'Net Neutrality'

[Nick R]

Java, are you honestly saying that NOBODY you know EVER complains about their ISP/cable company? If so that's funny because literally EVERY SINGLE PERSON I associate with regularly complains about them.


Few consumers left because they typically have nowhere to else to turn to get at least adequate service. If I had literally any other decent option for internet that got me good speeds, at a good price, without data caps, I would jump on it faster than you can say F you TWC

 

[javacontour]

Sounds like you are getting the best deal possible in your market.

Sounds like the solution isn't a one-size-fits-all FEDERAL solution, but communities getting smart about offering other on-ramps to the internet.

If cities and counties want to do this, I'm cool with that sort of thing.

But we don't need the brain-trust inside the beltway in DC crafting the solution. Because you can bet such a solution will benefit the incumbents. Incumbents in office and in the industry.

Sounds like an opportunity for you. If you are so passionate about community ISP offerings, start up a business and make the value proposition to communities and make your low cost community ISP a reality for any community that wants it.

Put your own time, talent and treasure on the line. If you really think that's the solution, be part of the solution. Don't just say, Uncle Sam, it's not fair, do this for me.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
I don't pay for Television. It's pointless for me because nothing I watch is on American TV anyway. But yes, I have to pay them if I want internet. TWC is the only reasonable option for me. Why?

1. Speed. Nobody around offers as fast internet. I get 50mbps. The next best, Centurylink, offers 7 (for more money, I might add)

2. Data caps. You said mifi. Sure I could do that. And have a tiny data cap that is not even 1/10th of what I need monthly (I average 400-600GB monthly at least). So that's out.

But what you forget is what I'm arguing for is also municipal fiber services. Local governments providing high speed, low cost internet service. That is what I would really like to see. All one has to do is look at Kansas City and Austin, where companies like Google are forcing TWC to be competetive and raise speeds. My friend in texas, for less than I pay for 50/5, has 300/20 now. Competition IS good. The problem is in the ISP industry there is generally la complete LACK of it, and that means that inmost areas the ISPs have no incentive eto do anything for the econsumer.

 

[javacontour]

Sure they complain. But at the end of the day, if they are sending the check, they think they are getting good value for their money.

If they weren't, why are then still sending the check?

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Java, are you honestly saying that NOBODY you know EVER complains about their ISP/cable company? If so that's funny because literally EVERY SINGLE PERSON I associate with regularly complains about them.


Few consumers left because they typically have nowhere to else to turn to get at least adequate service. If I had literally any other decent option for internet that got me good speeds, at a good price, without data caps, I would jump on it faster than you can say F you TWC

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: dishdude


So every website is supposed to start their own internet service?
Yeah, when they make up 35% of the bandwidth of the internet. http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/net...udy-1201360914/


So explain to me then, where the money that _I_ as a TWC customer pay, is supposed to be going? You are basically saying that it shouldn't go to improving the infrastructure.

here is the deal.

You, me, and everyone else pay their ISP a fee to provide access to the internet. PERIOD. We do not pay them a fee so that they can maybe if they feel like it offer us internet access. I pay $65 so they provide me a gateway to the entire internet. I should be able to use my internet connection for whatever I want. Whether that be streaming videos, downloading anime, posting on BITOG, chatting on IRC, or looking at pictures of cats. I, and millions of other customers pay our ISP to provide us that service. That is their JOB. TO PROVIDE INTERNET TO US, Why people think they should be allowed to take our money and pick and choose what we get based on what they feel is in their interests is beyond me.

You've never been denied access to all those things. You may one day be denied access. If ISP's are required to deliver at max speed anything a huge corp can get into the pipe you'll probably have a hard time getting through to little sites that don't employ huge amounts of lobbyists and lawyers. It's fairly certain the big streaming services will use up almost all of the entire internet traffic in the near future. Other stuff will be an afterthought.

I'm not a big fan of ISPs so that's why I'm against this bill. It will give the big ISPs much more power since it will keep competition out of the market. The utopia you see on the horizon is a mirage. Like getting back at insurance companies by requiring everyone to buy insurance. Name one thing the government got involved in where prices went down, or stayed the same, and quality went up? Never happened. What we'll get is slower internet and higher costs. The next gen content providers are going to be screwed as well. No one will be building the next gen networks.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

"We want to get back at the health insurance companies ... so we are going to force you to buy insurance from the health insurance companies"

I can see "We helped you achieve net neutrality and since the ISPs can't control what is on there, we need to" Which leads to
'Oh, you posted something pro-gun - we need to remove you from the internet' 'Oh, looks like you said something against global warming - you are no longer allowed to access the Internet'

 

[hatt]

The name of the bill should never be used as a reference for what the bill's about. They'll never be titled " Citizen Rights Reduction Act of 2020."

 

[Mystic]

The Affordable Care Act Bill was thousands of pages long so that it was difficult for anybody to read it all before it was voted on. This Net Neutrality Bill is something like over 300 pages long according to what I have heard. And we already know the track record of this administration.

In the very least, people need to read all 300 plus pages before they make any definite conclusions about it.

 

[2Fast4U]

If you don't understand net neutrality at this stage in the game .... it's real simple.

They (corporations and elephants) want to turn the internet into tv. They are AGAINST NET NEUTRALITY which has already been around for the last decade. Free, open internet is net neutrality.

If it goes their way... you want to use facebook? You better have the $20 social media package which includes fb, twitter and others.
Want to use forums and bbs? $5 for that package.

They have already shown their hand with throttling.

 

[CT8]

The politicians serve the highest paying lobby. And remember this "The voters are stupid. [J Gruber talking about the Affordable Care Act]

 

[Mystic]

I am not a lawyer and I probably would have a hard time going through all of the legal mumbo jumbo for this. All I want is to have reasonably affordable internet where I can go to the websites I like. Liberal people should be allowed to go to liberal websites. Conservative people should be allowed to go to conservative websites. I like visiting various news websites like the Drudge Report, Fox News, and others. It is my understanding that there is some concern involving the Drudge Report with this Net Neutrality thing and if there is, that is a red warning sign for me.

I visit Rush Limbaugh's website. If this net neutrality would take that away I would not be happy with that.

I obviously like this bobistheoilguy.com website. I go to various computer technology websites and Adobe and so forth.

There were too many tripwires in the Affordable Care Act. And there was good Professor Gruber telling everybody how they lied to the 'stupid' voters. So I DON'T TRUST THIS ADMINISTRATION! Once somebody has lied to me I don't trust them anymore.

Net neutrality should be just that. If there is some hidden agenda than I do not approve. If there is TRUE net neutrality than I am fine with it. But I don't want to see any games.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Win


If the FCC pulls off this power grab, who in their right mind thinks regulated internet service will be any different than any other regulated public utility? I use more electricity, I pay more. I use more water, I pay more. I use more natural gas, I pay more than people who don't. The internet is going to be some kind of sacred exception?


The government runs the post office and I can mail 50 Xmas cards to 50 people all for the same price. My access to that pipeline sees no discrimination... whether each piece convenient and profitbable or not for the mailman. It's an important piece of infrastructure for the exchange of ideas.

In fact media is SO IMPORTANT that books and newspapers see special reduced postage rates. Ben Franklin saw to that as he was a newspaperman before Postmaster General.

ISPs can still compete between phone, fiber, and cable, so long as their definition of "internet" has a floor. Obamacare has given health insurance a floor, like requiring preexisting condition coverage, so people can shop around insurers that more fairly compete with each other.

We're not going to "run out of internet" and this is exactly what ISPs are afraid of... they're afraid of losing their relevance on the cable and telephony end of things. IPv6 cuts latency so voice and video don't stutter as badly. The expense of laying fiber is the backhoe, and they can take existing fiber and multiplex the signals for exponential capacity growth.

 

[dishdude]

This thread is all over the place. All net neutrality means is an ISP can't favor certain websites over others. It doesn't say anything about what they can or can't charge, how much data they allot each month or anything else.

It's been this way since the start of the internet.

 

[eljefino]

^ Don't get in the way of some good ole fashioned "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" as well as "The President is for it, so I'm against it!"

 

[mcrn]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
This thread is all over the place. All net neutrality means is an ISP can't favor certain websites over others. It doesn't say anything about what they can or can't charge, how much data they allot each month or anything else.

It's been this way since the start of the internet.




So it takes 300 pages to say that?

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: mcrn
Originally Posted By: dishdude
This thread is all over the place. All net neutrality means is an ISP can't favor certain websites over others. It doesn't say anything about what they can or can't charge, how much data they allot each month or anything else.

It's been this way since the start of the internet.




So it takes 300 pages to say that?
Exactly.

And I think it's 365. And it's secret.

 

[KrisZ]

While we're at it, why not regulate the flower industry? How dare they charge more for the exact same flowers during the Valentines day? How about those shopping malls that jack up their prices before the Christmas season, only to have 50% off sales after the season? What about dealers that charge over the sticker price for the hot, new models? And there are countless other examples just like these.

People supporting this government threat don't seem to understand that they are FREE to vote with their wallets. Saying that one NEEDs a certain speed internet and therefore is "forced" to go to a certain ISP simply shows how selfish and ignorant they truly are. But since most are addicted to facebook, youtube, netflix etc. I have a feeling they will more then willing to jump off the cliff for their "right" to have internet.

And if people think that this will lower the prices of their ISP's, and their "fat" profits, they will be very disappointed. Any regulation simply adds to the operating costs of the business and that cost will be passed on to the end consumer and the company will do everything to protect their profits. Only sever customer backlash and subscription drop off will change that.
Lamenting about the outrageous profits, bad service, high price, and demanding the government to deal with it, while continuing to subscribe to the services, simply shows the sheep like mentality.

Besides, last time I checked, internet is not an essential item for one's survivor, why should I be burdened by taxes to pay for some bum to get his/her free internet or for someone that has a grudge agains their ISP, but refuses to leave them?

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
...or for someone that has a grudge agains their ISP, but refuses to leave them?
Yeah but the other ISPs are way slower and cost more. So they're mad at the faster and cheaper ISP. And the clear solution is to get .gov involved so all ISPs are slower and more expensive.

 

[mcrn]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
While we're at it, why not regulate the flower industry? How dare they charge more for the exact same flowers during the Valentines day? How about those shopping malls that jack up their prices before the Christmas season, only to have 50% off sales after the season? What about dealers that charge over the sticker price for the hot, new models? And there are countless other examples just like these.

People supporting this government threat don't seem to understand that they are FREE to vote with their wallets. Saying that one NEEDs a certain speed internet and therefore is "forced" to go to a certain ISP simply shows how selfish and ignorant they truly are. But since most are addicted to facebook, youtube, netflix etc. I have a feeling they will more then willing to jump off the cliff for their "right" to have internet.

And if people think that this will lower the prices of their ISP's, and their "fat" profits, they will be very disappointed. Any regulation simply adds to the operating costs of the business and that cost will be passed on to the end consumer and the company will do everything to protect their profits. Only sever customer backlash and subscription drop off will change that.
Lamenting about the outrageous profits, bad service, high price, and demanding the government to deal with it, while continuing to subscribe to the services, simply shows the sheep like mentality.

Besides, last time I checked, internet is not an essential item for one's survivor, why should I be burdened by taxes to pay for some bum to get his/her free internet or for someone that has a grudge agains their ISP, but refuses to leave them?




Agree 100 percent

 

[Mystic]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: mcrn
Originally Posted By: dishdude
This thread is all over the place. All net neutrality means is an ISP can't favor certain websites over others. It doesn't say anything about what they can or can't charge, how much data they allot each month or anything else.

It's been this way since the start of the internet.




So it takes 300 pages to say that?
Exactly.

And I think it's 365. And it's secret.


I don't see why it has to be secret if everything is above board and it is just for net neutrality. So if we can't see what is in the bill before it is passed I vote no. I do not trust this administration. This administration has already lied to people and that is a fact, not speculation.

There is totally no reason all of this should be secret like it involves national security or something.

 

[2Fast4U]

The people on this forum that do not have a clue about net neutrality is absolutely disturbing. I graduated in 98 with bachelor science in computer science.

Anyone remember 8-10 years back when google tried to buy a ton of wireless spectrum? These major companies (verizon/att/comcast/etc ) got together pushing the fcc to not allow google to purchase it. Google said they wanted to create basically a new type of wifi and give everyone free internet.
...and now google has gone past this ambition and created floating weather balloon type devices where they now give free internet to other countries where people get no internet.