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
Right. And as far as that's concerned, DSL is unable to prove the best value at the best price in comparison to cable. Case in point, I'm on a 50/50 fiber connection. Costs me $50 a month. In comparison, the fastest DSL service in my area is 25/5 for $55 a month. I'm paying more for less.
There is no value proposition there.
But on the other hand, I have the choice between fiber and cable, which each one offering upwards of 100MBPs for roughly the same prices. That's because Charter and my local telco are in competition, and I'm thus able to choose between better options. My area in general has a better selection of internet providers than 97% of the US, and we in turn have some of the best connections in the entire country.
That is competition.
Oh, sigh! Easy to call me stupid and roll your eyes without directly explaining how I'm wrong, isn't it?
So tell me. What do I fail to understand?
...though I will admit one thing, it was Tier 2 I was thinking of.
I read somewhere, and I'm not sure that it's not FUD, that this new reclassification isn't all that everyone wanted it to be.
There was something about taxing, and raising fees in it, but since there has been so much FUD, and chaff from the right and the Luddites about this, it's hard to tell what's truthy, and what's pure unadulterated FUD.
Hopefully we got what the internet needed. Time will tell I guess...
And don't count out the bonehead congress, or the equally boneheaded US 'justice' System.
Get your popcorn ready...
There was something about taxing, and raising fees in it, but since there has been so much FUD, and chaff from the right and the Luddites about this, it's hard to tell what's truthy, and what's pure unadulterated FUD.
Hopefully we got what the internet needed. Time will tell I guess...
And don't count out the bonehead congress, or the equally boneheaded US 'justice' System.
Get your popcorn ready...
Perhaps but now that they cant charge Netflix extra who do you think they will charge now? (and of course this whole deal isnt just about Netflix but they are an example of content bandwidth hogs)
Anyway I suspect now that the government is involved there will be tax hikes (yes Obama and gang love those) and fee increases in general since that part was not regulated. Put it this way, the ISP's are not going to loose. They are going to make up those lost dollars somewhere. If not from the Netflix's of the world then the consumers.I stopped reading after this paragraph because it became apparent that the author is ignorant, maybe on purpose maybe not. There's nothing in the net neutrality rules that says cable companies can't offer their consumers higher speeds at higher costs. What the rules say is that if I pay for 100mb, I have 100mb access to any service I want to use
It's not full Title II reclassification. It's more Title II with exceptions. ISPs are still able to set their own prices and do other things most utilities aren't usually allowed to do. As far as that's concerned, nothing's changed from the status quo.
What it does is make it so that ISPs can't prioritize or degrade data streams for arbitrary reasons.
They've made it so you can't throttle or block specific data. They also made it so that state laws disallowing new ISP's from entering areas no longer matter. If you want to not upgrade infrastructure or throttle people, fine, another ISP will come along and take all of your customers. This is a win/win for the people. Costs should go down, speeds should go up. It wouldn't surprised me if this eventually ended data caps, as ISP's are forced to compete.. finally.
That was some of the FUD that I read on someone that followed me on twitter yesterday.
'Oh this passes, and all hell is going to break loose. Obama can control what's on the internet'
'They could then tax the internet!'
'Obama would eat your children through your computer! OMG!'
Most of it IS 'fud', touted by people that couldn't even explain how the internet works if their lives depended on it, and can't use their computer without their children's help.
It is well documented that Obama wants to reinstate the fairness doctrine - the progressive wet dream.
Obama has shown he is constrained by the constitution. Hell, the Obama administration literally just stole $3 billion from the treasury to pay for Obamacare kickbacks. Just add that to the list.
You really need to stop sniffing glue, and paint fumes. Reality isn't all that bad, and Obama is black, but he's still human, and OUR president...
What's been agreed is that the ISPs won't deliberately block access to sites or slow them down (e.g. Comcast won't slow down CBS' web site). If Netflix wants to pay Comcast to build out a higher speed pipeline for its services, what's wrong with that? It isn't free, and someone is going to pay for it sooner or later. What you are proposing is like saying Amtrak can't charge extra for the Acela.
Netflix thinks that at the tier-1 level there was a peering issue between Level3 and Verizon. Nothing more than that.
Except that it IS full Title II reclassification. The FCC is "forbearing" on some of the more onerous provisions. All it takes is a decision by the FCC to discontinue forbearance. The other beef is that the FCC is supposed to be an independent agency. Tom Wheeler was inclined NOT to reclassify broadband until he was pressured by the White House last year.
You aren't seriously dismissing my post because you believe consumers have the choice between DSL/Cable from their monopoly provider and satellite internet?
That is not choice. It's an illusion of choice. Heck, those two forms of communication do not even compete against one another.
Satellite internet is not a viable consumer option, certainly not for the mainstream user. It might be for the country guy who only checks his email once a month but satellite is most definitely not competing with DSL/Cable. Not on price, not on reliability, and certainly not on speed.
My point remains. Telecoms is a natural monopoly and always will be. There's no way of getting around it. It's clear from your posts that you have no objection to permitting a private corporation take control of said monopoly by being both the owner and operator of the infrastructure in a particular market.
Your attempts at justifying this behaviour by claiming people could just choose to subscribe to a satellite provider is ludicrous.
I don't think anyone wanted to reclassify broadband as a utility until the ISPs decided they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Remember, at one point the FCC was enforcing net neutrality without any of the Title II restrictions to engender market growth and innovation.
They ended up getting sued for their efforts, lost, and watched as Comcast turned around and proved that they can't be trusted to provide a important service to the public without gaming the entire system to exclusively their own benefit. Verizon and AT&T followed soon after.
And now here we are.
STOP DRINKING THE TEA!
What do you think of the previous 8 years when the federal debt really increased after having been reigned in, getting into a war on fictitious fabricated reasons, and having the economy spiral downward and out of control.
Mitch, is that you?