Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Terrible. Get ready for ISPs to offer "basic", "premium" and "deluxe" internet packages.

"Want to stream online video? Try out our "deluxe" package, which allows full-speed access to Netflix, Amazon Video, and several other popular streaming sites! Want to game online? You'll need the "ultra deluxe gaming package" to access the most popular MMORPG services!"

Verizon currently does something similar with its wireless phone plans. Currently I have 12 gigs of data but I’m only allowed to stream 720p video on my phone. Like wtf, it’s my phone and my data I pay for and I’m not allowed to stream full 1080p on my iPhone X.
Then they have the 2 unlimited plans. The first allows you to stream dvd quality video, and the second says stream HD video, not sure if it’s full HD either. You have unlimited hotspot, but only a certain amount of 4g data with it. They’ve tailored the meaning of unlimited and tell you how you can use the data you’ve paid for.

What these companies are doing should be illegal.
 
I get you, except the LAST government under Obama is the one that put the right rules into place...

Net neutrality is pretty much the only policy I support from the Obama administration. Not very much for eight years in office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fairuz
https://medium.com/@AGSchneiderman/an-open-letter-to-the-fcc-b867a763850a

"Dear FCC Chairman Ajit Pai:

As you recently announced, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under your leadership, soon will release rules to dismantle your agency’s existing “net neutrality” protections under Title II of the Communications Act, which shield the public from anti-consumer behaviors of the giant cable companies that provide high-speed internet to most people. In today’s digital age, the rules that govern the operation and delivery of internet service to hundreds of millions of Americans are critical to the economic and social well-being of the nation. Yet the process the FCC has employed to consider potentially sweeping alterations to current net neutrality rules has been corrupted by the fraudulent use of Americans’ identities — and the FCC has been unwilling to assist my office in our efforts to investigate this unlawful activity.

Specifically, for six months my office has been investigating who perpetrated a massive scheme to corrupt the FCC’s notice and comment process through the misuse of enormous numbers of real New Yorkers’ and other Americans’ identities. Such conduct likely violates state law — yet the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence in its sole possession that is vital to permit that law enforcement investigation to proceed.

In April 2017, the FCC announced that it would issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning repeal of its existing net neutrality rules. Federal law requires the FCC and all federal agencies to take public comments on proposed rules into account — so it is important that the public comment process actually enable the voices of the millions of individuals and businesses who will be affected to be heard. That’s important no matter one’s position on net neutrality, environmental rules, and so many other areas in which federal agencies regulate.

In May 2017, researchers and reporters discovered that the FCC’s public comment process was being corrupted by the submission of enormous numbers of fake comments concerning the possible repeal of net neutrality rules. In doing so, the perpetrator or perpetrators attacked what is supposed to be an open public process by attempting to drown out and negate the views of the real people, businesses, and others who honestly commented on this important issue. Worse, while some of these fake comments used made up
names and addresses, many misused the real names and addresses of actual people as part of the effort to undermine the integrity of the comment process. That’s akin to identity theft, and it happened on a massive scale.

My office analyzed the fake comments and found that tens of thousands of New Yorkers may have had their identities misused in this way. (Indeed, analysis showed that, in all, hundreds of thousands of Americans likely were victimized in the same way, including tens of thousands per state in California, Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and possibly others.) Impersonation and other misuse of a person’s identity violates New York law, so my office launched an investigation.

Successfully investigating this sort of illegal conduct requires the participation of the agency whose system was attacked. So in June 2017, we contacted the FCC to request certain records related to its public comment system that were necessary to investigate which bad actor or actors were behind the misconduct. We made our request for logs and other records at least 9 times over 5 months: in June, July, August, September, October (three times), and November.

We reached out for assistance to multiple top FCC officials, including you, three successive acting FCC General Counsels, and the FCC’s Inspector General. We offered to keep the requested records confidential, as we had done when my office and the FCC shared information and documents as part of past investigative work.

Yet we have received no substantive response to our investigative requests. None.

This investigation isn’t about the substantive issues concerning net neutrality. For my part, I have long publicly advocated for strong net neutrality rules under the Title II of the Communications Act, and studies show that the overwhelming majority of Americans who took the time to write public comments to the FCC about the issue feel the same way while a very small minority favor repeal.

But this isn’t about that. It’s about the right to control one’s own identity and prevent the corruption of a process designed to solicit the opinion of real people and institutions. Misuse of identity online by the hundreds of thousands should concern everyone — for and against net neutrality, New Yorker or Texan, Democrat or Republican.

We all have a powerful reason to hold accountable those who would steal Americans’ identities and assault the public’s right to be heard in government rulemaking. If law enforcement can’t investigate and (where appropriate) prosecute when it happens on this scale, the door is open for it to happen again and again.

I encourage the FCC to reconsider its refusal to assist in my office’s law enforcement investigation to identify and hold accountable those who illegally misused so many New Yorkers’ identities to corrupt the public comment process. In an era where foreign governments have indisputably tried to use the internet and social media to influence our elections, federal and state governments should be working together to ensure that malevolent actors cannot subvert our administrative agencies’ decision-making processes.

Sincerely,
Eric T. Schneiderman


0*dDAi9OWfYjUEQPLt.png

CC:

Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner
Michael O’Rielly, Commissioner
Brendan Carr, Commissioner
Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner
Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., General Counsel
David L. Hunt, Inspector General
 
I'm a Trump supporter through and through, but this is ridiculous. I'm very much against this.
Well, there you have it!
Trump simply will not stop until he has reversed every policy administered by the Obama administration, regardless of the effect on the American people. It's a personal vendetta against Obama and Democrats that we're all suffering from. Hopefully in another 3 years we can get back on track to progress.
this......! Trump is obsessed with everything and anything Obama did, it’s insane!
 
The FCC has been unofficially punishing ISPs.

Also Comcast has slowed down Netflix streaming. Netflix had to pay Comcast a premium to get speeds back to normal. You think Netflix will eat those costs or raise subscription prices?
I have Comcast. Zero issues with Netflix, throttling, cost, etc., etc. If that is the best you have to justify the hysteria, okay then.
 
Lol so your response is "We weren't getting screwed over by ISPs prior to 2015, why would we want consumer protection to prevent it from happening in the future?"

I don't know how it could possibly be more clear. The reason ISPs are spending millions to fight net neutrality is because they know they can profit from packaged services. It's already happened in other countries like Portugal without NN. So why would you even want to leave the possibility open?
I don't understand how people can be okay with this. It's utterly mind-boggling.
[doublepost=1511321452][/doublepost]
I have Comcast. Zero issues with Netflix, throttling, cost, etc., etc. If that is the best you have to justify the hysteria, okay then.
It was a thing ... https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/
 
"I don't know how it could possibly be more clear. The reason ISPs are spending millions to fight net neutrality is because they know they can profit from packaged services. It's already happened in other countries like Portugal without NN. So why would you even want to leave the possibility open?"

They are spending millions----of course they are going to soak us, just like Portugal!

Again, if this is the argument for more government regulation, that something might happen because something similar happened in...wait for it....Portugal (LOL..Portugal) and the ISPs are "spending millions" (MILLIONS!), than I will continue to point at you like Nelson and laugh at the hysteria.

Were the ISP's hosing you for "packages" prior to 2015 and did "net neutrality" save you? What damage happened to you that you absolutely HAVE TO HAVE giant regulatory protection from?

Love airlines and air travel? Love health insurance? Love banks? Wait...you don't? Part of that terrible experience is because these industries are bogged down with giant regulatory framework, much of it unnecessary, that stifles innovation and competition.

I don't think people understand the cost of regulatory compliance and how often people and companies don't bother with new ideas because of how much it costs in lawyers and regulatory compliance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raist3001
What has the government ever touched or regulated that helped the consumer?

Food safety. Auto safety. Medicine. Of course, the intervention, and agencies that enforce the standards, weren’t the brainchild of politicians. Their existence was made possible by citizen activists like Ralph Nader. The problem is that some business people believe the end justifies the means, and that the buyer should beware. Assuming Capitalism—or any other social architecture—is immune to human corruption—is naive.

Given the choice, big businesses do not want to compete. They want to operate like cartels. They would prefer protected territories, no culpability, and fixed prices. That’s practically been the business model of cable companies for decades.

Big businesses have to compete when there are rules that make them vulnerable to consumer expectations. Otherwise, they’ll collude when they need to improve their bottom line.

* * *

Will ISPs extort their customers? Probably not. But they will extort the big content streamers and social media giants. Those, in turn, will pass their increased cost to you, making it look like they are the ones to blame.
 
Last edited:
Terrible. Get ready for ISPs to offer "basic", "premium" and "deluxe" internet packages.

"Want to stream online video? Try out our "deluxe" package, which allows full-speed access to Netflix, Amazon Video, and several other popular streaming sites! Want to game online? You'll need the "ultra deluxe gaming package" to access the most popular MMORPG services!"
Then Netflix will offer standard def, he def, and 4K def packages on top of it!
 
Posted this in another forum, but posting here as it is relevant:

This is a screenshot from a Mexican ISP, where there are no net neutrality regulations. Want to access Instagram? Need at least the Rock200 plan. This is our future in the US if the FCC continues its course.

yYobj7x.png



Portugal too:

FwCIsF5.jpg

You've completely misconstrued the ATT Mexico offerings. They are not saying that you need to purchase particular plans to access various sites. What they are saying is that with any plan of 2GB or more data per month they will give you unlimited data for the most common social platforms (facebook/messenger/twitter/whatsapp). With any of the 5GB+ plans they'll also provide unlimited snap/uber/instagram. Any plan (even their lowest data cap) has full access to every site on the internet; on most plans they won't accrue any data usage against your data cap while using the popular platforms listed above. Most people would consider that a benefit.

My Portuguese is pretty limited but those appear to be add on packages to their mobile internet subscriptions that give you 10GB *ADDITIONAL* data to burn through on those specific sites. Once you burn through the 10GB on those apps then you'll start eating into your normal monthly data plan. You can of course visit ANY site you want using your standard data allotment on your mobile plan (from 500MB to 30GB depending on the size subscription you've opted for).

I hope this is just a case of you simply not doing any research rather than trying to deliberately mislead people. Of course if that was your goal most people aren't going to bother checking and will go away believing your misinformation; my post being so far down the comments won't be seen so mission accomplished to you.
 
The majority of municipalities are currently open to others coming into their market. The reality is, they don't want to. Google could come into any market they want but they aren't. Because they can't make it profitable.

What you want already exists. There's no real hard set requirement barring other ISPs from coming in to any area already serviced by another. Instead, they don't because they can't do it in a financially viable way.

Net neutrality or not, this won't change and is wholly unrelated.

Two responses to you in one day :)

Google is still trying to move forward with Google Fiber (although they did have some layoffs). There were regulation roadblocks in the process that existing carriers had a long period of time to make room on poles for their competition but recently a court found in favor of Google allowing "one touch" deployment of cabling on utility poles...

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...it-tried-to-thwart-google-fiber-construction/
 
150,000 is roughly 6 times the population of my little town here in upstate NY we have Spectrum

It helps that the town you are talking about (Rockford) is smack dab on the main line from San Francisco to Chicago. The size of the town is irrelevant it is being close to the main lines. Apple didn't choose Waukee, Iowa for it's data center because of it's proximity to massive population centers.

I live in a town of 832 people which makes your town around 30 times larger. i also happen to live due west of Rockford. Rockford is a really really bad example to use about internet speed vs. population. If that line is good enough for SF, Denver, Chicago and data centers for the likes of Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple it is good enough for Rockford. Looking at the map two lines intersect in Rockford, one from LA as well.

Now look at this map and at upstate NY. The internet only cares where the lines are not how many people live there. Any town on the I-80 corridor has blazing fast internet. NY isn't exactly the center of the universe when it comes to the internet.
F2UNyCnwQWNbdihCxeTk1xInvuTJE8nC5n1rEHfx9R26PKvC-YGSv58LYo4iuVnM9gNspQ=s2048.png
 
Here’s another good explainer (HT Bess Kalb):

"Net Neutrality" means corporations can't pay to manipulate how you use the internet (PORN).
If this goes away, not only will all your data (PORN HABITS) be scrutinized by telecom companies, they can decide how fast your internet works on certain websites (YOUR PORN WON'T LOAD).
 
Show me a reason ISPs have for spending millions on lobbying to have NN overturned OTHER than increasing profits at the expense of customer freedom?

Not wanting to be classified as a common carrier and the myriad regulatory problems that may stem from that.

I don't know how it could possibly be more clear. The reason ISPs are spending millions to fight net neutrality is because they know they can profit from packaged services. It's already happened in other countries like Portugal without NN. So why would you even want to leave the possibility open?

You can't base your argument on having seen someone post one picture without context in a language you don't speak. Well I guess you can but it really makes you less effective when you're called out on it. You can check out my earlier post that debunks both that screenshot and the one of ATT Mexico.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raist3001 and tgara
Just another example of the Republicans taking from us and changing the rules to benefit corporations. How many times do people have to take it up the you know what before they start to realize they are being screwed?

A tax plan that won’t benefit most of us, millions losing healthcare, benefits and programs to the poor being reduced. Now they will change internet rules and once again “we the people” will suffer or at the very least be at their mercy.

Politicians currently in office or in the process of being elected to office who have sexually harassed others. White supremacy getting a populist boost, the constitution being twisted to fit the needs of our current government. Morality is pretty much over.

Meanwhile, all we seem to care about is our right to have guns, and keep our bakeries safe from same sex cakes.

I truely believe most of America is clueless as to what is going on in government and how their lives will be affected.

Funny how people wanted a “businessman” in office.... and what does he do? Well he benefits business of course.
 
The Govt down listen to experts, they listen to the money from lobbyists as it fills their bank accounts. The tech companies should have outbribed the carriers.

GOP listens to their donors. Lobbyists are only ineffective middlemen now. #MAGA
 
  • Like
Reactions: pallymore
No we don't. We have service packages based on speed and, in some places, on data use, but not on actual content or specific websites (and even when there is a data cap, it is neutral in regard to what websites use the data). Now consider this carrier in Portugal, which does not have net neutrality regulations:

FwCIsF5.jpg


I do not ever want to see something like this in the U.S. In other words, what websites you can access depend on your plan, and they are grouped into packages like channels in a cable TV plan. In addition to implementing a scheme like this, a provider could theoretically slow down a competitor's streaming service and speed up their own. This is especially problematic in rural areas where they may only be one ISP to choose from.

So are you saying access is restricted to those sites in the plan ?

Can you explain this page? All the iPhones basic functions need internet and are not covered by any of these .
 
So are you saying access is restricted to those sites in the plan ?

Can you explain this page? All the iPhones basic functions need internet and are not covered by any of these .

The page is a group of internet add-ons that you can bundle together with a basic internet package (that presumably allows you access to most other websites). It's like adding channels to basic cable. These popular websites and apps are grouped by category and you pay more depending on which ones you want access to.
 
The page is a group of internet add-ons that you can bundle together with a basic internet package (that presumably allows you access to most other websites). It's like adding channels to basic cable. These popular websites and apps are grouped by category and you pay more depending on which ones you want access to.

Thanks. Though if you buy a higher base package you get more internet time right ?

I assume these are for people who really low base packages and spend most of their time on say social.

It would make no sense to buy all these as a higher base package will cover it all.

We have these in the UK, it's not about controlling access, just another product to milk the customers, in hope they buy all these packages instead of buying the correct plan for their needs.

Or is this different in Portugal ?
 
Again, if this is the argument for more government regulation, that something might happen because something similar happened in...wait for it....Portugal (LOL..Portugal) and the ISPs are "spending millions" (MILLIONS!), than I will continue to point at you like Nelson and laugh at the hysteria.
So to be clear, your argument is that ISPs won’t use all these shady practices, so therefore they should be legally allowed to use these shady practices. Nonsensical.

Also, if you for some reason reject the validity of Portuguese and Mexican examples (?) why don’t you just look at the American pre-Net Neutrality example of Comcast throttling Netflix to squash competition?
Love airlines and air travel? Love health insurance? Love banks? Wait...you don't? Part of that terrible experience is because these industries are bogged down with giant regulatory framework, much of it unnecessary, that stifles innovation and competition.
You’ve drunk the kool-aid I see. All those industries are interested in profit above all else, which is fine — that’s a corporation’s purpose. But they need to be regulated to protect consumers. I personally don’t want to “let the market decide” about things like airplane safety and banking practices. I want accountability, transparency, and consumer protections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrX8503 and XT550
So to be clear, your argument is that ISPs won’t use all these shady practices, so therefore they should be legally allowed to use these shady practices. Nonsensical.

Also, if you for some reason reject the validity of Portuguese and Mexican examples (?) why don’t you just look at the American pre-Net Neutrality example of Comcast throttling Netflix to squash competition?

You’ve drunk the kool-aid I see. All those industries are interested in profit above all else, which is fine — that’s a corporation’s purpose. But they need to be regulated to protect consumers. I personally don’t want to “let the market decide” about things like airplane safety and banking practices. I want accountability, transparency, and consumer protections.

Apparently he wasn't born back when the airlines were deregulated, as that completely killed Eastern and Braniff. Braniff completely went belly up thanks to deregulation. Definitely drinking the Kool-aid - among other things - here.

BL.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.