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
This is interesting. When you say "old regulations" you are going all the way back to the Clinton era. The bills that the Repubs passed and Bill signed weakened regulations that had been there since they decided that the Depression was no fun and it should not happen again. Those regulations had worked, the weakened ones did not as it turned out.
The big banks have been fighting hard to keep regulators at bay and have been quite successful so far. Watch this new congress do what they can to weaken things further.
if you were paying $350 a year for health insurance that is not what I call health insurance but a pile of crap.
As for your cable referencing no you did not address my point. You are talking about cable TV.
That is very different than broadband internet. In that area most of the country has one choice where they live. It is a bunch of local monopolies.
The problem is the government is so LARGE and so corrupt, if the central government of the USA didn't have so much power they would not be bought out buy the big corporations - look at the following ----
1) College education - I paid for college with a PART TIME JOB in the 1980's then the government got involved and provided "guaranteed student loans" - so everyone could "AFFORD" college - well what happened to prices - they sky rocketed because colleges discovered they would get the money from the government and could charge what ever they liked to charge, and the student would have tons of bills to pay when out of school
2) look at Health care - my insurance has gone from 50 a week to 120 a week and I took a lesser plan this year - this has happened over the last 3 years. And now on you W-2 your employer is required to put how much they spent for your health care - how long will it be before this becomes a "taxable" benefit.
3) SSI - supposed to be an account we pay into for retirement - HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
if you want me to go on I will - but every time the government gets involved in something they SCREW it up and make it much more expensive, all this "power" they have is dangerous and we are walking quickly toward a hard tyranny that will be a lot like CHINA.
Just remember this quote by Woodrow Wilson and this is why government is dangerous -The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible.
Isn't regulation usually a bad thing? This is interesting
I'm in Texas and we finally got our electricity de-regulated which meant much cheaper and varied utility options for us.
I'm in Texas and we finally got our electricity de-regulated which meant much cheaper and varied utility options for us.
I lived in Texas for 6 years. I had a choice of about 25 electric companies. The cheapest one cost about triple what I paid for power when I moved to Kentucky and had no choice of power company. And the one company cost nearly double what I pay from the only choice where I live now in Pennsylvania.
De-regulation sucks.
Seriously. "Plan to submit a proposal" is the same as saying "I think I'll suggest we try". Wake me up when something is DONE.
This is an interesting story, except it ignores that energy markets, like any other cost-of-living, vary by region. What local sources of energy production are there in each of these areas, and what are local salaries like? What was happening in local and global politics? Electricity, like gas, is an energy source and the market in another part of the country can effect you at home.
You can't compare the cost of power in different areas under different regulatory systems and use the price as a means of justifying one system over another. There are simply too many other variables that effect what you pay.
Last edited:
Hmm, I had to look this up to see it its actually a quote of his lol. Interesting… I like the way you think.
----------
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.
no and worrying about 25mbps is peasant status; i'm rated at 150 and averaging around 190mbps right now.
I'm getting a headache from this discussion. I feel there is a lot of misinformation on both sides of the discussion.
First off, Net Neutrality on its most fundamental level is about ensuring that whatever content you want on the internet isn't slowed down because a company didn't pay the ISP to provide a 'fast lane' for them. In this sense, that means if person A makes a request to watch some film on some startup streaming service does not get delayed and pushed to the side because person B decides they want to watch Netflix because Netflix paid the ISP for higher priority.
This is fundamentally against what the Internet is. The internet is based off of what is known as 'Time-sharing'. Think of the it this way, the internet is a highway. Let us say, in this scenario we are using a 2 lane highway, one direction for either way.
In the example I provide below the house is a movie that is being streamed.
I'm building a house and most of the time, all the materials may not fit into one truck, so multiple trips must be made before I get all the material to build the house, this is good because the person back at the building site may construct the house and move through the materials while the driver gets more (i.e. you are watching the movie).
Let's say that at the building supply store driver A (startup up consumer) is not allowed to leave because driver B (Netflix consumer) gets the right of way even if driver A is ready to go with the next shipment. This is because driver B paid to have the high availability to leave whenever they want.
Basically what Net Neutrality is trying to stop is allowing ISPs to look at who is making a request and what they are requesting but DELAYING them service because someone else made a request, let's say after the first person, for a company that PAID the ISP to get their content to the consumer faster.
This does not promote the internet. This HURTS the internet and actually creates an intranet. Why would I get a streaming service if my service is DELAYED because my service can't pay the ISP? That means I would have to wait LONGER before I can consume my content.
Net Neutrality is NOT based on speeds but PRIORITY. The internet was not based on giving people better priority because of their pocket books. The internet is based on TIME-SHARING. Ensuring this Time-Sharing makes ISPs competitive to offer FASTER connections, not the deals they strike to prioritize your internet experience.
When they say a fast lane and a slow lane is happening is not based on your Mbps, Kbps or even Gbps. What they are saying, is that other people will get to jump the line because your content is not a PRIORITY.
What this means is that COMPANIES pay for this PRIORITY to the ISPs and guess who the company have to pass that cost off to? You the consumers! This means that ISPs continue to make unbelievable profit margins.
That hurts start ups, small businesses and even medium size businesses. They are saying finding new ideas or discovering better businesses are not important and that large corporations are always the best.
People who say that this is a way for government to control prices are absolutely wrong. Net Neutrality is about PRIORITY of data.*
Net Neutrality can help increase competition by making government letting more utility companies access the telephone poles and the public and private lands that water, electric and gas lines are anyways. Cutting those guys out of the equation will increase availability to lay down the lines need for new ISPs. This will in turn lower costs due to more competition. Right now ISPs must go through utility companies to lay their lines down. That can double the costs for an ISP.*
By allowing more access to these utilities area, ISPs will be more inclined to upgrade their lines to increase speed as the barrier to entries are lowered for other ISPs to come in and offer higher speeds.*
People who say Net Neutrality gives the government more power to control the Internet are right. Though why regulately when all companies need is access to lay the lines down?*
Anyone who says vote with your wallet if you don't like the speeds / current providers are naive. I say this because it has been proven that when people, businesses and even countries hurt when there is NO internet.*
So if someone only has one choice in provider, they are literally asking for a lower quality of life and less potential earnings from not having the Internet. You can't say that that another ISP can just come in, they can't because let's say for a given community it costs a company $100,000 for the lines, well to rent the space from utility companies already there, the new ISP can pay up to $200,000 to just rent that place for their lines.*
Source for this last bit:*http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-nee...government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/*
Net Neutrality is a good thing. ISP should not give priority access to content because a company decides to pay them off.
TLDR; Net Neutrality stops ISPs from prioritizing data on the Internet because a company pays for higher priority which actually will create an intranet and harm America. The company paying the ISP will in turn pass the costs off onto its consumers and limiting their choices by harming consumer experiences with other companies.
Edit: Also, your local governments right now are hurting your competition for more ISPs due to these licensing agreements with the other utility companies.
First off, Net Neutrality on its most fundamental level is about ensuring that whatever content you want on the internet isn't slowed down because a company didn't pay the ISP to provide a 'fast lane' for them. In this sense, that means if person A makes a request to watch some film on some startup streaming service does not get delayed and pushed to the side because person B decides they want to watch Netflix because Netflix paid the ISP for higher priority.
This is fundamentally against what the Internet is. The internet is based off of what is known as 'Time-sharing'. Think of the it this way, the internet is a highway. Let us say, in this scenario we are using a 2 lane highway, one direction for either way.
In the example I provide below the house is a movie that is being streamed.
I'm building a house and most of the time, all the materials may not fit into one truck, so multiple trips must be made before I get all the material to build the house, this is good because the person back at the building site may construct the house and move through the materials while the driver gets more (i.e. you are watching the movie).
Let's say that at the building supply store driver A (startup up consumer) is not allowed to leave because driver B (Netflix consumer) gets the right of way even if driver A is ready to go with the next shipment. This is because driver B paid to have the high availability to leave whenever they want.
Basically what Net Neutrality is trying to stop is allowing ISPs to look at who is making a request and what they are requesting but DELAYING them service because someone else made a request, let's say after the first person, for a company that PAID the ISP to get their content to the consumer faster.
This does not promote the internet. This HURTS the internet and actually creates an intranet. Why would I get a streaming service if my service is DELAYED because my service can't pay the ISP? That means I would have to wait LONGER before I can consume my content.
Net Neutrality is NOT based on speeds but PRIORITY. The internet was not based on giving people better priority because of their pocket books. The internet is based on TIME-SHARING. Ensuring this Time-Sharing makes ISPs competitive to offer FASTER connections, not the deals they strike to prioritize your internet experience.
When they say a fast lane and a slow lane is happening is not based on your Mbps, Kbps or even Gbps. What they are saying, is that other people will get to jump the line because your content is not a PRIORITY.
What this means is that COMPANIES pay for this PRIORITY to the ISPs and guess who the company have to pass that cost off to? You the consumers! This means that ISPs continue to make unbelievable profit margins.
That hurts start ups, small businesses and even medium size businesses. They are saying finding new ideas or discovering better businesses are not important and that large corporations are always the best.
People who say that this is a way for government to control prices are absolutely wrong. Net Neutrality is about PRIORITY of data.*
Net Neutrality can help increase competition by making government letting more utility companies access the telephone poles and the public and private lands that water, electric and gas lines are anyways. Cutting those guys out of the equation will increase availability to lay down the lines need for new ISPs. This will in turn lower costs due to more competition. Right now ISPs must go through utility companies to lay their lines down. That can double the costs for an ISP.*
By allowing more access to these utilities area, ISPs will be more inclined to upgrade their lines to increase speed as the barrier to entries are lowered for other ISPs to come in and offer higher speeds.*
People who say Net Neutrality gives the government more power to control the Internet are right. Though why regulately when all companies need is access to lay the lines down?*
Anyone who says vote with your wallet if you don't like the speeds / current providers are naive. I say this because it has been proven that when people, businesses and even countries hurt when there is NO internet.*
So if someone only has one choice in provider, they are literally asking for a lower quality of life and less potential earnings from not having the Internet. You can't say that that another ISP can just come in, they can't because let's say for a given community it costs a company $100,000 for the lines, well to rent the space from utility companies already there, the new ISP can pay up to $200,000 to just rent that place for their lines.*
Source for this last bit:*http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-nee...government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/*
Net Neutrality is a good thing. ISP should not give priority access to content because a company decides to pay them off.
TLDR; Net Neutrality stops ISPs from prioritizing data on the Internet because a company pays for higher priority which actually will create an intranet and harm America. The company paying the ISP will in turn pass the costs off onto its consumers and limiting their choices by harming consumer experiences with other companies.
Edit: Also, your local governments right now are hurting your competition for more ISPs due to these licensing agreements with the other utility companies.
Last edited:
Only for Republicans.
Regulation just means Republicans can't get what they want.. haha! Let them cry.
----------
That's why you pay more for electricity than regulated markets.
----------
You'll get over it.
And you'll love it.
Just like how you love your roads, which is paid-for and run by government.
The less choice, the better. Choice and freedom is bad. It implies more individual work.
I do not need more work.
Care to quote the part of ACA you are referring to? Oh that's right, it doesn't exist because none of your rants in this thread have any bearing of truth. Please tell me more how your health care went up $15000 a year and you can't see a doctor for two years. It's totally believable...
Well the Government already taxes internet and wireless services (at least in the USA). They are not usually called "taxes", but instead disguise as a bunch of small "regulatory fees" and such. They all add up to several dollars for every monthly bill on top of your actual service charge (the amount you actually are supposed to pay for actual service).
In my opinion the problem is when the operator has a conflict of interest. Let's say that you operate the road and also operate a delivery service. Suddenly you are able to gain an advantage against your competition by issuing high fees to them and no fee to you.
Most ISP are also content providers: this means it's in their interest to hinder competing content providers to favor their own offer. Mandating net neutrality is a way to avoid this problem, the alternative being forcing the ISPs to split their business so that the conflict of interest doesn't exist anymore.
I'm self employed and I know his comment holds water. There are many sanctimonious fools out there that get enraged when people point out some of the blatant lies that were used to sell the AHA but for most of the self employed, it was a bend over and grab your ankles type of moment.
Not only did my premiums increase 100% (because I had to significantly modify my plan) but the pretax amount I was able to put aside to cover detectable expenses dropped $3000/year.
When I was a 20 something I would have agreed 100% with you, but today the government is less trustworthy than a used car salesman. In fact, when I was young the government, banks, and news media, were all more trusted than a used car salesman. Not any more. What it the definition of a scam artist, someone who tells you what you want to hear, then uses your agreement to get what they want. Sounds like a great definition of our government today.
The government is run by the big corporations, because that is were the money for election campaigns comes from, then it is run by political ego, because the only people that will run for office, based on the political smear that happens, are people who could care less about actually doing what they promise.
No matter how important the idea, you just can not ever, ever, trust a scam artist, or today the government.
But it is nice to see so many people here, that can go to bed at night completely devoid of reality. The propaganda is really working and I think the rest of us are in trouble.
So, in your view if a housing developer goes off and builds a 2,000 house community out in the stix that results in a massive increase in traffic on the highway going into the city, the developer should not pay the burden of increasing the highway throughput?
I am saddened Netflix has become some poster-child for net neutrality because they are only telling half the story.
Such a bad idea. What else is considered a utility? Your power company. They can charge whatever rates they want because utilities are exempt from monopoly laws. Let that sink in, people.
It's ironic that you feel like this yet live and prosper from the uber-Federalist DC area. If only we fined every id1ot with a Dont Tread On Me that hypocritically lives off and prospers from the Federal Government, we'd be debt free.