Here is the thing. These companies didn’t develop the Internet. The government did using tax payer dollars. So the public should absolutely have a say in what happens with the internet.
Further, these same companies spend tons of dollars so that they don’t have to compete fairly. For instance, laws attacking municipalities from creating internet services or passing laws that only allow one ISP provider.
The US government created the Internet to the extent that they standardized a routing protocol, IP addresses, and domain name system that were actually invented by mostly private universities. Furthermore the government didn't build out the infrastructure. The carriers installed the cables, dug the ditches, leased space on utility poles, built data centers, etc at their own expense. All the government does is charge them taxes. And also there are no laws attacking municipalities. Those are contractual agreements such that a single ISP won the bid from the city to install the infrastructure. The city agrees to protect them from competition for a given number of years so they can recoup their investment and also earn a profit. The arrangement doesn't give consumers any choice but the fees the cable company charges are regulated by the same contract. Without that arrangement you wouldn't have cable at all.
Here is the thing. These companies didn’t develop the Internet. The government did using tax payer dollars. So the public should absolutely have a say in what happens with the internet. Further, these same companies spend tons of dollars so that they don’t have to compete fairly. For instance, laws attacking municipalities from creating internet services or passing laws that only allow one ISP provider.
Funny how some who are for net neutrality seem to believe they are somehow entitled to a service that somebody else provides. Those businesses are not charities, they are businesses with a bottom line and responsibility to their shareholders. They're job is to make money. So, they will do so and if that means tweaking speeds to get there then so be it. If one doesn't like it then don't buy it. Simple concept. And the sentence in this article that says "potentially radically reshaping the nature of the U.S. internet." is complete horse hockey and hyperbole. All this essentially does is revert back to the way it was before this nonsensical policy was put into place to begin with. It wasn't called "radical" back then now was it? Now all of a sudden it's "radical". Give me a break.
GET READY FOLKS! We have the following exciting packages for you savvy Internet users... take a look at the following offerings we have coming for 2018... The SURFER Package: this includes our homepage, shopping sites, banking, religion & some YouTube. The SCHOLAR Package: adds Wikipedia and many informative News, Literature, Art and Science sites. The SOCIAL Package: for Facebook, Instagram, among others (we’ll let you know). The LATE NIGHT package: for those that might venture a bit on the dark side - plus comedy & music. AND for you power users... The WORLD ACCESS Package: all of the above services - plus Netflix and dozens more enriching websites, even ones in other countries. These features are now available to you at VERY affordable tiered rates.
Think about it ... YOU have the power to customize what you can know!
BONUS - once we finalize which websites will pay us to give our users access to them, more web services will be added almost daily!
Here is the thing. These companies didn’t develop the Internet. The government did using tax payer dollars. So the public should absolutely have a say in what happens with the internet.
Further, these same companies spend tons of dollars so that they don’t have to compete fairly. For instance, laws attacking municipalities from creating internet services or passing laws that only allow one ISP provider.
The US government created the Internet to the extent that they standardized a routing protocol, IP addresses, and domain name system that were actually invented by mostly private universities. Furthermore the government didn't build out the infrastructure. The carriers installed the cables, dug the ditches, leased space on utility poles, built data centers, etc at their own expense. All the government does is charge them taxes. And also there are no laws attacking municipalities. Those are contractual agreements such that a single ISP won the bid from the city to install the infrastructure. The city agrees to protect them from competition for a given number of years so they can recoup their investment and also earn a profit. The arrangement doesn't give consumers any choice but the fees the cable company charges are regulated by the same contract. Without that arrangement you wouldn't have cable at all.
So how many years do these government-created monopolies get? Because I've yet to see Comcast, TWC and other cable companies fight it out in a single town or city. Wireless is not the solution. When Google came around with Fiber, prices in those same towns dropped, service git better. Wired is always going to be better. Already because of lack of competition, Comcast put in place its 1TB cap. The only real reason in doing so is to protect their TV service.
But, hey, now you can pay another $50 to get unlimited that you had before and was taken away.
Well, one thing’s for sure. When some bozo complained about their ATV buffering all the time they always blamed Apple’s POS hardware. Now when ti buffers they will SWEAR they’re being throttled by their carrier. Stupid is as stupid does.
Funny how some who are for net neutrality seem to believe they are somehow entitled to a service that somebody else provides. Those businesses are not charities, they are businesses with a bottom line and responsibility to their shareholders. They're job is to make money. So, they will do so and if that means tweaking speeds to get there then so be it. If one doesn't like it then don't buy it. Simple concept. And the sentence in this article that says "potentially radically reshaping the nature of the U.S. internet." is complete horse hockey and hyperbole. All this essentially does is revert back to the way it was before this nonsensical policy was put into place to begin with. It wasn't called "radical" back then now was it? Now all of a sudden it's "radical". Give me a break.
Here is the thing. These companies didn’t develop the Internet. The government did using tax payer dollars. So the public should absolutely have a say in what happens with the internet.
Further, these same companies spend tons of dollars so that they don’t have to compete fairly. For instance, laws attacking municipalities from creating internet services or passing laws that only allow one ISP provider.
I guess a lot of folks may not remember the massive Internet build out that ended with the "dot bomb" collapse in the late 90's, eh? Look it up. Billions of dollars were flowing into that sector to build fatter pipes (so called "dark fiber") and when everything collapsed that privately funded infrastructure was still there. What existed prior to this influx of capital was more like dial-up versus the fiber optic cables of today.
Here is the thing. These companies didn’t develop the Internet. The government did using tax payer dollars. So the public should absolutely have a say in what happens with the internet.
Further, these same companies spend tons of dollars so that they don’t have to compete fairly. For instance, laws attacking municipalities from creating internet services or passing laws that only allow one ISP provider.
The US government created the Internet to the extent that they standardized a routing protocol, IP addresses, and domain name system that were actually invented by mostly private universities. Furthermore the government didn't build out the infrastructure. The carriers installed the cables, dug the ditches, leased space on utility poles, built data centers, etc at their own expense. All the government does is charge them taxes. And also there are no laws attacking municipalities. Those are contractual agreements such that a single ISP won the bid from the city to install the infrastructure. The city agrees to protect them from competition for a given number of years so they can recoup their investment and also earn a profit. The arrangement doesn't give consumers any choice but the fees the cable company charges are regulated by the same contract. Without that arrangement you wouldn't have cable at all.
So how many years do these government-created monopolies get? Because I've yet to see Comcast, TWC and other cable companies fight it out in a single town or city. Wireless is not the solution. When Google came around with Fiber, prices in those same towns dropped, service git better. Wired is always going to be better. Already because of lack of competition, Comcast put in place its 1TB cap. The only real reason in doing so is to protect their TV service.
But, hey, now you can pay another $50 to get unlimited that you had before and was taken away.
Can Republican do something for citizens instead of rich and big enterprises?
Clearly you do not understand the Republican view of government. Congress is elected to represent corporations (who, as the Supreme Court ruled have the same political rights as citizens). Corporations, in turn, pass on the benefits of their increased profits on to citizens (the trickle down theory). Elections are determined by massive corporate support of candidates, giving the illusion that people are electing representatives. Since the Constitution is silent on this sidestepping of democracy, and the Constitution must be interpreted as originally intended, no problem.
Can Republican do something for citizens instead of rich and big enterprises?
Clearly you do not understand the Republican view of government. Congress is elected to represent corporations (who, as the Supreme Court ruled have the same political rights as citizens). Corporations, in turn, pass on the benefits of their increased profits on to citizens (the trickle down theory). Elections are determined by massive corporate support of candidates, giving the illusion that people are electing representatives. Since the Constitution is silent on this sidestepping of democracy, and the Constitution must be interpreted as originally intended, no problem.
Excuse me, Robin. Democrats are also bought and paid for by large donors. Cronyism is not limited to party.
I think this is a very important topic, but this change is rather irrelevant. Or, to put it another way, I'm a strong advocate of net neutrality principal, but not so much of Net Neutrality™. They are two different things. It is also interesting to note that this change was *only* 2 years ago, and it was never actually enforced.
We're also really going to have be careful that whatever gets implemented isn't 'to the letter' type legality, but some kind of principal a governing body (with some kind of strong checks and balances) gets to enact on a case by case basis.
For example, I think we would all agree there are certain legitimate services/packets that actually should be prioritized (if necessary). Also, it could be argued that modern implementations of services like Netflix or CDNs violate the principals of net neutrality. However it is enacted, it would have to be done reasonably, only eliminating anti-competitive or censoring types of abuse.
Another problem with Net Neutrality™ were the 'lawful content' clauses and giving an agency like the FCC control over that. It doesn't take too much imagination to see what could go wrong with that!
Yes, without the principal, the Internet will certainly become like a bunch of competing cable subscriptions. So, it's something that is needed and which we'll continually have to fight for. But, since regulation will have to come from government, we have to be sure it's properly written and implemented... which requires an actual good and low-corruption Congress. Until we get that, I don't think we want them to be putting these kind of things in place.
I recently listened to this podcast episode that examined it from a Congressional and political standpoint. While it didn't go deep into the technical issues, it was one of the best historical overviews I've heard. https://congressionaldish.com/net-neutrality/ (Actually, this is a must-listen-to podcast in general, IMO.)
I can’t tell whether people are joking. Part of that is this is the Internet and these are text-only conversations; part of that is I’ve been alone too long. Either way, it’s not very funny.
Yeah, that's gonna happen. ISPs will allow ninety percent of their income to go away because the service is crap and the ISPs will do NOTHING to make it better. Please.
Are you unaware of the last, oh, two decades of US infrastructure spending?
If you believe these companies are all about the bottom line, then you must also believe they will do what it takes to acquire and retain customers.
Yes, they have. It’s called collusion and it’s illegal.
Eventually, all internet service will be wireless.
Let’s hope not, for the sake of the Internet still existing. That would destroy the goddamn thing.
If you really think these companies all have monopolies, then why on earth would they bother to update any part of their systems?
They don’t. Where do you think the billions in taxpayer dollars they were given for infrastructure improvements went? To their own lobbyists and the pockets of the executives. Lobbyists who, well, help make sure no one knows about the collusion. Pages 220 to 246 are pretty interesting.
rwx9901 said: You mean like you did prior to 2015? Gimme a break. Hyperbole in it's highest form for God sakes.
Almost as though absolutely nothing like that was even remotely said or implied anywhere. Can you respond, in any capacity, to what your opponent actually said, or do you only operate through the use of strawmen?
Clearly you do not understand the Republican view of government.
Go ahead. Make this partisan. I fucking dare you. Pandora has nothing on this box. Either that or don’t make comments like this again, and go back to helping EVERYONE fix the actual problems.
Since the Constitution is silent on this sidestepping of democracy…
The Constitution is also silent on the concept of democracy, as the Founders didn’t make a democracy and the United States is not one.
steven n. said: if the Internet shows signs of the doom and gloom then fix it. Otherwise, light touch is a good thing. Not noted in this article, FaceTime on AT&T was solved by competition and not Tittle II.
That was cellular, correct? There actually is a bit of competition in that sector. For wired internet, there typically isn't. You have to have real competition for it to be a market corrective.
gatorguy said: How do you think it will benefit you? Totally honest question.
No doubt! This is 100% benefit for the ISPs and *some* content producers. I don't really see an upside for the consumer, though what was there was problematic in other ways. (I guess I vote neither... and then lets actually come up with some good net neutrality policy and a non-clown Congress to enact it.)
gatorguy said: So you agree with Pai and now with their hands untied we should instead see signs of innovation from the ISP's over the next year? I would ask you as I did an earlier poster: In what way do you see this benefitting you personally?
For sure... like all the "innovation" we've seen in the last couple of decades, huh? 90% of the effort has gone into limiting devices so they can control info flow instead of expansion that would largely eliminate the need for the control.
And, when someone actually tries to innovate (like local governments wanting to put in broadband in an area), they do everything possible to quash it. And, in the few places the local governments succeed, the internet is vastly superior to what the rest of us get. And THEN the ISPs (in those areas) magically start to offer competitive packages that they can't seem to get to the rest of us.
boltsfan17 said: When it comes to only having one ISP, I think that's an issue that goes far beyond Net Neutrality. It's well known ISP's get deals with local governments preventing other ISP's from bringing in service to the same communities. Before and during Net Neutrality really hasn't affected me so it's hard for me to say if I would have been fine with leaving it alone or not.
Yes, those are two very different issues. But, one could very well impact the other. If the existing monopolistic ISPs can start cutting deals with big content, then they'll just get even more powerful and solidified into that position. So, *real* net neutrality regulation could have a preventative impact, but not necessarily a fix.
tzeshan said: Why would the ISP raise price causing millions of Americans will drop or never subscribe to an Internet connection because of these price hikes?
Because they can. They've been doing it for some time now. But, millions of Americans haven't necessarily left, because having such access is becoming pretty critical.
I'm just STUNNED by the sheer ignorance and stupidity on display by so many of the posters in this thread, not realizing just what has happened and what WILL now be allowed to happen... This repeal has opened the door for all the corporations to start gouging the consumers and smaller companies. This is the WORST thing to happen to the Internet since it's inception.
Was the door ever closed? I think you might just be the one misunderstanding the situation.
sdw2001 said: If ATT blocks FaceTime or there is throttling, consumers are going to revolt. Netflix can charge whatever it wants. This wasn't a problem before 2015, so I don't see why it would be one now.
Actually, it was a problem... just not extremely wide-spread. The ISPs were just testing the waters in most cases. For example, when I lived in California, Comcast was messing up my VoIP packets and pushing their competing service. But, I agree that 2 years of the what has just been removed didn't make much actual difference... aside from possibly making the IPSs more cautious about accelerating.
I’m willing to wager the first thing that happens is that people who do not have a cable subscription, but do have an internet service will see their service plans skyrocket to the point that there is no reason NOT to also get cable.
The telecoms biggest fears have been cable cutters...
I think this was already the case. The service plans have skyrocketed to the extent that you're paying as much for Internet as you used to pay for the TV programing. If you *also* buy the programming, now they are really bringing in the $$$.
sflocal said: I don't trust companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc at all but then I question whether adding additional government regulations and bureaucracy and handcuffing companies was ever a good idea.
Did it hurt anything? It's kind of hard to imagine how it could be that much worse. We're paying a few incompetent companies huge amounts of $ for terrible service that's well behind the rest of the developed world. If that's "free market" progress, something is seriously wrong. (Hint: not enough regulation to make it a free market)
volcan said: Cellular carriers are offering some pretty fast speeds right now ... but we still don't know what price plans are going to be offered.
That's the problem with cellular. I doubt it's possible to compete on price. It would cost me $thousands/mo to get the amount of data I need in Canada via cellular. I guess it's not nearly that bad in the USA?
I wonder how and if this will affect services offered by USA companies outside of the USA when they don’t have copies of their data e.g. in Europe...
A lot of countries follow the USA's example, but even if they don't, it's pretty hard to avoid not going through or using content that comes from the US.
pdbreske said: Yeah, that's gonna happen. ISPs will allow ninety percent of their income to go away because the service is crap and the ISPs will do NOTHING to make it better. Please.
...
If you really think these companies all have monopolies, then why on earth would they bother to update any part of their systems? That costs money and adversely affects the bottom line.
There is no where to go for most people, if they want Internet access. And, they've mostly been doing nothing for years. All they've been doing is opening up capacity little by little so their customers can do things they typically want to do, while keeping pricing *just* below revolt level. It costs like $0.01-0.02/GB for their operation (quite possibly even lower by now). Do the math. Where are the profits going?
robin huber said: Clearly you do not understand the Republican view of government.
Ahh, if only I had the energy and creativity to make up a similar Democrat version...
tallest skil said: They don’t. Where do you think the billions in taxpayer dollars they were given for infrastructure improvements went? To their own lobbyists and the pockets of the executives. Lobbyists who, well, help make sure no one knows about the collusion. Pages 220 to 246 are pretty interesting.
^^^ THIS ^^^ Most people don't seem to realize that these poor ISPs, who just can't seem to innovate and expand their services without the complete ability to freely run amok... took hundreds of $BILLIONS of dollars of tax-payer money in the form of tax incentives (during the Clinton administration) of which the promised result was supposed to be 50 MB/s bi-directional internet access (minimally) for EVERYONE in the USA for under $50/mo!
Anyone getting those kinds of speeds at those kinds of prices? (crickets)
We can debate forever about various merits of particular net neutrality policy... but what is pretty much without debate is that the ISPs don't even deserve to be heard, let alone given what they want.
So people are protesting a change back to what we were using for 20 years prior to 2015. Competition in the marketplace typically gives the consumer more choice. More choice leads to lower prices. T-Mobile competes in this type of system and the consumer benefits. Basically it's going to be someone else raking in the cash with the consumer winning.
Comments
The SURFER Package: this includes our homepage, shopping sites, banking, religion & some YouTube.
The SCHOLAR Package: adds Wikipedia and many informative News, Literature, Art and Science sites.
The SOCIAL Package: for Facebook, Instagram, among others (we’ll let you know).
The LATE NIGHT package: for those that might venture a bit on the dark side - plus comedy & music.
AND for you power users...
The WORLD ACCESS Package: all of the above services - plus Netflix and dozens more enriching websites, even ones in other countries.
These features are now available to you at VERY affordable tiered rates.
Think about it ... YOU have the power to customize what you can know!
BONUS - once we finalize which websites will pay us to give our users access to them, more web services will be added almost daily!
So how many years do these government-created monopolies get? Because I've yet to see Comcast, TWC and other cable companies fight it out in a single town or city. Wireless is not the solution. When Google came around with Fiber, prices in those same towns dropped, service git better. Wired is always going to be better. Already because of lack of competition, Comcast put in place its 1TB cap. The only real reason in doing so is to protect their TV service.
But, hey, now you can pay another $50 to get unlimited that you had before and was taken away.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/17/elon-musk-satellites-internet-spacex
This is the kind of thing that CAN happen in response to market pressures and customer demand.
Or, to put it another way, I'm a strong advocate of net neutrality principal, but not so much of Net Neutrality™. They are two different things. It is also interesting to note that this change was *only* 2 years ago, and it was never actually enforced.
We're also really going to have be careful that whatever gets implemented isn't 'to the letter' type legality, but some kind of principal a governing body (with some kind of strong checks and balances) gets to enact on a case by case basis.
For example, I think we would all agree there are certain legitimate services/packets that actually should be prioritized (if necessary). Also, it could be argued that modern implementations of services like Netflix or CDNs violate the principals of net neutrality. However it is enacted, it would have to be done reasonably, only eliminating anti-competitive or censoring types of abuse.
Another problem with Net Neutrality™ were the 'lawful content' clauses and giving an agency like the FCC control over that. It doesn't take too much imagination to see what could go wrong with that!
Yes, without the principal, the Internet will certainly become like a bunch of competing cable subscriptions. So, it's something that is needed and which we'll continually have to fight for. But, since regulation will have to come from government, we have to be sure it's properly written and implemented... which requires an actual good and low-corruption Congress. Until we get that, I don't think we want them to be putting these kind of things in place.
I recently listened to this podcast episode that examined it from a Congressional and political standpoint. While it didn't go deep into the technical issues, it was one of the best historical overviews I've heard. https://congressionaldish.com/net-neutrality/
(Actually, this is a must-listen-to podcast in general, IMO.)
Are you unaware of the last, oh, two decades of US infrastructure spending?Yes, they have. It’s called collusion and it’s illegal.
Let’s hope not, for the sake of the Internet still existing. That would destroy the goddamn thing.
They don’t. Where do you think the billions in taxpayer dollars they were given for infrastructure improvements went? To their own lobbyists and the pockets of the executives. Lobbyists who, well, help make sure no one knows about the collusion. Pages 220 to 246 are pretty interesting.
Almost as though absolutely nothing like that was even remotely said or implied anywhere. Can you respond, in any capacity, to what your opponent actually said, or do you only operate through the use of strawmen?
The Constitution is also silent on the concept of democracy, as the Founders didn’t make a democracy and the United States is not one.
That was cellular, correct? There actually is a bit of competition in that sector. For wired internet, there typically isn't. You have to have real competition for it to be a market corrective.
No doubt! This is 100% benefit for the ISPs and *some* content producers. I don't really see an upside for the consumer, though what was there was problematic in other ways. (I guess I vote neither... and then lets actually come up with some good net neutrality policy and a non-clown Congress to enact it.)
For sure... like all the "innovation" we've seen in the last couple of decades, huh? 90% of the effort has gone into limiting devices so they can control info flow instead of expansion that would largely eliminate the need for the control.
And, when someone actually tries to innovate (like local governments wanting to put in broadband in an area), they do everything possible to quash it. And, in the few places the local governments succeed, the internet is vastly superior to what the rest of us get. And THEN the ISPs (in those areas) magically start to offer competitive packages that they can't seem to get to the rest of us.
Yes, those are two very different issues. But, one could very well impact the other. If the existing monopolistic ISPs can start cutting deals with big content, then they'll just get even more powerful and solidified into that position. So, *real* net neutrality regulation could have a preventative impact, but not necessarily a fix.
Was the door ever closed? I think you might just be the one misunderstanding the situation.
Actually, it was a problem... just not extremely wide-spread. The ISPs were just testing the waters in most cases. For example, when I lived in California, Comcast was messing up my VoIP packets and pushing their competing service. But, I agree that 2 years of the what has just been removed didn't make much actual difference... aside from possibly making the IPSs more cautious about accelerating.
I think this was already the case. The service plans have skyrocketed to the extent that you're paying as much for Internet as you used to pay for the TV programing. If you *also* buy the programming, now they are really bringing in the $$$.
Did it hurt anything? It's kind of hard to imagine how it could be that much worse. We're paying a few incompetent companies huge amounts of $ for terrible service that's well behind the rest of the developed world. If that's "free market" progress, something is seriously wrong. (Hint: not enough regulation to make it a free market)
That's the problem with cellular. I doubt it's possible to compete on price. It would cost me $thousands/mo to get the amount of data I need in Canada via cellular. I guess it's not nearly that bad in the USA?
A lot of countries follow the USA's example, but even if they don't, it's pretty hard to avoid not going through or using content that comes from the US.
There is no where to go for most people, if they want Internet access. And, they've mostly been doing nothing for years. All they've been doing is opening up capacity little by little so their customers can do things they typically want to do, while keeping pricing *just* below revolt level.
It costs like $0.01-0.02/GB for their operation (quite possibly even lower by now). Do the math. Where are the profits going?
^^^ THIS ^^^
Most people don't seem to realize that these poor ISPs, who just can't seem to innovate and expand their services without the complete ability to freely run amok... took hundreds of $BILLIONS of dollars of tax-payer money in the form of tax incentives (during the Clinton administration) of which the promised result was supposed to be 50 MB/s bi-directional internet access (minimally) for EVERYONE in the USA for under $50/mo!
Anyone getting those kinds of speeds at those kinds of prices? (crickets)
We can debate forever about various merits of particular net neutrality policy... but what is pretty much without debate is that the ISPs don't even deserve to be heard, let alone given what they want.