Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

18911131420

Comments

  • btdtbtdt Member RarePosts: 523
    Problem is... you're already addicted to the internet and they know it.  You can't part with it and will ultimately give up one of your balls to keep accessing it.

    And lest we forget, Ma Bell was monopoly back in the day but they were never as greedy as all the companies that sprouted up to take their place.  

    Government interference typically does more harm than good.  Mainly because the people running it are as corrupt as the people they claim to be protecting us from.

    It doesn't matter what you think about Net Neutrality... you have no voice in it whatsoever to begin with.  You just think you do.
  • slowpoke68slowpoke68 Member UncommonPosts: 545
    edited December 2017
    I haven't bothered to become informed about this subject.  At first blush it seemed like something I should be for, however once I saw the groups supporting it....I'm probably against it.

    It's next to impossible to get facts anymore, everything is agenda driven.

    I just don't care enough about this to go digging for the answers.
    DullahanKyleran
  • FlyinDutchman87FlyinDutchman87 Member UncommonPosts: 335
    edited December 2017

    I'm for NN, but only because I live in a rural area. We only get one option for most internet service. Yes, I could get satellite instead but the latency would make gaming impossible. Therefor I only have 1 ISP option.

    I'm all for capitalism, but the fact is it's a system that just doesn't work unless the consumer has actual options to pick from. So unless and until someone gets an entire other set of back-bone infrastructure in place(which will likely not happen for decades if ever). Government regulation is the only thing from protecting us from being 100% at the mercy of the available ISP's.

    If the system wasn't actually broken then Comcast wouldn't still be the juggernaut it is currently, after getting such terrible customer reviews and satisfaction year after year.  They just don't care because they own the cables so it doesn't matter how much people hate them.





    DullahanRidelynn
  • linadragonlinadragon Member RarePosts: 589
    I haven't bothered to become informed about this subject.  At first blush it seemed like something I should be for, however once I saw the groups supporting it....I'm probably against it.

    It's next to impossible to get facts anymore, everything is agenda driven.

    I just don't care enough about this to go digging for the answers.
    ISPs are against net neutrality. The groups actively supporting it are those that offer web services because it will mean they have to pay more to get preferential treatment or potentially slowed down vs competitors. No web service in their right mind would be against it. The groups supporting it and the companies supporting it are supporting it because it means paying to potentially get priority on top of them already having to pay their own isps (who already have peering agreements with the ISPs for data flowing in and out of the isps network). 

    WIthout net neutrality it could let isps block sites unless a customer pays extra to unlock those sites or a website pays to get itself unblocked. The reason why you have groups you may not associate with normally and groups you might associate with normally all getting together on this one thing is primarily because of what it could ultimately lead to.

    I've stated many fact that people don't want to listen to. I've stated reasoning and what has actually happened. I support net neutrality, but what I have said is not propaganda or lies. ISPs have come out with what they already plan to do in the past and tenants they have broken in the past have been blocking VOIP other than their own among a slew of other things. Regulation is a necessity unless we have healthy competition and sadly the only way we are going to get competition is local-loop unbundling which would also require regulating wholesale prices and then making sure the actual lines provided are neutral in the first place (no funny business outside of QoS), but alas that will never freaking happen
  • linadragonlinadragon Member RarePosts: 589

    I'm for NN, but only because I live in a rural area. We only get one option for most internet service. Yes, I could get satellite instead but the latency would make gaming impossible. Therefor I only have 1 ISP option.

    I'm all for capitalism, but the fact is it's a system that just doesn't work unless the consumer has actual options to pick from. So unless and until someone gets an entire other set of back-bone infrastructure in place(which will likely not happen for decades if ever). Government regulation is the only thing from protecting us from being 100% at the mercy of the available ISP's.

    If the system wasn't actually broken then Comcast wouldn't still be the juggernaut it is currently, after getting such terrible customer reviews and satisfaction year after year.  They just don't care because they own the cables so it doesn't matter how much people hate them.





    Well the back-bone infrastructure isn't really the problem here though. It is the last mile providers (comcast etc) that are a problem. Comcast and others are not backbone providers (tier 1 providers are) so it is puzzling really. Ultimately the last mile providers don't want to run the lines because it'll cost too much even though the back-bone providers paid for a good chunk of it and the ISPs are really just laying down last mile stuff outside of where their links are. It is mind boggling really how bad they are in rural areas simply cuz they can't milk ya hardcore.

    If Elon Musk's sattelite idea for internet works and is low latency it could bring actual competition to the isps ultimately. Also just to point out an entirely free market economy never works. Capitalism requires rules and regulations to function properly because otherwise one company would just buy all newcomers or be able to squash them before they could get started monetarily by vastly lowering prices. So capitalism exists in a society with rules and regulations. Those who want entirely free markets are delusional people that weren't alive before regulations existed or know very little of history. 
    Ridelynn
  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,312
    The only way to have a monopoly is through the government or another means of using force. There will always be someone willing to compete when there is enough profit to be made. Even the worst monopolies in US history couldn't do anything with those monopolies as competitors always entered when they drove up prices. The only reason we have monopolies in ISPs outside of rural areas is because of the local governments enforcement of those monopolies.
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 3,355
    Cleffy said:
    The only way to have a monopoly is through the government or another means of using force. There will always be someone willing to compete when there is enough profit to be made. Even the worst monopolies in US history couldn't do anything with those monopolies as competitors always entered when they drove up prices. The only reason we have monopolies in ISPs outside of rural areas is because of the local governments enforcement of those monopolies.
    No in the US you have monopolies because the rules made by government are not strong enough and are sliding to the way side..... You want to get rid of the monopolies then force last mile ISP to share the lines like in Canada...

    The local loop laws should have been forced a good while ago and until they are you'll have bad companies like comcast etc that just don't give a rats arse about you as a customer or about your satisfaction with their service.


    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.





  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 20,862
    Horusra said:
    Horusra said:
    Net Neutrality does everything to stifle new competition because the new companies can not offer what Net Neutrality requires them to offer cause it costs too much upfront.
    Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh quite false so stop spewing nonsense. All Net Neutrality requires is treating all data of a single kind the same way. This does not cost "too much up front" nor does Title II regulations. You are literally buying into shit the ISPs are saying hook line and sinker and you don't seem to grasp that the reason it is expensive has nothing to do with regulation from the federal government under title II or title I and everything to do with local permits, costs to run fiber, equipment costs etc and that's a lot of what it is. Title II won't help bring down costs, title I won't help bring down costs, a full repeal won't help bring down costs, nor will deregulation at the federal level bring down costs. 

    You are in this mindset that treating video packets all the same, treating game packets all the same, treating website packets all the same and applying proper QoS is somehow costing an ISP more. They've been doing this shit forever and it's basically more costly to not follow along with "doing nothing" as you need to start developing systems to prioritize specific traffic from a specific source a certain way or not and that would actually drive up costs. There isn't "increased costs" with net neutrality or title II at all actually Title II isn't costing isps more, it isn't lowering investments, and it isn't making it harder for new isps like fixed wireless Wisps to enter the market despite what some of the larger isps and consortium of isps/industry shills will say about it. 

    These regulations hurt absolutely no one other than squashing a new way isps wanted to make money off webservices that they themselves are not hosting. 

    Like your propaganda you are spewing is truth.  For a new company they have to be able to keep up the speeds to everyone.  Take your crap and peddle it to the noob masses.
    Do you have proof of your claim that it stifles new competition? Because I have gigabit fiber to the house (no last mile copper) from our local county ISP, Douglas Fastnet (DFN).

    Under net neutrality that flourished. Our previous options were CenturyLink DSL capped at 10Mbps bundled with a phone package (required) for about $120/mo. Satellite, or Verizon hotspot (expensive with low data caps). Gigabit fiber is $90/mo, but they offer other packages and services including DSL and wireless internet starting at $40. In my locale, that is a good price.

    Net neutrality hasn't stifled that growth. In that ecosystem I had good internet, finally at a reasonable price. Now we're rocking the boat to throw yet another bone to the big telecoms. The internet is an essential service in a modern society. We should be making small thoughtful changes to a flawed system not ripping it all out with no replacement because some baboons want to reform systems in their interest. It works now and it's not broken.
    Asm0deusKrematory
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 3,355
    edited December 2017
    Big ISP are against NN because they want to keep the nice monopolies they got going now hell the companies some of you seem to think that will regulate themsleves spend lots of cash to be sure you don't have options and to "protect ""their territories"".

    ...Hell they shouldn't even have territories and small 3rd party providers should be allowed to use their lines to offer real competition but that's not going to happen the way things are in the USA and especially if NN fails.

    https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Big-ISPs-Spent-1-Million-Attacking-Colorado-Community-Broadband-140849

    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.





  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,312
    According to US Telecom that was used as a source in implementing common carrier guidelines on communication providers, broadband investment declined by 17% the year after the rules where adopted compared to growth in the years prior.
    The problem with monopolies at the local level is the local politicians enforcing those monopolies by limiting who can lay down lines. If the problem is at the local level, why bother the rest of the country instead of the local politicians who are more responsible to the people in their districts? Aside from a light touch by the Department of Energy, most utilities are handled at the state and local level. The FCC controlling most local ISPs as utilities would be a pretty big power grab from local populaces. With a republic you can't really use the same logic as other countries since each state is practically it's own country.
  • KillSwitch69KillSwitch69 Member UncommonPosts: 36
    Horusra said:
    For me has less to to with political bias and more to do with economic belief.  I believe free market capitalism is the driver of innovation.  When someone can make some cash people will compete for it.  Net Neutrality removes that drive.  While without there is, I hope, a desire for companies to provide new and better service than someone else to get your money.
    See your issue is you think in an "odd" fashion. Unbridled free market capitalism can't actually "exist" without regulatory bodies. With net neutrality it doesn't remove any drive. It doesn't remove innovation or anything (unless you are going to talk about figuring out new ways to drain people's money to offer the same service you are now) The ISPs have stated that net neutrality has not affected their investments or anything at all and they said this to shareholders ie people they are legally obligated to tell the truth to. 

    The drive is gone largely because ISPs in most of the US have no actual competition with one another and largely that is because they opt to not try and compete with one another short of some areas that are just to population dense for multiple companies to ignore and that is where they compete.

    There isn't an "offering better service than someone else to get your money" when that " someone else" doesn't exist. We'd basically need to actually force a situation that created proper market competition for what you are saying to actually even exist in any way. All net  neutrality does is make sure that verzion or comcast can't say slow down a website because that website isn't paying them even though verizon or comcast or any isp already has peering agreements with the ISP carrying that website, that video service, that service in general. 

    What the isps were doing was throttling services (particularly video) to try and get companies to pay for upgrades to their infrastructure hardware wise and to get direct peering agreements with companies like netflix etc and predatory practices must not be allowed in near monopolistic practices.

    For you the type that espouse "free market capitalism" as an answer I say look at  real world practices and realize what I said that it can't exist without regulation to be the truth. Unchecked/de-regulated/unbridled free market capitalism would simply lead to a singular entity buying up the smaller entities in any space and us having singular companies for any  service (or multiple services in some cases). There is a reason regulations exist and it is because free market capitalism proved that it can't work without it already. 
    Bingo!  This guy gets it.

    And very well stated I must add.   

    Along with the Free Market Capitalism is good mantra, comes the All Government is Bad misconception.   By blindly believing in these two principles, and listening to lies being spewed by the FFC itself its no wonder people are divided.

    The government isn't regulating the internet.  It is making sure that the companies that provide the service to you, don't have the opportunity to regulate it for their own benefit and to the detriment of yours.

    Anyway it seems a given that net neutrality is about to be quashed.  How long before you begin to see the effects and what will they be, is now the question.
    I want to give this guy/gal (Linadragon) a fucking medal.
    RidelynnMrMelGibson
  • linadragonlinadragon Member RarePosts: 589
    Cleffy said:
    According to US Telecom that was used as a source in implementing common carrier guidelines on communication providers, broadband investment declined by 17% the year after the rules where adopted compared to growth in the years prior.
    The problem with monopolies at the local level is the local politicians enforcing those monopolies by limiting who can lay down lines. If the problem is at the local level, why bother the rest of the country instead of the local politicians who are more responsible to the people in their districts? Aside from a light touch by the Department of Energy, most utilities are handled at the state and local level. The FCC controlling most local ISPs as utilities would be a pretty big power grab from local populaces. With a republic you can't really use the same logic as other countries since each state is practically it's own country.
    The problem is you can't really use that as a guideline with the 17% the year after the rules were adopted. The growth goes up and down at times as it has throughout the history really. And no the FCC itself wouldn't control the lines realistically in LLU. You can still have a private company own the Local Loop it would just be someone that builds out lines and is forced to resell access to those lines at wholesale rates so other people can attach hardware and the like to it and that ISP themselves would be able to use that line directly too. The problem is that state politicians are also corrupt and ultimately the issue would be congressional power/law stipulating that a law cannot control municipal governments that want to build out their own networks and also the government needs to take back any right of ways/easements or any land isps claim to actually "own" that they use to stifle their competitors. 

    Title II common carrier is what ISPs are meant to be under. They were under it in the past and it has done nothing to their investment plans. That 17% dip down was likely a planned dip from the get go. It would take what other countries do to fix the us problems unless we start making laws that prohibit state laws from intervening in municipal governments within those states.

    Our entire system in the US is a convoluted mess the way we let things get set up. We would of avoided a shit load of troubles had we never allowed the Bush era FCC to change ISPs over to Title I in the first place so that the DSL providers would be able to compete with cable by attempting to stifle them. There should of been serious questions as to why ISPs were labeled as information services and not telecommunications at the time too. 
  • chronoss2015chronoss2015 Member UncommonPosts: 217
    btdt said:
    Problem is... you're already addicted to the internet and they know it.  You can't part with it and will ultimately give up one of your balls to keep accessing it.

    And lest we forget, Ma Bell was monopoly back in the day but they were never as greedy as all the companies that sprouted up to take their place.  

    Government interference typically does more harm than good.  Mainly because the people running it are as corrupt as the people they claim to be protecting us from.

    It doesn't matter what you think about Net Neutrality... you have no voice in it whatsoever to begin with.  You just think you do.
    and so they raise costs up up and until you are away cause you can no longer afford it.....

    enjoy thats gambling to a tee....seems between isps and game publiishers its a wonder you americans can afford kraft dnner
  • linadragonlinadragon Member RarePosts: 589
    Horusra said:
    For me has less to to with political bias and more to do with economic belief.  I believe free market capitalism is the driver of innovation.  When someone can make some cash people will compete for it.  Net Neutrality removes that drive.  While without there is, I hope, a desire for companies to provide new and better service than someone else to get your money.
    See your issue is you think in an "odd" fashion. Unbridled free market capitalism can't actually "exist" without regulatory bodies. With net neutrality it doesn't remove any drive. It doesn't remove innovation or anything (unless you are going to talk about figuring out new ways to drain people's money to offer the same service you are now) The ISPs have stated that net neutrality has not affected their investments or anything at all and they said this to shareholders ie people they are legally obligated to tell the truth to. 

    The drive is gone largely because ISPs in most of the US have no actual competition with one another and largely that is because they opt to not try and compete with one another short of some areas that are just to population dense for multiple companies to ignore and that is where they compete.

    There isn't an "offering better service than someone else to get your money" when that " someone else" doesn't exist. We'd basically need to actually force a situation that created proper market competition for what you are saying to actually even exist in any way. All net  neutrality does is make sure that verzion or comcast can't say slow down a website because that website isn't paying them even though verizon or comcast or any isp already has peering agreements with the ISP carrying that website, that video service, that service in general. 

    What the isps were doing was throttling services (particularly video) to try and get companies to pay for upgrades to their infrastructure hardware wise and to get direct peering agreements with companies like netflix etc and predatory practices must not be allowed in near monopolistic practices.

    For you the type that espouse "free market capitalism" as an answer I say look at  real world practices and realize what I said that it can't exist without regulation to be the truth. Unchecked/de-regulated/unbridled free market capitalism would simply lead to a singular entity buying up the smaller entities in any space and us having singular companies for any  service (or multiple services in some cases). There is a reason regulations exist and it is because free market capitalism proved that it can't work without it already. 
    Bingo!  This guy gets it.

    And very well stated I must add.   

    Along with the Free Market Capitalism is good mantra, comes the All Government is Bad misconception.   By blindly believing in these two principles, and listening to lies being spewed by the FFC itself its no wonder people are divided.

    The government isn't regulating the internet.  It is making sure that the companies that provide the service to you, don't have the opportunity to regulate it for their own benefit and to the detriment of yours.

    Anyway it seems a given that net neutrality is about to be quashed.  How long before you begin to see the effects and what will they be, is now the question.
    I want to give this guy/gal (Linadragon) a fucking medal.
    No need for any of that honestly. People do need to understand what regulation is and is not. They need to read bills and become educated on the history of things a little more than what they are told by people that don't want them to know the history fully. People need to grasp the concept that regulations and consumer protections are there to keep companies in check and that removing regulations helps no one out other than the people that want them gone.

    The people that run around fear mongering that the FCC will censor the internet are the ones that boggle my mind entirely. Like these people do know that the internet was still regulated in some fashion just with a regulation that doesn't really deal with what the internet is and was switched to so that DSL would be able to attempt to compete with cable isps at the time. They never did compete properly at all and many sat back, died, or switched to cable or fiber later. 

    The entire need for them to be Title I went out the window when the DSL providers didn't compete and cable "won" and they should of been looked at switching back to the proper regulation of Title 2 around the mid 2000s which coincidentally is when lobbying both for and against Net Neutrality actually started (some people seem to think it is a new thing that just magically sprouted up during Obama's FCC led by Tom Wheeler). The thing most people don't seem to realize is that up until the very early 2010's net neutrality was basically a given tenant that was followed despite some ISPs lobbying against it.

    It wasn't until they started breaking it that it even became an issue. One ISP blocked VOIP services from anyone but them, another decided to throttle peer to peer traffic (legit or not), then we started down the paths that got more public attention when the whole comcast and netflix thing happened which the whole debacle ended when the FCC tried to enshrine just the net neutrality rules and verizon was like "no, you can't do that" which the courts sided with verizon on, but told the FCC that to apply those regulations to the internet ISPs would need to be reclassified as Title II common carriers. The FCC debated, voted, and proved that Title II regulation with Net Neutrality was a necessary thing.

    The current FCC has no real grounds to repeal net neutrality or title II though and this is going to get challenged in court as soon as the vote actually goes through. The courts and potentially congress in this case will need to decide if the reason for the implementation of Title II and net neutrality is gone and not going to be a problem. Ajit Pai can't provide any proof other than his belief that the ISPs will "do the right thing" so I'm not sure what will happen, but it will likely end up held up in court for a bit and it is highly likely that there will be a stay put on the repeal going into effect.

    I don't deserve a medal at all. I just like to keep people informed on history and some of the more technical stuff that maybe they don't know or understand so they can be well educated on the matter. 
    Kyleran
  • ScotchUpScotchUp Member UncommonPosts: 228
    edited December 2017
    I wish that Ajit Pai would take a long walk off a short pier.  The USA voted-in these type of people, & those that would place them into these positions, so we're sadly getting what we deserve.  The USA will be taking a couple of steps backwards the next few years upon multiple fronts & this will probably be just one example.
    I would respond but I was told politics aren't allowed here so I can't state what I wanted too......

    Oh man that is exactly what the 2015 rules will do to Americans! I won't be responding to this thread again. You can head over and debate me on Utube Net Neutrality threads!
    FlyByKnight
    “The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
    George Carlin
  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,312
    There is no point arguing for pages with people about politics. Just make your point and move on is the best policy. Every once in a while you its good to correct mis-information from people who didn't really put much research in on the subject. They will naturally reject any of your claims with long winded posts, but you aren't changing their mind regardless. It's the people in the middle who will change their mind on the subject depending on the strength of the argument made.
    ScotchUpFlyByKnight
  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Member RarePosts: 5,484
    edited December 2017
    The principle of net neutrality is wonderful. The current rules are crap. All of the large internet business companies are supporting it because they benefit from it not the smaller ISPs. What they're afraid of is if actual transparency rules are enacted they'll have to reveal all of the underhanded crap they are up to with your data and that they're manipulating their search results etc. to benefit themselves while claiming they're just looking out for us. It's hilarious that anyone suspicious of corporations would be in favor of Facebook, Google, Twitter, Netflix, and Amazon lobbying supposedly on our behalf. 
    ScotchUpAsm0deusDullahan

    "We have met the enemy and he is us." ~Pogo Possum. 

  • ScotchUpScotchUp Member UncommonPosts: 228
    edited December 2017
    The principle of net neutrality is wonderful. The current rules are crap. All of the large internet business companies are supporting it because they benefit from it not the smaller ISPs. What they're afraid of is if actual transparency rules are enacted they'll have to reveal all of the underhanded crap they are up to with your data and that they're manipulating their search results etc. to benefit themselves while claiming they're just looking out for us. It's hilarious that anyone suspicious of corporations would be in favor of Facebook, Google, Twitter, Netflix, and Amazon lobbying supposedly on our behalf. 
    Thankfully someone else can see it! Thanks, put way better than I could ever do!
    Asm0deus
    “The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
    George Carlin
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    It's not  about being suspicious of corporations. It's about the corporations who have control and influence of infrastructures like INTERNET pipeline AND broadcast (and highway billboards across the US which is another conversation). 

    I don't need Facebook, Google, Twitter, Netflix, and Amazon.

    I do need internet, therefore it's not "hilarious" that I'm in favor of some other billion dollar corps spending THEIR dollars to combat a common enemy. An enemy of an enemy is a friend. Internet Privacy, and Big Data Usage isn't covered under Title II and won't be if it's repealed so why bring it up at all?

    We can deal with Big Data AFTER somebody takes Ajit Pai's Reeses Peanut Butter Cup coffee mug and bashes it into his skull before he uses his fed position to do a solid to his former employer.

    Yah, what is hilarious is how some of you scoff at people against big corps f#$%ing over tax payers, while flapping gums about government corruption when AJIT PAI IS A FORMER VERIZON ATTORNEY. It's like Wall Street f#$%ery all over again  :|
    Asm0deusYashaXMadFrenchieMrMelGibson
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 3,355
    ScotchUp said:
    The principle of net neutrality is wonderful. The current rules are crap. All of the large internet business companies are supporting it because they benefit from it not the smaller ISPs. What they're afraid of is if actual transparency rules are enacted they'll have to reveal all of the underhanded crap they are up to with your data and that they're manipulating their search results etc. to benefit themselves while claiming they're just looking out for us. It's hilarious that anyone suspicious of corporations would be in favor of Facebook, Google, Twitter, Netflix, and Amazon lobbying supposedly on our behalf. 
    Thankfully someone else can see it! Thanks, put way better than I could ever do!
    If this is the reason you think NN is bad I just have to say that's dang ridiculous, it's like throwing out the baby with the the dirty water instead of just changing dirty the water.


    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.





  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,170
    edited December 2017
    Torval said:
    Horusra said:
    Horusra said:
    Net Neutrality does everything to stifle new competition because the new companies can not offer what Net Neutrality requires them to offer cause it costs too much upfront.
    Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh quite false so stop spewing nonsense. All Net Neutrality requires is treating all data of a single kind the same way. This does not cost "too much up front" nor does Title II regulations. You are literally buying into shit the ISPs are saying hook line and sinker and you don't seem to grasp that the reason it is expensive has nothing to do with regulation from the federal government under title II or title I and everything to do with local permits, costs to run fiber, equipment costs etc and that's a lot of what it is. Title II won't help bring down costs, title I won't help bring down costs, a full repeal won't help bring down costs, nor will deregulation at the federal level bring down costs. 

    You are in this mindset that treating video packets all the same, treating game packets all the same, treating website packets all the same and applying proper QoS is somehow costing an ISP more. They've been doing this shit forever and it's basically more costly to not follow along with "doing nothing" as you need to start developing systems to prioritize specific traffic from a specific source a certain way or not and that would actually drive up costs. There isn't "increased costs" with net neutrality or title II at all actually Title II isn't costing isps more, it isn't lowering investments, and it isn't making it harder for new isps like fixed wireless Wisps to enter the market despite what some of the larger isps and consortium of isps/industry shills will say about it. 

    These regulations hurt absolutely no one other than squashing a new way isps wanted to make money off webservices that they themselves are not hosting. 

    Like your propaganda you are spewing is truth.  For a new company they have to be able to keep up the speeds to everyone.  Take your crap and peddle it to the noob masses.
    Do you have proof of your claim that it stifles new competition? Because I have gigabit fiber to the house (no last mile copper) from our local county ISP, Douglas Fastnet (DFN).

    Under net neutrality that flourished. Our previous options were CenturyLink DSL capped at 10Mbps bundled with a phone package (required) for about $120/mo. Satellite, or Verizon hotspot (expensive with low data caps). Gigabit fiber is $90/mo, but they offer other packages and services including DSL and wireless internet starting at $40. In my locale, that is a good price.

    Net neutrality hasn't stifled that growth. In that ecosystem I had good internet, finally at a reasonable price. Now we're rocking the boat to throw yet another bone to the big telecoms. The internet is an essential service in a modern society. We should be making small thoughtful changes to a flawed system not ripping it all out with no replacement because some baboons want to reform systems in their interest. It works now and it's not broken.
    It really depends on local municipalities. 

    In a lot of places, cable/telecom companies have a good deal of influence that prevents anyone from touching their lines.

    Things like One Touch Make Ready (OTMR) don't exist everywhere - if a third party wants to run fiber, they have to get municipal permits to go underground in areas/overhead in others. If there is ~any~ other line in the area (and good odds on there being a telecom/cable line in the vicinity, if not already in the exact same place), you have to get them to "Make Ready Work", and they can charge as much and take as long as they want, really. It pretty much kills anyone that wants to install a network that could possibly compete with any pre-existing service.

    OTMR means that utility/cable/telecom has to allow for a single third party to be able to do the work. They do get some say on the approved vendor list, but once approved, those vendors are allowed to make all adjustments on poles and underground. And since it's a single set of vendors that are doing the work for everyone, the price and timing is more or less the same for anyone looking to do linework.

    So, yeah, it's "possible" that competition can exist in areas. And even in places where OTMR doesn't exist, there's nothing that explicitly states that competition can't exist. But the reality is a bit different.

    Cable/Telecom lobbies very hard to prevent laws like OTMR from passing in local municipalities, because it helps to prevent competition, and does so very effectively, without seeming like they are being anti-competitive. They can always claim safety or liability and make it sound good to a local Assembly-person (even though several places have done so with no significant issue). And by kjeeping it close to home - at the city/county level, it never really hits the news cycles or comes up to the level of national attention. It's all done by those local elected officials, the ones that everyone just votes for on the basis of who's got the best signs out in everyone's yard, or straight ticket voting, rather than actually taking the time to listen to any of their stances or evaluate how they have performed in the past.
    [Deleted User]
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    Wow this is getting even more logically sound.

    Instead of regulating ISPs creating disease and selling the cure, Mr. Ajit Pai and the FTC are joining forces to allow ISPs to f#$% tax payers (only if they promise to bury the truth in terms of service first). The FTC plans to subjectively go after ISPs who are being dishonest with the public.

    Being "dishonest" is totally not subjective wording that general counsel for an ISP can rip to shreds and keep in court for years.  :/

    Dear Ajit Pai,




    MrMelGibson
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • ElsaboltsElsabolts Member RarePosts: 3,476
    What ever helps CIG get Star Citizen out.
    Kyleran
    " Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who  Would Threaten It "
                                            MAGA
This discussion has been closed.