RIP Net Neutrality

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Apr 23, 2014.

  1. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    What the hell do you expect when the FCC Chairman is a former cable TV industry lobbyist.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/t...html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0
     
  2. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #2
    Get rid of the chairman and replace him with somebody who has a backbone. The regulator has the authority to reclassify broadband to protect net neutrality, it should find somebody willing to flex the FCC's muscles.
     
  3. Skika macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    #3
    But goys this is good, free market will fix it.

    You dont want regulations and socialism right??
     
  4. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #4
    The FCC has been a joke for a long time, they are more worried about Janet Jackson's nipples then actually worrying about a open free internet or figuring out what to do with the spectrum.
     
  5. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #5
    Sounds fair.

    Instead of having an edge connection for your content services. You can put your content services directly into an ISPs infrastructure and benefit directly from the 10/40/100Gbps backbone.

    Pay the money and you can have a direct injection into an ISP's privately owned backbone.

    The service will suffer if you have to cross a NAP (Internets version of an Interlata connection), that has to cross between ISP backbones. But then the content provider can pay the other ISP for direct connection into other ISP backbones.

    Eventually with the FCC ruling a content provider can plug directly into a NAP and pay a single fee for all participants in a NAP.

    Sorry buddy, Long live Net neutrality.
     
  6. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #6
    Of course it is a joke.

    America is more than happy to sell off everything to mega corps.

    It is the religion of America
     
  7. BenTrovato macrumors 68020

    BenTrovato

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Location:
    Canada
    #7
    There's a reason why he was selected as chairman. This is how things work. There was excellent guest on coast to coast the other night: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2014/04/21

    Basically the government(s) are set up to make decisions for the people because people aren't capable of making important decisions. The way he presented the information, it almost made believe that is the best way to do things. Reality made me realize that it's clearly not.
     
  8. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #8
    ISP's need to be set up as public utilities and regulated as such. They should not be allowed to pick and choose what goes over their networks or the ability to throttle data. They need to be dumb pipes that just pushes out data.
     
  9. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #9
    That would only happen if the government ran all of the Fiber across the country.
     
  10. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #10
    The government doesn't run water mains or power lines. Those are public utilities that are regulated.
     
  11. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #11
    The goverment does not run water lines, phone lines, or power lines, yet all are still highly regulated.

    We need to highly regulate ISPs.
     
  12. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #12
    ISPs are highly regulated. But they also have non-public access to the fiber they run.
     
  13. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #13
    The last mile should be heavily regulated.
     
  14. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #14
    Yeah it should. To the point where we pay 100 bucks a month extra in regulation fees... if not more.
     
  15. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #15
    To the point where I don't have to pay $200 extra to my ISP to use Netflix.
     
  16. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #16
    I pay 7.99 for netflix. I have 100Mbps down 10Mbps up and live 6 miles from the closest city with a population of 400. I pay 49.99 for my Internet.

    If all you are going to do is scream everything needs more regulation, then give an example of what kind of regulation you want.

    Basically from your last couple posts. You want the government to come in and regulate your price of internet to some kind of price you desire.
     
  17. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #17
    You know that Netflix was being throttled by Comcast until they agreed to pay money for more bandwidth. uVerse is throttling Netflix currently. Is this the open internet you want?
     
  18. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #18
    Your argument about Comcast is obtuse. They had a NAP agreement with netflix's main ISP where all services originated. This NAP agreement had a finite amount of bandwidth. Netflix caused saturation across the NAP that lead to connection problems for every other content provider and business that used that same NAP to get to Comcast.
     
  19. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #19
    Comcast would love to get rid of Netflix in favor of their own services. Why would I watch cable when I can get everything over the Net. This scares the crap out of the providers. Other than extortion to get money out of Netflix why would they want to give them access to their network.

    Plus is Comcast is allowed to buy Time Warner Cable we will all be in a world of hurt.
     
  20. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #20
    So you basically think you should be able to pay for internet and get everything in unlimited amounts with unlimited bandwidth and cry when Comcast will not give you more bandwidth that their Infrastructure cannot currently carry. That is not net neutrality. That is wanting everything across a finite infrastructure.

    Call your water company and complain that you are not getting upgraded to a 2" service with 65 PSI because you want a giant fountain in your whirlpool. I mean... you are paying for this service after all. You do not want to pay a penny more.

    I pay for internet and have no problems. Currently at 371GB for the month with 6 days to go. Only paying 49.99. I don't pay for cable.
     
  21. noisycats macrumors 6502a

    noisycats

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Location:
    The 'ham. Alabama.
    #21
    TunerX, I envy your bandwidth at the price you pay. Do you mind my asking through whom?
     
  22. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #22
    Comcast.
     
  23. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #23
    You are using 371 GB at $50 a month? How much speed do you have and what are you doing that needs that much bandwidth. 250 a month is high for most people.
     
  24. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #24
    Already said that... 100Mbps down 10Mbps up. 49.99.
     
  25. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #25
    Ah yes more government. That is always the answer to all problems. These guys couldn't event implement a web site correctly and now you want them to regulate the internet. No thanks.
     

Share This Page