• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Comcast deleted net neutrality pledge the same day FCC announced repeal

CMPancake

CMPancake

No gods, no masters.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
6,250
Reaction score
6,257
Location
Tacoma
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ity-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/

Prior to November 23rd, 2017 Comcast's web page on Net Neutrality looked like this: ((Placed in spoilers due to image size.))

9dPVazM.jpg

Ohh boy, it seems like either Executives at Comcast really enjoying working during Thanksgiving, or perhaps they were given some sort of clue that Net Neutrality was about to be bent over the barrel by ashit Pai and the FCC. Now after the announcement, Comcast's web page on Net Neutrality was edited to say:

XVFpaew.jpg

#ProtectNetNeutrality #GoFCCYourself
 
What percentage of people actually thought Comcast was going to honor that commitment when it was still up?
10%?
Less?

Also, I saw somewhere recently that we pay more for internet service than any other country, which I was actually surprised by.
I disappoint myself.
 
CMPancake said:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ity-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/

Prior to November 23rd, 2017 Comcast's web page on Net Neutrality looked like this: ((Placed in spoilers due to image size.))

9dPVazM.jpg

Ohh boy, it seems like either Executives at Comcast really enjoying working during Thanksgiving, or perhaps they were given some sort of clue that Net Neutrality was about to be bent over the barrel by ashit Pai and the FCC. Now after the announcement, Comcast's web page on Net Neutrality was edited to say:

XVFpaew.jpg

#ProtectNetNeutrality #GoFCCYourself
Click to expand...

Rolling back net neutrality is like letting taxis charge black people more.

My ISP has no business invading the privacy of my data, and then using that information to impede the service i pay them for.
 
Absentglare said:
Rolling back net neutrality is like letting taxis charge black people more.

My ISP has no business invading the privacy of my data, and then using that information to impede the service i pay them for.
Click to expand...

If the FCC kills the NN rules, we have to hound our congresspeople into legislating internet service as a utility, and ensuring similar protections for people purchasing it that electricity and water customers have.

Because, it clearly IS a utility.


Edit: Although, if Flint and some other towns I've been hearing about are any indication, we might need to increase the protections for other utilities as well.
 
Absentglare said:
Rolling back net neutrality is like letting taxis charge black people more.

My ISP has no business invading the privacy of my data, and then using that information to impede the service i pay them for.
Click to expand...

If they do that switch to another ISP.
 
Nap said:
If they do that switch to another ISP.
Click to expand...

First of all, how would i even know that they're doing it, and second, you might not have any other options because the ISPs spend a lot of money crowding out all other competition.
 
CMPancake said:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ity-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/

Prior to November 23rd, 2017 Comcast's web page on Net Neutrality looked like this: ((Placed in spoilers due to image size.))

9dPVazM.jpg

Ohh boy, it seems like either Executives at Comcast really enjoying working during Thanksgiving, or perhaps they were given some sort of clue that Net Neutrality was about to be bent over the barrel by ashit Pai and the FCC. Now after the announcement, Comcast's web page on Net Neutrality was edited to say:

XVFpaew.jpg

#ProtectNetNeutrality #GoFCCYourself
Click to expand...

That was fast!
 
Nap said:
If they do that switch to another ISP.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of people that don't have a choice. Unless your in or near a big city, rural areas have a very limited choice.
 
Absentglare said:
First of all, how would i even know that they're doing it, and second, you might not have any other options because the ISPs spend a lot of money crowding out all other competition.
Click to expand...

My cell phone company tried to throttle my connection speed, I simply called and told them if they want to keep my business needed to stop. Don't take no for an answer, speak to management and if they say they can't do anything tell them to disconnect your service because you are done with them, most of the time they will concede to keep you paying that monthly bill. As more people get fed up with the crap, eventually one company will break causing all the pissed off customers to go to them and others will fall in line. As long as people refuse to pay for poor service and move to the companies that provide better, eventually other companies will have to conform or go out of business.
 
holbritter said:
There are a lot of people that don't have a choice. Unless your in or near a big city, rural areas have a very limited choice.
Click to expand...

I'm in one of the largest metropolises in the country, and my options suck.
 
Nap said:
My cell phone company tried to throttle my connection speed, I simply called and told them if they want to keep my business needed to stop. Don't take no for an answer, speak to management and if they say they can't do anything tell them to disconnect your service because you are done with them, most of the time they will concede to keep you paying that monthly bill. As more people get fed up with the crap, eventually one company will break causing all the pissed off customers to go to them and others will fall in line. As long as people refuse to pay for poor service and move to the companies that provide better, eventually other companies will have to conform or go out of business.
Click to expand...

Your anecdote doesn't clarify whether your cell phone company agreed to stop throttling your connection speed. Also, what does it mean to "try" to throttle your connection speed? Pretty sure if they wanted to, they just would.
 
Cardinal said:
Your anecdote doesn't clarify whether your cell phone company agreed to stop throttling your connection speed. Also, what does it mean to "try" to throttle your connection speed? Pretty sure if they wanted to, they just would.
Click to expand...

They did (on 3 occasions to be precise) which was what prompted me to call. I haven't had an issue since.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm in one of the largest metropolises in the country, and my options suck.
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that. I guess I shouldn't assume all large cities are the same, my bad. But on the good side, at least you have options. :)
 
I dont get how Comcast can price gouge the way they do. They are clearly some politicians in bed with them.
 
Nap said:
My cell phone company tried to throttle my connection speed, I simply called and told them if they want to keep my business needed to stop. Don't take no for an answer, speak to management and if they say they can't do anything tell them to disconnect your service because you are done with them, most of the time they will concede to keep you paying that monthly bill. As more people get fed up with the crap, eventually one company will break causing all the pissed off customers to go to them and others will fall in line. As long as people refuse to pay for poor service and move to the companies that provide better, eventually other companies will have to conform or go out of business.
Click to expand...

You act like the consumers have a real choice to go without broadband internet service.

It's like going without running water or electricity: it's no longer feasible in the real world.
 
holbritter said:
There are a lot of people that don't have a choice. Unless your in or near a big city, rural areas have a very limited choice.
Click to expand...

I have lived in or around Boston for nearly 20 years. Only once was there two high-speed ISPs in my area, except I'd have to pay a big upfront fee if I wanted one of them since that one didn't actually have connections to the particular building I was in at the moment. At least, I think that was the issue. Either way, realistically, I've only ever had one available.



They (congress) could change things in a number of ways, but they aren't. High-speed ISPs don't have to share their infrastructure, much unlike what was done to the telecoms. Hence, back in the 90s, most people did have a good number of choices between dial-up modem ISPs: telephone lines were shared, so a new ISP didn't have to put up its own poles/wires.
 
Nap said:
If they do that switch to another ISP.
Click to expand...

I suggest you read up on barriers to entry in the high-speed ISP market and why they exist, because the short answer to your post is: nope
 
Absentglare said:
You act like the consumers have a real choice to go without broadband internet service.

It's like going without running water or electricity: it's no longer feasible in the real world.
Click to expand...

Lol, I'm sure someone will live without Twitter. Acting like the internet is something vital to live is pretty ridiculous. I know many people without internet access living pretty well.
 
Mr Person said:
I suggest you read up on barriers to entry in the high-speed ISP market and why they exist, because the short answer to your post is: nope
Click to expand...

The largest barrier is the infrastructure. Why not have the government lay the infrastructure then lease the use of it to ISP's to pay for it.
 
Nap said:
The largest barrier is the infrastructure. Why not have the government lay the infrastructure then lease the use of it to ISP's to pay for it.
Click to expand...

The other ISPs already laid infrastructure, yes. Hmm...so gov't lays it then leases?

That is an interesting question, though, and I'll have to mull it over. From the legal/constitutional perspective, I wonder what potential statutory or constitutional objections a private enterprise could raise if a state actor paid for infrastructure to lower barriers to entry to potential new competitors.

It'd be some kind of...inverse takings clause argument, maybe. Right? Because a straight takings-clause argument is ...you took my property and (1) you didn't have the constitutional authority, or (2) you did but you didn't pay me enough. I think. I guesstimate. This could sort of be (from Comcast's perspective)....you're (gov) taking from me by using taxpayer dollars to meet the sunk costs my potential competitors would have had to pay, thereby lowering barriers to entry, thereby causing competition that wouldn't have happened, thereby sucking customers from me.

Not my area at all but ...huh. I just had about thirty thoughts/musings in quick succession.




Still, maybe not. Or at least, if that's at all valid, then gov't could avoid it by laying the wire and offering its own high-speed service. I suspect that'd be less problematic then laying the wire and leasing it. There's no bar to government offering a service that competes with private enterprise, really. Hence public option.

Do we have any lawyers that specialize in this general area here?



Though really, I think they could just alter the FCC's enabling statute such that the FCC could treat high-speed ISP providers (cable, fiber-optic) the way it can treat telecoms. If existing infrastructure must be shared, barriers to entry go way down.
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
The other ISPs already laid infrastructure, yes. Hmm...so gov't lays it then leases?

That is an interesting question, though, and I'll have to mull it over. From the legal/constitutional perspective, I wonder what potential statutory or constitutional objections a private enterprise could raise if a state actor paid for infrastructure to lower barriers to entry to potential new competitors.

It'd be some kind of...inverse takings clause argument, maybe. Right? Because a straight takings-clause argument is ...you took my property and (1) you didn't have the constitutional authority, or (2) you did but you didn't pay me enough. I think. I guesstimate. This could sort of be (from Comcast's perspective)....you're (gov) taking from me by using taxpayer dollars to meet the sunk costs my potential competitors would have had to pay, thereby lowering barriers to entry, thereby causing competition that wouldn't have happened, thereby sucking customers from me.

Not my area at all but ...huh. I just had about thirty thoughts/musings in quick succession.




Still, maybe not. Or at least, if that's at all valid, then gov't could avoid it by laying the wire and offering its own high-speed service. I suspect that'd be less problematic then laying the wire and leasing it. There's no bar to government offering a service that competes with private enterprise, really. Hence public option.

Do we have any lawyers that specialize in this general area here?



Though really, I think they could just alter the FCC's enabling statute such that the FCC could treat high-speed ISP providers (cable, fiber-optic) the way it can treat telecoms. If existing infrastructure must be shared, barriers to entry go way down.
Click to expand...

I have no clue on the legal aspects. I don't see much difference in the government putting in a fiber grid to paving roads.
 
Nap said:
I have no clue on the legal aspects. I don't see much difference in the government putting in a fiber grid to paving roads.
Click to expand...

Right, but the question is what they do next.

I suspect that if they lay down fiber or cable, then offered a gov't service, that'd be cool. Like Obama's public option, which never came to be.

The questions I had popped up around what would happen if they did that, then leased it to private companies. I mean, they don't lay down roads then lease them out to companies..............or do they? It's really not my area, but I like to brainstorm about this kind of thing.
 
I love it actually. Way to go Republicans ...you just went after the thing that young voters love the most. Open mouth insert foot. Boy can you guys get the Progressive vote out....:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Mr Person said:
Right, but the question is what they do next.

I suspect that if they lay down fiber or cable, then offered a gov't service, that'd be cool. Like Obama's public option, which never came to be.

The questions I had popped up around what would happen if they did that, then leased it to private companies. I mean, they don't lay down roads then lease them out to companies..............or do they? It's really not my area, but I like to brainstorm about this kind of thing.
Click to expand...

I proposed the idea of leasing it out to private companies so that the income would fund expanding and improving but leave the actual services and such to someone else. This way instead of taxing everyone the cost is put to those that use it. I have no issue with government putting in the infrastructure but would rather the government not have control over the service to prevent becoming something like China.
 
Nap said:
Lol, I'm sure someone will live without Twitter. Acting like the internet is something vital to live is pretty ridiculous. I know many people without internet access living pretty well.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant anecdotal speculation.

The internet is the way to get a job, communicate, and retrieve information on the world around us. It is vital.

And sure, you can find someone who poops in the woods, who drinks water from their own well: but we should not cut society off at the knees because a handful of unconventional people exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom