Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FCC Votes in Favor of Net Neutrality Rules, Classifies Broadband Service as a Utility
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No. All you did was make a claim and say that all the proof I need is in the 322 pages of the FCC paper.
Do you still stand by your assertion that ISPs can't throttle under any circumstances?
Apparently you didn't read what you wrote and what I wrote. I have always said that an ISP cannot throttle content from consumers and providers. Carving out management is not throttling on a link budget... it is management of the link. I didn't bring management into it you did.
Actually you did, because your entire argument seems to hinge on the fact you believe that net neutrality prevents good network management. Considering the fact that Tier 1 and 2 work with net neutrality as a basis already, these laws mostly concern communications between the ISP and its end users, who have suddenly decided to act as a barrier between the content providers and the people who want the content they're providing.
Everything you've brought up is entire moot to the meat of the discussion. It does nothing to change the way the internet works as it does now. It won't lead to sudden garbage links or anything else you've stated. Most importantly, you've yet to provide a single link or shred of evidence beyond "it does, trust me, you don't know what you're talking about". I've gone through the last three pages reading our conversation, and....no, you haven't. Don't claim you have, because it's a bald faced lie.
But I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself. Explain the problem, why it'll lead to garbage this, or agreement complications that, and provide a link or post a picture beyond Bright-Lines that the problem stems from the FCC paper directly.
...or call me stupid again, and pat yourself on the back. Whichever.
I never once said that net neutrality stopped network management. I just went back and read all of my posts again and have multiple responses to you that say network management and QoS is fully allowed. Please read our whole chain. This is getting tiresome. It starts on page 7.
Really? That "instead" makes it sound like you're arguing otherwise...
So what are we arguing about?
This is my golf clap. Look at you go!
Blah. You win by sheer determination. I'm gonna watch Better Call Saul.
And, right on cue, up jumps the states' rights blather. In a couple of states, state law prohibits municipal internet service from expanding past local limits. Even if people want it to come their way.
Sadly, the commercial providers are not interested in those exurbs, presumably because there is not enough profit to be made there. But state law will not let public internet service reach the unserved, even if the potential subscribers want the service and the municipal provider wants to provide it. I guess to protect the big companies from competition in areas where they do not even want to compete.
So the federal government wants to stop the states from beating up on their cities and counties, but the Rs think states' rights are more important than local rights.
Yeah, it looks to me like hypocrisy and double standards are simple natural features of the R/RW perspective.
Sadly, the commercial providers are not interested in those exurbs, presumably because there is not enough profit to be made there. But state law will not let public internet service reach the unserved, even if the potential subscribers want the service and the municipal provider wants to provide it. I guess to protect the big companies from competition in areas where they do not even want to compete.
So the federal government wants to stop the states from beating up on their cities and counties, but the Rs think states' rights are more important than local rights.
Yeah, it looks to me like hypocrisy and double standards are simple natural features of the R/RW perspective.
What if the real world was this way
The cars would belong to us, but driving on the highway would cost money. The roads are owned, all of them, by private industry. They not only have the right to charge you a toll to pay off the construction, but to charge that toll in perpetuity. All the roads belong to four or five billionaires. Oh, you can find a dirt road here and there, but you can't go much of anywhere without the Big Road Owners. There would be lots of smaller communities without any roads whatsoever, and they would die out. But not only that. All the rest stops and stores along the road would have to pay vigorish to the roads, and a large number of them would be Owned and Operated by the Big Road Company. If you want to put a store by the road, they decide whether you can build or not. And here's the really funny thing: they don't want to be in the road business. Roads are commodities. They want to be in the business of selling you things that come over the road. And those things they own, they make sure you know about it, and they also say, "Well, if you like A, you can have it very cheap, but only if you buy B and C. You say you don't like the deal. They say, well, you can use another road. But you can't really. That's what the cable/Satellite/phone company tripod is like.
My principle is very simple: ISPs are there to be a road. You pay for their use. What you do on the road, and where you go, that is entirely up to you.
Another simple principle is, you can charge more the better the service is, but blackmail is not going to be a business method.
The cars would belong to us, but driving on the highway would cost money. The roads are owned, all of them, by private industry. They not only have the right to charge you a toll to pay off the construction, but to charge that toll in perpetuity. All the roads belong to four or five billionaires. Oh, you can find a dirt road here and there, but you can't go much of anywhere without the Big Road Owners. There would be lots of smaller communities without any roads whatsoever, and they would die out. But not only that. All the rest stops and stores along the road would have to pay vigorish to the roads, and a large number of them would be Owned and Operated by the Big Road Company. If you want to put a store by the road, they decide whether you can build or not. And here's the really funny thing: they don't want to be in the road business. Roads are commodities. They want to be in the business of selling you things that come over the road. And those things they own, they make sure you know about it, and they also say, "Well, if you like A, you can have it very cheap, but only if you buy B and C. You say you don't like the deal. They say, well, you can use another road. But you can't really. That's what the cable/Satellite/phone company tripod is like.
My principle is very simple: ISPs are there to be a road. You pay for their use. What you do on the road, and where you go, that is entirely up to you.
Another simple principle is, you can charge more the better the service is, but blackmail is not going to be a business method.
I had HughesNet because I live in a rural area and nothing else was available.
This is actually a good analogy, since HN shuts off your Internet if you use too much. Netflix or other video on demand is non-existent. VoIP doesn't work (Skype, FaceTime) because the latency is too poor.
This is not really an alternative, unless you surf web pages or just do email.
Adding a bit more...
Now also imagine that you can Pay these four or five billionaires to leap frog other peoples car's at traffic lights, to the front of the line. Now imagine that the costs structures are aimed toward large freight hauling companies, so big 18-wheelers are always jump in front of you at every light.
That was the "priority/tier" system companies like ComCast and Verizon specifically were trying to be allowed to put in place. Not only do you have pay for the road, pay to continue using the road, pay for the SPEED and SIZE of car you are allowed to drive, but you also have to pay for priority in using the road. Pay 4 times, or more.
=====
ComCast and Verizon brought this regulation on themselves. Regardless of what one thinks of regulation here is the reality: If you are an industry and you can't regulate yourself in a way that the public of your operating region agree with, you WILL be regulated by a government "of the people" regardless of how "good/bad" that government is at it.
The big telecoms and especially old guard cable companies have show they are unwilling to play nice with the consumer. Their business practices have brought them to this. If they didn't want to be regulated by the government they needed to change their attitudes long before this. The writing was in rather big nasty letters their executives chose to ignore.
Yes it was. The Internet was never meant to have companies set priority over content. This is what Verizon was trying to do to Netflix. Verizon decided that Netflix had to pay more because they were utilizing the resources that Netflix already paid for. Do you understand how packets proporgate through the Internet?
Of course. The monopolies don't like being told to play fair. They want to extract extra rent.
It means that Comcast can't legally throttle Netflix just to extract more money from Netflix and You. It means that TWC can't favor its own content over anybody elses. Here is an article from last year about Verizon:
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth
Are they the only game in town?
Sad but true.
How does it hurt consumers?
How exactly is it bad for the consumer?
I will agree that if a free and fair market exists, regulations should not be needed. But, with AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast all throwing their weight around, the companies left it such that regulation was necessary.
What can I say man? I've had better prosperity in my life the last 6 years than any other time.
I'm also one of those people that has relatives that lived through Mao's actual communism, so whenever I read one of these inflamatory buzz words, I have a mental drawer where I assign the validity and proper context of such statements.
Actually, it's more like a paper shredder than a drawer.
And for the record, call me dubious that the providers have people's best interests in mind, considering the stuff that's happened in my own state:
http://bgr.com/2014/12/03/att-vs-municipal-fiber/
Last edited:
Well, maybe, just maybe, rural America can now have access to broadband since it is now a utility. I have family in the midwest that have to use either satellite or tether to their smart phones. Both solutions have significant limitations compared to DSL or cable (and the latter can be pretty bad).
Right? Always leave it to a front page macrumors politics post to bring out to most insane people.
Please, tell me how comfortable you are having Barack Obama as President of the United States of America, while you are posting from the internet halfway around the world, in Scotland? :roll eyes:
ETA: Have they released the language of the "bill" or "plan" they passed/approved so the American public could view it, or is this more of a "We have to pass it to see what's in it" type of thing...?