'Net Neutrality'

[fdcg27]

This is what I've been thinking.
The ISPs are essentially gatekeepers and provide no more than local infrastructure to connect end users to the common internet that ISPs neither own nor support.
The intent of this regulation is to require ISPs to treat all data the same, rather than allowing them to reap economic rents from their gatekeeper position.
There is nothing in this rule that would regulate ISP pricing.
If a faster ISP wanted to charge more, it could do so and any given ISP could offer different tiers of speed at different rates.
The only thing that would be prohibited would be for an ISP to carry different content at different transfer speeds at its discretion.
I can't believe that anyone would oppose this type of regulation, in which the FCC seeks to prevent these gatekeepers from reaping excess profits from their position as the critical middlemen.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
This is what I've been thinking.
The ISPs are essentially gatekeepers and provide no more than local infrastructure to connect end users to the common internet that ISPs neither own nor support.
The intent of this regulation is to require ISPs to treat all data the same, rather than allowing them to reap economic rents from their gatekeeper position.
There is nothing in this rule that would regulate ISP pricing.
If a faster ISP wanted to charge more, it could do so and any given ISP could offer different tiers of speed at different rates.
The only thing that would be prohibited would be for an ISP to carry different content at different transfer speeds at its discretion.
I can't believe that anyone would oppose this type of regulation, in which the FCC seeks to prevent these gatekeepers from reaping excess profits from their position as the critical middlemen.


But but, you know, they should be allowed to reap as much profit as they want, who cares about the consumer! They should be allowed to charge $500 a month for internet if they want, because profit is the only thing that matters! They should be able to abuse their monopolistic, dominant market position all they want!

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Trav
The problem i have with this whole deal is it was done in secret. You or anyone cant say what is in that 300 pages only cherry pick what may or may not be the good parts they deliberately leaked out.
My grandmother still talks about secret back room government regulations and laws passed in the middle of the night that were all a good thing.

I have had internet since 1995, its been working fine for 2 decades and now all of a sudden this bill needs to be passed so quickly to protect internet users they didn't even have time to let the people or Congress read it.
Come on now, thats B.S and we all know it. I hope this gets thrown out in 2 years by executive order.


+1 Secrets like this are never a good thing IMO.


+2 We dolts and trolls get it. The informed ones bought the slogan hook line and sinker, as if they had the 300 page document right in front of them.

 

[Nate1979]

If the freeloading consumer or businesses aren't willing to pay for the fast lane they don't deserve it. I have no problem with people paying for the fast lanes. Bandwidth hogs like Netflix who need the fast lane should pay for it. And I bet their customers would pay as well.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
If the internet is to be treated as a utility, then it will only get more expensive. On my utility bills, on top of the taxes I have delivery charges, pension charges, yes I pay utilities pension, peak, off peak and a host of other nonsense.

I can't wait for another "outraged" post seeking government's solution...


*cough*

You don't pay tax on internet in most states. There is also no federal tax on it.

Here is a screenshot of my most recent TWC bill by the way. Note the lack of taxes on the internet. The FCC fees are for the phone.

LOLz. Serious? One of the main points people have been bringing up is this ruling will bring net taxes in the FUTURE. Do you know the future will not be on last months bill? Show you statement for Jan 2017 and lets see if any taxes are on it.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
The FACT is that dolts chirping against Net Neutrality are in favor of this:

LOL. We probably will have something like that. No one has read the bill. ISPs will drop basic internet speeds to 5GB. To be fair to everyone. You'll need special internets to access content that's beyond the basic internet barrier. Companies are ALWAYS smarter than bureaucrats.

What we know for 100% is that no one will be spending millions or billions doing upgrades so 3rd parties can make money with no benefit to the ISP. Then the ISP will need more upgrades because suddenly 200GB services is inadequate when 12K movies come out.

 

[Cutehumor]

Bring back blockbuster video and Hollywood video. Data usage has shot up since movies are streamed now. Unless you pay movie theater prices or rent from redbox. Videogames streamed online eat tons of data too.

I agree that Comcast and their ilk do NOT own the internet. Gatekeepers as someone said sounds right or middlemen. I do not agree about keeping the law secret. I agree there is not any competition between broadband companies. Comcast is my only choice. If I want slow DSL, I can get att. Or even slower dial up.

I have a choice between cellphone companies. Competition has decreased cell phone my monthly bills.

 

[fdcg27]

Actually, any ISP should and will be allowed to charge whatever they want.
If they can find users gulible enough to pay $500.00 a month, good for them.
The one thing they won't be allowed to do is charge different rates for different content or to throttle or block access to certain content at their discretion.
Net neutrality is all about stopping these practices and forcing the ISPs to abandon the business model of differential download speeds and pricing.
For those who pretend that the FCC is acting in the dark of night and has enacted a mysterious set of rules, the entire NPRM is available for download, unless your ISP throttles your access to it or blocks it altogether, which they could do at their discretion under current rules.

 

[hatt]

This may be good news for me. I like Blu ray movies from Netflix. This ruling assures physical media development will continue on. I stream a little from Amazon Prime. I can stop streaming anything and drop cable internet and use LTE.

 

[pbm]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
This is what I've been thinking.
The ISPs are essentially gatekeepers and provide no more than local infrastructure to connect end users to the common internet that ISPs neither own nor support.
The intent of this regulation is to require ISPs to treat all data the same, rather than allowing them to reap economic rents from their gatekeeper position.
There is nothing in this rule that would regulate ISP pricing.
If a faster ISP wanted to charge more, it could do so and any given ISP could offer different tiers of speed at different rates.
The only thing that would be prohibited would be for an ISP to carry different content at different transfer speeds at its discretion.


I can't believe that anyone would oppose this type of regulation, in which the FCC seeks to prevent these gatekeepers from reaping excess profits from their position as the critical middlemen.


But but, you know, they should be allowed to reap as much profit as they want, who cares about the consumer! They should be allowed to charge $500 a month for internet if they want, because profit is the only thing that matters! They should be able to abuse their monopolistic, dominant market position all they want!



Why do you have such a problem with BUSINESSES making money and apparently no problem when an elected official makes millions form his/her 'public service'?

It seems to me that you've bought in to the 'talking points' that big business is evil and government is your friend.

 

[fdcg27]

Nobody has any problem with businesses making money.
Most of us have a problem with businesses that use their middleman positions to reap what are known as economic rents.
An ISP will be free to charge whatever it can get.
The ISPs can and will offer various service tiers and users will pay more for the fastest service.
The one thing that these businesses won't be able to do is discriminate between content downloaded by either blocking access or throttling downloads from a content provider not willing to pay them off.
Competition will flourish, since every ISP will be offering the same level of access from every source to every end user.
Price and speed will define the terms of competition, not whether your ISP will allow you to download content from an unfavored provider without throttling that download or blocking it entirely.
Bear in mind that under current rules, an ISP is free to block or throttle any download at its sole discretion.
Any ISP can do so with any site, from Amazon to BITOG if it wishes.

 

[Mystic]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: Mystic

This con job is opening the door for a government shakedown to provide welfare bums and illegals with free internet and telephone and we are going to pay for it, nothing more or less.
You are very naive if you believe that at some future date isn't just 6 months to a year away.


What are you talking about?

Originally Posted By: Mystic


The Drudge Report is one of my online sources of news.


NOT a viable source of news. Opinion that caters to the right.


The first quote that you say is from me I did not say. You need to quote accurately and not say that somebody has said something when they have not.

I did say the second thing. The Drudge Report is one of my online sources of news and it will continue to be. The Drudge Report is often ahead of other sources of news. I will use whatever sources of news I care to use.

 

[Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: Mystic
This article in the National Review is an example of various links that have appeared recently at The Drudge Report:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414483/comrades-net-neutrality-john-fund

I get a pretty strong impression that Drudge is not impressed with this net neutrality.

The Drudge Report is one of my online sources of news. If it goes away I will listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. And I have never listened to him on the radio. Although I checked out his website.

People will have access to alternative news sources even if it has to be by ham radio or CB. Or information passed by word of mouth from person to person.

This country is not a dictatorship-yet.


If you want actually decent tech news, you need to pay attention to sites like arstechnica, or engadget, or wired.



I have found that the Drudge Report often repots on news that are not covered by other news sources until much later. I will continue to go to the Drudge Report.

And Fox News reported on some tech news that was not covered anywhere else, including the sources you talk about, until months later. Arstechnica, engadget, and wired are not the only sources of technical news.

You think I don't check many sources of news? Maybe you need to check more.

 

[hatt]

I use Drudge exclusively for World/Nat news. All the news links on one easy to read page.

 

[Mystic]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
I am simply amazed that anyone could believe a completely SECRET set of rules passed by an administration putting intense political pressure on the FCC commissioner including over 190 million dollars of Soros moolah could somehow "protect" consumers from evil Net giants.

I sure hope everyone remembers this thread in a year when the taxes hit us all in the pocketbooks.

BTW, dishdude, Drudge is simply a site that publishes a brief synopsis and links to other news sources. It is not a source itself at all, just links.

Here's one- http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414483/comrades-net-neutrality-john-fund...


If Soros is pouring money into anything, there needs to be an immediate investigation. He would not pour millions of dollars into something without expecting something back in return.

And I think some of the people here who apparently read only technical news also need to view some regular news sources so they know what is going on in the real world.

It is basic math and basic economics that if a large number of low income people are going to be provided with free internet service SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE is going to have to pay for it. And the somebody, somewhere are usually the taxpayers and the middle class. I don't have to understand quantum mechanics to be able to figure this out. I may not have a business degree but I know all of these government services (if you can call some of them services) are paid for by taxes on businesses and citizens. The money from the sugar daddy government does not come from the blue sky. Businesses and citizens are taxed.

And I am seriously tired of all of the agendas. We need some honesty in this world for a change. No more secret stuff being voted on that will affect people worldwide and people are not even allowed to see what all is in the agreement.

And no wealthy billionaire should be allowed to influence rules and regulations that will literally affect billions of people worldwide on the internet. There should be consideration for the all and not control by a few billionaires and politicians. I realize that is a non socialistic concept but I like it.

 

[MrHorspwer]

Originally Posted By: Mystic

I have found that the Drudge Report often repots on news that are not covered by other news sources until much later.


The Drudge Report is an aggregate site. They don't "report" on anything. They link to other sites that "report". I keep using the word "report" in quotes because Drudge doesn't make any distinction on an actual news articles and opinion pieces, nor do they vouch for the credibility of the source.

Since Drudge isn't reporting anything, they're not culpable to it's accuracy. They link to it and if it's incorrect... oh well, not Drudge's problem. People may harp on Fox News/CNN/MSNBC, but there is at least a sliver of accountability and journalistic integrity when it comes to responding to errors.

Basically, The Drudge Report isn't news, it's opinion. As an aggregate site, someone chooses which stories get linked to. Those choices are going to reflect whomever is choosing, which reflects on their *opinion* of the situation.

It is not a reach to see how a site can manipulate legitimate news stories, sprinkled with opinion pieces, into a narrative that fits their agenda. That's The Drudge Report.

Again, defining Rush Limbaugh and word-of-mouth as a "news source" probably indicates that you don't really understand the difference between news and opinion. That's scary.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer


Again, defining Rush Limbaugh and word-of-mouth as a "news source" probably indicates that you don't really understand the difference between news and opinion. That's scary.
Please explain why "real" news sources often don't report actual news commonly reported on fake news sources until weeks/months/never later?

 

[salesrep]

Scary is relying on main stream media as an unbiased source.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: 02SE

Well there you go. Take the risk and start your own ISP, and run it as you deem fit. It should be a piece of cake for someone with such vast experience..




We already have an internet. And interstate highways, a postal service, power company, trash removal, worker's comp, police, Chambers of Commerce...

We have this infrastructure in place so businesses can offer their services and not worry about reinventing the wheel.

And the government "took the risk" with the basic levels of IP with Arpanet 45 years ago then handed the last bits over, royalty-free, to ISPs in the early 2000s. Nice handout. It seems like a good time to remind them that there are moral strings attached.


That sounds like that full idiot Pocahontas Warren with "you didn't build your business".

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: salesrep
Scary is relying on main stream media as an unbiased source.
Brian Williams is where the news happens. Can't get anymore accurate than that.