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 Has Voted to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Cord cutting is what has lead cable companies to increase rates for their services and internet. Because people are moving to streaming (in addition to OTA). If there are more people cutting the cord, you will see greater internet costs because the cable companies will need/want to make their money back on what they are losing.
And not having internet access, in the US, at this period of time, is really not an option. If you think it's truly a viable option, there's little reason to have a discussion with you.
You and me both! Still buying my media and I love plex!
And if my Facebook, Youtube, Netflix, etc experience sucks or costs me $200 on top of the $60 I pay them, I may just do without. I'd imagine if the Internet went back to dial up we'd see many people cancel. Or at least ditch it and go with the phone internet, which is supposedly a thing among Milleneals.
Then why do you care what happens with Net Neutrality if it doesn't impact anything anyway? I believe it's for the better good and rolling it back is only going to do what you dislike: add more fees.
EDIT: I should add, that if you believe Net Neutrality is not helping, then do you have evidence of companies making data modifications like they were prior to 2015? Evidence of that was posted earlier.
Think of it like this, you have a 20 lane freeway with no bottlenecks but your car is only allowed to go 30 MPH unless you pay more. How anyone can think this is okay is baffling.
Last edited:
Comcast in my area was throttling Netflix to the point of not useable. Thus, Netflix created their own speed test called Fast. Comcast wanted more money for the bandwidth Netflix was using and at the same time allowing their systems and customers unlimited speed and data useage. To this day, Comcast limits the amount of data streaming to one terabyte, while allowing unlimited data useage for their systems. The irony, I paid for their entire infrastructure costs through taxes and fees. Essentially adding tolls to the road I built. Nothing to do with content costs, just a toll on my tax dollar road.
Congress hasn't read it, so neither they nor we don't actually know what is in it.
I'd remind you the last one was a 479 page document delivered 1 hour before the vote - it included illegible scribbling on the margins, entire pages crossed out, and drawings made by one senator's grandchild.
My favorite move was dropping the AMT to 20% - along with accidentally removing all of the loopholes that allowed companies to get below 20%. Which is why they are having to vote again - gotta keep the lobbyist happy.
(I'm not the person you were replying to, just wanted to mention my personal experience with this particular case)
Don't even have to look it up -- I was extremely aware of this throttling before it ever hit the news, and Netflix decided to give in and pay up. With a 150mbps connection, every show was coming in at sub-480P unless I was watching at off hours (and even then it was intermittent at best). Magically, after the news broke that Netflix had paid Comcast for bandwidth priority, everything was 1080 at all hours virtually overnight.
--
I'd love to believe in the sentiment that competition will allow the free market to regulate itself, but the problem is that we've seen over and over how corporations destroy competition through conglomeration if they're left to their own devices. Why wouldn't they, morality aside? The best system we've come up with so far is to operate a free market with regulations that limit conglomeration and essentially force competition, but corporations don't like that because it harms their bottom lines. Economic freedom shouldn't be about placating the existing titans of industry, but instead about promoting competition and the opportunity for smaller players to enter the field.
I bring this up because the common response to something like net neutrality is "just vote with your wallet, pick an ISP that doesn't engage in practices you don't support." Which is, of course, impossible because there are not multiple ISPs. And yes, to make things more complicated, this is in large part a result of a different set of government regulations. But even if you took away those rules and allowed multiple cable companies to operate in the same city, how many choices does that give you? Comcast and Time Warner, essentially. Not a lot of choice.
Does it matter? Its company's who pay for faster lines etc so their service is better then others. I doubt they will ask users for extra money for a better service. This is all going to be corperate games to get more money out of them.
ha ha ha. They where warned in advance and no real damage was done except US wasting a lot of money on cruise missiles. It hasn't changed anything and Trump-US is still the loser regarding Russia and Syria. Trump is damaging US influence on the International scene big time, the way he acts and the way he is laying off diplomats.
No they won't - most municipalities allow only 1 ISP. I'd remind you that EPB is under threat because it is a government service delivering services at a lower cost than private corporations are willing to do.
Trumpsters still defending the pedophile-endorser and applauding this move by a Verizon shill. All the misinformation about 2015 regulation when Net Neutrality has existed since the birth of the internet. 2015 was only a move to Title II in order to preserve the internet as it was conceived for 25 years. The 2015 vote helped preserve the internet as it was conceived and fostered.
Now, Trumpsters and their corporate shills have forever changed the rules of the internet. And the Trumpsters will engage in more disinformation and continue to talk about emails, uranium, and Benghazi (just look at the frontage of FoxNews) when actual corruption is happening in broad daylight.
Why did the FCC vote on this issue now? What spurred this vote? Why were public comments not taken into account, and why wasn't the massive fraud of commenting not investigated? Why did calls from Senators on both sides of the aisle not be answered?
Trumpsters, when will you ask those tough questions of your beloved leader? You don't want to acknowledge his corruption, so you change the subject to something irrelevant. Why did the FCC overreach on this vote, take away local and state's rights, AND ignore the public?
This is executive overreach to the extreme, and Trumpsters still continue to defend him. They should be ashamed of themselves for trashing our Republic and acting un-American.
Now, Trumpsters and their corporate shills have forever changed the rules of the internet. And the Trumpsters will engage in more disinformation and continue to talk about emails, uranium, and Benghazi (just look at the frontage of FoxNews) when actual corruption is happening in broad daylight.
Why did the FCC vote on this issue now? What spurred this vote? Why were public comments not taken into account, and why wasn't the massive fraud of commenting not investigated? Why did calls from Senators on both sides of the aisle not be answered?
Trumpsters, when will you ask those tough questions of your beloved leader? You don't want to acknowledge his corruption, so you change the subject to something irrelevant. Why did the FCC overreach on this vote, take away local and state's rights, AND ignore the public?
This is executive overreach to the extreme, and Trumpsters still continue to defend him. They should be ashamed of themselves for trashing our Republic and acting un-American.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
No. ISPs do not operate in a free market. ISPs are part of an oligopoly.
Fair points, but there's also:
- Banned transgender people from joining the military. If it weren't for this, I'd say he's perfectly friendly with them.
- Rollback of environmental protection laws. Can't say I know enough to have an opinion on them, but Democrats do.
- Various measures in support of Israel that have angered various parties.
- New tax bill includes a tax specifically on graduate students.
- Publicly threatened to defund UC Berkeley over protests that weren't sponsored by the university (I was there at the time and can affirm the school actually stuck its neck out to defend the controversial speakers).
- Said a lot of things that are clearly meant to be offensive, including referring to a Native American senator only as "Pocahontas." This sounds innocent, but he's a figurehead of the US, and this makes us look bad.
That's funny. Many areas around here have your choice of Verizion (FIOS or DSL), or Comcast. Or Centurylink or Comcast. Or a local wISP. It's the case in many FIOS areas as well. Or even any area that has a cable and phone company.
Until you get to "Supreme Court Nominee" (and possibly another future one) that wants us to be living in 1890
Only if you are close enough to the exchange - ATT has been promising me that they will have it at my house "real soon" - that was in 2004, and I am still waiting......
