What will ordinary people think when they pay for the isp for fast downloads, pay Netflix for 4K and don’t get 4K because Netflix isn’t paying their ISP.
No idea why this administration is making this a priority.
The US government needs to find ways to increase competition in the telecoms market. With or without net neutrality, customers are getting screwed by their ISPs.
And, no, less government interference isn't the answer. It's no coincidence that the countries with the fastest, cheapest Internet access are countries with heavy regulation.
That’s good .The less government interference in the web ,the better.Its this sort of crony capitalism that got us stuck with only 1 or 2 ISPs in an area.
That's what you see this repeal as? Did you even bother to read the article?
"Proponents of strong net neutrality rules argue Title II classification
allows for an open internet by prohibiting ISPs from engaging in price
unsavory practices.
For example, one worry is that providers
will charge websites and services a fee for priority speeds, or paid
"fast lanes," once neutrality protections are removed. While such
measures would be a boon for big firms like video streaming companies,
smaller entities looking to establish a foothold would suffer.
Net Neutrality has been dead for years. Once Netflix starting paying Comcast for faster access to their customers (almost 4 years now), net neutrality was over. Why? Well, no startup company will ever be able to get faster streaming than deep pockets Netflix. Hence, no even playing field for competition.
What will ordinary people think when they pay for the isp for fast downloads, pay Netflix for 4K and don’t get 4K because Netflix isn’t paying their ISP.
No idea why this administration is making this a priority.
Exactly! There is nothing else going on in this country that deserves attention before this? It's unreal..
As much as I do not want to see Apple involved in government activities, you would think Apple being the largest valued company ever, would carry far more weight than Comcast and Verizon. You think that the government would look for Apple's direction verses the other guys.
However, money talks and everything else are just words. Comcast, Verizon and AT&T spend more money in DC in one year than Apple has ever spend in its entire company history.
People if you do not like this, this is the reason everyone in government must be voted out after two terms. Take their power away and make them work for us. Companies do not vote but the spend money and politician spend money to buy your vote.
That’s good .The less government interference in the web ,the better.Its this sort of crony capitalism that got us stuck with only 1 or 2 ISPs in an area.
WTF are you talking about buddy,you just shat a load there.
Get a fracking clue about telecoms or stop talking.;
The reason there are so little competition is not too much regulations,but too little of it, and also the telecom shovel cash in Trump's and his POS cohort's gaping cesspool of immorality.
Big companies, especially telecoms, will choke off everyone (small to medium sized companies), that will result in possibly 1-2 big players (Google, Apple, Facebook) going around them to become themselves telecoms serving the most lucrative markets (big urban centers) while Trump's moron voters will be the ones stuck with by far the worse and most expensive service (true karma).
Everything will turn more expensive and way worse with innovation from small players essentially brought to an end.
The US which was ahead 20 years ago will continue falling behind China and Europeans at an ever faster pace.
... The internet as we know it will fade away and become like television was 20 years ago—only those with lots of money and influence can get ‘in’ on content creation and distribution. And the variety we see today, for better and worse, will be relatively anemic.
Wanna bet? I think you underestimate the dynamism of the market.
... The internet as we know it will fade away and become like television was 20 years ago—only those with lots of money and influence can get ‘in’ on content creation and distribution. And the variety we see today, for better and worse, will be relatively anemic.
Wanna bet? I think you underestimate the dynamism of the market.
Bet on what, that monopoly have devastating effects...
How the hell would you even prove what would have happened otherwise once the choke is on. You can't so it's just empty words.
That’s good .The less government interference in the web ,the better.Its this sort of crony capitalism that got us stuck with only 1 or 2 ISPs in an area.
That's what you see this repeal as? Did you even bother to read the article?
"Proponents of strong net neutrality rules argue Title II classification
allows for an open internet by prohibiting ISPs from engaging in price
unsavory practices.
For example, one worry is that providers
will charge websites and services a fee for priority speeds, or paid
"fast lanes," once neutrality protections are removed. While such
measures would be a boon for big firms like video streaming companies,
smaller entities looking to establish a foothold would suffer.
You can't offer that as a fact. That's one side of the debate.
That’s good .The less government interference in the web ,the better.Its this sort of crony capitalism that got us stuck with only 1 or 2 ISPs in an area.
That's what you see this repeal as? Did you even bother to read the article?
"Proponents of strong net neutrality rules argue Title II classification
allows for an open internet by prohibiting ISPs from engaging in price
unsavory practices.
For example, one worry is that providers
will charge websites and services a fee for priority speeds, or paid
"fast lanes," once neutrality protections are removed. While such
measures would be a boon for big firms like video streaming companies,
smaller entities looking to establish a foothold would suffer.
You can't offer that as a fact. That's one side of the debate.
Well, bring it on buddy, show me the money. Again, just empty words and slogans from you.
You have to admit that in its purest form greed is awe inspiring. That certain repulsive companies would plunge us into a modern dark internet age.
The costs will without a doubt get passed on to consumers, squeezing those that already don’t have enough. Essentially a toll lane to the internet, and a new kind of paywall.
Thank you Apple for standing up to the companies that our own government will not protect us from.
You can’t have access to my phone, you can’t break my privacy, and you can’t deny my right to acces the internet. We the People are more powerful than your lobbyists will ever be!
Purest form of greed is what actually got us where we are today, ironically enough. You see, for example, Russian people are not terrible at innovations. In fact it is the opposite. But they were told that making money on said innovations is really bad for your karma /s. So, the majority of them just sit on their arses doing local improvements that no one else will be able to use, while telling others how bad it is, when someone else makes money. Do you wanna live in a society that can treat cancer (cure that will be manufactured having greed as one of very strong motivating factors), or do you wanna live in a society that has nothing but talks a lot? You have to admit that consumers of internet do not design nor they build infrastructure. It is greed of the competing companies that motivates companies to do that.
As much as I do not want to see Apple involved in government activities, you would think Apple being the largest valued company ever, would carry far more weight than Comcast and Verizon. You think that the government would look for Apple's direction verses the other guys.
Apple was completely silent on the the topic of net neutrality, declining to join other big techs who weighed in against it long ago, until August of this year when they finally spoke up. No sure what changed their mind, but perhaps it's their renewed focus on being a content provider for original programming like Amazon and Netflix among others have been doing?
That’s good .The less government interference in the web ,the better.Its this sort of crony capitalism that got us stuck with only 1 or 2 ISPs in an area.
WTF are you talking about buddy,you just shat a load there.
Get a fracking clue about telecoms or stop talking.;
The reason there are so little competition is not too much regulations,but too little of it, and also the telecom shovel cash in Trump's and his POS cohort's gaping cesspool of immorality.
Big companies, especially telecoms, will choke off everyone (small to medium sized companies), that will result in possibly 1-2 big players (Google, Apple, Facebook) going around them to become themselves telecoms serving the most lucrative markets (big urban centers) while Trump's moron voters will be the ones stuck with by far the worse and most expensive service (true karma).
Everything will turn more expensive and way worse with innovation from small players essentially brought to an end.
The US which was ahead 20 years ago will continue falling behind China and Europeans at an ever faster pace.
First, I would generally agree with you, without some level of controls and regulations companies would take advantage of their positions. However, I worked in this industry when the telecom act of 1996 came in to play which deregulated the industry down to a point (not be political but Clinton did this not Trump and his Cohorts). At this time we had lots of competitions and I works for companies who were taking advantage of this and growing their business, competition was good.
However, Companies like VZ, & AT&T and others uses regulations to keep competitors out of the market. They successfully used all the regulations which the government put in place to ensure the US has functioning telecom infrastructure to keep those competitors which the Telecom Act of 96 was to promote out of the market place. Why do you think we had the internet bubble bust in 1999, a bunch of company all trying to grow fast and hit the wall of regulations and could not capitalizes on their investments.
The reason we have what we got today is exactly due to regulations all the regulations put in place to ensure you can pick up your phone and get a dial tone, which are the same regulations which kept competitors out of the market place. One simple example, and there are many like this, making a 911 call and IP phones, internet based calling was around in the 90's it took almost 20 yrs to have IP phones equality to a land line, we all should have had it back in the 90's but VZ and others kept it out of the market place for a long time due to one thing, it could not tell the 911 operators where your locations was. VZ and others had phone number databases connected to 911 services that automatically told them where your physical phones was at. Federal Regs required this and VZ was not required to share this information with start-up ISP offering IP phone services. VZ successfully used the 911 Reg to keep competitors out of the land line replacement space for 10 yrs. This also allowed them 10 yrs to take the profits from land lines to install fiber which there are not required to share with anyone unlike copper lines which they were required to share due to the telecom act.
There are many regulations like the 911 which were done for very good reasons like peoples safety, are also the saem reason why we do not have competition. Your flat out comment that without reg companies will take over is not accurate. Regulations work for and against competition and the Government is the last group of people who will get it right especially today.
All the reg cost everyone more, and companies just pass those costs along to you, so keep asking for regulations just mean you pay more. I would be more than happy to share with you more examples like the above and how many companies were put out of business due to regulations, because the first in had all the resources to keep competitors out using government regulations.
... The internet as we know it will fade away and become like television was 20 years ago—only those with lots of money and influence can get ‘in’ on content creation and distribution. And the variety we see today, for better and worse, will be relatively anemic.
Wanna bet? I think you underestimate the dynamism of the market.
Bet on what, that monopoly have devastating effects...
How the hell would you even prove what would have happened otherwise once the choke is on. You can't so it's just empty words.
Relax. We're just talkin' here.
georgie01's assertion was "The internet as we know it will fade away and become like television was 20 years ago—only those with lots of money and influence can get ‘in’ on content creation and distribution. And the variety we see today, for better and worse, will be relatively anemic."
I said I don't expect that that will be the case, that market forces are very dynamic.
If what I said is "just empty words" then what I was responding to was as well. He stated a prediction and I simply said I expect he'll be proven wrong.
You mention that monopolies have devastating effects. Monopolies can have bad effects, but the vast majority of Americans don't live in an area where any firm has a monopoly on broadband. I live in an urban area (as do a huge percentage of Americans), so I have more options than some, but I have at least 2 options for non-cellular internet and at least 3 for wireless. If I find that my home Fios isn't as good as Comcast (perhaps because of some side deal Verizon makes with Google and Netflix), I could switch to Comcast or try something else. I'm pretty sure Verizon realizes that providing good Internet service is a factor in customer retention, and customer retention is probably their most important goal. So, yeah, the telecom market isn't as competitive as some others (most others, probably), but it's still competitive.
Heavily regulated industries tend to be the least dynamic with lower levels of R&D and innovation.
The pro-regulation crowd were clever to coin the term "net neutrality" and apply it so a certain form of regulation, but it's just as loaded as any other slogan. Especially when you say, as this article does, "net neutrality protections." Getting rid of "protections" sounds scary; reducing government regulations to give companies more freedom to operate and innovate doesn't.
So I suggest we dump the gross generalizations and talk specifics. I don't think the boogeyman is hiding behind Ajit Pai's chair, so therefore I think we can discuss his proposals based on the substance rather than assumptions of evil intent.
I find this news to be quite hilarious and well-deserved. American techie boyz have been completely owned and rendered impotent by Russian hackers across the board, and now the coup de grace is here, in the form of your own corrupt government forcing you to to beg mommy and daddy to pay more for your internet. But since so many of you are self-professed libertarians, none of you should have a problem with this, right?
To wit: the commenter above me is a perfect example of such, sounding like someone who doesn’t pay his own way and certainly expects the rest of you to.
Comments
No idea why this administration is making this a priority.
And for the love of all things digital, make it an effective vote. Don't throw it away. Don't stay home.
And, no, less government interference isn't the answer. It's no coincidence that the countries with the fastest, cheapest Internet access are countries with heavy regulation.
"Proponents of strong net neutrality rules argue Title II classification allows for an open internet by prohibiting ISPs from engaging in price unsavory practices.
For example, one worry is that providers will charge websites and services a fee for priority speeds, or paid "fast lanes," once neutrality protections are removed. While such measures would be a boon for big firms like video streaming companies, smaller entities looking to establish a foothold would suffer.
However, money talks and everything else are just words. Comcast, Verizon and AT&T spend more money in DC in one year than Apple has ever spend in its entire company history.
People if you do not like this, this is the reason everyone in government must be voted out after two terms. Take their power away and make them work for us. Companies do not vote but the spend money and politician spend money to buy your vote.
So, the majority of them just sit on their arses doing local improvements that no one else will be able to use, while telling others how bad it is, when someone else makes money.
Do you wanna live in a society that can treat cancer (cure that will be manufactured having greed as one of very strong motivating factors), or do you wanna live in a society that has nothing but talks a lot?
You have to admit that consumers of internet do not design nor they build infrastructure. It is greed of the competing companies that motivates companies to do that.
First, I would generally agree with you, without some level of controls and regulations companies would take advantage of their positions. However, I worked in this industry when the telecom act of 1996 came in to play which deregulated the industry down to a point (not be political but Clinton did this not Trump and his Cohorts). At this time we had lots of competitions and I works for companies who were taking advantage of this and growing their business, competition was good.
However, Companies like VZ, & AT&T and others uses regulations to keep competitors out of the market. They successfully used all the regulations which the government put in place to ensure the US has functioning telecom infrastructure to keep those competitors which the Telecom Act of 96 was to promote out of the market place. Why do you think we had the internet bubble bust in 1999, a bunch of company all trying to grow fast and hit the wall of regulations and could not capitalizes on their investments.
The reason we have what we got today is exactly due to regulations all the regulations put in place to ensure you can pick up your phone and get a dial tone, which are the same regulations which kept competitors out of the market place. One simple example, and there are many like this, making a 911 call and IP phones, internet based calling was around in the 90's it took almost 20 yrs to have IP phones equality to a land line, we all should have had it back in the 90's but VZ and others kept it out of the market place for a long time due to one thing, it could not tell the 911 operators where your locations was. VZ and others had phone number databases connected to 911 services that automatically told them where your physical phones was at. Federal Regs required this and VZ was not required to share this information with start-up ISP offering IP phone services. VZ successfully used the 911 Reg to keep competitors out of the land line replacement space for 10 yrs. This also allowed them 10 yrs to take the profits from land lines to install fiber which there are not required to share with anyone unlike copper lines which they were required to share due to the telecom act.
There are many regulations like the 911 which were done for very good reasons like peoples safety, are also the saem reason why we do not have competition. Your flat out comment that without reg companies will take over is not accurate. Regulations work for and against competition and the Government is the last group of people who will get it right especially today.
All the reg cost everyone more, and companies just pass those costs along to you, so keep asking for regulations just mean you pay more. I would be more than happy to share with you more examples like the above and how many companies were put out of business due to regulations, because the first in had all the resources to keep competitors out using government regulations.
georgie01's assertion was "The internet as we know it will fade away and become like television was 20 years ago—only those with lots of money and influence can get ‘in’ on content creation and distribution. And the variety we see today, for better and worse, will be relatively anemic."
I said I don't expect that that will be the case, that market forces are very dynamic.
If what I said is "just empty words" then what I was responding to was as well. He stated a prediction and I simply said I expect he'll be proven wrong.
You mention that monopolies have devastating effects. Monopolies can have bad effects, but the vast majority of Americans don't live in an area where any firm has a monopoly on broadband. I live in an urban area (as do a huge percentage of Americans), so I have more options than some, but I have at least 2 options for non-cellular internet and at least 3 for wireless. If I find that my home Fios isn't as good as Comcast (perhaps because of some side deal Verizon makes with Google and Netflix), I could switch to Comcast or try something else. I'm pretty sure Verizon realizes that providing good Internet service is a factor in customer retention, and customer retention is probably their most important goal. So, yeah, the telecom market isn't as competitive as some others (most others, probably), but it's still competitive.
Heavily regulated industries tend to be the least dynamic with lower levels of R&D and innovation.
The pro-regulation crowd were clever to coin the term "net neutrality" and apply it so a certain form of regulation, but it's just as loaded as any other slogan. Especially when you say, as this article does, "net neutrality protections." Getting rid of "protections" sounds scary; reducing government regulations to give companies more freedom to operate and innovate doesn't.
So I suggest we dump the gross generalizations and talk specifics. I don't think the boogeyman is hiding behind Ajit Pai's chair, so therefore I think we can discuss his proposals based on the substance rather than assumptions of evil intent.
To wit: the commenter above me is a perfect example of such, sounding like someone who doesn’t pay his own way and certainly expects the rest of you to.
Ha, ha, ha...