Net Neutrality Rules Overturned By FCC

[RyanPm40]

i keep hearing that ISP will block and deny service to customers?? now why would they do that. they want money right, they dont want to loose customers. Also if you dont pay your bill they will block or deny you services, thats what there referring to

Comcast used to do something like that with Netflix. They'd slow the network to a crawl during "peak" internet times so users would want to watch Xfinity instead. Other companies have blocked voice over IP or Skype in the past, another ISP would redirect users' Google searches through their own search service. The fact of the matter is, they don't care. They do what will profit them because they know you need them. In many markets there's only one or two options max. Where I am, Comcast is my only option.

 

[me just sayin]

comcash extorted netflix. netflix had to pay off comcash in order to get decent speeds.

https://technical.ly/philly/2014/05...-speeds-changed-comcast-deal-comcast-roundup/

 

[LoneWolfArcher]

Comcast used to do something like that with Netflix. They'd slow the network to a crawl during "peak" internet times so users would want to watch Xfinity instead. Other companies have blocked voice over IP or Skype in the past, another ISP would redirect users' Google searches through their own search service. The fact of the matter is, they don't care. They do what will profit them because they know you need them. In many markets there's only one or two options max. Where I am, Comcast is my only option.

The problem I have with this argument is that it is impossible to know if Commiecast was doing that purposely to Netflix or if so many people were streaming Netflix in HD at peak times that they had to do that to make sure everyone was getting a decent speed on the network in that area. The problem with these debates is people forget that bandwidth is a finite resource. It can only sustain a certain amount of traffic. That was my biggest problem with NN was it limited the network providers' ability to manage a finite resource. Yes that can open up the opportunity for fraud (I am not saying Commiecast didn't purposely do what you said, just that it is impossible to know for sure). But there needs to be protections in place for some guarantee of QoS for those that aren't hogging bandwidth.

 

[Narsil]

Everyone seems to be focused primarily on whether or not they're going to be charged extra to watch their Netflix. The regulations (300+ pages) that were repealed covered FAR more items than whether a provider can throttle certain websites and/or charge a fee for accessing them. Government Regulations almost always favor the large corporations (even when they complain about them) over the small startups. Anyone tried to start their own business?

I'm quite excited to see what alternatives to the big cable/satellite companies are going to pop up here in the next couple of years now that the restrictive regulations have been repealed. To misquote Jurassic Park's Ian Malcomb, "Capitalism, uh, finds a way."

 

[me just sayin]

Everyone seems to be focused primarily on whether or not they're going to be charged extra to watch their Netflix. The regulations (300+ pages) that were repealed covered FAR more items than whether a provider can throttle certain websites and/or charge a fee for accessing them. Government Regulations almost always favor the large corporations (even when they complain about them) over the small startups. Anyone tried to start their own business?

I'm quite excited to see what alternatives to the big cable/satellite companies are going to pop up here in the next couple of years now that the restrictive regulations have been repealed. To misquote Jurassic Park's Ian Malcomb, "Capitalism, uh, finds a way."

You got it completely wrong. Netflix is being used as an example since it has a history with comcash and there are a lot of articles of how they were exhorted by them. the same has happened with others but not much written about them so it was harder to provide a source to back up opinions.

 

[pc747]

First before I make my comment, good job on not only keeping this to the subject but having a debate that has remain civil and respectful. It is good we actually have people who are on both sides of the debate as that may be the way at times to get the best picture. One may not agree with the other's viewpoint and want to counter argue. And frankly that is what a solid debate should be about.

So good job all of you for keeping this debate respectful.

Now to my post:

It would be nice to get competition to break up some of these "big cable" companies. As I said before, despite some of the goods of NN I have to agree that was it's glaring weakness, that it still allowed companies like Comcast and Charter to continue to grow unchecked.

With that said, big cable is going to go, "You can have your own cable company but you can not use my poles, my wires, my infrastructure".

Mom and Pop cable companies are not going to have the money to grease the pockets of Johnny Law and be able to set up shop in many of these towns. We are seeing this issues play out right now with Google Fiber. Yeah they get a small victory here only to get defeated in a town nearby as companies like ATT have been doing the elbow greasing for years.

I am not saying to hinder the chances of mom and pop cable companies from being able to compete. What I am trying to ask is even with Title II now gone how are small mom and pop cable companies going to be able to set up shop in a town that frankly belong to said big cable company?

 

[PereDroid]

Ajit claims NN Laws stopped carries from innovating and expanding. Verizon admitted: it really didn't. ATT moved into my neighborhood 3 months ago. I have a choice of 2 providers for the first time ever.

I don't think pro repeal people are dumb or uneducated. But I do have issue with the ones who are only for repeal for one reason. "We have too many regulations". If that's the ONLY reason? Uhm...

LINK TO THE FULL T2 DOCUMENT

Skim that.

 

[me just sayin]

yea there are too many regulations but the problem is we have too many companies who need to be regulated. look what happened with the airlines when government took away regulations. you now have fees for everything and they are not required to tell you the fees in advance. so if you want to fly, you better be prepare to pay a whole lot more than the advertised ticket price. this could be the future for the internet. fees on everything...in addition to the contract costs.

 

[LoneWolfArcher]

First before I make my comment, good job on not only keeping this to the subject but having a debate that has remain civil and respectful. It is good we actually have people who are on both sides of the debate as that may be the way at times to get the best picture. One may not agree with the other's viewpoint and want to counter argue. And frankly that is what a solid debate should be about.

So good job all of you for keeping this debate respectful.

I was just thinking this! This the most civil discussion this topic I've ever had. Well down, posters!

 

[LoneWolfArcher]

yea there are too many regulations but the problem is we have too many companies who need to be regulated. look what happened with the airlines when government took away regulations. you now have fees for everything and they are not required to tell you the fees in advance. so if you want to fly, you better be prepare to pay a whole lot more than the advertised ticket price. this could be the future for the internet. fees on everything...in addition to the contract costs.

Yeah this is bound to happen either way though. And more and more taxes too. Kind of like our cell phone bill. Just checked my monthly cellphone bill, $13 in fees and taxes. (You all might not be surprised to learn that I am pretty anti-tax.)

 

[Narsil]

...With that said, big cable is going to go, "You can have your own cable company but you can not use my poles, my wires, my infrastructure".

Mom and Pop cable companies are not going to have the money to grease the pockets of Johnny Law and be able to set up shop in many of these towns. We are seeing this issues play out right now with Google Fiber. Yeah they get a small victory here only to get defeated in a town nearby as companies like ATT have been doing the elbow greasing for years.

I am not saying to hinder the chances of mom and pop cable companies from being able to compete. What I am trying to ask is even with Title II now gone how are small mom and pop cable companies going to be able to set up shop in a town that frankly belong to said big cable company?

I think wired providers are going to be going the way of the dinosaurs here in the very near future.

I read a tech article several years ago about a wireless technology that could replace cell towers as we currently know them. The individual wireless devices were about the size of a loaf of bread, ran on 110V power, and functioned similarly to a wireless router but also boosted cellular frequencies. The author opined that, if the manufacturer could get the tech approved, instead of paying exorbitant fees for the placement of cellular towers (I looked into buying a home with a cell tower on the property; contractually guaranteed $2k/month income for 20 years on the tower) people would be given free internet service for mounting one of these breadbox "routers" on the outside of their home/apartment. The author further opined that, given slight modifications, instead of simply boosting cellular frequencies, the boxes could function as their own independent cellular network. The power restrictions, at that time, were such that they could be powered by (If I remember correctly) a 3'X5' solar panel in many locations in the US to expand the network into areas where wired power was problematic.

This type of " internet mesh" currently only works in densely populated, urban, environments but as wireless technology continues to advance at breakneck speeds, traditional cable-and cellular-companies are going to find their services in progressively lower demand. They will be forced actually compete because of their unwillingness to license their hardware or infrastructure.

 

[me just sayin]

comcash is already doing something similar and customers don't like it.

Comcast is turning your home router into a public Wi-Fi hotspot

Comcast Was Sued For Quietly Turning Customers’ Home WiFi Into “Public” Hotspots

 

[TisMyDroid]

comcash is already doing something similar and customers don't like it.

Comcast is turning your home router into a public Wi-Fi hotspot

Comcast Was Sued For Quietly Turning Customers’ Home WiFi Into “Public” Hotspots

That actually happened before NN rules were in place but it is just an sample of what we can expect now that us consumers have no protection.

Those in support of Ajit Pai's argument that getting rid of NN protections will be good for innovation and strengthen the "free market" only works if there is competition. As has been mentioned already, when it comes to home internet ISP's, there is no choice. You're stuck with whichever ISP is available. Most often it is only one provider. You're lucky if you have two. Until that changes, we are at the mercy of the ISP companies and believe me, they care about $$$$, not us!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[pc747]

I think wired providers are going to be going the way of the dinosaurs here in the very near future.

I read a tech article several years ago about a wireless technology that could replace cell towers as we currently know them. The individual wireless devices were about the size of a loaf of bread, ran on 110V power, and functioned similarly to a wireless router but also boosted cellular frequencies. The author opined that, if the manufacturer could get the tech approved, instead of paying exorbitant fees for the placement of cellular towers (I looked into buying a home with a cell tower on the property; contractually guaranteed $2k/month income for 20 years on the tower) people would be given free internet service for mounting one of these breadbox "routers" on the outside of their home/apartment. The author further opined that, given slight modifications, instead of simply boosting cellular frequencies, the boxes could function as their own independent cellular network. The power restrictions, at that time, were such that they could be powered by (If I remember correctly) a 3'X5' solar panel in many locations in the US to expand the network into areas where wired power was problematic.

This type of " internet mesh" currently only works in densely populated, urban, environments but as wireless technology continues to advance at breakneck speeds, traditional cable-and cellular-companies are going to find their services in progressively lower demand. They will be forced actually compete because of their unwillingness to license their hardware or infrastructure.

I won't doubt that if a smart company could get that implemented and provide reliable service at a reasonable price they will have market in your metros. The small and medium towns will still be subject to the "lack of competition", as you pointed out. I would like to see that implemented.

That actually happened before NN rules were in place but it is just an sample of what we can expect now that us consumers have no protection.

Those in support of Ajit Pai's argument that getting rid of NN protections will be good for innovation and strengthen the "free market" only works if there is competition. As has been mentioned already, when it comes to home internet ISP's, there is no choice. You're stuck with whichever ISP is available. Most often it is only one provider. You're lucky if you have two. Until that changes, we are at the mercy of the ISP companies and believe me, they care about $$$$, not us!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Though the rules of NN protected us from "fast lanes", we still saw carriers finding ways around this. We saw various carriers this year already offer zero usage counted for select services. Verizon was able to limit smartphones to 720P, and att was offering plans for those that used their directv services.

Even if we were to turn the clock back and keep NN, we still haven't solved the problem. With that said, removing NN gave the carriers more ammo.

If we stepped back and was honest I think we would find the viable solution being a mix of both sides of the argument.

Unfortunately because this removing of NN was more about money and less about finding a means to allow for competition by backing the regulations down to the minimum basics that focused on protection from fast lanes, we are left in the wind while we wait for competition to keep the big carriers in check.

They should drop the title 2 portion and cut back from being able to discriminate against data usage. Force companies to be transparent. And for companies looking to receive any type of government payment be required to follow the minimum agreed upon regulations that will keep the companies from being able to develop fast lanes.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Narsil]

Here's what the FCC commissioner under George Bush and Barak Obama has to say on the issue on MSNBC.