Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Reports: FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules

  1. #21
    Educator sam_w's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    09-24-09 @ 04:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    724

    Re: Reports: FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules

    Net neutrality is an issue that at the moment most are either unaware of, or simply do not see an issue with....at the moment. At this very time the overall consumption of bandwidth is not spread out, the fear ISP's have is that consumption will increase and spread among a larger percentage of their customers requiring them to actually invest in their infrastructure.

    Now here is where we can all have a nice laugh. First, the actual cost that companies like Comcast and Time Warner pay for their internet access which they resell to consumers is minimal compared to the revenue. So their complaint is null and void there. Second, is anyone aware that we the U.S. citizens have already paid the ISPs millions to expand their infrastructure to support increased bandwidth?

    I like the market, and if you are old enough you can appreciate how de-monopolizing the telcoms has benefited us the consumer (i.e. if you lived in the era of Ma Bell and "Don't touch that damn phone or else"). Problem we have in the U.S., the county that invented the whole damn internet, is that we do not have a true market. The vast majority of consumers across this county are reliant on one company to supply them with high speed access. This is actually no different than what many European nations are facing with de-regulated and de-nationalized telcoms. What concerns me is that at the core, we simply do not have any competition. I almost lost my home internet access because I had thought it was a good idea to send daily backups to my home. Since I was on the same private network, it seemed like a good idea at the time...until Comcast cut off service warning me I used too much bandwidth. My ioptions? Well, we ended up contracting with another business to share resources etc.. etc.. Fine and all, except her I am paying for a service I can not use. Get the point now about Net Neutrality?

    The very real fear is that companies like Comcast will strike deals with content providers to provide preference to services they have approved (i.e. received premiums for). Take Youtube or Hule for example. Come home from work and decide you want to watch some show you missed that is available on Hulu......except it will not take the lowest priority to receive. In other words the service you pay for, the high speed you expect, is non existent.

  2. #22
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Reports: FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Baralis View Post
    I would agree if it were that simple. I read a report several months back that stated that ALL the major ISPs were against net neutrality.
    If all the ISPs are against net neutrality then it is a pretty good indication that they all plan to impose some sort of additional fees for viewing additional websites or to restrict traffic to certain websites. Then that would mean there is no such thing as dumping one ISP and going to another because you do not like the fact they restrict traffic or charge fees for going to certain sites.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  3. #23
    Professor
    Baralis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MO
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,394
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Reports: FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    If all the ISPs are against net neutrality then it is a pretty good indication that they all plan to impose some sort of additional fees for viewing additional websites or to restrict traffic to certain websites. Then that would mean there is no such thing as dumping one ISP and going to another because you do not like the fact they restrict traffic or charge fees for going to certain sites.
    Exactly and I think this is what so many are missing. If all the major ISPs implement such a restructing of how they provide services we the consumer will have little choice.

    I believe it was Time Warner that was talking about packages just this year. You pay for different tiers of service and the amounts of sites you can visit per a set rate. No more free range internet under such a system. Luckly so far it has only been talk but such talk scares me.

  4. #24
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,974

    Re: Reports: FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    It's always seemed like one of those things that people got really worked up about, but wouldn't amount to much in the end. If a cable company decides to restrict its users unfairly, people can just go to a different company. I don't see why we need to pass laws to deal with it.
    I'm in favor of Net Neutrality. I don't like it, but I'm in favor of it.

    I'd be MORE in favor of repealing the laws and regulations that have created essentially a monopoly in regards to cable companies that thus prevents true competition, which is what is requiring Net Neutrality in the first place. Essentially it is a government fix for an issue the government has in part created. While I'd rather the government just remove the first error they made, the likihood of that is far less likely than net neutrality.

    In regards to broadband internet, for many people there is only one option.

    For example where I am all I have the ability to have is Cox broadband. FIOS doesn't install in my building and I'm not in the correct direction for a clear satellite signal. Not to mention you don't get "real" competition when there are only even, say, two options because they realize they can do what the other guy is doing and you still have to pick between them both. Competition comes into play as you add more to the stack.

    Its not like the days of Dialup when you had CompuServe, AOL, MSN, Earthlink, NetZero, along with a handful of local companies all over the place. Its generally Cable, if you're lucky FIOS, and maybe Satelite, with the later two hardly a given.

    And sadly its not a big boogeyman, as instances of what people are warning against have already been done by the likes of Comcast and other cable companies both in the U.S. and abroad.

  5. #25
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: Reports: FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules

    It is a step in the right direction, however I think the US would benefit much more by forceful splitting up the telecommunications who have monopolies or near monopolies in geographic areas. The problem is lack of competition in the US. Lack of competition means no incentive to expand your infrastructure and improve it. This in turn means more and more people get on the same network, and to make sure a minimum quality of service, the ISPs are forced to start throttling, blocking and restricting speeds.

    So when a company starts to add "features" like port throttling, or telling you what sites are allowed and not allowed or limiting your usage via the amount of GB a month.. then it is because their infrastructure sucks and they either cant, or are unwilling to expand it to meet the demand. And since there are no alternatives.. then people are stuck with what they got.... and no dial up is not an alternative...
    PeteEU

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •