Watch the FCC Net Neutrality Meeting Live: Open Internet Passes in 3-2 Vote.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bone75

Because the telecom companies were losing valuable ad revenue to people on Netflix not watching commercials.

Also the telecom was loosing its grip on staying relevant in the future and more importantly potential future income.

The telecom was trying to position itself as the land lords and salesperson of the internet.

Imagine , they could have had the power to go to Amazon and say you want to be on the internet and sell things, than we want 10% of your sales.

Now also imagine that Amazon would not only have to deal with comcast, but they would also have to negotiate deals with every ISP in the nation to sell their products online.

I wonder how long it is until they vote on this again? I have this creeping feeling that the internet freedom that we have now will not last forever... Especially with all of the telecom lobbyists. I hope I'm wrong.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bone75

Because the telecom companies were losing valuable ad revenue to people on Netflix not watching commercials.

Um sorry but that's not how it works. Netflix would be the one getting paid for ads, not the ISP'S.

a reply to: Bone75

No he means people were opting out of cable services, for Netflix. Which cuts into Ad revenue from the Telecoms. Which to them is a double whammy, cause not only are they loosing subscriber base and revenue, but also being force to ram up access.

~Tenth

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: TonyS

How do you see this affecting consumer cost of access? Will this necessarily cause prices to increase? Or do you see mechanisms in place to constrain costs?

I now you didn't ask me the question but if I may also answer.

Telecom access cost is really driven by the lack of competition in the industry more than anything else.

Google fiber [1GB up and down] is able to provide 100x the speed up and down with no caps or any throttling for 70 bucks a month while I pay $80 for 50 mb a month.

The markets that google fiber has gone into has caused att ,comcast and verizon to compete and provide comparable service. Ofcourse they are struggling because Google blind sided them and they have inadequate outdated infrastructure. Att just announced that they plan to provide the same speeds for around the same price as google , but with some caveats of course.

Will they use this as an excuse to charge more, most likely. However, they already raise their rates at will for as much as they want because they don't have any competition.


So the only thing that is really causing them to raise their prices is lack of competition and greed. No matter the outcome of the ruling today your prices would have gone up anyways. However, now as a reclassification it could allow for the newer ISP [google fiber] to expand by getting easier access to run lines.

Thanks...well, based upon your answer, it appears I'll be doubly screwed because, living out here in the remote hinterlands, my only TV service is Direct TV which is being bought out by AT&T and our landline/internet service is, of course, AT&T

a reply to: tothetenthpower

So would you have preferred that the ISP'S passed the cost onto you and me like Netflix tried to do?

It sounds to me like they had a legitimate reason to charge them more and it wasn't about whether or not they liked Netflix or their content (which is the fear mongering that's been parroted to gain support for this initiative).

a reply to: Bone75

So would you have preferred that the ISP'S passed the cost onto you and me like Netflix tried to do?

Where did netflix try to pass off cost on it's customer base? The price increase for Netflix was for more content licensing, it had nothing to do with anything ISP's asked them to do.

I would have preferred, that ISP's take responsibility for their own networks and provide the service they claim to provide. Netflix can't help that it's popular. Netflix can't help that HD video streaming takes 3GB an hour. That's just the nature of the technology.

The fact that the ISP's what to make Netflix pay for their own shortcomings, shows clearly who is trying to pass the buck to who.

It sounds to me like they had a legitimate reason to charge them more and it wasn't about whether or not they liked Netflix or their content (which is the fear mongering that's been parroted to gain support for this initiative).

They didn't have one. Because it's their responsibility to be able to provide the service.

Do people honestly think that ISP's didn't have a clue that internet usage would explode 5 years ago?

10 years ago?

That's crazy talk. ISP's have known ,year over year that all network traffic is increasing at an exponential rate. They failed to unify their systems and create the environment where the demand was provided for.

That's nobody's fault but their own. Do you think it would be OK for Microsoft to be charged a premium by the ISP for Xbox Live services for example? Or PSN?

No ofcourse not. That would be nonsense. They don't operate internet infrastructure, they operate an internet service.

The provider of the service is responsible for their network.

Period.

~Tenth

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

So this passed like I said before I sure hope you are right. You did do your homework.......I sure hope you are right. I think many people like myself have serious trust issues with the people passing and enforcing laws/regulations. Many things in the past that sounded great ended up being the opposite.

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: tothetenthpower

So would you have preferred that the ISP'S passed the cost onto you and me like Netflix tried to do?

It sounds to me like they had a legitimate reason to charge them more and it wasn't about whether or not they liked Netflix or their content (which is the fear mongering that's been parroted to gain support for this initiative).

No that is not actually what happened or is happening.

Comcast didn't provide netflix any NEW bandwidth after netflix paid them.

What happened is comcast PURPOSELY slowed down netflix and extorted them for money until they paid comcast. Once comcast received payment they STOPPED PURPOSELY SLOWING down netflix. No new infrastructure was created nor required.

Furthermore, Google fiber who provides 100x the speeds of comcast for much less money than comcast never had an issue with providing their users access to netflix.

Also you as a consumer should be really ticked off because you are paying 'X' amount for 'X' amount of bandwidth. In my case I pay 80 Bucks for 50 MB bandwidth, why shouldn't I get what I pay for when I go to netflix?

originally posted by: jtrenthacker
I don't buy that 97% profit margin BS.


I'm no ISP apologist by any means, but I just don't see net neutrality being a good thing. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion but I feel those praising it today are going to be regretting it in the near future. I see worse service and higher prices coming.

You can not buy it all you want, but that doesn't change things. You might have heard that Netflix consumes 40% of the internet's bandwidth. Why is that? Because streaming movies - a combination of audio and video, two of the most data-intense technologies - contain massive amounts of data.

But think about it for a second - what are a lot of the internet providers already doing? Many of them are cable TV companies - already sending the exact same massive amounts of data, except for TV instead of internet.

Most of the frequencies that go over your typical coaxial cable are going to be cable TV. Like, the vast majority. Suppose a modern cable company can handle 750mHz over coaxial - most of it would be going towards TV. If internet took up less than say, 1/3rd (550mHz-750mHz down and 5mHz-42mHz up), someone could download at up to nearly 900Mbps and upload over 50Mbps.

So yes, it is really quite likely that their costs are pretty damn low, because most of them run it on cable that is already carrying cable TV and already has some high capacity.

a reply to: Greven

I'm no ISP apologist by any means, but I just don't see net neutrality being a good thing.

So you don't see getting a service that you pay for as a good thing?

I pay 80 bucks a month to get 50 MB downloads speeds a month, shouldn't I get what I'm paying for?

If I pay for that access speed why shouldn't I expect that when I go to netflix.com? Or why isn't comcast ripping me off or stealing from from me when comcast PURPOSELY slows down my access to netflix.com?

What comcast and the ISP were proposing is to charge you 80 bucks a month for 50 MB a month despite purposely not giving you what you are paying for.


I don;t think you understand how net neutrality works or the importance of the internet if you don't agree with net neutrality.

You may argue if reclassification is a good thing or not but the argument of whether net neutrality is good or not, has already been proven to be good. Net neutrality principles were in place until the beginning of this year, so they have been proven to work.

I saw the passing of the law. and i thought . So this is how internet freedom dies.... to thunderous applause

originally posted by: yuppa
I saw the passing of the law. and i thought . So this is how internet freedom dies.... to thunderous applause

Haha, I had to chuckle at the irony of your statement while looking at your avatar.



Without net neutrality principles , anonymous voice could be easily squashed by only allowing AUTHORI$ED content to be available.

Not to mention anonymous is for net neutrality and against the ISP controlling the internet.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Bone75

Netflix accounts for a little over 40% of all network traffic in the US during peak hours. The ISP's were stating that Netflix had to pay to play, because their service was causing bottlenecks and slow downs across the network, due to a large portion of the traffic being dedicated to one single service.

This is not Netflix' problem. The ISP's are responsible for their own networks, capacity etc. They were just mad that they were being FORCED to improve their networks to serve the customer need and they just didn't want to pay for it.

~Tenth

I will be interested to see what the actual solution is as people continue to experience the very same bottlenecks on the very same networks.

a reply to: interupt42

yes ironic. you do know that V would despise the government having control of the internet as well. On the surface its a great noble idea but as with beauty its only skin deep.

In the V universe the government controlled net access too. Corporations are obvious in it for the cash,but that also keeps them transparent. the FCC i s in it to direct the american peoples attention spans under the guise of fairness.

George sauros is a backer of this plan as well. thats alone screams bad news.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

So, now that this is over and there is nothing we can do (not that we could have done anything anyway), I propose we begin the discussion that belongs on ATS...

How this relates to conspiracy theories.

One of my favorites, John Titor.

It seems to me that his description of an ad hoc decentralized wireless network makes much more sense now.

a reply to: yuppa

yes ironic. you do know that V would despise the government having control of the internet as well.

Yes, and so do I but its the lesser of the two evils. We had two options

1. Keep net neutrality principles by reclassification.
Or
2. Loose net neutrality principles by allowing the Oligopoly controlled telecom do what ever it wants and to decide the winners and loosers of the internet.

All the telecom industry had to do to avoid gov;t regulations is to continue doing what they were doing since the inception of the internet until the verizon lawsuit. That was to maintain net neutrality principles.

a reply to: interupt42

I propose a third option. neither the government or the corporations alone get to dictate speed or access. TAke the highest speed in the world currently and make it a standard for one set price,also add in the caveat that IF a company is found to be giving preferential treatment they will be in court for extortion with a minimal sentence of 3 yrs in prison for the CEOs with a option to increase the fines to 3/4th the companies net worth and 25 yrs in prison no parole. That is the only law they needed to pass. No regulation needed. they would self regulate to keep out of jail.

a reply to: SubTruth

Fool me once (Stimulus), shame on you. Fool me twice (Obamacare), shame on me. Fool me three times (Net Neutrality) ... people are idiots.

Explain why I shouldn't have serious trust issues with the people telling me crap about this? We know the White House is hip deep in it at this point.

a reply to: interupt42

Without net neutrality principles , anonymous voice could be easily squashed by only allowing AUTHORI$ED content to be available.

.........Really then why havent they been squashed already?

I have been hearing this nonsense for months now by proponents of this bill........

If all this could happen dont you think thye WOULD HAVE DONE IT ALREADY!??????

Congrats you just GAVE them the KEY to the GATE that they dindt have before........

"Well if you dont allow me to guard your house someone can come in here and take your stuf" "Gee willikers your right, here take this key to my front door and dont let anyone in Mr.Stranger!"

SMH jesus The Stupid.......it HURTS.....

ANd again another bill passed WITHOUT PEOPLE KNOWING whats in it.......

Cause the sheeple didnt learn last time........


baaaah baaaaaaaaah baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah