Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

FCC to Propose Regulating Internet Service as a Utility for Stronger Net Neutrality Rules

gavroche said:
For people to not see widespread changes and cancellations of a wide swath of health care plans out there... requires a complete avoidance of all news sources.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think you can avoid seeing widespread changes, etc. by avoiding only one "news" source. Stop watching Fox and get a little perspective.
 
tomwvr said:
mozumder said:
RESULTS are what get you TYRANTS - Liberty is what gets you the INTERNET

If you are typical of an average American then we have lost and humanity is DOOMED

And Governments Job is to GET THE HELL out of the way and let people be free and productive, not tell us how to live, where to live, what we can do -ect because that is where big government leads to . Sorry but you are blind and a fool
Click to expand...

*Doesn't know the US government funded and created the internet*

Funny people with your views all tend to have same misconceptions of history. Just like how capitalism somehow magically creates a middle class (it doesn't).
Click to expand...
 
Dimwhit said:
While I like the idea, I fear that we'll not only face higher rates, but that the gov't will start taxing internet service like they do phone lines, which will add more to our bills.
Click to expand...

Taxes, that is what this will all end up being about.
 
JoEw said:
tomwvr said:
*Doesn't know the US government funded and created the internet*
Click to expand...

Who cares? They funded a standard and implemented some piddly little links between a few universities and military sites. The internet as it stands today is built by private enterprise. For all you know, there'd be a better one now that used something better than TCP/IP if the government hadn't gotten involved.

This is like that old chestnut unions like to repeat... "How are those 40 hour weeks with 2 day weekends working out for you?"... yeah, great, thanks for that unions! What was that, 100 years ago? What have you done for us lately besides bankrupt state pension systems?
Click to expand...
 
malexandria said:
$15K a year for Health Insurance, yeah, I believe that.... If it's for Business related Healthcare than yeah sure, and if you were only paying $350 a year that means you weren't paying for Health Insurance for you employees, therefore, you get zero sympathy from me. Ya cheap....
Click to expand...

15k I could believe if you have a family and are paying 100%. That can add up fast big time if cobra.

----------
WestonHarvey1 said:
JoEw said:
Who cares? They funded a standard and implemented some piddly little links between a few universities and military sites. The internet as it stands today is built by private enterprise. For all you know, there'd be a better one now that used something better than TCP/IP if the government hadn't gotten involved.

This is like that old chestnut unions like to repeat... "How are those 40 hour weeks with 2 day weekends working out for you?"... yeah, great, thanks for that unions! What was that, 100 years ago? What have you done for us lately besides bankrupt state pension systems?
Click to expand...

false. The internet and the backbone of the lines that supply the internet was built by government money and deals. Guess who paid to get most of that copper line and fiber in the ground.... It was done threw government paying for it or threw monopolies given to those companies.

Goverment provide the key funding to get it off the ground and get it started for long term growth we have today.

As for your union rant... Well that also shows how illformed you are and how little about the issue caused it. Give you a hint it is not the unions. It is the fact that states have been underfunding the pension system for years and now that it comes time to pay up OMG no money....

I can point to one where when it has been properly funding so the money has been set aside and invest for years that is fine. Texas Teacher Retirement. It is consider in very healthy. Has billions in the fund. The state wants the money and the lobby group is very much a hell no. Last guy who tried to was kick out very fast. It is hell no in the fact that they know if the state gets access to the money it will struggle fund it and the standard practice of cut benefits will kick in.

Sum it up. Any place that is struggling you can bet good money that they have been underfunding it for long time so no money to cover it and to top it off they been treating it as a general fund instead of setting the money aside.
Click to expand...
 
malexandria said:
Give it a rest. Not everyone's Health insurance went up as you claim. Some people's probably went up but a lot of people's also went down. I get so sick of morons like you whining about Obama care and making ridiculous arguments that just because YOUR health insurance went up then everyone's must have gone up as well. Get a life. I'm not a particular fan of Obamacare either, but at least I'm capable of actually listening to FACTS and not stupid "anecdotal" arguments or talking points. I think they should have done a simple Opt-In National Medical plan, not this forced insurance industry led garbage. But hey, it is what it is.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention anecdotal evidence. I never said that MY health insurance got more expensive or that it got more expensive for most people. The facts are that self-employment and capital gains are taxed extra now for Obama Care.
 
Last edited:
JoEw said:
tomwvr said:
*Doesn't know the US government funded and created the internet*

Funny people with your views all tend to have same misconceptions of history. Just like how capitalism somehow magically creates a middle class (it doesn't).
Click to expand...

It was the PENTAGON that created it not the government - the military is the only part of the government that works remotely like it should.
Click to expand...
 
moderately said:
Actually, I think you can avoid seeing widespread changes, etc. by avoiding only one "news" source. Stop watching Fox and get a little perspective.
Click to expand...

You can't dismiss every single uncomfortable fact you don't like as an falsehood from Fox News. If you do so, you are purposely trying to be just as ignorant of the truth in issues as someone who only watches Fox News.

I see people on the right just snuggle up to Fox News and it tells them everything they want to hear. Then I see people on the left just ignore anything they don't like as being from Fox News. So both sides can just sit there in their little comfortable bubble singing "lalalalala I can't hear you".

I am an independent and I primary get my news from NPR radio, with a touch of BBC online. I have no FOX news channel (I don't even have cable TV), and yes, I'm very aware of health plan cancellations from the news, and personally due to the fact that my mom's plan is no longer eligible.

Yes, Obama lied. Just like every president, he lies a lot actually. There is plenty of independent fact-checking on this.
 
bradl said:
If this is classified as a utility, if they throttle you, the throttling has to come up for discussion and approval from local PUCs (public utility commissions), which come up under public debate. So they would have to get approval before doing that; something they don't have to do now.

BL.
Click to expand...

I see.
Thanks for the clarification.
 
Renzatic said:
They're a backbone. People pay them to route their data over their network to ease congestion on smaller networks. It's not a net neutrality situation because if you're slinging a ton of data around, you gotta get it to people somehow.

Remember, ISPs can slow down data if it's congesting their network. Even under net neutrality they're allowed to do so. This is where companies like Level 3 come in. You pay them, they distribute your bandwidth. Totally different situation.
Click to expand...

I see you have bought into the propoganda put out by the likes of Netflix and Google.

The 'slowdown' as you refer to is isn't at the ISP (Tier-3) level. The dispute actually centers around Tier-1 networks and their peering agreements between them.

Verizon as an example has tier-1, tier-2, tier-3 networks. When you sign up with them as an ISP you are signing up for their tier-3 network. None of "your" data on the tier-3 networks is impeded.

Now, Netflix has a deal with Level3 (tier-1 network) for its backbone (paid prioritization). Level3 in turn has a deal with Verizons tier-1 network called a peering agreement which essentially states that both companies will absorb the cost of running their networks as long as both companies are allowed to dump equal amounts of information onto each others network.

Seems reasonable.

Now, Level3 (Netflix) starts dumping an unequal amount of data on Verizons backbone violating their peering agreement. One thing to note, is that this data may or may not be destine for Verizons tier-2/3 networks, could also go off network to another tier-1 network then to another tier-2/3 provider. Now instead of the costs being shared equally, Verizon now has an increased burden on their tier-1 network. So, Verizon can charge Level3 for the increase in data or it can slow down the amount of data so that the amount of data is in line with their peering agreement.

This is nothing more than an attempt by Netflix/Google/ect. to cost shirt their tier-1 network costs onto other tier-1 networks.

It has nothing to do with the consumer. It has nothing to do with (this invented idea of) neutrality. It has everything to do with lowering their operating costs at the expense of other companies and the consumer.



TL;DR - Level3 and Verizon buy a pizza together. Level3 eats 3/4 of the pizza. Level3 then asks Verzion to pay for 1/2 instead of 1/4.
 
gavroche said:
Wow... so you in particular have not had your particular plan changed... so you must mock and ridicule all those that have had theirs changed or cancelled. Glad you are so caring for your fellow countrymen that have had a lot of problems result.
Click to expand...

Mock? hardly. Here. A bit of background on my 'status':

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=20316726#post20316726

bradl said:
Very well said. I'll add story again as well.

My wife had a diaphragmatic hernia when she was born. While they were able to fix that, normal procedure when children are born is to sterilize their eyes, normally with something like silver nitrate. The doctor in this case ordered a cautery stick of stiller nitrate to be applied to my wife's eyes. The student under him questioned it, which she was abruptly told to not question him. She applied the stick to her eyes, which fried her cornea and retina in one eye, and severely damaged the optic nerve from that eye leading back to her brain. glaucoma set in on the other eye, leaving my wife nearly totally blind.

Long story short, malpractice suit follows, followed by 7 cornea transplants, which one barely took, leaving her with very little eyesight at all in the eye that didn't have glaucoma. Because of that, no insurance company would insure her, because this was a major pre-existing condition that they didn't want to touch. If married, either my premiums would skyrocket, or I would be dropped from my plan if I did not exclude her from my policy.

Do you know how saddening it is to have healthcare insurance for your childcare, but not able to support your wife?

Well, that happened. 3 months after our daughter was born, the eye that had the glaucoma basically imploded. the cornea ripped down the middle, and the retina detached from the eye. That left her with two choices: an ocular evisceration, which schools out the entire contents of the eye, but leaving the eyeball connected to the muscles in the socket, or an ocular enucleation, which is nearly the same as the evisceration, except they detach the eye totally from the socket and optic nerve, perform the evisceration, then reattach the eye back to the muscles in the socket and optic nerve. The slightest problem could lead to total blindness or worse.

Yet, all of this country's healthcare providers would say "sorry, we feel for you, but because this is a pre-existing condition, our profits and shareholders mean more to us than your health and well-being." Yet none of them would ever think about if they lost their sight and worry about if they will ever be able to see their children.

We opted for the Evisceration. For those who think UHC is a joke and that we need to treat our wealthy better? They can afford to have this procedure. (WARNING: contains very graphic photos.)

If this were a country that had UHC, this wouldn't be a problem, because they know that without the people, there is no country. Not the USA, though; some political figures go out of their way to ensure that corporations have bigger sway. So because of that, we had to go through this, to the tune of nearly $200,000. All of this was before the ACA was signed, let alone part of it implemented.

Got to love how we take care of our own, especially when this wasn't any fault of my wife.

On a side note, because of this happening to my wife, her condition became required reading and study material for anyone going into ophthalmology (my wife is the only person with this condition). So when she had the evisceration, the doctors working on her didn't realize until shortly after the procedure was done that they were practicing on the very subject in their required material.

So as well, please spare me the crap about "it's too expensive/costs too much/subsidies" and other typical conservative blather on this. It's funny that people with that stance don't seem to care or give a damn about it until something happens to them, and then they need it.

BL.
Click to expand...

I met my wife in 1998. we married in 2003. Had a child in 2010, and another in 2012. I can have my children insured, but for 17 YEARS, and another 11 that we've been together, she has not been able to get any health insurance, because she was denied for her pre-existing condition, and that was through no fault of her own. So now that she has the ability to get insurance (and has it), you are complaining about why yours costs so much? To be honest, your reasoning sounds petty.

But if you think I am mocking and ridiculing fellow countrymen, it is quite the opposite; perhaps a better perspective on your part for someone who doesn't have something that you take for granted every day is in order.

But by all means, call me selfish; if it means keeping my wife, mother of my children, and love of my life alive, I'll wear that moniker with pride and joy, with absolutely NO REGRETS.

BL.
 
tomwvr said:
JoEw said:
It was the PENTAGON that created it not the government - the military is the only part of the government that works remotely like it should.
Click to expand...

Funded by my tax payers dollars, how is the Pentagon not considered government to you?

----------
WestonHarvey1 said:
Who cares? They funded a standard and implemented some piddly little links between a few universities and military sites. The internet as it stands today is built by private enterprise. For all you know, there'd be a better one now that used something better than TCP/IP if the government hadn't gotten involved.

This is like that old chestnut unions like to repeat... "How are those 40 hour weeks with 2 day weekends working out for you?"... yeah, great, thanks for that unions! What was that, 100 years ago? What have you done for us lately besides bankrupt state pension systems?
Click to expand...

Who cares? It is proof that you need a government and one that can research without worry about profitability. The government has provided private industry with literally trillions of dollars of valuable research that they than get to use,expand, make better. That is my point.

And notice the decline of the middle class after the unions mysteriously began disappearing in this country? I like how this is overlooked by so many.
Click to expand...
 
and for me, today, in the UK

351gv0x.jpg
 
ThisIsNotMe said:
TL;DR - Level3 and Verizon buy a pizza together. Level3 eats 3/4 of the pizza. Level3 then asks Verzion to pay for 1/2 instead of 1/4.
Click to expand...

It's more like Netflix buys a pizza for Level3 and Comcast. Comcast eats a quarter of their pizza, while Level3 eats half. Comcast then turns around and says that it's unfair that Level3 got more pizza, then demands that they be cut out of the deal entirely, and that Netflix should buy them pizza exclusively for them from now on.

Though ultimately it all depends on who you believe.

...though Verizon has been caught throttling Netflix traffic for no reason, even after Netflix paid for bandwidth bill. Which makes the ISPs side of things more than a little suspicious.

----------
Piggie said:
and for me, today, in the UK
Click to expand...

This is the UK being overbearing. Keep in mind that the US could do this now, even without having the ISPs Title II'ed as utilities if they so wanted.
 
SuperMatt said:
Obama hopefully will not sign it.
Click to expand...

His current stance on it now would indicate that he would definitely veto it; and like the Keystone Pipeline, Congress does not have the votes to override that veto.

BL.
 
KdParker said:
Why would the government need to tax internet bills or the rates go higher?


If anything the rates are too high in the US compared to the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

The federal government in the early part of the 20th century imposed a very small tax on phone lines to help "pay" for the Spanish American War. This tax was just abolished in the last 10 years, a great line by Reagan -

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
 
tennisproha said:
Really? Were you around here when Reliant was the only option? Because I remember my dad and everyone else making a huge deal of it when it finally got deregulated.

I dont know what the rates were back then because I was too young to need to know about any of that but maybe rates vary state to state as the means are different I'd imagine.

Deregulation means competition usually, unless the industry turns into a duopoly. Then it sucks.
Click to expand...

That and Texas is quickly going to getting close to that point of running out of power. We are running starting to run dangerously close to having to do rolling blackouts due to our reserver generation capacity getting low.
 
nad8e said:
Wait, so I will have the right for my personal iPhone to have the same speed as Apple does?
Click to expand...

Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure that cellular networks won't fall into this. I'm basing this solely on the FTC suit against ATT over unlimited data, followed by ATT claiming Title II status which says that FTC has no jurisdiction over ATT...this is still ongoing and really means nothing for now.

http://www.androidauthority.com/att-joins-verizon-claiming-title-ii-status-helps-financially-579685/

I'm still reading up the redirects to other regulations in the bill...but I haven't seen the final version and I don't even know if the draft I'm reading is current anymore. From what I've been mentioning, I may actually be on the wrong side of this as this bill seems to be a de-regulation bill. A regulation to deregulate if you were.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back