Don't assume that if there are a ton of regulations imposed, they'll be the regulations you want. Comcast can afford to hire a lot of lawyers and lobbyists. A small ISP that only serves one market can't. Who do you think that the regulations will be written to favor?
When regulation really took off in the United States in the 1930s, the effect in many industries was killing off a lot of small businesses and pushing consolidation of industries into fewer, larger businesses.
Lobbying laws need to change big time.
Should start by if any politician gets a payment from any special interest group their vote no longer counts due to conflict of interest.
Also anyone in politics should be required to have all their financials open and disclosed for life - to eliminate the loophole of "being paid after the vote".
This would also eliminate a lot of shit politicians whose sole purpose is to get that special interest money.
If you give a bureaucracy massive power to wreck businesses on a whim, then those companies pretty much have to find ways to influence what the bureaucracy does. Laws can change the means by which the money gets there, but they can't change the fact of it.
If laws along the lines of what you proposed were enacted, then whoever got to decide which groups counted as special interests and which didn't would wield far more power than any elected politicians. I'm not sure what the right term for such a system would be, but "democracy" sure isn't it.
It's usually more illuminating to think of campaign contributions that businesses make to politicians as being extortion on the part of the politicians rather than bribery on the part of the companies. In many cases, businesses have to pay lobbyists just to get their side of the story heard so that politicians don't do something to gratuitously destroy them.
Being a common carrier means everyone has to be treated equally. No tiered pricing / services. You cannot pay more to get electricity before your neighbours, my water is not better because I pay more than you. Now, with net neutrality, you cannot pay more to get priority access to the internet. All electricity is treated equally. All water and gas is treated equally. Now, all internet traffic is treated equally.
That's not at all what the whole debate is about. I don't know about you, but my electricity, water, and gas are metered. For electricity, I pay a fixed fee per month just to be connected, plus an additional charge per kWh of electricity actually used. With water and gas, it's similar. I don't get to choose my electric utility, and have to pay for electricity even if I don't want it and didn't use it.
For Internet access, even under Title II regulations, I pay a fixed amount per month. I don't pay a fee per GB of data used. Furthermore, I can pay more or less to get higher or lower bandwidth caps. If I don't like my ISP, I can switch to a different one. I could disconnect from the Internet entirely if I so chose.
Being a common carrier means everyone has to be treated equally. No tiered pricing / services. You cannot pay more to get electricity before your neighbours, my water is not better because I pay more than you. Now, with net neutrality, you cannot pay more to get priority access to the internet. All electricity is treated equally. All water and gas is treated equally. Now, all internet traffic is treated equally.
That's not at all what the whole debate is about. I don't know about you, but my electricity, water, and gas are metered. For electricity, I pay a fixed fee per month just to be connected, plus an additional charge per kWh of electricity actually used. With water and gas, it's similar. I don't get to choose my electric utility, and have to pay for electricity even if I don't want it and didn't use it.
For Internet access, even under Title II regulations, I pay a fixed amount per month. I don't pay a fee per GB of data used. Furthermore, I can pay more or less to get higher or lower bandwidth caps. If I don't like my ISP, I can switch to a different one. I could disconnect from the Internet entirely if I so chose.
Glad you have that luxury of choice. 2/3 of the country only has one provider for internet service via land line. Mobile may have more options, but that's shaky at best.
Meh, Reddit got people riled up. Competition will keep balance for the most part in the U.S. people seem to ignore that. Example: In the past few years it's gone from Google going on about bringing their 1000Mbps lines to major cities then now various companies offering those lines. I don't live in some major city. There's 2 companies atm in my neighborhood that offer 1000Mbps lines. The kicker is At&t (wow) is the cheapest at ($80) beating the other company by $10. I don't really have a need for a line like that personally. I'm happy at 250Mbps up and down at $45 total, fees included. While a lot of rural area's may not see fiber for awhile it's definitely spreading. Heck my tablet and phone can't even take advantage of a 250 line. Usually topping out at around 100Mbps. S6 edge and some random tablet. Could be my router which is not the best but not junk either. Point being companies will have to be competitive to keep customers. If companies start doing stuff that people don't like they'll switch companies. If they all start doing it upsetting enough people I'm sure at that point something will be done. All the end of days stuff is way over the top.
Sounds like a response from one of the millions of fake accounts the news has been reporting that were submitted to the FCC because this decision had to be made public and accept open feedback before it was concluded.
Really? That's a first. Slightly hilarious you just called me a fake account or even a FCC bot? I can't actually believe it. lmao! How did the internet ever survive or innovate prior to 2015. Rolls eyes.
Added: The doomsdayers atm are way over the top. Competition does work where you have plenty of choices! And if not which is a big if people will be all over ISP's who mess up. Then I'll worry about it. As of right now. Life goes on.
I don't know if this is the case here but large companies do hire agencies to employ people to post in forums to help influence public opinion. Very easy to find those companies on the internet looking to hire people to post in forums.
An account with over 800 posts on a wide variety of topics is vanishingly unlikely to be a paid shill for a company trying to influence public perceptions. This isn't a situation of not knowing if it's the case here. It's a situation of knowing full well that it's definitely not the case and launching personal attacks anyway.
The overwhelming majority of Americans already opposed the repealing of the rules.
The overwhelming majority of Americans wouldn't be able to explain the difference between Title I and Title II approaches to regulating the Internet without looking it up, and doesn't think that the issue is vitally important.
Don't assume that if there are a ton of regulations imposed, they'll be the regulations you want. Comcast can afford to hire a lot of lawyers and lobbyists. A small ISP that only serves one market can't. Who do you think that the regulations will be written to favor?
When regulation really took off in the United States in the 1930s, the effect in many industries was killing off a lot of small businesses and pushing consolidation of industries into fewer, larger businesses.
Lobbying laws need to change big time.
Should start by if any politician gets a payment from any special interest group their vote no longer counts due to conflict of interest.
Also anyone in politics should be required to have all their financials open and disclosed for life - to eliminate the loophole of "being paid after the vote".
This would also eliminate a lot of shit politicians whose sole purpose is to get that special interest money.
If you give a bureaucracy massive power to wreck businesses on a whim, then those companies pretty much have to find ways to influence what the bureaucracy does. Laws can change the means by which the money gets there, but they can't change the fact of it.
If laws along the lines of what you proposed were enacted, then whoever got to decide which groups counted as special interests and which didn't would wield far more power than any elected politicians. I'm not sure what the right term for such a system would be, but "democracy" sure isn't it.
It's usually more illuminating to think of campaign contributions that businesses make to politicians as being extortion on the part of the politicians rather than bribery on the part of the companies. In many cases, businesses have to pay lobbyists just to get their side of the story heard so that politicians don't do something to gratuitously destroy them.
I agree completely with DMKamo. Besides their being a fourth estate working as a propaganda arm protecting one side, lobbyists are the next biggest problem. Why are there politicians so stupid to only know one side of the story and need to be bribed or paid to hear the other?
Don't assume that if there are a ton of regulations imposed, they'll be the regulations you want. Comcast can afford to hire a lot of lawyers and lobbyists. A small ISP that only serves one market can't. Who do you think that the regulations will be written to favor?
When regulation really took off in the United States in the 1930s, the effect in many industries was killing off a lot of small businesses and pushing consolidation of industries into fewer, larger businesses.
Lobbying laws need to change big time.
Should start by if any politician gets a payment from any special interest group their vote no longer counts due to conflict of interest.
Also anyone in politics should be required to have all their financials open and disclosed for life - to eliminate the loophole of "being paid after the vote".
This would also eliminate a lot of shit politicians whose sole purpose is to get that special interest money.
If you give a bureaucracy massive power to wreck businesses on a whim, then those companies pretty much have to find ways to influence what the bureaucracy does. Laws can change the means by which the money gets there, but they can't change the fact of it.
If laws along the lines of what you proposed were enacted, then whoever got to decide which groups counted as special interests and which didn't would wield far more power than any elected politicians. I'm not sure what the right term for such a system would be, but "democracy" sure isn't it.
It's usually more illuminating to think of campaign contributions that businesses make to politicians as being extortion on the part of the politicians rather than bribery on the part of the companies. In many cases, businesses have to pay lobbyists just to get their side of the story heard so that politicians don't do something to gratuitously destroy them.
That's actually more true than not. Politicians tend to do whatever is perceived to be popular - not what is best for Industry or their representatives or whatever. They will happily take contributions from Industry X and Competitive Industry Y, and then vote whichever way they think will get them re-elected next term.
Lobbies are only there to make sure industries are heard by politicians. It's not uncommon for several competitors in a single industry to actually band together and hire a common lobbyist (what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and all).
Lobbyists are, for the most part, a highly paid and very specific "letter to your congressman". They tend to wield some large perks, so they can get audience and get a chance to give their pitch. They are not large donors to campaigns as lobbyists, but they often are connected to individuals with the means and incentive to do so.
tl;dr A politician is self-serving. They will do what they think will get them re-elected. That is about the only thing you can depend on them to do.
I remember some cities wanted to set up their own internet service in order to make it cheaper for citizens and how ISP's sued them over it.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
My big question on this is - people in this thread are alluding to being able to get download speeds of 250mb or 100mb. The higgest I ever get is 11 maybe for a couple seconds. My big downloads are from steam and they are usually around a steady 7mb. I have an internet package for "100" mb and have had packages for 25 or 50 or 75 in the past and never once ever got anywhere near these speeds other than the speed test sites.
What the hell am I doing wrong? And if this net neutrality thing makes my steam downloads faster I like it, if it doesn't I don't care, and if it makes it slower I hate it.
My big question on this is - people in this thread are alluding to being able to get download speeds of 250mb or 100mb. The higgest I ever get is 11 maybe for a couple seconds. My big downloads are from steam and they are usually around a steady 7mb. I have an internet package for "100" mb and have had packages for 25 or 50 or 75 in the past and never once ever got anywhere near these speeds other than the speed test sites.
What the hell am I doing wrong? And if this net neutrality thing makes my steam downloads faster I like it, if it doesn't I don't care, and if it makes it slower I hate it.
It depends on your location and your ISP and a few other things. Most people use dslreports to check out their setups and what speeds they should be getting. https://www.dslreports.com/
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
1) The government has granted some ISP an artificial monopoly. 2) An ISP has a monopoly in a particular area because they're the only one that has bothered to build a network.
The former needs to be ended and quickly. That's a completely unforced error and insane public policy. The latter is perhaps undesirable, but the reality is that it's just not that profitable to build out networks in areas that aren't that heavily populated.
There is also an important difference between:
1) There's only one way to get on the Internet at all from a particular area. 2) One ISP offers a massively better product (higher bandwidth, higher or no bandwidth caps, better ping, etc.) than any alternatives.
The true monopoly of the first situation these days would require you to live in a really out of the way place. But the second can also have a lot of the undesirable characteristics of a monopoly, depending on how bad the second best ISP in an area is. If only one ISP offers anything better than dialup, then that's pretty much a monopoly. If the second best ISP offers 5 Mbps without any data caps, or perhaps 4G LTE that caps you at 10 GB/month, that meaningfully restricts what the best ISP can do even if it's far from ideal. If the second best ISP offers 50 Mbps without data caps, you've got good competition and shouldn't complain.
I would submit that areas that have a competitive market in Internet access shouldn't have regulations designed under the assumption that all ISPs there simultaneously have a monopoly. For areas that don't have much competition, getting more competition should be the primary focus, and treating the ISP there as a monopoly to be regulated should at most be a temporary thing with plans to drop it if more competition arrives.
I do agree on the whole, particularly your second set of statements, but I take issue with "An ISP has a monopoly in a particular area because they're the only one that has bothered to build a network."
Your making the assumption they just don't want to invest in infrastructure, or the hassle of dealing with local permitting.
That is not the case. Take Google Fiber. They definitely had the cash to do it. They had the willingness to put up with local bureaucratic permitting. They even got it rolled out in a few select places. Why didn't they go wide open with installation and enrollment?
Those "local monopolies" lobby very, very hard to keep local laws on the books that make it all but impossible to roll out a terrestrial network that could compete with local telecom/cable. It's a heck of a lot cheaper, a lot more effective, and generates a lot less headlines when you are doing it locally, rather than fighting a huge Federal battle on Headline News. Not many places have things like "One Touch Make Ready", and that right there alone is a huge stumbling block to being able to install another network in a city.
I won't claim this is why Google Fiber stopped rolling out, there may be any number of reasons behind that. But I bet it sure didn't help. I know in our city, if Comcast, AT&T, or the electric company wants to run a new line, the permits are drawn and they are underground in less than 6 months. If anyone else wants to run a new line... you get stuck in a permitting hell, and you have to arrange for any interference to be handled safely - which means paying and scheduling AT&T, Comcast, and the electric company, individually, to come out and make their services ready for you to be able to add yours. You might be able to get your cable in the ground in 2-3 years, and it will cost you 3-4x what it costs the other companies to do.
Also, as an aside - what happened to ISPs in areas where Google actually came to town, or even threatened to come to town? And why doesn't that level of activity occur everywhere all the time, if companies really are interested in providing better service?
You're right that there is a middle ground between "artificial monopoly" and "no one else cares to build a network", and that patchwork local laws and permitting delays are a huge problem in some cases. But making it easier for any company that wants to lay out a network and offer more competition in ISPs should be a major focus of regulatory changes. There are far bigger gains to be had by enabling more competition than treating the incumbent as a monopoly to be regulated as a utility.
Don't assume that if there are a ton of regulations imposed, they'll be the regulations you want. Comcast can afford to hire a lot of lawyers and lobbyists. A small ISP that only serves one market can't. Who do you think that the regulations will be written to favor?
When regulation really took off in the United States in the 1930s, the effect in many industries was killing off a lot of small businesses and pushing consolidation of industries into fewer, larger businesses.
Lobbying laws need to change big time.
Should start by if any politician gets a payment from any special interest group their vote no longer counts due to conflict of interest.
Also anyone in politics should be required to have all their financials open and disclosed for life - to eliminate the loophole of "being paid after the vote".
This would also eliminate a lot of shit politicians whose sole purpose is to get that special interest money.
If you give a bureaucracy massive power to wreck businesses on a whim, then those companies pretty much have to find ways to influence what the bureaucracy does. Laws can change the means by which the money gets there, but they can't change the fact of it.
If laws along the lines of what you proposed were enacted, then whoever got to decide which groups counted as special interests and which didn't would wield far more power than any elected politicians. I'm not sure what the right term for such a system would be, but "democracy" sure isn't it.
It's usually more illuminating to think of campaign contributions that businesses make to politicians as being extortion on the part of the politicians rather than bribery on the part of the companies. In many cases, businesses have to pay lobbyists just to get their side of the story heard so that politicians don't do something to gratuitously destroy them.
It's also interesting that businesses can rotate their staff into the vary agencies that are supposed to police them. The end result is they end up passing laws that work for the business and against the population.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
The thing is P2P traffic is a tiny fraction of overall internet traffic today - so this is not the issue when it comes to ISPs as far as bandwidth usage goes.
P2P traffic is a small fraction of Internet bandwidth today, but that wasn't the case some years ago when ISPs were cracking down on them more aggressively. Today, if they target anything, it will be video streaming, as that's the huge bandwidth hog.
Don't assume that if there are a ton of regulations imposed, they'll be the regulations you want. Comcast can afford to hire a lot of lawyers and lobbyists. A small ISP that only serves one market can't. Who do you think that the regulations will be written to favor?
When regulation really took off in the United States in the 1930s, the effect in many industries was killing off a lot of small businesses and pushing consolidation of industries into fewer, larger businesses.
Lobbying laws need to change big time.
Should start by if any politician gets a payment from any special interest group their vote no longer counts due to conflict of interest.
Also anyone in politics should be required to have all their financials open and disclosed for life - to eliminate the loophole of "being paid after the vote".
This would also eliminate a lot of shit politicians whose sole purpose is to get that special interest money.
If you give a bureaucracy massive power to wreck businesses on a whim, then those companies pretty much have to find ways to influence what the bureaucracy does. Laws can change the means by which the money gets there, but they can't change the fact of it.
If laws along the lines of what you proposed were enacted, then whoever got to decide which groups counted as special interests and which didn't would wield far more power than any elected politicians. I'm not sure what the right term for such a system would be, but "democracy" sure isn't it.
It's usually more illuminating to think of campaign contributions that businesses make to politicians as being extortion on the part of the politicians rather than bribery on the part of the companies. In many cases, businesses have to pay lobbyists just to get their side of the story heard so that politicians don't do something to gratuitously destroy them.
I agree completely with DMKamo. Besides their being a fourth estate working as a propaganda arm protecting one side, lobbyists are the next biggest problem. Why are there politicians so stupid to only know one side of the story and need to be bribed or paid to hear the other?
The way that politicians want it to work is that both sides of an issue have to donate money to the politician to get them to spend time with lobbyists and hear both sides of the story. Then politicians can make an informed vote, in addition to having a boost to their re-election chances. If they studied the issue on their own, they could become equally informed and probably end up voting the same way, but that's not as good for their re-election hopes because it doesn't get them the campaign contributions.
The threat is that if your side doesn't donate any money, the politician won't make the time to meet your lobbyist and hear your side of the story, so they'll vote having only heard the other side of the story because the other side did donate money. You'd better donate to their re-election fund to avoid that. As I said, extortion, not bribery.
As one politician explained it some decades ago, you return from lunch and find that you have 14 messages left by people who called while you were away. 13 of them are from people you've never heard of. One of them donated $1000 to your re-election campaign last week. Whose call do you return first?
Being a common carrier means everyone has to be treated equally. No tiered pricing / services. You cannot pay more to get electricity before your neighbours, my water is not better because I pay more than you. Now, with net neutrality, you cannot pay more to get priority access to the internet. All electricity is treated equally. All water and gas is treated equally. Now, all internet traffic is treated equally.
That's not at all what the whole debate is about. I don't know about you, but my electricity, water, and gas are metered. For electricity, I pay a fixed fee per month just to be connected, plus an additional charge per kWh of electricity actually used. With water and gas, it's similar. I don't get to choose my electric utility, and have to pay for electricity even if I don't want it and didn't use it.
For Internet access, even under Title II regulations, I pay a fixed amount per month. I don't pay a fee per GB of data used. Furthermore, I can pay more or less to get higher or lower bandwidth caps. If I don't like my ISP, I can switch to a different one. I could disconnect from the Internet entirely if I so chose.
Not all electricity is treated equal. Not all sewage is treated equal. Not all gas is treated equal. So that part of your argument isn't accurate. For example, I pay twice as much for electricity if it's from noon to 6pm, as I do from Midnight to 8am. Common Carrier, in this use, mostly refers to Telecom, and is defined by Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, not local electricity, water, gas, etc.
You could disconnect from the internet entirely. You could also disconnect from the electric grid, from municipal water, and from other utilities if you chose to do so. That's the situation ~70% of the United States is in - you either deal with the ISP you go, or you go without.
In the case of electricity - you aren't paying when you don't use it (although there are provisions for that, called Standby rates), you are paying for access to the grid and for the meter. That's a set fee you pay every month for that equipment. Then you pay per kWh for actual use on top of that, so that is true.
Many people ~do~ have to pay per GB for their internet use. Those with low caps (Cellular and Satellite in particular) only get a very low amount of usage a month included in their monthly fee - everything above and beyond that is paying per GB.
Even when Internet was added to Title II in 2015, many provisions of Title II were waived by the FCC, so ISPs didn't comply with the full regulation of Title II. I agree - Title II classification shouldn't have been necessary - before that, ISPs operated under a "Good Samaritan" clause of the Communications Decency Act, and that really should be enough for legal liability. Instead of pushing Title II, they should have pushed legislation that encouraged local competition.
My big question on this is - people in this thread are alluding to being able to get download speeds of 250mb or 100mb. The higgest I ever get is 11 maybe for a couple seconds. My big downloads are from steam and they are usually around a steady 7mb. I have an internet package for "100" mb and have had packages for 25 or 50 or 75 in the past and never once ever got anywhere near these speeds other than the speed test sites.
What the hell am I doing wrong? And if this net neutrality thing makes my steam downloads faster I like it, if it doesn't I don't care, and if it makes it slower I hate it.
ISPs generally quote maximum download speeds as in megabits per second, as that gives larger numbers. If you're watching a download with pretty much any other software, it will probably talk about megabytes per second, as for many uses, bytes are a more natural basic unit of data. There are eight bits in a byte. If Steam says you're downloading at 7 megabytes per second, that's 56 megabits per second, and a pretty good download speed for most real-world uses.
OMG!! The sky is falling!! Oh wait we have only been under a Net Neutrality for a couple of years. I understand the talking points on both sides and for Corporations to target bandwidth is bad practice to say the least, but that is only one talking point. When does the FCC know anything about the internet, they put it in compliance with a 1930 ish telephone communication law. Regulations prevent innovation especially regulations made by our politicians who dont know the difference between the technologies of Fiber optics,Cable,DSl, and 4g infrastructure.
We will survive, Cord cutters will be ok. Those who have crappy internet will still have crappy internet. I will still be streaming Netflix, Hulu, and playing mmos.
If at first you dont succeed, call it version 1.0
ISPs almost always quote little b bits, because it's 8 times bigger. Apps can go either way, but it does seem most report in Big B bytes.
I often wonder if ISPs don't pay the bigger speedtest sites... or if ISPs don't do some "traffic shaping and prioritization". I know I have a lot of issues with my ISP, I can go to speedtest.net, and it ~looks~ fine, and that's what the tech support will always steer me towards when I call to complain. But other many other sites will time out left and right.
My big question on this is - people in this thread are alluding to being able to get download speeds of 250mb or 100mb. The higgest I ever get is 11 maybe for a couple seconds. My big downloads are from steam and they are usually around a steady 7mb. I have an internet package for "100" mb and have had packages for 25 or 50 or 75 in the past and never once ever got anywhere near these speeds other than the speed test sites.
What the hell am I doing wrong? And if this net neutrality thing makes my steam downloads faster I like it, if it doesn't I don't care, and if it makes it slower I hate it.
If its megabits then that is different than megabytes. 100 megabits is close to 10 megabytes.
ISPs almost always quote little b bits, because it's 8 times bigger. Apps can go either way, but it does seem most report in Big B bytes.
I often wonder if ISPs don't pay the bigger speedtest sites... or if ISPs don't do some "traffic shaping and prioritization". I know I have a lot of issues with my ISP, I can go to speedtest.net, and it ~looks~ fine, and that's what the tech support will always steer me towards when I call to complain. But other many other sites will time out left and right.
I constantly look this up honestly. I just forget stuff if I don't use it regularly. LMAO G600 developed double click issues. Just fixing the double quote. I need to replace it. I got a good run out of it I guess.
I work for Comcast Cable and just had a meeting about this and we were informed that Comcast will not block any site and will not change any prices at all it is business as usual nothing changes. Can’t apeak for other ISP but if you have Xfinity Comcast you have nothing to worry this is not going to change anything at all.
I work for Comcast Cable and just had a meeting about this and we were informed that Comcast will not block any site and will not change any prices at all it is business as usual nothing changes. Can’t apeak for other ISP but if you have Xfinity Comcast you have nothing to worry this is not going to change anything at all.
Ofc nothing will change right now, it's far too early and there's more stuff that has to pass before the half intelligent companies start make changes.
I refer you to the link in my post at the top of page 4.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
The FCC never had the authority to regulate ISPs, given their classification, so Net Neutrality wasn't really legal anyways.
In order to regulate ISPs in this way, the law needs to be changed to classify Internet Service Providers the same as Telephone Companies. If that is done, then the FCC can regulate them in this way.
This used to be the case, but lobbyists have power.
I don't have a problem with this decision, because the FCC never had the jurisdiction to do this. Just because something benefits us doesn't mean we should allows laws to be warped to allow it to happen. If you make exceptions in this case, in your favor, then you can't complain about exceptions that harm you being made later on.
The big issue with this isn't the fact that it kills Net Neutrality, but the fact that people are pissed at this, but ignoring the elephant in the room... Probably half or more of the people in this country have no choice one cable provider because monopolies are allowed to rule the country region by region.
When there is more competition, this will become a non-issue.
If Verizon wants to charge Netflix more, then Netflix can say no and the users on Netflix who want good 4K streaming will simply move to the ISP that allows it without destroying their user experience.
Right now, this is impossible for a lot of people. If you have Comcast, yo often have no choice other than Satellite Internet... and that's unusable for things like gaming, VoIP, etc. due to ridiculous PINGs.
This is why AT&T was easily able to be pressured off their stance of blocking FaceTime back in 2012. They have competitors in the same market who told their users "it works here, and we'll save you some money in the process. Come on over!"
Well, if ISPs can prove the internet is in fact a utility and not simply a luxury, than it will pass through the courts and the internet will become another giant monopoly like all the other utilities.
It's already a pretty big monopoly. I've lived in countless areas that require you to use Comcast as they pushed out any other competition from that area.
I lived in an area where the only ISP was via Radio ANtenna, and it was awful and completely lacking in reliability. The speeds were awful, as well. It cost as much as AT&T DSL, for half the Up/Down speeds and none of the reliability.
I put in a complaint with the BBB because AT&T said they could not give me access because they didn't have access to the lines starting a block or two from my house. This company basically wrote me a reply to the complain talking about how no one complains about their service.
I'm sure no one complains about your service when their internet goes out anything there's any type of storm approaching, or even randomly on sunny days... Sure, guys :-P
So, while the large ISPs can be scum, there's also the flip side of the coin. Smaller ISPs are given exclusive access to some rural areas, and they completely take advantage of their customers. Why wouldn't day. All humans and the things they control are inherently corruptible, and business is about profit - not consumer "comfort." They only tell you the latter to get you to sign up (or get access to those markets).
Comments
If laws along the lines of what you proposed were enacted, then whoever got to decide which groups counted as special interests and which didn't would wield far more power than any elected politicians. I'm not sure what the right term for such a system would be, but "democracy" sure isn't it.
It's usually more illuminating to think of campaign contributions that businesses make to politicians as being extortion on the part of the politicians rather than bribery on the part of the companies. In many cases, businesses have to pay lobbyists just to get their side of the story heard so that politicians don't do something to gratuitously destroy them.
For Internet access, even under Title II regulations, I pay a fixed amount per month. I don't pay a fee per GB of data used. Furthermore, I can pay more or less to get higher or lower bandwidth caps. If I don't like my ISP, I can switch to a different one. I could disconnect from the Internet entirely if I so chose.
Mobile may have more options, but that's shaky at best.
I agree completely with DMKamo. Besides their being a fourth estate working as a propaganda arm protecting one side, lobbyists are the next biggest problem. Why are there politicians so stupid to only know one side of the story and need to be bribed or paid to hear the other?
Lobbies are only there to make sure industries are heard by politicians. It's not uncommon for several competitors in a single industry to actually band together and hire a common lobbyist (what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and all).
Lobbyists are, for the most part, a highly paid and very specific "letter to your congressman". They tend to wield some large perks, so they can get audience and get a chance to give their pitch. They are not large donors to campaigns as lobbyists, but they often are connected to individuals with the means and incentive to do so.
tl;dr A politician is self-serving. They will do what they think will get them re-elected. That is about the only thing you can depend on them to do.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
What the hell am I doing wrong? And if this net neutrality thing makes my steam downloads faster I like it, if it doesn't I don't care, and if it makes it slower I hate it.
https://www.dslreports.com/
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
The threat is that if your side doesn't donate any money, the politician won't make the time to meet your lobbyist and hear your side of the story, so they'll vote having only heard the other side of the story because the other side did donate money. You'd better donate to their re-election fund to avoid that. As I said, extortion, not bribery.
As one politician explained it some decades ago, you return from lunch and find that you have 14 messages left by people who called while you were away. 13 of them are from people you've never heard of. One of them donated $1000 to your re-election campaign last week. Whose call do you return first?
Not all electricity is treated equal. Not all sewage is treated equal. Not all gas is treated equal. So that part of your argument isn't accurate. For example, I pay twice as much for electricity if it's from noon to 6pm, as I do from Midnight to 8am. Common Carrier, in this use, mostly refers to Telecom, and is defined by Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, not local electricity, water, gas, etc.
To comment @Quizzical
You could disconnect from the internet entirely. You could also disconnect from the electric grid, from municipal water, and from other utilities if you chose to do so. That's the situation ~70% of the United States is in - you either deal with the ISP you go, or you go without.
In the case of electricity - you aren't paying when you don't use it (although there are provisions for that, called Standby rates), you are paying for access to the grid and for the meter. That's a set fee you pay every month for that equipment. Then you pay per kWh for actual use on top of that, so that is true.
Many people ~do~ have to pay per GB for their internet use. Those with low caps (Cellular and Satellite in particular) only get a very low amount of usage a month included in their monthly fee - everything above and beyond that is paying per GB.
Even when Internet was added to Title II in 2015, many provisions of Title II were waived by the FCC, so ISPs didn't comply with the full regulation of Title II. I agree - Title II classification shouldn't have been necessary - before that, ISPs operated under a "Good Samaritan" clause of the Communications Decency Act, and that really should be enough for legal liability. Instead of pushing Title II, they should have pushed legislation that encouraged local competition.
We will survive, Cord cutters will be ok. Those who have crappy internet will still have crappy internet. I will still be streaming Netflix, Hulu, and playing mmos.
If at first you dont succeed, call it version 1.0
Big B = Byte
little b = bit
8 bits in a Byte
so 8 Mbps = 1MBps
ISPs almost always quote little b bits, because it's 8 times bigger. Apps can go either way, but it does seem most report in Big B bytes.
I often wonder if ISPs don't pay the bigger speedtest sites... or if ISPs don't do some "traffic shaping and prioritization". I know I have a lot of issues with my ISP, I can go to speedtest.net, and it ~looks~ fine, and that's what the tech support will always steer me towards when I call to complain. But other many other sites will time out left and right.
I constantly look this up honestly. I just forget stuff if I don't use it regularly. LMAO G600 developed double click issues. Just fixing the double quote. I need to replace it. I got a good run out of it I guess.
I refer you to the link in my post at the top of page 4.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
In order to regulate ISPs in this way, the law needs to be changed to classify Internet Service Providers the same as Telephone Companies. If that is done, then the FCC can regulate them in this way.
This used to be the case, but lobbyists have power.
I don't have a problem with this decision, because the FCC never had the jurisdiction to do this. Just because something benefits us doesn't mean we should allows laws to be warped to allow it to happen. If you make exceptions in this case, in your favor, then you can't complain about exceptions that harm you being made later on.
The big issue with this isn't the fact that it kills Net Neutrality, but the fact that people are pissed at this, but ignoring the elephant in the room... Probably half or more of the people in this country have no choice one cable provider because monopolies are allowed to rule the country region by region.
When there is more competition, this will become a non-issue.
If Verizon wants to charge Netflix more, then Netflix can say no and the users on Netflix who want good 4K streaming will simply move to the ISP that allows it without destroying their user experience.
Right now, this is impossible for a lot of people. If you have Comcast, yo often have no choice other than Satellite Internet... and that's unusable for things like gaming, VoIP, etc. due to ridiculous PINGs.
This is why AT&T was easily able to be pressured off their stance of blocking FaceTime back in 2012. They have competitors in the same market who told their users "it works here, and we'll save you some money in the process. Come on over!"
I lived in an area where the only ISP was via Radio ANtenna, and it was awful and completely lacking in reliability. The speeds were awful, as well. It cost as much as AT&T DSL, for half the Up/Down speeds and none of the reliability.
I put in a complaint with the BBB because AT&T said they could not give me access because they didn't have access to the lines starting a block or two from my house. This company basically wrote me a reply to the complain talking about how no one complains about their service.
I'm sure no one complains about your service when their internet goes out anything there's any type of storm approaching, or even randomly on sunny days... Sure, guys :-P
So, while the large ISPs can be scum, there's also the flip side of the coin. Smaller ISPs are given exclusive access to some rural areas, and they completely take advantage of their customers. Why wouldn't day. All humans and the things they control are inherently corruptible, and business is about profit - not consumer "comfort." They only tell you the latter to get you to sign up (or get access to those markets).