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.
Net Neutrality Rules Officially End Today as Democrats 'Less Than 50 Votes' From Advancing Petition in the House
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No it didn't. You're showing your lack of knowledge on the topic.
Are you forgetting Netflix getting throttled and forced to pay more? Same goes for Youtube. What about the one ISP that blocked game streaming? You can't just pretend these things didn't happen. They're why the rules were put in place.
You are totally ignorant of what happened in the past with internet service, aren't you! So are the so many people liking your false statement.
Educate yourself, read, before posting - the world is full of people who will fall for such lies.
If Netflix is a bigger burden on a private company's network than this web site, why shouldn't they be allowed to charge Netflix more? Why do you think this should be illegal?
False still. I bought a DOCSIS 3.1 when they said I should have bought a lesser model. Neener neener.
This was happening already. When you bundle your internet and cable, at least from Comcast, the price is relatively cheap.
Unbundle? Your internet is now $80. PS Vue or YouTube TV or whatever? $40.00 per month. $120.00 total.
What was the bundled cable and internet bill? $125.00.
Also, the internet only is like 2 TB, which is nothing when you're watching TV over the network. Blown data cap? $10.00 for 5 more GB. But not to exceed $200.00 (or something similar---my numbers might be slightly off but the point remains).
The idea of cord cutting and dodging the cable company prices was always a silly pipe dream. "Net Neutrality" has nothing to do with it.
There are already laws in place that deal with misrepresentations of a service or products.
Net neutrality is not about "neutrality" , but rather an excuse for government to take control of the internet. This is something that government has been trying to do for ages.
The internet did not grow and advance under the regulation of govt, it grew under free enterprise. The very idea to give govt control of anything internet, is contrary to what the internet should always be - a free from regulation internet advanced by free enterprise and people - and "regulated by people" not by government .
How's access to affordable health care working out for you?
You would think the same about cars, but then look at what Volkswagen did... There's no reason to believe lobbyists will do consumers a favour.
Complete lie! NN is about not preferentially regulating the internet access by the monetarily vested groups!
Because it would cost either company more money to produce better efficiency to customers and neither believed they were responsible. Sounds like business.
Net Neutrality has been in place since 2010, and guess what? Under those rules all of this was fine, interconnection didn't seem like a big deal to the FCC at the time.
The cable company charges $20 per cable box in the house so it ended up being much cheaper for me to go to $80 150/150 FiOS Internet and $40 Sony Vue. We can watch live TV and access the unlimited DVR on all our TVs because we have an Apple TV and multiple Playstations, plus we can access all of that on any computer, and on our phones, and iPad. Sometimes, I watch DVR programming on my iPhone with headphones lying in bed at 2am while my wife sleeps.
To throw a bone to the "we need government regulation" crowd, UK has a lot more competition, lower prices, faster speeds, because the government mandated that all the companies who own the pipes to the houses lease those pipes to competitors.
And come to think of it, that's how electricity is handled in Texas. We have the pipes owned and operated by Oncor but my electricity provider is StarTex (7.7 cents per kwh flat rate).
I am amazed at all the Chicken Littles writing in on this forum. People act like NN has been around since Al Gore invented the Internet. NN was put in place in the seventh year of Obama's administration. I am far more concerned about all the monopolies and near monopolies than NN. People are saying all these "terrible" things are going to happen. The things people bring up were before NN and were solved before NN. I prefer waiting and seeing if these worrisome things come to pass. I prefer less government to more government. I don't want to live in Tom Cruise's pre-crime times. I am also open minded so if someone knows of things Obama's NN did to reverse paid fast lanes or other such worries I am open to reading it and changing my mind but "might and could happen" are just blather.
https://fee.org/articles/net-neutrality-is-about-government-control-of-the-internet/
The privacy and net neutrality rules passed in the FCC in 2015 were part of the larger effort under the Obama Administration to regulate the Internet as if it were a public utility, much like the old “Ma Bell” phone monopoly. Ironically, the very development and growth of the Internet would not have been possible were it not for the deregulation and breaking up of the old phone monopoly.
Who are these "people"? The lobbyists? The ones preventing attempts to remove monopoly? The ones who throttled many services (read above) in the past and had to put in place? The ones randomly raising the price of internet access?
Read the NN bill - the government is not regulating how the ISPs work well for you and me, the government prevents the ISPs from screwing us with throttling, price hike, tiers of service, etc., by enforcing the term "Neutral".
Yep, and the hilarious part of their ATT/Skype argument is that ATT reversed its decision due to market pressure and not because of the government creating more laws, which literally proves the point that anti-NN people are making.
All just fluff to justify government oversight of the internet / ISP. Price hikes, tiers of service all fall under free market, consumer choice decide the success of a company's methods of service,as well as law suits when getting screwed.
Put any market under govt regulations or control, guaranteed that that market will get screwed.
Right, the ISPs wanted Netflix to pay up because their service accounted for 37% of all North American Internet traffic, on the networks that the ISPs paid to have built out.
It's funny to me how the left claims to be against big corporations taking advantage of the little guy, but they're always strangely defensive of Netflix, a big corporation whose entire business model is subsidized by a ton of people and companies that don't wish to pay for the service.
Ya good luck with consumer choice when there's already a complete monopoly in our country with some cities only having one or two ISP choices.
But they're still choosing winners and losers, just in a different way. What percentage of bandwidth should Netflix be able to consume before the NN supporters acknowledge that maybe they should be paying more for it?
[doublepost=1528739793][/doublepost]
Those companies aren't throttling your free speech so much as they're acknowledging that they're under no obligation to provide a free platform for you to speak.
The problem there is that the model you're speaking of assumes a desire to compete. This is not always or even often the case in rural areas. Just because we live in the boondocks does not mean we should have to put up with a provider throttling an alternative video service to suit its own bottom line, knowing that no one's going to roll out an alternative net service any time soon.
You do understand that Net Neutrality was introduced originally in 2010 directly addressed to stop the "bad ****" and it still happened.