So tell me, why hasn't the FCC ruled that those actions should be reversed? Why, because the big companies want it that way. These big cable companies don't want deregulation, they want more control. And the FCC is giving that to them under the guise of "deregulation".
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
Just a wild guess, but that might have a little something to do with the tiny geographic size of those countries. And the high-IQ populations don't hurt either.
There were plenty of cases where ISP's were throttling certain websites/ services. This is the reason why Net Neutrality was passed in the first place. It was to prevent ISP's from controlling what we as consumers have access to.
Some big companies do. Other big companies like Netflix Google and Apple want the same control under the guise of “neutrality.”
Obama exempted ISPs from FTC oversight. This restores it.
Because we vote them into power, or vote someone into power who appoints them. No one to blame but ourselves. People need to get off their ass in 2018 and 2020. We get what we get when we let the minority rule.
Pretty ironic, since the massive tech giants who flood millions into Washington (Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, etc.) are all on the side of net-neutrality.
Kinda hurts your premise, no?
It's an illusion that we are putting these people into office. These people are putting each other into office and keeping each other there.Because we vote them into power, or vote someone into power who appoints them. No one to blame but ourselves. People need to get off their ass in 2018 and 2020. We get what we get when we let the minority rule.
I wouldn't put it past these companies to start charging extra for everything now. You are visiting your favorite news web site. let's say Fox or CNN. There is a news story with an embedded video you want to view. Now you are streaming video. A popup will appears and ask you if you want to pay an additional 25 cents to view.
The ISPs bring us broadband. They are the pipes. They all bring us the same Internet, in other words, all of it. You subscribe to some content, get most free, sold ny a huge number of providers. Now, AT&T sells you a (crappy) broadband, but they were allowed to buy DirecTV. So, it’s okay, they sell the app to all streaming boxes. But what if they make the other broadband providers pay more? Or more likely, give DirecTV free to AT&T subscribers, and make others pay full rate? Unfair. We’ve all seen the crawl on cable channels every other month, “WARNING: Call Cox Cable or you may lose NBC!” Expect that to be an every day occurrence. Understand, streaming TV is a great thing, because all of the networks, the movie studios, pay Tv channels, and Netflix, Amazon, PBS, Google, Apple— and I’m leaving some out— are sending you a huge number of choices of what to watch. The ISPs will limit choices.
Because the bandwidth tier you are currently in will be slower than it is now and if you want to keep your current speed and bandwidth you will have to pay just as much and the gamer and video addict.
Only the ISPs win in this scenario.
My point is that net neutrality is a myth. Data is not treated equally - not by a long shot. Since 2015, it's only gotten worse and worse as each month passes. We don't have a free and open Internet. We have a heavily censored, throttled, and corporately controlled Internet.
It need to burn to the ground. That the evil corporate bastards like Google and Facebook are supporting "net neutrality" tells me everything I need to know about how it needs to die a quick death.
Exactly. Except progressives want Facebook to police the internet and remove “hate” speech, ban writers they don’t like, etc.
Where did I say tech corporations were the good guys? Ya I didn't think so.
So what do you expect then? Netflix to just pony up the cash and not start charging us consumers even more just to access it's service? What if the ISP then decides it still want's to charge us consumers to just have access to have basic access to the service? You really think that's sticking it to corporations? They will have complete control as to who and what they charge for.
[doublepost=1511294687][/doublepost]
Then stop using the service if you disagree with it.
[doublepost=1511294806][/doublepost]
https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/6/5686780/major-isps-accused-of-deliberately-throttling-traffic
Just because it may not have affected you, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
Make them public, just like the NYC Subway. Fast, reliable service on well-maintained lines, all for just $2.50 a ride.
If we're gonna deregulate everything, why stop with internet. How about we let the electric company charge more for what you plug in? Gamer? Well that PS4 and PC rig is gonna cost extra. Air conditioning, you're so fancy, but that's extra too. Gasoline, you have an SUV, you have to pay more for SUV type gas. Old inefficient car, hello old car fee. Wanna use water to fill your pool, well you need the pool water upgrade plan. Sprinklers, well buddy the sprinkler plan is free for 12mo then its double what you pay now. Companies are not your friend, don't trust them.
I have been using the Internet since 1996. So that means I used the Internet for roughly 20 years without Obama's "net neutrality". In that time, nothing you guys are warning about actually happened.
Prior to 2015, you could actually share an opinion online without being censored, banned, demonetized, and have your entire website effectively removed from the Internet. Ironically, since 2015 I have seen the absolute worst and most egregious censorship in the history of the Internet.
Put very simply, if Google and Amazon and Facebook are all on the same side of an issue, I know immediately that it is evil and should be fought against tooth and nail.
Don't associate me with them, their impulsive subjectivism is not my burden.
Translation: I don't have to prove the things I say, or the ideas I hold, they're self evident, and everyone agrees, and that's how I know it.
Alternative translation: To those who understand, no explanation is necessary, to those who don't, no exclamation as possible. In either case, I don't explain.
I'll venture to suggest that this isn't the statement which lies at the foundation of an irrefutable, self evident view.
I suspect that you'll never actually address the fundamental premis of your views, that you have some right to initiate control other people, and continue to suggest that the point is self evident, and not worthy of proving. In brief reference to your submission, would indicate that punishing those who would willfully do harm to their customers, by, for example, marketing poison as milk, or whatever, is a completely legitimate function of government. That's fraud, and quite possibly murder, and they're both legitimately illegal. You don't need a regulation for that. I'll also indicate the thousands of people who have died waiting for the FDA to approve a drug that could have saved their lives. It is an evil of the highest magnitude to prevent someone from taking an action which they, and their doctors, believe is their best chance for survival, and I'll ask you again: Where. Exactly. Do you get the right to control them; to forcibly remove from them the option of benefiting their life?
I'll take two dead people through a windshield, for not wearing their seatbelts, instead of one person being forcibly prevented from taking the actions which they think would save their lives. Your numbers be damned. You explain to me why my standard should be the common good, and not the right of the individual to I've their life as they see best. I sense another evasion coming.
I never supported this *$$hole for a single second. You can take your garbage, ad hominem straw men right back. Again.
What big tech company can stop you from accessing a site they don't want you to? And how do they do that? There are several browsers that you can use to get to any site you want.
How does Google prevent me from typing in a URL Google doesn't like?
The difference is that you have voluntarily go into some tech companies system to allow it to control your browsing. Whereas, the ISP can stop you from even seeing the site now matter how you access the internet.
Netflix essentially wants a government subsidy. If they want to keep their service affordable they can find ways of doing so in the market.
Obama regulated ISPs under rules passed in the 1930s to govern copper wire phone service and railroads.
Do people actually believe that after this ruling that cable companies are going to send brochures and emails to us saying the cost of our internet service will drop if we choose not to subscribe to netflix, play games etc? What world are you living in? Your service cost will not go down in price, it will increase if you wish to add features. Such a great benefit to all of those who aren't internet hogs. Eliminate net neutrality and experience no savings. What a great deal for everyone.
Indeed! Nor does it change the fact that, by destroying the concept that all packets are equal and can move through any route from source to destination, you destroy one of the fundamental tenets of the "Internet" as it was designed.
The new system will still provide access for some packets to reach some endpoints, but others may be restricted. Sure, some customers may not be able to reach the websites they prefer. What is more worrisome to me is that new startup companies will not have equal access to all customers.
How am I, as an internet startup, supposed to compete with Google, when their internet connects to ten times as many users as my Internet does?
Wow. Just, wow. Are you really saying that rural Americans are second-class citizens? That residents of Ohio don't deserve access to the internet?
If there was ever a reason to take network access out of the hands of corporations and make it a regulated utility, this has got to be it. You are demanding that practically everyone in the heart of the country be denied internet access!
Oh, I do. However, I'm an old enough man to remember when I used an internet that was entirely run by the government -- an ISP was a local company that offered dialup to let you reach the ARPA-hosted Internet. I'm even old enough to remember when there was nothing but a collection of local and regional BBSs, and no easy way to communicate between them. Services like AOL or Delphi were special specifically because they worked hard to cover the entire country; but still, connecting to them meant using their services, not having access to an entire world of information provided by anybody who set up a web page.
In short, I've experienced the change when going from a collection of isolated subnets to an open, borderless network. I understand the value of having easy access to all the machines connected to the net. And so, I understand what it is we will lose as the network becomes partitioned once again...
If they're so evil, then why are you using their phones? Using their services? Shopping at their websites?