Net Neutrality (It's important folks)

Off-Topic
81

It depends on where you live. I have several options where I live. Comcast and Verizon are the two big ones. But in order to fully appreciate why people are skeptical about FCC intervention you need to understand the history. Comcast is a cable company. Verizon is a phone company. The government instituted a deliberate cable monopoly over television service in order to allow companies to benefit from the infrastructure they developed in certain areas. This is STILL IN PLACE. The ONLY reason I have competition from another large provider is that Verizon is a phone company and they therefore escape the government mandated cable monopoly. I can’t choose another cable company to be my tv provided. But several telephone/telecommunications companies offer service that carries tv. Both offer Internet.

So what is being debated in the FCC is not “net neutrality.” It’s whether or not the FCC has the authority through the 1930’s era telecommunications act to enforce regulations on ISPs including what they are calling a net neutrality regulation. If they do fine. But that does not in any way guarantee net neutrality and I wouldn’t be surprised to see them set up the same sort of monopoly as with cable companies. Or institute some kind of cost sharing scheme where, although ISP’s can’t demand money from streaming services, the FCC taxes them and then subsidizes the infrastructure. If we start getting into a discussion if FCC regulations it gets into a very political discussion of the role of regulation etc. But I would just like to communicate (pun intended) that FCC regulations are complicated, not always very transparent to the public and definitely not regarded as universally consumer friendly. So I am not confident that writing my congressman about this is the best thing. Maybe it is. But it is definitely not a simple equation where we are voting for net neutrality and if the FCC doesn’t regulate it leads to dark things.

82

My aunt really put things into perspective Thursday during Thanksgiving. She used to work for Verizon corp and was lead programmer for the company. Her team was one of the best in the industry and by and large the US. In fact they were so good it was her team that fixed the ObamaCare website.

This is what she said, “Think of the Big Carrier as your home. You pay for and manager your own wifi. Let’s say you have a friend who comes over to your home and uses your wifi and your bandwidth to manager their own business. When that business was small, it wasn’t a big deal, just him and his PC, however, he became really successful, and now it’s not just him, but now he has several employees. They all come to your house and use your wifi to do their business, but he still expects you to not charge him at all for using your wifi.”

As it stands, companies like NetFlix, Hulu, ect ect have been using other people’s internet and paying very little to the company they are using. They do pay something, but nothing in comparison to what is actually being used.

Companies like Verizon, ATT, Sprint, T-Mobile, have to continually bid to get more bandwidth to appease their customers needs, and those needs have only gotten larger over the years, thanks to HD content. When NetFlix, Hulu, ect ect were small and much of their content nugget size, it wasn’t a big deal, and the arrangements that were made back then worked, but now that all of these are full fledged streaming services with HD content, the bandwidth they are has increased exponentially, while they are still paying the same to the carriers as they did back when everything started.

Net Neutrality has to change. Companies can’t be allowed to use others networks without paying their fair share.

83

speaking of monoplies, my area has one. all we got is spectrum (formerly time warner cable). if they decide to charge extra for netflix, theres gonna be blood in the streets lol

4 Likes
84

Welp


■■■■

1 Like
85

I read the news. You have my condolences.

1 Like
86

People are exaggerating this. It’s not as bad as it seems. It’s not over. The decision still has to go to Congress to vote on. Even so, it can still be taken to the supreme court(this happened twice and the decision to repeal net neutrality lost each time).

4 Likes
87

In that case, keep fighting! ^^

88

What i want to knows is what was the reason for that little security evacuation

1 Like
89

Unless I’m missing something, there’s no reason for a regulatory agency like FCC to go to congress for a change in regulations. Depending on the rule making process they are subject to, they may need public comment on a final proposal but congress as the legislative branch have no special say in these decisions. If Congress wants to get involved they would need to pass a law detailing some requirement for net neutrality regulation. They could be taken to court, though. Usually courts only rule against federal agencies if they have not followed the proper procedure, though, not regarding whether their rules are good or bad.

I’m very curious to see what happens. I think there’s been a lot of grandstanding and hyperventilating around this and I really think it will be a non-issue.

6 Likes
90

Everything involving the internet will be the same. If your willing to pay more to use services, that need above potato level internet to function
 (on top of paying for those services of course)

1 Like
91

alot of people are in a panic over the boogeyman that is throttling and packaging deals. we had so many years here in tbe U.S. where none of that occurred, and given how much negativity there is towards it, ISPs will find themselves in a consumer revolt if they did half the BS ppl are flailing about

4 Likes
92

I think people going to be annoyed, for a week or two
 Then just accept the new pricing model.

1 Like
93

what new pricing model

94
95

1 or 2 artificial tiers of services, to create a “premium” tier. (Probably @ $90-$100+ )

Alternatively they could just charge businesses, and the most we notice is a higher subscription cost here or there

96

link when this goes into effect?

1 Like
97

I’m no psychic, but the heart and soul of any business is ye ole BUFU ideology.

98

But they already have “premium” tiers based on speed.

There is no incentive for ISPs to price people out of the market for their services. And even if there was “net neutrality” does nothing to address that. It’s a totally different issue.

I’m getting tired of trying to explain this to a bunch of hipster band wagoners who saw the first three minutes of a John Oliver segment and now think they know what they are talking about.

The whole concept of net neutrality has nothing to do with whether ISPs can tier service or charge you more. They can do both those things and do it already. “Net neutrality” just precludes them from controlling the content that passes through their lines. Right now, the most common operating model in the US is to bill you for a speed tier. That tier says you are promised a certain bandwidth for download in exchange for your money. The company doesn’t actually have to provide that bandwidth, incidentally, they just have to try. But it is “content neutral.” So whether you are downloading sex videos, pirated video games, Netflix or cat pictures, the ISP cannot do anything to alter your access based around the particular content.

But there are plenty of other “net neutral” options - including selling you data tiers - which is what ALL mobile carriers in the US do. It’s still 100% net neutral. But if you go over your data limit they charge you more. But everyone in the network gets the best speed they can provide at any particular place and time. ISPs can already sell you data packages (which limit streaming because streaming involves lots of data) and then exclude their preferred services from your data cap. That has been ruled by the courts to be “net neutral” compliant. There’s a reason cell data providers do this and land line data companies don’t. It has to do with capacity and mobile data doesn’t have the capacity to meet demand. So they NEED to somehow limit people’s usage. Otherwise, just like the highway at rush hour, we will all be on at once clogging the lines and no one will go anywhere.

So right now, mobile carriers sell you data tiers and we all share the same speed. Land line ISPs sell you speed and unlimited data. But they could both reverse their policies any time and still be net neutral.

There are lots of things that might happen without net neutrality. Some of them would be worse than now and others might be better. For example, ISPs that can negotiate agreements with streaming services to get a “cut” in exchange for access to their lines are more likely to keep speed tiers with unlimited data than start selling data with free speed. As someone who downloads huge digital game files I would MUCH rather pay for speed than pay for data.

It’s also true that an ISP might now say “we are not allowing Netflix in our internet service.” Or “if you want to stream Netflix you need to give us an extra $20 a month.” We have no idea how likely that is. But what is certainly true - and will always be true everywhere, is that in places with competition for a service, customers will always have more options and better, cheaper services. Right now, places where there are ISP monopolies have ■■■■■■ download speeds. They are net neutral, but they are trash downloads. In the future, those ■■■■■■ downloads might ask for more money to gate Netflix. But that will actually dissuade Netflix streaming and improve their service for other users.

My point is that lots of good and bad things might happen with or without net neutrality. I’m actually in favor of net neutrality- if not necessarily in favor of net neutrality through FCC regulation. But all of these people think that somehow net neutrality is code for “cheap fast internet” and it’s not that. At all. You can have ■■■■■■, potato, slow internet that is net neutral.

If you really care about internet services forget net neutrality. Go campaign the government to mandate competition in the isp market.

5 Likes
99

^thank you

1 Like
100

It could also possibly open the door for something worse in the future.
Guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

Edit:
Get informed


2 Likes