I believe you are referring to the scary expansion of water regulatory control by the EPA, another example of big government trampling rights.
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 Votes in Favor of Net Neutrality Rules, Classifies Broadband Service as a Utility
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I believe you are referring to the scary expansion of water regulatory control by the EPA, another example of big government trampling rights.
i don't see how its a ridiculous request when you can actually get a 1,000/1,000mbps connection for $70 a month
One side fears government control and abusing this.
Other side fears businesses having unchecked greed.
Truth? Somewhere in the middle....... Businesses unchecked will screw people over. Especially when ISP's closely mirror each others practices( same goes for the wireless carriers). So while there is competition, the grass is not necessary greener on the other side. But overregulation can screw people over too.
While the current FCC states all this will do in Title II is keep everything the same. No charging Netflix( who would pass the cost onto consumers) for fast lanes, etc which is a good thing for consumers. Though if things change and apply the rest of the Title II to the internet, then the government can screw us over.
This whole debate is based on the fear of what the government will do in the future due to this or I think a naive belief that allowing a company to screw over consumers, the free market will take care of that bad company. But like I said, ISP companies closely mirror each other. So the free market can't take care of anything. That is where regulation comes into play.
It is all about balance. Which no one seems to want to find. Some think any regulation is harmful while others want to over regulate.
Other side fears businesses having unchecked greed.
Truth? Somewhere in the middle....... Businesses unchecked will screw people over. Especially when ISP's closely mirror each others practices( same goes for the wireless carriers). So while there is competition, the grass is not necessary greener on the other side. But overregulation can screw people over too.
While the current FCC states all this will do in Title II is keep everything the same. No charging Netflix( who would pass the cost onto consumers) for fast lanes, etc which is a good thing for consumers. Though if things change and apply the rest of the Title II to the internet, then the government can screw us over.
This whole debate is based on the fear of what the government will do in the future due to this or I think a naive belief that allowing a company to screw over consumers, the free market will take care of that bad company. But like I said, ISP companies closely mirror each other. So the free market can't take care of anything. That is where regulation comes into play.
It is all about balance. Which no one seems to want to find. Some think any regulation is harmful while others want to over regulate.
Last edited:
Non-solution to a non-problem. Only techies would think that applying a law originally drafted to regulate railroads and last updated in 1934 to address copper wire lines would improve Internet access. What this means is that the FCC can start regulating content, and effectively entrench existing monopolies like they did with the AT&T monopoly on landlines. They said they will "forebear" for now, but that doesn't mean that a different administration won't choose otherwise.
It's actually a good thing they didn't adopt the "last mile" guidelines. The reason DSL is so underused in this country is that the telcos have zero incentive to develop it. Contrast it to South Korea, where 80% of people get broadband delivered in part over copper wire DSL.
It's actually a good thing they didn't adopt the "last mile" guidelines. The reason DSL is so underused in this country is that the telcos have zero incentive to develop it. Contrast it to South Korea, where 80% of people get broadband delivered in part over copper wire DSL.
What on earth are you even talking about? You're acting as though the FCC has just released an eminent domain order against the telecommunications industry.
Because nobody else sells the Bugatti Veyron? Volkswagen is the only supplier of that vehicle.
This is a very poor analogy. The Internet uses underground ducts and above-ground telegraph poles. If the owner of that infrastructure is also the operator then it has a vested interest in keeping everybody else out of that area.
Competitors cannot simply build new ducts or install thousands of miles of new cables. It just isn't feasible, much like competing railway operators don't build a new railway next to an existing one.
Take the infrastructure away from the previous owner and then let anybody operate on the network and suddenly you have introduced an element of competition on to the network.
Consumers never win with internet. Ever. So this will probably just mean that internet prices go through the roof.
Just like Obamacare. Price through the roof for most people. And doctors doing a mass exodus from the health care system.
Just like Obamacare. Price through the roof for most people. And doctors doing a mass exodus from the health care system.
100 Mbps up and down for $50-$75/month is far from a completely ridiculous request.
You are aware that there are utility companies in this country that are currently offering fiber connections that are bidirectional gigabit connections for less than $100/month, right?
Here's one example (Chattanooga, TN): https://epbfi.com/gigsupport/
Last edited:
Put it this way: Comcast owns NBC Universal and its programming. So when you're streaming Parks and Recreation reruns on Hulu, complete with advertising, they're making money from you. They're not going to do anything to hinder your Hulu streaming experience.
You watch one episode, get bored, and decide to start browsing MacRumors. Comcast has no stake in MR and makes no money off of it. Without Net Neutrality, they could slow down access to MR to the point where you're like "Damn, this site is completely unusable. I guess it's back to watching Parks and Rec" - unless you pay more for unrestricted access to sites. Or if MacRumors paid a ransom to Comcast to unrestrict their site for all Comcast customers.
No NN would almost allow them to set up speed tiers for different sites: You would get 50 MBPS for Hulu and anything else that makes Comcast money. 25 MBPS for Netflix because Netflix paid a ransom to Comcast. 10 MBPS for Twitter because Twitter also paid a ransom (but not as big as what Netflix paid). 5 MBPS for almost everything else. 3 MBPS for Amazon because Amazon told Comcast to take their ransom request and shove it up their arse, which angered Comcast, 1 MBPS for Skype because it competes with Comcast's landline services, and dial up speeds for AT&T and Verizon's site because they don't want you checking out the competition's pricing.
Even if I wanted 'Hughsnet' (which has the speeds of a dial up connection btw) I don't have a view of the sky that the satellites are in and thus have no choice of provider given that satellite isn't an option and there's only one cable company that provides service.
Indeed. I watched the video. Incoherent nonsense from Cuban. Not sure he even had a point.
These "celebs" need to get more sleep.
Somewhere in the middle, but the industry abides by a voluntary code in place for 20 years that prevents the worst excesses that the FCC claims are possible. Title II is like using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. It's complete overkill and has the ability to do a lot more harm than good. "Progressives" who support this should remember that one day there will be another GOP administration, perhaps as early as 2 years from now. Do they really want them wielding this kind of power?
Writing a specific law to address open Internet would have been better than trying to shoehorn broadband and wireless into a law written to regulate railroads. Contrary to popular belief, legislative solutions are possible even in the current environment. There are plenty of areas for compromise. E.g. the GOP wants corporate tax reform and tighter border security. Obama could have proposed one or the other in exchange for support for a targeted law.
Obama does not support state or collective ownership. He doesn't support municipal ownership otherwise he would've pressured localities to drop their bans on operating their own broadband networks.
Nothing remotely suggests he supports any kind of socialist or communist system. He might not be an enthusiastic capitalist but he definitely is one.
Very Bad
Although a mostly neutral priority scheme would be very good for consumers, making it absolutely neutral really kills reliably streaming voice and video over the internet.
I would absolutely want a remote surgical procedure to be able to get priority routing over the net.
One solution would be for a requirement for 80% of a carriers bandwidth to be absolutely neutral. Then give the other 20% to medical, public safety, basic voice calls, etc., and maybe sell the tiny bit left over to rich people and deep pocket providers.
Although a mostly neutral priority scheme would be very good for consumers, making it absolutely neutral really kills reliably streaming voice and video over the internet.
I would absolutely want a remote surgical procedure to be able to get priority routing over the net.
One solution would be for a requirement for 80% of a carriers bandwidth to be absolutely neutral. Then give the other 20% to medical, public safety, basic voice calls, etc., and maybe sell the tiny bit left over to rich people and deep pocket providers.
Except that they haven't done that. The industry has followed a voluntary code that has worked for 20 years. There are better ways of dealing with potential abuses than trying to apply a century-old law written to regulate railroads to a relatively new technology. The concern is that, like the railroads, a regulated Internet will stagnate.
I've met Mark before. He ain't all that he is cracked up to be. He really is just an average guy. The only difference between him and another MR poster is he was lucky enough to sell a dud company to yahoo for billions of dollars.
Just wondering who you would characterize as the best President in U.S. history. Probably Jefferson, Nixon, or Bush II.......
Agreed as I edited my original post above reflecting the danger of Title II. Right now it is being used to keep things the same vs allowing Comcast, Verizon, etc for charging others for fast lanes which will increase costs to us consumers.
But there is definitely the possibility of Title II being used to screw us over too.
Net Neutrality is great, the other "regulations" that will follow that no one knows about will be terrible I'm sure..
There's nothing like a good old roof antenna. I don't have to pay to watch the commercials like everyone with cable does.
A lot of stuff "could" happen. But under the old rules all these bad things could have been done by private cooperations instead. Your ISP could have decided to block hbo.com. They could add content filters. They could throttle you.
I think its better to have this regulated in public than to have it decided by board members of the only ISP you can pick from, without you ever hearing about it happening.
The FCC has also moved to prevent ISPs from blocking public sources of competition. This is a no-brainer win for the consumer.
http://arstechnica.com/business/201...aws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/
Overall, this is another win for Obama. Haters gonna hate. Whatever.
http://arstechnica.com/business/201...aws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/
Overall, this is another win for Obama. Haters gonna hate. Whatever.