Republican legislators, cellular industry launch attack on FCC net neutrality provisions

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 141
    stevenozstevenoz Posts: 314member
    GOP lawmakers, slaves to big business profits and the political cash incentives they provide... while not being advocates for the People who voted them in and their interests, continue to make me sick.

    I agree with Marvin, above, "Let the free market decide and take your vote elsewhere."
  • Reply 122 of 141
    stevenoz wrote: »
    GOP lawmakers, slaves to big business profits and the political cash incentives they provide... while not being advocates for the People who voted them in and their interests, continue to make me sick.

    I agree with Marvin, above, "Let the free market decide and take your vote elsewhere."

    Do you really believe that democrat legislators aren't bought and paid for just like their republican counterparts? I'm not defending republicans, but it's time people in this country wake up and recognize that congress - and the executive (and hell, in some cases even the judiciary) is bought and paid for. We are far from a capitalist society, and certainly not a free-market. We live in corporatist times, and it is bleeding us dry on all fronts.

    But at the end of the day, does the blame fall on the 535, or the 300 million? I'm pretty sure you can figure that one out on your own.
  • Reply 123 of 141
    bigmc6000bigmc6000 Posts: 767member
    So, wait, "let the free markets decide"??? If you support "net neutrality" you're categorically opposed to letting "the free markets decide." What people don't seem to get is that Charter already tried to throttle Netflix once and the FCC use EXISTING rules to stop them before they could actually do it. The FCC already has the power to keep companies from doing what they claim net neutrality is for.

    So the internet has done noting but get faster and faster with more and more websites and for whatever reason people think it's a good idea for the gov't to step in right now because, oh no, what if?!?!? If it sticks the internet is going to be slower, they are going to start taxing and if you have your service bundled (hello everyone not using satellite) you'll start to see your TV channels buffering because, at the end of the day, bits are bits. U-Verse already has the caveat that if you use more than 2 HD streams your peak connection could be slower - if/when net neutrality hits and says you have to treat all the bytes the same you're going to have to make a decision of "let my kids download apps" or watch TV without buffering. Oh, well, you don't want your TV to buffer so you'll end up buying a much more expensive internet package than you need "just in case." You're going to be giving the cable companies (the evil ones...) MORE money than before because you don't want to have to deal with true net neutrality. It's a HORRIBLE idea to squash the one innovation of the last 20 years that has actually worked fantastically.

    It reminds me of the southpark episode about mormons. Dumb, Dumb, dumb...
  • Reply 124 of 141
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    Yes you detailed the problem. I'm not sure why people have problems accepting this.
    Which makes sense from a corporate perspective, you can't "tax" those that can't pay!

    People need to realize that the telcos have been on a building binge for years now. This isn't cheap and even after all of this effort network speeds can often slow to a crawl.
    This is why I'm trying to warn people that net neutrality will end up causing them to pay by the bit. We may even see off peak metering just like we do for the electric services in some locations. The current approach of letting deep pockets pay for access and bandwidth is far better for consumers in the long run.

    In a nut shell the days of paying for a "fixed" bandwidth will come to an end with net neutrality.

    Paying by the bit is what I do on my phone data over a certain limit. That's true of lower tiered plans on my ISPs plans too but not mine. I get 100Mb/s. But I can stream from where I want.
  • Reply 125 of 141
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    bigmc6000 wrote: »
    So, wait, "let the free markets decide"??? If you support "net neutrality" you're categorically opposed to letting "the free markets decide." What people don't seem to get is that Charter already tried to throttle Netflix once and the FCC use EXISTING rules to stop them before they could actually do it. The FCC already has the power to keep companies from doing what they claim net neutrality is for.

    So the internet has done noting but get faster and faster with more and more websites and for whatever reason people think it's a good idea for the gov't to step in right now because, oh no, what if?!?!? If it sticks the internet is going to be slower, they are going to start taxing and if you have your service bundled (hello everyone not using satellite) you'll start to see your TV channels buffering because, at the end of the day, bits are bits. U-Verse already has the caveat that if you use more than 2 HD streams your peak connection could be slower - if/when net neutrality hits and says you have to treat all the bytes the same you're going to have to make a decision of "let my kids download apps" or watch TV without buffering. Oh, well, you don't want your TV to buffer so you'll end up buying a much more expensive internet package than you need "just in case." You're going to be giving the cable companies (the evil ones...) MORE money than before because you don't want to have to deal with true net neutrality. It's a HORRIBLE idea to squash the one innovation of the last 20 years that has actually worked fantastically.

    It reminds me of the southpark episode about mormons. Dumb, Dumb, dumb...

    You guys are hilarious. You basically want corporate socialism. Because you are too lousy or poor to pay for the top speeds you want that subsidised by the content providers, all of which means that the guy who is paying the top prices can't get what he wants despite getting fibre to the house. Freeloading bull.
  • Reply 126 of 141
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    macwise wrote: »
    Do you really believe that democrat legislators aren't bought and paid for just like their republican counterparts? I'm not defending republicans, but it's time people in this country wake up and recognize that congress - and the executive (and hell, in some cases even the judiciary) is bought and paid for. We are far from a capitalist society, and certainly not a free-market. We live in corporatist times, and it is bleeding us dry on all fronts.

    But at the end of the day, does the blame fall on the 535, or the 300 million? I'm pretty sure you can figure that one out on your own.

    What's interesting to me though isn't just how big money controls the republicans but also republican voters. You're entire argument is scripted for you.
  • Reply 127 of 141
    bigmc6000bigmc6000 Posts: 767member
    asdasd wrote: »
    You guys are hilarious. You basically want corporate socialism. Because you are too lousy or poor to pay for the top speeds you want that subsidised by the content providers, all of which means that the guy who is paying the top prices can't get what he wants despite getting fibre to the house. Freeloading bull.

    What in the world are you talking about??? Did you mean to reply to me? What you're saying is pretty much the exact opposite of what I said. If you support net neutrality you are for corporate socialism, if you oppose regulating it you are for capitalism. The Internet has been a massive capitalism success, the speeds have increased all the while the average price for a connection have remained pretty much the same.

    Also, I pay for one step below the max Internet speed from Time Warner (40 Mbps where I live) so I really don't understand your free loader thing.
  • Reply 128 of 141
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    bigmc6000 wrote: »
    Also, I pay for one step below the max Internet speed from Time Warner (40 Mbps where I live) so I really don't understand your free loader thing.

    There's an absurd notion that people that live in less densely populated areas should pay more because the ROI on wiring up those areas would take decades.
  • Reply 129 of 141
    bigmc6000bigmc6000 Posts: 767member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    There's an absurd notion that people that live in less densely populated areas should pay more because the ROI on wiring up those areas would take decades.

    What? I live in the middle of the fourth largest metropolitan area in the entire country (DFW). I don't know where you live but clearly population density doesn't correlate to Internet speed...
  • Reply 130 of 141
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post





    What's interesting to me though isn't just how big money controls the republicans but also republican voters. You're entire argument is scripted for you.



    What makes you think I'm of ANY political affiliation?  You do real good at blowing smoke, but real bad at listening, hearing, and comprehending.  The system is a sham.  What in the world about that makes me a republican stooge as you insist?  Your assumptions are hilarious, if not utterly foolish.  

     

    If you want to lengthen the finger that has forcibly invaded your sphincter, then be my guest.  But don't cry to us when you keep getting screwed.  

  • Reply 131 of 141
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post





    Caveat: in the UK. Not Europe as a whole.



    The UK is still digging out of the mess the Thatcherites put them in 3+ decades ago. They also love to mimic politically and economics-wise whatever is trending in the states to the chagrin and pain of the majority of it's constituencies. I have come to believe it's due to having a common language, and because no one wants take the ideas from the "penal colony/lunatic asylum" they created "down under" seriously unless talking about cricket /s.



    Funny how this is the first time in the years I've heard this tired argument that a caveat has creeped in.  In fact, I often hear it as "Compared to the UK..."

     

    The system in the US is no more broken than it is elsewhere.  Equally as bad in different ways, perhaps, but certainly not worse.

  • Reply 132 of 141
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    bigmc6000 wrote: »
    What? I live in the middle of the fourth largest metropolitan area in the entire country (DFW). I don't know where you live but clearly population density doesn't correlate to Internet speed...

    Sure it does. People in rural areas will not get a fiber network in their area because it's too costly to do so. There's a few posters here that if those people want fiber they should pay more for it, because of the additional cost to provide them with it. FYI I live in NYC.
  • Reply 133 of 141
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Sure it does. People in rural areas will not get a fiber network in their area because it's too costly to do so. There's a few posters here that if those people want fiber they should pay more for it, because of the additional cost to provide them with it. FYI I live in NYC.
    You don't need fiber to get good internet service. Time Warner rolled out 500 Mbps in Austin last year and the price was like $70 a month. Let's just do cable - coaxial cable has plenty of bandwidth capability for at least the next 20 years.
  • Reply 134 of 141
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    macwise wrote: »

    Funny how this is the first time in the years I've heard this tired argument that a caveat has creeped in.  In fact, I often hear it as "Compared to the UK..."

    The system in the US is no more broken than it is elsewhere.  Equally as bad in different ways, perhaps, but certainly not worse.

    I was replying to THIS POST and this specific part of the post:

    Have you been to Europe recently? Having just been in the UK myself not a month ago, I can say that this is patently, unequivocally untrue. The wireless providers there are shady, pricy, customer non-centric, and misleading as hell.

    Phone service is NOT cheaper there than it is in the states, nor is it more reliable. And neither is it "clearly specified" as you say it should be. Now that I have been there and seen it firsthand, I can say this urban legend is just that: myth.

    Vodafone, EE, O2, Three—their business practices all make Comcast look like Mother Theresa, and are more what I would expect from a country like India or China. Come to think of it, it was EXACTLY like China. But in China I could at least understand the packaging.


    Dream on buddy! While nothing and no service is 100% perfect... here in Germany, and my travel through the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, Austria, Switzerland and Spain... and even Hungary... we have FAR better service than what they do in the UK and I can only assume in the US as well. Because it's you guys that are doing all the bitching and moaning all the time.

    Also, it's a fact that the UK and England specifically is America's closest ally in everything: good, bad and downright criminally ludicrous, if you want to talk about the world of finance, economics, or geopolitics.... every since the affair between Ronnie and Marge in the 80's.

    Maybe you need to hop around the world a little more often and stop in a few more places, before making such all-encompassing claims against an entire continent due to your bad experience in a country that's not even truly financially connected to the rest of Europe.

    *** The part of my post pointing to Australia was a bit snarky... but denoted with an /s as a warning.
  • Reply 135 of 141
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    bigmc6000 wrote: »
    You don't need fiber to get good internet service. Time Warner rolled out 500 Mbps in Austin last year and the price was like $70 a month. Let's just do cable - coaxial cable has plenty of bandwidth capability for at least the next 20 years.

    I'd bet they use fiber up to a certain point, because it's impossible for them to offer those speeds on a pure coax network.
  • Reply 136 of 141
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    bigmc6000 wrote: »
    What in the world are you talking about??? Did you mean to reply to me? What you're saying is pretty much the exact opposite of what I said. If you support net neutrality you are for corporate socialism, if you oppose regulating it you are for capitalism. The Internet has been a massive capitalism success, the speeds have increased all the while the average price for a connection have remained pretty much the same.

    Also, I pay for one step below the max Internet speed from Time Warner (40 Mbps where I live) so I really don't understand your free loader thing.

    By corporate socialism I mean the subsidy of the consumer by providers at the behest of monoplies.

    The free market needs rules. If every corporation ran their own roads and stopped competitors using those roads you would end up with monopolies dominating along certain routes.

    Net neutrality means that if I pay for bandwidth I get it. From anywhere I want. Not that certain providers I also pay for get their bits slowed because they haven't bribed local monoplies. The fact that you are arguing against this shows how much money can control minds as much as votes.
  • Reply 137 of 141
    bigmc6000bigmc6000 Posts: 767member
    asdasd wrote: »
    By corporate socialism I mean the subsidy of the consumer by providers at the behest of monoplies.

    The free market needs rules. If every corporation ran their own roads and stopped competitors using those roads you would end up with monopolies dominating along certain routes.

    Net neutrality means that if I pay for bandwidth I get it. From anywhere I want. Not that certain providers I also pay for get their bits slowed because they haven't bribed local monoplies. The fact that you are arguing against this shows how much money can control minds as much as votes.

    So you mean how it's been operating for the last 20+ years and it's been a massive success so what's the natural progression on that? Yeah, let's legislate it! My reasoning has nothing to do with people buying minds - in fact I get two to three emails a day talking about how great net neutrality is but its not realizing the bad impact it will have in the future when internet TV ends up being against the law to prioritize those streams over some random internet download. I really don't understand how people can't see that problem staring right square in the face.

    Also, charter tried to throttle Netflix before and the fcc stepped in using existing rules to stop them so the fcc already has the power to do what fear mongerers like John Oliver are scared of. I'm really not looking forward to more expensive Internet and buffered TV.
  • Reply 138 of 141
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,309moderator
    bigmc6000 wrote: »
    I'm really not looking forward to more expensive Internet and buffered TV.

    Net neutrality enables more competition so there's no reason for companies to charge more for the same service. Concerning bandwidth, say that you had a gigabit connection and you had 4 people in your house downloading things at the same time and it split the bandwidth 4 ways equally, each would get 250Mbps. 4K only needs 20Mbps. Buffered TV is a good thing, it's unbuffered (or buffering) TV that would be bad. Most streaming services use a buffer of some kind so with gigabit internet, video streams can do a burst load of 1 gigabit of data (about a minute of 4K video) in 1 second and then lower the stream bandwidth, even with live feeds it can buffer and play the stream a bit later assuming it doesn't have to be time-accurate. The buffer would be highly unlikely to run out even if other downloads were for some reason downloading hundreds of MBs of data every second for hours at a time. Routers at your end can handle traffic-shaping too in order to guarantee bandwidth as you see fit:

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/2689995/quality-of-service-explained-how-routers-with-strong-qos-make-better-home-networks.html

    You can also do this at the OS level and cap the bandwidth of a computer:

    http://blog.tcs.de/simulate-slow-network-connection-on-mac-os-x/
  • Reply 139 of 141
    bigmc6000bigmc6000 Posts: 767member
    Clearly the raw data and the actual don't line up because AT&T has a stipulation on their 1Gbps internet service that if you're watching more than 2 HD streams at once then your internet speeds will start to slow so it's already happening since they are all in the same pipe.

    Yes, theoretically it should all work just fine as long as everyone pays for crazy higher internet than they have right now. It's like deregulating electricity - everyone thought it would be great and wonderful and everything would be lower. Except it isn't. Yeah, youv'e got competition but now you're paying for overhead for every single company that wants to enter the space and they are still going to be renting either the fiber or the coax from the company that laid it. It might be a little cheaper for the same internet speed but it won't be much but, as you pointed out, since all the bits are being treated the same you're going to need to make sure you have enough bandwidth so you don't end up with unbuffered TV. Yeah, that's great that everyone can just average 10Mbps (let's use a realistic number since most people don't have much more 20-30 Mbps going into their house) but when you hit "download" your computer doesn't say "oh, they are also watching TV so I need to make sure I don't use too much of the bandwidth." People are going to have to start installing plugins to throttle their own computers to make sure their TV maintains first preference.

    Of course the satellite companies are going to love it because if you get your TV through them you don't have to worry about any of that because you're not crossing streams...
  • Reply 140 of 141
    bigmc6000bigmc6000 Posts: 767member
    I'm also confused why everyone keeps throwing around the word "monopoly." There is no monopoly right now nor will their every be irrespective of what the FCC does with net neutrality. You have the telephone company and the cable company - at the bare minimum that's 2 and therefore, by definitio, that's not a monopoly. That's about as much of a monopoly as iOS and Android. They make up about as much of the smartphone market as the major cable and telephone companies make up (possibly more) but yet people aren't running around asking Congress to step in and make sure that there are other choices.

    We are already have competition and it has worked really well. All you people who apparently have 100Mbps+ internet speeds are direct benefactors of this awful system you are riling against. You make internet a public utility and all the cash people put into make your network better (again, clearly not a monopoly or else we'd all still be thinking 3 Mbps was a fast speed) will be spent on running cable/fiber out to the middle of no where.

    It's completely laughable that the majority of people who are supporting net neutrality to save us from those evil cable and telecoms are the people who have benefitted the most from it (increasingly higher speeds at relatively static prices).
Sign In or Register to comment.