View Poll Results: What are your initial thoughts on the Verizon v. FCC decision?

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • I agree with the decision, but there will be no negative impact.

    0 0%
  • I agree with the decision, but think it will have a negative impact.

    1 4.55%
  • I disagree with the decision, but don't think there'll be a negative impact.

    2 9.09%
  • I disagree with the decision, but do think it will have a negative impact.

    19 86.36%
  • I have dial-up internet and don't care either way.

    0 0%
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 65

Thread: Verizon v. FCC (Net Neutrality/ Internet Openness)

  1. #11
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Verizon v. FCC (Net Neutrality/ Internet Openness)

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    Large corporations don't have legislative powers. What I have seen in my area is an increase in available services, with more competitive pricing, not a decrease from large corporations squeezing out the competition.
    That's a result of net neutrality, which is (at least temporarily) a thing of the past. If this decision holds you can expect an increase in pricing for the same service you now have, or a decrease in service for the same price.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  2. #12
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,443

    Re: Verizon v. FCC (Net Neutrality/ Internet Openness)

    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck View Post
    I'm almost 100% certain that it will play out exactly as you've just described.

    We currently pay for internet service through one of the major providers, they are also a major cable provider. As we see little value in any programs on television and happily pay extra to watch what few programs we do enjoy without commercial interruption. . . in other words we generally stream movies/ shows.

    Several months ago I received a random call from the internet provider, who was ostensibly concerned that we didn't have television service. They offered to get us a great package (bundled with our current internet service). When I declined, they started asking probing questions about how we were able to enjoy our favorite shows/ games. They even specifically asked me if we streamed any programs. . . to which I immediately said 'no.'

    Shortly after that conversation our connection started slowing down whenever we decided to stream movies/ shows at particular times.

    I'm quite sure we were being throttled, and now it's totally legal for that to happen.
    According to the CEO of a Charter Communications getting rid of net neutrality would shift infrastructure costs from consumers to content providers. That means instead of you paying your ISP more to access Netflix, Netflix would pay more to distribute their content. Of course that may mean price increases for Netflix services but right not they aren't paying for infrastructure they use - which means their profits are artificially high.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  3. #13
    Educator Starbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-01-17 @ 11:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    881

    Re: Verizon v. FCC (Net Neutrality/ Internet Openness)

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    According to the CEO of a Charter Communications getting rid of net neutrality would shift infrastructure costs from consumers to content providers. That means instead of you paying your ISP more to access Netflix, Netflix would pay more to distribute their content. Of course that may mean price increases for Netflix services but right not they aren't paying for infrastructure they use - which means their profits are artificially high.
    Naturally, larger content providers (i.e. netflix/ Facebook) being what they are, will in turn shift those costs back to consumers. . . in an attempt to protect their high profit margins. Mathematically, I'm pretty sure that the consumers will loose either way in this.

    Profit aside, what of the content providers who can't afford to pay for the infrastructure costs. What about the lone blogger or the tiny newspaper service, who will not be able to afford the new costs? Traditionally the internet has provided a voice for those without much in the way of means, it's actually helped proliferate some pretty powerful information that would've otherwise stayed locked away.

    With this decision, I'm pretty sure we'll see a lot of independent news/ information sites snuffed out.

  4. #14
    Educator Starbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-01-17 @ 11:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    881

    Re: Verizon v. FCC (Net Neutrality/ Internet Openness)

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    That's a result of net neutrality, which is (at least temporarily) a thing of the past. If this decision holds you can expect an increase in pricing for the same service you now have, or a decrease in service for the same price.
    That's probably true, I think along with this we'll also see a restriction on what is actually available on the internet.

  5. #15
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,443

    Re: Verizon v. FCC (Net Neutrality/ Internet Openness)

    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck View Post
    Naturally, larger content providers (i.e. netflix/ Facebook) being what they are, will in turn shift those costs back to consumers. . . in an attempt to protect their high profit margins. Mathematically, I'm pretty sure that the consumers will loose either way in this.

    Profit aside, what of the content providers who can't afford to pay for the infrastructure costs. What about the lone blogger or the tiny newspaper service, who will not be able to afford the new costs? Traditionally the internet has provided a voice for those without much in the way of means, it's actually helped proliferate some pretty powerful information that would've otherwise stayed locked away.

    With this decision, I'm pretty sure we'll see a lot of independent news/ information sites snuffed out.
    I'm pretty sure it means the cost to Netflix subscribers goes up as well. But considering that Netflix and Netflix users are effectively being subsidized I don't see that as a bad thing.

    At this point I think the risk to lone bloggers and tiny news services etc is overblown. Those don't use large amounts of bandwidth - it would take about 3,000 accesses of a typical blog entry to use the same bandwidth as a single YouTube video - and those that are popular enough to use noticeable amounts of bandwidth are popular enough to charge for their services or pick up sponsors/advertisers.
    Last edited by Gaius46; 01-15-14 at 08:58 AM.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  6. #16
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Verizon v. FCC (Net Neutrality/ Internet Openness)

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I support net neutrality. I this this decision will harm internet usage.I can see cable internet companies purposely slowing internet traffic to netflix and other similar sites and claiming we now need to purchase a special monthly service to allow us access to those sites even though we already pay for internet based on download rate,blocking certain political sites and so on.
    "Why go to DebatePolitics where your internet speed is as "baseline" throttled levels of 50kb per second when you could go to COX POLITICS (TM) with 500 MB speeds making your pages appear near instantly and letting you talk about the politics most important to you at the speed of cox!"

  7. #17
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Verizon v. FCC (Net Neutrality/ Internet Openness)

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    According to the CEO of a Charter Communications getting rid of net neutrality would shift infrastructure costs from consumers to content providers. That means instead of you paying your ISP more to access Netflix, Netflix would pay more to distribute their content. Of course that may mean price increases for Netflix services but right not they aren't paying for infrastructure they use - which means their profits are artificially high.
    So Charter is going to lower the cost of their service?!?

    I already pay my ISP for access and bandwidth, I don't need to be paying them twice because I'm not using MY bandwidth for THEIR content. If they want to play that way they can change their plans and have a CTV-Internet package that provides a discount for having both.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 01-16-14 at 02:17 AM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  8. #18
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Verizon v. FCC (Net Neutrality/ Internet Openness)

    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck View Post
    That's probably true, I think along with this we'll also see a restriction on what is actually available on the internet.
    I don't expect content to change, much, but bandwidth and/or speed will drop like a rock - unless it's the ISP's content, of course.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  9. #19
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Verizon v. FCC (Net Neutrality/ Internet Openness)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    "Why go to DebatePolitics where your internet speed is as "baseline" throttled levels of 50kb per second when you could go to COX POLITICS (TM) with 500 MB speeds making your pages appear near instantly and letting you talk about the politics most important to you at the speed of cox!"
    That may be exactly the kind of thing we'll see on larger bandwidth sites like Netflix, Hulu, maybe even the "TV" channels like ABC, CBS, etc, that stream their series/shows.


    Watching YouTube at 240p won't bother me since most of what I watch there is educational. Music shouldn't be effected.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 01-16-14 at 02:19 AM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  10. #20
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Verizon v. FCC (Net Neutrality/ Internet Openness)

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    I'm pretty sure it means the cost to Netflix subscribers goes up as well. But considering that Netflix and Netflix users are effectively being subsidized I don't see that as a bad thing.
    Is my ISP going to decrease my ISP cost to account for the millions they'll get from Netflix & others like it? Parish the thought!!! But Netflix will have to increase it's cost to account for those same millions.

    Don't kid yourself, the consumer will get screwed by this. In the end we'll pay more for the same service or get less service for the same cost.



    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    At this point I think the risk to lone bloggers and tiny news services etc is overblown. Those don't use large amounts of bandwidth - it would take about 3,000 accesses of a typical blog entry to use the same bandwidth as a single YouTube video - and those that are popular enough to use noticeable amounts of bandwidth are popular enough to charge for their services or pick up sponsors/advertisers.
    Yeah, nothing like having to pay for YouTube ...
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 01-16-14 at 02:16 AM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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