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 to Propose Regulating Internet Service as a Utility for Stronger Net Neutrality Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
awww good for you, I'm sure you are happy. There isn't anything to discuss really.
Mine went up, my whole families went up, my sisters went up and a lot of self employed people i know went up. Again tell me whats to discuss? exactly....
I wasn't worried about any arbitrary company paying extra to get a "fast lane". I was worried about ISPs intentionally slowing down connections to certain companies that provide services over IP that compete with phone or TV.
Example: I was suspicious of Verizon because Amazon Instant Video used to load unacceptably slowly, less than 1mbps on our 30mbps connection.
----------
You're not self-employed then. Obama Care specifically targets people making income from self-employment or capital gains with higher taxes. Some people get cheaper coverage, and I'm sure they love it if they don't mind that it comes at the expense of others.
Example: I was suspicious of Verizon because Amazon Instant Video used to load unacceptably slowly, less than 1mbps on our 30mbps connection.
----------
You're not self-employed then. Obama Care specifically targets people making income from self-employment or capital gains with higher taxes. Some people get cheaper coverage, and I'm sure they love it if they don't mind that it comes at the expense of others.
We're talking about the US gov't here...this is the same thing as the Affordable Care Act that dragged my premiums up by $15400 since the change two years ago. The gov't doesn't own the healthcare system yet...same as them not owning the internet. I don't think the costs will go up...but the freedom of the internet will definitely go down.
Some of the regulation details that haven't been publicized includes:
-VPN will be illegal unless tied to your work
-Your internet will be controlled via a "whitelist" or "blacklist" approved by the net neutrality act.
What is the main argument for this? "Free internet"...this does not mean it will cost nothing, not about $0 a month internet, but rather freedom of information as controlled by regulations...doesn't seem so free to me. The gov't is saying our access to information is being limited and distorted and bandwidth controlled, so they will filter all information for us because the government is trustworthy.
One big example: Comcast limiting Netflix bandwidth until Netflix pays Comcast extra to deliver service. Welcome to the free market. 2 solutions: don't use Comcast, or use a VPN which tunnels Netflix.
As with the ACA, there are ups and downs to this...but by regulating the internet, you are restricting the internet...you are giving powers to those who regulate it...that is not freedom.
Some of the regulation details that haven't been publicized includes:
-VPN will be illegal unless tied to your work
-Your internet will be controlled via a "whitelist" or "blacklist" approved by the net neutrality act.
What is the main argument for this? "Free internet"...this does not mean it will cost nothing, not about $0 a month internet, but rather freedom of information as controlled by regulations...doesn't seem so free to me. The gov't is saying our access to information is being limited and distorted and bandwidth controlled, so they will filter all information for us because the government is trustworthy.
One big example: Comcast limiting Netflix bandwidth until Netflix pays Comcast extra to deliver service. Welcome to the free market. 2 solutions: don't use Comcast, or use a VPN which tunnels Netflix.
As with the ACA, there are ups and downs to this...but by regulating the internet, you are restricting the internet...you are giving powers to those who regulate it...that is not freedom.
Because that doesn't sound as nice as the federal government coming in with a sledgehammer.
Net neutrality advocates need to be VERY careful what they wish for. This would put all forms of broadband under the same regulatory framework as DSL. The US has some of the slowest DSL speeds in the world, because no one had any incentive to invest in DSL networks since telcos had to offer the "last mile" connection at a fixed price. By contrast, in other countries, including South Korea, most people get their high speed connections through DSL networks.
The FCC says today that they will apply a "light tough" on pricing to reduce the disincentives to invest, but that's just to get it passed. Once the authority is there, then it's only a matter of time before broadband becomes essentially a regulated commodity like plain old telephone service, and starts getting neglected.
Also, under net neutrality, say goodbye to T-Mobile being able to offer unlimited Spotify/Pandora/whatever without using up your data allowance.
....Not allowing Apple to use their own CDN's, yet another reason Net Neutrality should be scraped.
Net Neutrality, if it did come in will provide 'transparency'..... The NSA will know allot more behind our backs.
At least ISP's should all use Akamai.
Its fine Apple or others doing it, but what good will it do to the end user if their ISP's don't use it too
Net Neutrality, if it did come in will provide 'transparency'..... The NSA will know allot more behind our backs.
At least ISP's should all use Akamai.
Its fine Apple or others doing it, but what good will it do to the end user if their ISP's don't use it too
The only problem I see is companies charging you for unlimited high speed, but then throttle you. Also if they throttle other providers content.
I have no problem if its max speed for an amount, then lower rate for exceeding a limit, and lets you know you have.
I have no problem if its max speed for an amount, then lower rate for exceeding a limit, and lets you know you have.
And once they get general approval to control, then the executive rules come along with no congressional vote, no oversight, no nothing, except politics and political correctness fueled by the media propaganda.
Then it will be things like, "no encryption". If you encrypt, then we the government can't assure you that the internet is fair. Yeah right, and I've got a bridge in NY to sell you if you are that ignorant at what is really is going on.
Remember the government is the NSA and the IRS, you really want them to control the internet? Oh you remember the IRS, the ones that can take your assets (if you still have any) without any court order or judge involved. Why is that allowed?
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.
Yet Korea's internet infrastructure is a fair bit more regulated in comparison to ours. One of the biggest reasons why internet penetration has become to widspread and well developed there is because the government took an active interest in it.
Though it does have downsides, such as a complete lack of internet anonymity.
It's a TAX.
It's NOT neutral.
The Affordable Care Act is NOT affordable.
It's government doublespeak.
Let the private sector continue handling the internet properly.
Christ! you don't want the government instituting an Apple Fairness Program do you? Isn't Apple doing fine without the government forcing them to make unprofitable products?
Should the government force us to buy typewriters, buggy whips and transistor radios?
- Discuss -
It's NOT neutral.
The Affordable Care Act is NOT affordable.
It's government doublespeak.
Let the private sector continue handling the internet properly.
Christ! you don't want the government instituting an Apple Fairness Program do you? Isn't Apple doing fine without the government forcing them to make unprofitable products?
Should the government force us to buy typewriters, buggy whips and transistor radios?
- Discuss -
And those rate increases compared to years before? People scream rate increase but when it is compare to historical increases they are about the same at worse but most of the time less.
As for your "free market" solution of do not use crapcast. Well considering 80% of the population does not have a choice in broadband provider does not work.
If it were so simple as jumping from Comcast to another high tier service provider, you'd have a point. But since the only choice 99% of people have in the states that Comcast covers is Comcast, or overpriced crap, they've pretty much got everyone in their service areas by the balls. They can do what they want, not what the market demands.
Quite simply, the free market argument doesn't work when everyone only has one government protected monopoly of a choice per service area.
On top of that, there are many other reasons why Comcast forcing Netflix to pay for access to their customers is beyond fishy, but let's stick to the basics.
After reading through some of the comments, I would like to take a more serious stab at this issue. ISPs such as Comcast own the pipes that go from a content provider to a consumer. Net neutrality will ensure that within the ISP pipe things are all equal. HOWEVER, the question has been what about the connections on either end.
Right now Netflix, Apple, and others pay to connect faster to the pipe. And you and I pay more to get faster downloads. In other words, getting things to be equal within the pipe is an important part of the equation but it is not the only issue. You don't see the cellulars selling plans at different speeds. If you have an LTE phone you connect at the fastest speed available. However with Comcast you pay for speed. The same is for content providers. They can go through a third party or they can connect directly to the ISP. The direct connection is more expensive, but gets the data to the consumers faster.
To my knowledge the current rules being proposed do not address these connection issues. So, equality in the pipe is a good start. I am all for it. I just hope it's not the end.
Right now Netflix, Apple, and others pay to connect faster to the pipe. And you and I pay more to get faster downloads. In other words, getting things to be equal within the pipe is an important part of the equation but it is not the only issue. You don't see the cellulars selling plans at different speeds. If you have an LTE phone you connect at the fastest speed available. However with Comcast you pay for speed. The same is for content providers. They can go through a third party or they can connect directly to the ISP. The direct connection is more expensive, but gets the data to the consumers faster.
To my knowledge the current rules being proposed do not address these connection issues. So, equality in the pipe is a good start. I am all for it. I just hope it's not the end.
The whole reason we're having this discussions is because the private sector holds too many monopolies, giving us too little choice, and has shown that they have no intentions of handling the internet properly.
Would you be willing to pay $100 a month for 5Mbps DSL just so you could say "well at least the government ain't handling it!"
----------
The Comcast/Netflix spat, along with all the billion dollar tax breaks ISPs have been given for nothing but broken promises in return has shown us that things are going to get considerably more expensive for considerably worse service if someone doesn't put their foot down.
With nearly $200B in cash, would it be fanciful or incredible foresight (or even possible) for Apple to build their own internet pipelines for their own content delivery services?
They couldn't do it, even with all that money. Comcast, Charter, Verizon, et al. all have exclusivity to the poles in their service areas. It's why Google is only slowly rolling out their fiber lines to just a few select cities.
If these companies don't want Apple there, then Apple isn't getting in. Simple as that.
At the very least a customer should be able to suspend payment when services are down. TWC in this area is very poor. Internet in and out since Thursday. No tech available until tomorrow if the tech shows up.
If the tech is a no show TWC reps will declare there was no appointment scheduled.