I can see it. This is going to make using the internet as awful as modern day air travel.
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 Expected to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules in Vote Next Month
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can see it. This is going to make using the internet as awful as modern day air travel.
If it has nothing to do with price, then why are you complaining about subsidizing netflix?
Personally, I don't believe anyone should be able to censor/throttle data (in the sense of prioritizing one over another, i'm not talking about illegal or explicit content). However, an ISP doing it is a bit different than google or facebook. With the latter, you can still access all the websites, content and services you want to. If an ISP does it, you could potentially be blocked from content entirely. Not everyone has multiple ISPs to choose from.
So if you want to fight for fairness, why don't you fight for tech giantsnot to be able to block, instead of more potential blocking by ISPs?
Came onto this thread expecting to see liberal heads exploding. I was not disappointed. 
Right, nothing was broken in the first place. From 1990 to 2015, the internet worked just fine. Going back to that and getting rid of these stupid NN rules is the right thing to do.
The odd thing to me is that the same know-nothings here who rail government and law enforcement agencies abridging their freedoms through reasonable security regulations apparently have zero problems putting the government in charge of regulating the internet under so-called Net Neutrality.
Right, nothing was broken in the first place. From 1990 to 2015, the internet worked just fine. Going back to that and getting rid of these stupid NN rules is the right thing to do.
The odd thing to me is that the same know-nothings here who rail government and law enforcement agencies abridging their freedoms through reasonable security regulations apparently have zero problems putting the government in charge of regulating the internet under so-called Net Neutrality.
Yes, because the very guy who worked for Verizon that is now trying repeal Net Neutrality is doing it so you can stream unlimited content at 720p. Yup that's the reason.
[doublepost=1511298837][/doublepost]
Came onto this thread expecting to see liberal heads exploding. I was not disappointed.
Right, nothing was broken in the first place. From 1990 to 2015, the internet worked just fine. Going back to that and getting rid of these stupid NN rules is the right thing to do.
The odd thing to me is that the same know-nothings here who rail government and law enforcement agencies abridging their freedoms through reasonable security regulations apparently have zero problems putting the government in charge of regulating the internet under so-called Net Neutrality.
Yes let's give the corporations that puppeteer all the republicans in congress the freedom to figure it all out so it will benefit the consumers. What a great a idea!
Will you get over the right and left BS for one minute and see that this a first amendment issue? All you seem to care about is partisan politics. YOU are what is wrong with America.
Wow. Never thought there were so many people on the planet hostile to net neutrality. No doubt they either own stock in ISP's or work for them.
As Shannon rather proved, information is information. Charging more for one kind over another is literally nonsense. Charges should be about the amount of information transferred, and it's not like ISP's in the US were going bankrupt from net neutrality...
As Shannon rather proved, information is information. Charging more for one kind over another is literally nonsense. Charges should be about the amount of information transferred, and it's not like ISP's in the US were going bankrupt from net neutrality...
Came onto this thread expecting to see liberal heads exploding. I was not disappointed.
Right, nothing was broken in the first place. From 1990 to 2015, the internet worked just fine. Going back to that and getting rid of these stupid NN rules is the right thing to do.
The odd thing to me is that the same know-nothings here who rail government and law enforcement agencies abridging their freedoms through reasonable security regulations apparently have zero problems putting the government in charge of regulating the internet under so-called Net Neutrality.
Unless I'm misreading your comment you don't understand the rules at all. If the FCC votes to get rid of NN it will not "Be like it was from 1990-2015".
If the ISP decides to block or slow down a website they don't have a deal with in favor of a website they do have a deal with, then you're screwed. They provide the pipe, and when they shut you off, you're off. Versus, "They blocked me from twitter because I'm a Nazi!"
Found Ajit Pai's Macrumors account.
[doublepost=1511299464][/doublepost]
Yes it was broken. Before the rules were in place, Comcast went to Netflix and demanded more money to prevent their services from being slowed down. It was akin to a mob shakedown.
https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/
But like you said....nothing was broken, right?
Content provider services for the internet will happen. The companies that own the physical wires will force it to happen because the way they see it is why should someone who streams at 1080p be charge the same ISP fee's as someone who is streaming at 720p, 1080p is using more bandwidth and thus that person should pay for it.
A huge majority of media and entertainment companies now have there own services on line, sending down music, television shows, movies and they charge different packages to their customers for it. The owners of the physical wires and ISP's want to do the same. If Sky can charge multiple online packages for their services, Basic, Gold and Premium, why can't those that run the internet. That's how they see it.
Money talks in this world and the FCC will eventually fall to pressure and give these ISP's and line owners what they want.
A huge majority of media and entertainment companies now have there own services on line, sending down music, television shows, movies and they charge different packages to their customers for it. The owners of the physical wires and ISP's want to do the same. If Sky can charge multiple online packages for their services, Basic, Gold and Premium, why can't those that run the internet. That's how they see it.
Money talks in this world and the FCC will eventually fall to pressure and give these ISP's and line owners what they want.
This is a total hijacking of what is essentially a public utility, to give away to monster corporate interests at the expense of not only the consumer, but small business, sole proprietors, mom & pop business, and ultimately free speech itself.
Greed, hidden behind an Orwellian DoubleThink 'program' title, sold to 'We, The People' as being in our best interest, but is nothing except in opposition to the public interest. But that seems to be the GOP modus operandi in general.
Greed, hidden behind an Orwellian DoubleThink 'program' title, sold to 'We, The People' as being in our best interest, but is nothing except in opposition to the public interest. But that seems to be the GOP modus operandi in general.
Yeah super odd. Unlike the almighty who are all about "reasonable security regulations" until it comes to their guns
Get off your high horse. Both sides are full of their hypocritical bull#@!* talking points.
Let me spell it out for you.
You live in a rural area. You have no choice in ISP, despite what Ajit Pai says. US internet infrastructure is not the envy of the world. In fact, our internet infrastructure sucks.
At any rate, you susbscribe to whatever tier your ISP offers. You’re on Macrumors reading a super interesting article about the new iMacPro. The article has a link to a website with tech specs. You click on the link only to discover that your lame excuse of an ISP has chosen not to offer access to that site.
There. The internet as we know it, a free ranging place for the exchange of ideas, has now become another consumer item to package, buy, and sell, regulated by corporations whose sole objective is profit. The internet is no longer about allowing anyone to create and share content with whomever they like, but by traffic shapers at ISPs, probably acting in an entirely opaque way without your knowledge.
Almost as bad as the Correct The Record, Hillary for America, and Obama for America knobs in the past.
Trump wants this to stop any talk about him over Twitter or from any other media he wants the internet to shutdown he's no better than a dictator. What amazes me is we have a donkey for FCC chairman now from Dingo to a smelly donkey but there needs to to be a voters fraud investigation from outside investigator not from Trump because clearly a lot fake votes did happen to make a orange buffoon as our president.
Did you read what you posted?
That was not a NN-issue, in that someone was prioritizing services over others. It was because Netflix was using up so much bandwidth, and it relied on free "peering" agreements to get their content places. This caused them to actually invest in infrastructure to support their dramatic usage of bandwidth.
Heck, the article even says at the bottom that it was not a NN issue!!
Last edited:
This is the common misconception. It's not the consumer facing side that needs to worry, it's the businesses that provide content. It's the proposal that businesses will have to pay interconnect fees and those will vary on the speed that the content is capable of being delivered to the consumer.
Example. I pay for 100MB download as a consumer. Apple pays for fast lane that can deliver 500MB download. New streaming video service company Metflix can't afford fast lane, so they opt for slow lane, 50MB delivery. So when I stream from Apple, I get can get 10k video on my 100MB download, but during my Metflix trial, I only get 720 because that's all that can be deliver over the 50MB delivery limit of the slow lane even though I as a consumer pay for 100MB.
I think you are missing my point. It didn't happen for nearly 20 years prior to NN. Saying it "will" happen is simply a lie and FUD.
These posts are full of outright lies and FUD. Every one of the scare tactics is just that: made up false hoods spreading FUD just like it came from Trump's own mouth. I'm asking for a single concrete example of the recognition of these fears based on the decades without NN in place. Wooshh.. Right over your head.
[doublepost=1511301068][/doublepost]
Again, this is hypothetical at this point. Not a concrete example. Note: Given you are talking about MB and fast lane I can only assume you are taking about bandwidth and not zero-rating. In this case, 50Mbit/Sec can easily provide 4K video.
Last edited:
This is 100% right and it’s a shame a lot of people here aren’t able to view it from that perspective. Net Neutrality ultimately stymies customer options and network infrastructure investment. From the ISP’s stand point, big content providers like Netflix are behaving like pigs at the trough with their millions of streaming users. ISPs can’t go to Netflix and tell them to pay their fair share for the bandwidth they consume via their users, but Netflix keeps raising their rates for customers. Must be really nice to be Netflix right now.
Basically, if you’re pro Net Neutrality, you’re a defender of fat cats like Netflix and other big content providers not paying their fair share for the disproportionate amount of bandwidth they’re taking up.
Last edited:
You should ask Netflix how it feels about hypothetical and what it went through in 2014 and is still going through with different ISP's. Even if you invalidate that, do you really think it's only going to stay hypothetical if more money can be made?
As for the speed, it was simply an example that is easy to understand. Yes I know 4k can easily be streamed at those speeds.
The only reason it wasn’t included in the NN rules is because it was never a problem before...until Comcast made it a problem.
If Comcast had tried something like this before the rules were established, peering most certainly would have been covered.
If the tech giants like Comcast and Century Link can block, censor and throttle data, then I believe I should have the same right as well. If ISP's can censor your data, then I should have it too. It's simple fairness.
MacRumors should be required to send me a copy of any post you make for my approval first. Same goes for whatever email you use, and of course your Netflix account to make sure you arn't wasting bandwidth that someone else could be using better than you.
