collect all your communications, promised you that you can keep your doctor and to lower the cost of college are now promising you that the secret takeover of the internet is good..
Some people never learn.
Take your political claptrap elsewhere. Stop fucking up a decent thread.
I don't think there is anything wrong or political by pointing out that government influence rarely improves a service. And that's certainly not limited to any one party.
Quote:
In comment 12152426 bbfanva said:
Quote:
what we need is more government involved in something that's not broken. What would be nice if the most open and transparent administration in history decided to allow the masses to actually read the regulations instead of just dressing them up in flowery language like "neutrality" and "fairness". If it's so good, why not allow the public to see it?
The same people that spy on and collect all your communications, promised you that you can keep your doctor and to lower the cost of college are now promising you that the secret takeover of the internet is good..
Some people never learn.
Take your political claptrap elsewhere. Stop fucking up a decent thread.
I don't think there is anything wrong or political by pointing out that government influence rarely improves a service. And that's certainly not limited to any one party.
There's nothing wrong with it except it isn't necessarily true. It's true to you because your political views dictate that this is so, and because they obviously color every comment you make here.
It's like anything else, the batting average between government and business effectiveness is essentially a wash.
UNLESS that private business has a monopoly that necessarily crushes the free market.
In that case, there is no choice and there are no challengers.
Quote:
In comment 12152426 bbfanva said:
Quote:
what we need is more government involved in something that's not broken. What would be nice if the most open and transparent administration in history decided to allow the masses to actually read the regulations instead of just dressing them up in flowery language like "neutrality" and "fairness". If it's so good, why not allow the public to see it?
The same people that spy on and collect all your communications, promised you that you can keep your doctor and to lower the cost of college are now promising you that the secret takeover of the internet is good..
Some people never learn.
Take your political claptrap elsewhere. Stop fucking up a decent thread.
I don't think there is anything wrong or political by pointing out that government influence rarely improves a service. And that's certainly not limited to any one party.
"Rarely" is debatable. Cars, food and consumer products are safer now than they used to be, not because of markets, but because of governments. And knee-jerk responses to government intervention outside the context of an actual policy is political. Assuming it's wrong is just prejudice.
• Costs go up
• Service / Quality of service go down
• People go out of business
This is one area I think they are in over their heads, and with technology changing always changing at warp speed, I don’t think they can keep up.
To me it looks like they are trying to fix a problem that doesn't yet exist.
And that has exactly what to do with anything?
I agree beer man, I am expecting service to get worse.
today, for example netflix has commercial agreement with many network providers (like comcast and I believe verizon) to prioritize their packets. Many streaming content providers have these arrangements.
when you're streaming content that gets put to the head of the bandwidth queue if you will and gets prioritized.
Under net neutrality these types of agreement will be illegal and all packets must be treated equal.
So, instead of expand infrastructure and make everything work at the prioritized level, I feel like they'll lower everything to the lowest level.
quality will suffer. And if they do in fact get pressured to improve the infrastructure (which will be a long drawn out battle given that companies like verizon has already abandoned wired infrastructure in favor of wireless) then it will result in higher costs to the consumer.
I think some level of net neutrality is a good thing to the extent it removes the monopolization powers of the ISPs and encourages competition, but this level of regulation I can't see being good for the consumer.
But...and it's a big but. it's possible I don't understand the latest proposal. I'm not sure anyone really does.
So, anyone who uses it can confirm about it (costs, actual speed, terms of use)? Just curious...
I don't mind paying more for better service, but I do mind paying more so "you" can get better service.
Do you see my distinction?
I don't disagree, like i said, some net neutrality is fine, but I would hope it was simply focused on discouraging monopolies and facilitating competition - so the consumer wins, not on imposing regulations with adverse consequences.
like I feel like will happen. I don't have a closed mind on this anymore, like I did with my first post (this will be a disaster), but I'm skeptical.
From what I understand of Net Neutrality, we're talking about preserving the status quo, not the government forcing telcom to dramatically change the way they do business.
There should be no impact to the providers. If there's a blowback on the consumer in their bills, it's corporate greed at play.
From what I understand of Net Neutrality, we're talking about preserving the status quo, not the government forcing telcom to dramatically change the way they do business.
There should be no impact to the providers. If there's a blowback on the consumer in their bills, it's corporate greed at play.
It's not preserving the status quo. As pjcas pointed out, content providers can currently pay to have a certain amount of guaranteed bandwidth.
The consumers would then complain to their ISPs, who would then seek to upgrade the available bandwidth and ultimately pass on the costs of the added bandwidth to the consumers.
Not saying this will happen, but it's certainly a possibility.
So, like I used in my example, Netflix. Netflix has connections directly to the ISP's as do other streaming content providers.
those packets that come from Netflix or other streaming content providers (xbox networks, etc.) get prioritized and handled with different protocols than your average web surfer.
under net neutrality that type of arrangement (and other commercial arrangement of this nature where the ISP's promote specific content) will be illegal and all content, regardless of type, needs to be handled the same.
So, like I said my fear is that all content won't be handled in a priority manner (like streaming content), but will instead be downgraded to typical web surfer type content.
But...as mentioned a couple times, I'm not an expert, and this changes and has been worked on for years and has many different forms.
link? Seems like plenty of "big business" (Facebook, Netflix, etc.) are fighting for net neutrality, though I haven't seen a comparison of lobbying dollars spent on either side.
Not that it should necessarily matter which side the lobbying dollars are falling on.
From what I understand of Net Neutrality, we're talking about preserving the status quo, not the government forcing telcom to dramatically change the way they do business.
There should be no impact to the providers. If there's a blowback on the consumer in their bills, it's corporate greed at play.
Bandwidth costs to ISPs are escalating due to cord cutting. They call it "cord cutting", but most people don't actually cut their cord. They still do business with the same cable company for their internet, they just cancel their TV service.
But that means a hell of a lot more Internet bandwidth is needed by the cable company to provide all those streams. If net neutrality rules preclude charging Netflix et al for the additional bandwidth they are using, they it will have to come out of customer's pockets.
These Cable ISPs are a monopoly in most areas. There is no competitor at all, which is why only the government can make sure that the consumer is getting a fair deal.
Quote:
there will be chosen winners and losers in this issue, just as their always are. Big Business doesn't mind government regulation if it makes it easier for them and harder for their competitor.
These Cable ISPs are a monopoly in most areas. There is no competitor at all, which is why only the government can make sure that the consumer is getting a fair deal.
The government just makes sure they get a fair deal. Sometimes it works out for the consumers.
The consumers would then complain to their ISPs, who would then seek to upgrade the available bandwidth and ultimately pass on the costs of the added bandwidth to the consumers.
Not saying this will happen, but it's certainly a possibility.
Exactly what you're describing is consumers paying more for an upgraded service and infrastructure, which happens to be a side-benefit of Net Neutrality.
Without enforced NN, ISPs can raise their rates to customers and content providers without having to upgrade their infrastructure at all, bc they'll charge content providers to use the bandwidth (who will in turn charge consumers more). This is exactly what cable monopolies want.
Quote:
is consumers expect their Netflix, Hulu, etc to stream seamlessly. If those companies were paying for guaranteed bandwidth before and now have to share the limited resource with everything else on the web, then some consumers might see a decrease in the quality of those services.
The consumers would then complain to their ISPs, who would then seek to upgrade the available bandwidth and ultimately pass on the costs of the added bandwidth to the consumers.
Not saying this will happen, but it's certainly a possibility.
Exactly what you're describing is consumers paying more for an upgraded service and infrastructure, which happens to be a side-benefit of Net Neutrality.
Without enforced NN, ISPs can raise their rates to customers and content providers without having to upgrade their infrastructure at all, bc they'll charge content providers to use the bandwidth (who will in turn charge consumers more). This is exactly what cable monopolies want.
I'm not against NN, but that's BS. There's only so much bandwidth to go around and at some point, the ISPs will have to improve their infrastructure under either model.
And if you don't like it, you're SOL, because you may live in an area where your ISP is a cabletv monopoly, and there are no other options.
And if you don't like it, you're SOL, because you may live in an area where your ISP is a cabletv monopoly, and there are no other options.
What am I missing? How is NN going to change that? Does it remove Dolan from Cablevision (god I hope so)?!?
In other words if I use Netflix, I would get 55MBS? Or is that not the same thing?
The Telcos are against it (or the were when I worked at Verizon and they would send us emails to write our congress person about it) the Cable companies and content providers like FB etc are for it.
In other words if I use Netflix, I would get 55MBS? Or is that not the same thing?
They do right now. After the NN rules, they won't be able to, though consumers (you) will still be able to pay more for higher speeds.
You are a consumer, so yes the ISPs would still be allowed to charge you extra for faster speeds.
But Netflix (and other companies) will not be able to pay the ISPs to guarantee a minimum quality of service as they currently can.
In other words if I use Netflix, I would get 55MBS? Or is that not the same thing?
What you are paying for is a MAXIMUM of 50 MBS. How much you actually get depends on the amount of traffic on the network. There's not enough bandwidth in the overall system to give everyone 50 at the same time.
Anyway, the deals they are talking about with Netflix aren't about the bandwidth speed to your house. It's how much bandwith Netflix gets in the large network pipes feeding the whole system. This is important because it's not just you who wants Netflix - it's thousands of people at the same time. Multiply that by 5 MBS, and that's how much bandwidth Netflix needs simultaneously going through the system's routers in order to provide everyone's streams.
Quote:
The lobbying dollars are pretty one-sided on this.
The Telcos are against it (or the were when I worked at Verizon and they would send us emails to write our congress person about it) the Cable companies and content providers like FB etc are for it.
This is completely wrong. Verizon is against the title II classification. Facebook is for it.
Quote:
In comment 12152759 BeerFridge said:
Quote:
The lobbying dollars are pretty one-sided on this.
The Telcos are against it (or the were when I worked at Verizon and they would send us emails to write our congress person about it) the Cable companies and content providers like FB etc are for it.
This is completely wrong. Verizon is against the title II classification. Facebook is for it.
That's what she said
Quote:
In comment 12152885 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12152759 BeerFridge said:
Quote:
The lobbying dollars are pretty one-sided on this.
The Telcos are against it (or the were when I worked at Verizon and they would send us emails to write our congress person about it) the Cable companies and content providers like FB etc are for it.
This is completely wrong. Verizon is against the title II classification. Facebook is for it.
That's what she said
Sorry. Meant to say that Verizon and Comcast both lobbied against title II classification.
Can you provide a link to that effect?
Several Fortune 500 companies have reportedly lobbied for NN, including Ford, BoA, UPS, and Visa.
Not saying you aren't right, just haven't seen anything confirming that.
Pro-NN Lobbying - ( New Window )
Or not at all. Because another local cable monopoly may sign an exclusive agreement with Netflix. And because you dont have a choice of ISPs where you live, you're SOL.
you can gt satellite internet, it's spotty though. DTV used to partner with someone I forget who and now it's hughesnet.
Or consumers can get the speeds they're advertised and Netflix wouldn't have an issue. Or ISPs could stop throttling certain websites.
it might not stop exclusive agreements, but it will stop the prioritization of the netlfix, etc. packets giving their consumers priority processing and required levels of service.
Yes, especially when Verizon and others put a cap on them. Thankfully this should take care of that.
Quote:
in their house and what Netflix outputs are two different things.
Yes, especially when Verizon and others put a cap on them. Thankfully this should take care of that.
There's a price though: either slower internet performance due to the high traffic, or higher internet fees for users to pay for the infrastructure upgrades.
Or just charge for usage and get rid of the 'speeds up to' BS.
Or just charge for usage and get rid of the 'speeds up to' BS.
Around half of ISPs are enforcing data caps with overage charges. The other half has the caps also, but has yet to enforce overage charges.
Quote:
It'd be nice if Cablevision would tell me that my Amazon Prime won't work because my neighbor is d/l torrents while streaming Netflix on 3 tvs.
Or just charge for usage and get rid of the 'speeds up to' BS.
Around half of ISPs are enforcing data caps with overage charges. The other half has the caps also, but has yet to enforce overage charges.
Where I live I have one ISP option, the type of monopoly that you'd think would be gone long ago. They still advertise unlimited internet, unless they've changed recently. It's a joke.
I don't really understand how this is a question. The internet is absolutely a necessity at this point. The internet is information - it's pretty much the aggregate of a majority of information that mankind has created. It's pretty damn important to keep people on this grid. You would be surprised how many emergency situations arise with people who need information on how to handle said emergency, and need to turn to the internet. Other people run their phone services exclusively through their internet.
I don't understand how the second part of your comment is relevant. It seems like a justification of sorts.
They came to an agreement in Feb 2014. Apparently, Verizon was also caught rate limiting Netflix as recently as July 2014. Guess what happened immediately thereafter?
By preventing the ISPs from purposely limiting data usage from vendors, it lowers the cost of entry for new companies to enter the space. The Nextflix can compete with Netflix, because the playing field is now even between everyone. That encourages innovation. Netflix no longer would hold an unfair advantage due to having the capital to pay for better service.
2) When ISPs offer different packages to the end user, it's a pure money grab. ISPs have not figured out a way to defy the laws of physics and provide customer X with faster service than customer Y. Light travels at a constant speed. The bytes that reach my apartment, take the same route as the bytes that reach my neighbor's apartment. The only difference is the ISP is purposely limiting the bandwidth of customer Y, to justify charging customer X more money.
3) The real question is how will people adjust from paying a fixed price for Internet access to a pay-per-byte scheme. Right now, if I were to leave all the lights on in my apartment, that's my right... ConEd won't stop me. They'll charge me more, but won't stop me. Also, I can be assured I'm getting the same service as my neighbors. No one is purposely turning on and turning off the electricity into my apartment to slow down my connection, so why should bytes of data be treated any different than watts of electricity?
Quote:
of course it is. I'm asking whether it's actually an essential service as opposed to an important one.
I don't really understand how this is a question. The internet is absolutely a necessity at this point. The internet is information - it's pretty much the aggregate of a majority of information that mankind has created. It's pretty damn important to keep people on this grid. You would be surprised how many emergency situations arise with people who need information on how to handle said emergency, and need to turn to the internet. Other people run their phone services exclusively through their internet.
So for select businesses or emergency services where internet can be supplied through a variety of means, treated as a commodity as opposed to a utility. For people who run their phone through the internet, there also are alternatives. SO that's their choice.
My question and perhaps concern is that for everyday people, the internet would be viewed like electricity and heat (and I just personally do not see it that way) and ultimately taxpayers will subsidize it or provide it as an entitlement
That means the private pipe from Netlfix to Verizon, Youtube to Comcast, Amazon prime to verizon, MS Xbox one private network, etc. go away and those packets get treated like your mom reading her AOL email - no prioritization.
So, why do people assume that's a good thing?
I think it makes sense to prioritize streaming content when priority makes a difference to your usage/the consumer.
I'm not convinced treated every packet the same means you get video streaming quality with every packet, I think it means you won't get video streaming quality with any packet.
UNLESS the ISPs improve their infrastructure to support that mantra. And then guess what if they do? You pay more. They're not going to foot that bill on their dime.
Do you believe netlfix will lower their prices because they no longer have to pay for a private pipe to Verizon? LOL.
Do you think hulu plus will lower their prices because they no no longer have to pay for a private pipe to Comcast? LOL.
No one is lowering anything, they're pocketing money, not going to improve service, and in the end believe me the paying consumers will pay more.
If only the ISPs would use the subsidies they receive to improve infrastructure. I can see why they don't, as they have no competition in many places.
If only the ISPs would use the subsidies they receive to improve infrastructure. I can see why they don't, as they have no competition in many places.
that's my point, you don't need net neutrality you need competition. and maybe in ways I don't understand net neutrality will breed competition, but from how I understand it, it simply means worse service. consistent, but probably worse.
and as I like to caveat with this issue, it could be I don't understand it all, and I'm not sure anyone does.
If only the ISPs would use the subsidies they receive to improve infrastructure. I can see why they don't, as they have no competition in many places.
That's WHY they don't improve their infrastructure, because they don't have to. Only when they are forced to, by outside competition, will they do that.
Companies enjoy monopoly privileges both from govt grants and also from the extremely high cost of entry. However, monopoly has to be tempered by regulation. Regulation stands in for competition, and protects the best interests of consumers and public welfare.
before it was done. in favor of wireless.
those places that cannot get FiOS today, many of them never will because of the shifting in tech from wired to wireless.
Quote:
Yes, I'd imagine they'll pocket the money they were blackmailed into paying.
If only the ISPs would use the subsidies they receive to improve infrastructure. I can see why they don't, as they have no competition in many places.
That's WHY they don't improve their infrastructure, because they don't have to. Only when they are forced to, by outside competition, will they do that.
Exactly.
Pass net neutrality, classify broadband as a utility, establish a baseline for calling a service 'broadband'--which I think they've now tied to the subsidies they receive....that'd be a good start.
How many of you would be happy if the FCC wrote itself the ability to filter content?
Quote:
In comment 12153616 schabadoo said:
Quote:
Yes, I'd imagine they'll pocket the money they were blackmailed into paying.
If only the ISPs would use the subsidies they receive to improve infrastructure. I can see why they don't, as they have no competition in many places.
That's WHY they don't improve their infrastructure, because they don't have to. Only when they are forced to, by outside competition, will they do that.
Exactly.
Pass net neutrality, classify broadband as a utility, establish a baseline for calling a service 'broadband'--which I think they've now tied to the subsidies they receive....that'd be a good start.
How does that foster competition?
Yeah, let's have the government filter it all....
If a private company does it, people can find another private company that does not. If the government does it, what is our recourse?
I'm no anti-government zealot but that is the worst option. the government deciding what content I should be able to access or not. Who are we, North Korea?
If a private company does it, people can find another private company that does not. If the government does it, what is our recourse?
You CANT find a private company because cable ISPs are monopolies in most areas. This is the whole point. If they weren't monopolies, Net Neutrality wouldnt even be a thing.
Quote:
If a private company does it, people can find another private company that does not. If the government does it, what is our recourse?
You CANT find a private company because cable ISPs are monopolies in most areas. This is the whole point. If they weren't monopolies, Net Neutrality wouldnt even be a thing.
not private. Should be "another"
Again, this is NOT going to increase choice or more providers. It's just going to 'level the playing field' so that we all have the same shitty service.
The problem with that is that it is a huge disincentive to putting money into the infrastructure.
How many of you would be happy if the FCC wrote itself the ability to filter content?
It might have already done so because nobody has been allowed to see the regulations that are blindly being imposed on the country.
Whoever said it was "wonderful?" More bloviation.
Quote:
if this new law is so wonderful, why not release the details?
Whoever said it was "wonderful?" More bloviation.
It's not even a new law. It's a ruling under existing law.
We're not there yet, but what will probably happen is a repeat of the Telecom Act of 1996, where the incumbent companies (ILECs) were forced to open up their networks to new companies (CLECs), with rules for payment if no deal was reached between an ILEC and CLEC.
I have had Cablevision forever and there is no Fios in my neighborhood. I was one of the first in the area to get Optimum Online. The speeds were fast. Even when everyone else got the product and the traffic increased my speeds were still fast.
Then, they invented a product called "Boost" which was supposed to be faster internet. They invented it one month after they slowed down the speed. So, they basically began to charge people $10 per month for the speed they had one month prior.
and there are a lot of reasons some countries have faster internet, for one the US laid the groundwork first, so has the oldest infrastructure. second, many of the countries with faster internet than the US are so small they're like a medium sized state. South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, these are all smaller than Texas (combined), so laying an infrastructure is ridiculously less costly and feasible for smaller geographies.
But places like the UK, Italy, Spain, etc, still have WORSE internet than the US - according to stat about upload and download speed (and latency) as opposed to the US.
So there is a lot of mis-perception out there.
Link - ( New Window )
We're not there yet, but what will probably happen is a repeat of the Telecom Act of 1996, where the incumbent companies (ILECs) were forced to open up their networks to new companies (CLECs), with rules for payment if no deal was reached between an ILEC and CLEC.
Wireless data is getting more expensive because:
1) People are using a lot more infrastructure to handle the increased traffic. Any decrease in the base station infrastructure costs that you'd normally see due to the maturing of a technology is more than offset by the need for many more base stations to handle the extra traffic (and higher fees for the sparsely available spectrum)
2) Threads like this that illustrate how dependent many are on their wireless devices and how they feel connectivity is essential. Thus they can charge more
3) Wireless service is basically a duopoly. Too many people stick with (for whatever reason) AT&T/Verizon no matter what. Sprint/T-Mobile and the myriad of tiny providers (Cricket, Ting, etc) offer cheaper options, but many don't want to switch companies.
We're not there yet, but what will probably happen is a repeat of the Telecom Act of 1996, where the incumbent companies (ILECs) were forced to open up their networks to new companies (CLECs), with rules for payment if no deal was reached between an ILEC and CLEC.
And what happened to all those companies? We wound up with two, Verizon and ATT. And they are mostly dumping hardline for digital. The real revolution is wireless. As soon as people realize they could have a cell phone and didn't need a landline, they dumped it. So the Teleco's are dumping it. I think the same will happen with internet.
Quote:
They're like the new baby bells. Their children, the cell phone companies, are not a lot better. Its pretty absurd that wireless data is getting MORE expensive.
We're not there yet, but what will probably happen is a repeat of the Telecom Act of 1996, where the incumbent companies (ILECs) were forced to open up their networks to new companies (CLECs), with rules for payment if no deal was reached between an ILEC and CLEC.
Wireless data is getting more expensive because:
1) People are using a lot more infrastructure to handle the increased traffic. Any decrease in the base station infrastructure costs that you'd normally see due to the maturing of a technology is more than offset by the need for many more base stations to handle the extra traffic (and higher fees for the sparsely available spectrum)
2) Threads like this that illustrate how dependent many are on their wireless devices and how they feel connectivity is essential. Thus they can charge more
3) Wireless service is basically a duopoly. Too many people stick with (for whatever reason) AT&T/Verizon no matter what. Sprint/T-Mobile and the myriad of tiny providers (Cricket, Ting, etc) offer cheaper options, but many don't want to switch companies.
Has nothing to do with not wanting to switch. I want to be able to make calls in and around my area. Often I have a signal with AT&T while others with me that have one of the smaller co.s like sprint or Consumer Cellular can't make a call. I would absolutely love to dump the big guys, if only the little guys could deliver.
Cuban also commented on the transparency regarding of the FCC’s regulation process, sarcastically remarking “lots of transparency, right? Yeah, Lots of transparency.” And “that’s the FCC, that’s the Department of Internet that we’re going to get, no transparency.”
Cuban doesn't like this - ( New Window )
Can you tell me how net neutrality will benefit YOU.
Because not to be selfish, but I only care how it would benefit ME.
not sure why the Netflix or content providers of the world are viewed as having the consumer in mind, but Cuban, etc. have their self in mind.
they all have their own interests in mind.
Just like Optimum has 'broadcast basic' 'gold' 'silver' etc, they'd have applied the same price structure to internet usage.
And they'd have probably also used the ability to control flow of information to squeeze torrenting.
This is just a mock-up made by people talking about the issue. But, anything like this would suck.
I believe it could very possibly be that instead of your friends tiny little site being accessed at the same speed as ESPN.com, I believe ESPN.com will now be accessed at the same speed as your friend's tiny little site.
In other words, some people seem to be assuming that no packet prioritization means all packets would be treated to a higher standard, but I'm not so sure. I think it could mean all packets are treated equally at a lower standard.
If the ISPs no longer get the money from the content providers, I don't see how they're going to be expected to provide even them the same level of service.
In the end, we will all pay more for the same or worse level of service.
Or what am I missing? How is an ISP that currently prioritizes streaming content from Netflix or Hulu Plus or Amazon prime, and collects a premium from those content providers to allow them to offer that service level, is expected to not just maintain that level for the streaming content, but also upgrade all other content to that same level.
It will be interesting to see what happens, I'm expecting the worst.
not sure why the Netflix or content providers of the world are viewed as having the consumer in mind, but Cuban, etc. have their self in mind.
they all have their own interests in mind.
Fair enough. The difference here is that I could care less what Netflix has to say. I prefer to listen to the over 8 million public comments to the FCC in favor of NN.
There was no "keep things awesome the way they were" option because Comcast, Time Warner and VZ were already looking to ditch that. The ISPs were already throttling netflix to extract more money from them and consumers were next.
and as for 8M comments, LOL, I'm not listening to any of them and to be clear I'm not listening to Mark Cuban, I said his comments were interesting, and they are.
My POV is people don't really know what they're going to get, yet their ravenous for it.
I do not view this as a democrat vs. republican issue, telco vs content provider issue, for me it's a consumer issue and I don't see how it benefits me, and until I do see that I'm skeptical it will, and in fact the way I conceptualize it, I think it will hurt me.
It would be tiered access to sites. Bundled in groups like the stupid channels they have for cable.
and as for 8M comments, LOL, I'm not listening to any of them and to be clear I'm not listening to Mark Cuban, I said his comments were interesting, and they are.
My POV is people don't really know what they're going to get, yet their ravenous for it.
I do not view this as a democrat vs. republican issue, telco vs content provider issue, for me it's a consumer issue and I don't see how it benefits me, and until I do see that I'm skeptical it will, and in fact the way I conceptualize it, I think it will hurt me.
Except at the moment, there were no pricing tiers. We don't even know if there actually would have been. It's purely theoretical. What was not theoretical, however, is that Comcast was throttling Netflix service to their customers until Netflix forked over money for preferred service.
So while you can say you're willing extra for the tiered plans, if a company isn't willing to fold to Comcast's extortion, what you are willing to do won't matter.
So if you have Sunday Ticket to watch the Giants, but can't watch a game on your computer, tablet, or phone without it stopping every 3 seconds because DirecTV didn't pay Comcast for protection ("That's a nice service you got there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it."), there won't be a damn thing you can do.
streaming quality internet service is not a right.
and yes this is all theoretical, on both sides of the coin.
streaming quality internet service is not a right.
and yes this is all theoretical, on both sides of the coin.
Its a right if you are paying for it- it shouldn't be up to someone else what you have access to and at what speeds based on whether they are paying a fee on top of the one you are paying.
Being against NN is beyond my comprehension. The idea that we are somehow going to throttle innovation because ISP's are forced to treat all sites equally is beyond stupid. The real reason we see no innovation in this country is because ISPs are basically a monopoly. They just want to protect their monopoly and then shaft the consumer into better bottom lines, this does nothing to impact innovation.
and no one can articulate that without a lot of speculation.
And to say
Google (and Youtube), Apple, Netflix, Hulu, Microsoft (yes, MS), Twitter (with Vine), Instagram, etc. - many more are all American companies and at the forefront of innovation wrt technology.
The common thread you will notice though is they're all investing more in wireless not wired technologies which is where I have the biggest question about how net neutrality will have an impact.
I think anyone who thinks they have all the answers here is a crazy kool-aid drinker. There is a lot of unknown.
The bottom line is that Comcast is EVIL. EVIL. EVIL.
It wants to control content. It wants the right to regulate and "sell" internet speed. Fuck that. The internet needs to become a regulated highway like a telephone line - that every provider has access to and every provider then can sell me high speed access (and Comcast can't block Netflix or other TV providers from using the common network to provide TV services - nor can Comcast charge whatever it wants for internet access).
Hooray!
I have no love for Comcast but I don't know when this passes people are going to magically see super fast internet at the same price or less they pay today.
I think a lot of people could be disappointed.
I have no love for Comcast but I don't know when this passes people are going to magically see super fast internet at the same price or less they pay today.
I think a lot of people could be disappointed.
Oh, I think we'll be disappointed because Comcast buys politicians like I buy peanuts. But Comcast is against this regulation, so every thinking American should be for it. It's really not much more difficult than that.
and no one can articulate that without a lot of speculation.
And to say
Quote:
The real reason we see no innovation in this country
is a pretty ridiculous statement.
Google (and Youtube), Apple, Netflix, Hulu, Microsoft (yes, MS), Twitter (with Vine), Instagram, etc. - many more are all American companies and at the forefront of innovation wrt technology.
The common thread you will notice though is they're all investing more in wireless not wired technologies which is where I have the biggest question about how net neutrality will have an impact.
I think anyone who thinks they have all the answers here is a crazy kool-aid drinker. There is a lot of unknown.
I clearly implied there is no innovation in terms of what we are seeing with internet speed. All of the companies you named support NN, so clearly the ones with innovation on their mind are on the same page.
and no one can articulate that without a lot of speculation.
And to say
Quote:
The real reason we see no innovation in this country
is a pretty ridiculous statement.
Google (and Youtube), Apple, Netflix, Hulu, Microsoft (yes, MS), Twitter (with Vine), Instagram, etc. - many more are all American companies and at the forefront of innovation wrt technology.
The common thread you will notice though is they're all investing more in wireless not wired technologies which is where I have the biggest question about how net neutrality will have an impact.
I think anyone who thinks they have all the answers here is a crazy kool-aid drinker. There is a lot of unknown.
But pj, you've been speculating far more than any other participant in this discussion.
I think all I've done is shown that instead of what people are assuming the opposite could be true as well.
Not speculating it will happen, but pointing out it could and offering an opinion that I think people will be disappointed. If that constitutes speculation - guilty.
Because honestly none of us know.
I prefer to take a wait and see approach.
I think all I've done is shown that instead of what people are assuming the opposite could be true as well.
Not speculating it will happen, but pointing out it could and offering an opinion that I think people will be disappointed. If that constitutes speculation - guilty.
Because honestly none of us know.
I prefer to take a wait and see approach.
Yes, it's true that, at this point, none of us know what will happen. But you've been an unfailing voice of doom from the beginning, and that's no more warranted than the most sunny projections. Surely you understand that.
So, I do have an open mind, despite my pessimism.
SteveMD
Or is this some more "private sector good, government bad" bullshit?
SteveMD
Link - ( New Window )
My biggest question for the supporters is how do they think this will help them personally?
I am skeptical it will at all and I would not be shocked if things get worse. that's been my point all along.
SteveMD
When was the "innernet" free?
Link - ( New Window )
His railroad analogy--deregulating a once-regulating industry vs regulating and already regulated industry, I don't get.
And his worry about stifling competition between existing monopolies?