FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use

I n North Korea we are told what to believe Do people want that as Crystal Meth is spread wide in North Korea and the people are so addicted they believe anything?

I you don't believe that crystal meth is not spread in North Korea then get out out of your hiding place.

Kim Juong or who ever uses his names does use this drug to control people.

Kim Jouong tells his citizens what they can and not cannot see on the internet. Is this the way America is going?

a reply to: staticfl

So sick of this net neutrality spam bot campaign everywhere. Less government. You really want a bloated regulation heavy government to regulate more? Come on now.

Requiring ISPs to provide the service as promised is hardly regulation.

Let capitalism and competition do the talking. If someone blocks something, go someplace else with your money.

Many of us only have one option for high speed internet.

Edit: also I'm not a bot, I'm a consumer with an opinion, I'm sorry it's not in line with your opinion.... But that's the beauty of free search.

There is a reason internet and cable companies are the lowest rated industry, and it's because they'll do anything to rip off consumers.

originally posted by: staticfl
Let capitalism and competition do the talking. If someone blocks something, go someplace else with your money. Or use a vpn/proxy to get around it. Get over these talking points.

A VPN does not get around this. There is no competition when ISP's require hundreds of billions in start up capital to compete (seriously, GOOGLE didn't have enough money to get into the market), and even if you have the start up capital the companies in question have been given legal monopolies (something repealing NN doesn't address).

Man If you're for getting rid of NN,you're Nuts!.This affects everybody Dem,Repup,black,White,etc..
Wake the Fck up.Read Aazadan's posts,and then reread them again..

So sick of this net neutrality spam bot campaign everywhere. Less government. You really want a bloated regulation heavy government to regulate more? Come on now.
Let capitalism and competition do the talking. If someone blocks something, go someplace else with your money.

Explain how government regulations are currently interfering with Internet for consumers.

50% to 2/3rds of people don't have "someplace else" to go with their money. Or for those that do have an option, it's either.. Internet at 50Mbps.. or Internet at 5Mbps. Your "go somewhere else" option is sadly limited for most.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: stormcell

This isn't quite true, Tempter brought it up briefly. There actually is a pretty severe capacity problem with US networks. Interestingly, enough though it's cheaper/easier to deliver faster speeds to high population density areas, that's not what we're seeing in the US.

The best internet services in the US actually belong to small towns in the 20,000 person range.

The reason for this, is that the population density in town is still high enough to make running fiber profitable, but the number of users is so low, that there's more bandwidth for everyone.

One of the big issues is that the ISP's don't want to deliver content digitially because streaming uses a constant chunk of their bandwidth. It's no different from downloading large files. Other activities like email and web browsing happen in bursts, which requires far less hardware.

The ISP's have therefore been put into the situation by the cord cutters that they now have to deliever their TV content through a platform that needs significant upgrades to carry it. The ISP's simply don't want to spend the money.

The counter argument is that the money would be spent if we repealed Net Neutrality, let the ISP's use their plan to repush TV, and let competition handle it.

Unfortunately, that doesn't work because the ISP's would still control the network and the distribution of content over that network.

There are a few solutions here, but none of them involve letting ISP's maintain a monopoly

That makes sense. When I was in Edinburgh, our university had a T1 link - super high-speed JANET hundred gigabit pipe. But it was shared by 10,000 academic staff and students. Everyone got about 25K download speed at peak times. Seriously. That's half the speed of a 56K modem.

Back home, I'm renting an apartment that's in a retirement community who are lucky to get Virgin Media cable. Very few people use the data services, so I could get around 300K/second download speed.
Downloading a 30 MByte PDF paper would take an hour. I could ssh into my PC at home, do the web request, and it w

originally posted by: fleabit
This is solely a money-grab brought about by Trump via Pai (aka Verizon stooge).

The largest ISPs have the money to upgrade infrastructure, but they don't. Take Comcast for example. Making literally billions of profit each year. They wanted to create a new offering for their subscribers - so you can log into the Internet with your account almost anywhere! See an Xfinity network? Just log on!

What they didn't say (and most folks who are not tech savvy don't know), those Xfinity wireless networks you are seeing are not new infrastructure they put into place for this new "service." They are.. YOUR modems that are providing this service! Do you have Comcast? Have you logged onto the 2nd network on your modem to disable the Xfinity wireless connection, or managed to find the deeply hidden opt out link in your account settings? If not, strangers are using YOUR paid bandwidth to connect to Comcast. This should be off by default - but they didn't say a thing to their consumers when they rolled this out, they enabled it, and most people STILL don't even know about it. Most have no idea there are two networks on their modem, one for your service.. and one stealing your bandwidth to provide other Comcast customers a wireless "service." When I called and asked Comcast about this, they told me.. "Oh.. the impact to your network is minimal." Which is a load of crap.

Saved Comcast billions in new infrastructure at the expense of their own customers. That is the sort of people you are dealing with. If you think in any way they are going to look our for your best interest, think again.

Also, why SHOULDN'T we have tiered access? Again, why shouldn't we pay for what we consume?

What are you talking about? There is tiered access. Are you saying your provider doesn't offer these sorts of plans?

(below is Comcast)
Performance Starter: 10 Mbps $29.99/mo.*
Performance 25: 25 Mbps $39.99/mo.*
Performance Pro: 100 Mbps $49.99/mo.*
Blast! Pro: 150 Mbps $59.99/mo.*

All major providers offer different bandwidth plans.

You don't understand the NN issue at all.

British Telecom does this as well. I had just moved into my apartment. Saw an advert on TV For BT's Wi-Fi hotspot network. Saw that there was a hotspot in our apartment block, paid the £20 for a few days. Was about to log on and do surfing, when the connection went down. Happened again, and again. Realized that whoever owned the wifi router was deliberately shutting it down.

a reply to: Aazadan

There is not a single good thing about net neutrality.

Your links emphasise how good things are in those countries without net neutrality - in NZ for example the Voda chat pass is only about £2 a month. Great for people who don't stream music, watch videos online or plug their useless minds into social media.

Without it, a much more competitive model can be introduced whereby you can pay for what you want instead of subsidising the huge bandwidth consumed by mindless morons getting their daily fixes of facebook, etc.

I'd like to see prices go up to £200-£300 a month for those that consume huge amounts of bandwidth and prices slashed to £5 a month for those that use a minimal amount (or free).
I only use about 20 websites. I'd like to pay for those thanks.

a reply to: chibsonguitarplayer

Facebook encourages subscribers to link within the Facebook domain.
I could imagine a tablet OS visionary developing some new "now" tablet OS "to keep things simple/safe/secure/".

a reply to: UKTruth

I'd like to see prices go up to £200-£300 a month for those that consume huge amounts of bandwidth and prices slashed to £5 a month for those that use a minimal amount (or free).
I only use about 20 websites. I'd like to pay for those thanks.

Here in the states (under net neutrality) you can pay for how much bandwidth you want.

You could add a gig Hotspot for just 10-20 dollars and use it anywhere, or get high-speed internet and pay based on speed and cap.

Net neutrality just ensures whatever you consume on the internet doesn't get throttled.

I like the current model and am calling representatives and encouraging others to do so.

Edit: I pay a high premium for 150 mbps and a 1tb monthly limit. I'm completely fine with that so long as they don't pick and choose what I consume.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: UKTruth

I'd like to see prices go up to £200-£300 a month for those that consume huge amounts of bandwidth and prices slashed to £5 a month for those that use a minimal amount (or free).
I only use about 20 websites. I'd like to pay for those thanks.

Here in the states (under net neutrality) you can pay for how much bandwidth you want.

You could add a gig Hotspot for just 10-20 dollars and use it anywhere, or get high-speed internet and pay based on speed and cap.

Net neutrality just ensures whatever you consume on the internet doesn't get throttled.

I like the current model and am calling representatives and encouraging others to do so.

Edit: I pay a high premium for 150 mbps and a 1tb monthly limit. I'm completely fine with that so long as they don't pick and choose what I consume.

Im jealous of your pipe.

a reply to: Throes

I assume you mean my bandwidth? I don't mind paying for it, I like to game and stream when I can, also I download most of my games so that I own a digital copy forever.... It adds up, but it doesn't make a 60gig download to long. If net neutrality gets taken though I doubt they'd promise the speeds for my game downloads or streaming, both take away from cable viewership.

a reply to: UKTruth

Do you actually not understand what Net Neutrality is, or are you simply trying to confuse others on purpose? Consumers pay for bandwidth on tiered rates on their end; Net Neutrality means that content and service providers pay the same rates irrespective of who they are. Once private corporations can decide what they are going to charge each content and service provider on a case by case basis, it enables them to censor and otherwise manipulate information that should be, well, free, under our First Amendment. CNN can afford to pay more than ATS, which might force this site behind a paywall to survive. Is that what you want?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Do you actually not understand what Net Neutrality is, or are you simply trying to confuse others on purpose? Consumers pay for bandwidth on tiered rates on their end; Net Neutrality means that content and service providers pay the same rates irrespective of who they are. Once private corporations can decide what they are going to charge each content and service provider on a case by case basis, it enables them to censor and otherwise manipulate information that should be, well, free, under our First Amendment. CNN can afford to pay more than ATS, which might force this site behind a paywall to survive. Is that what you want?

Yes, I know exactly what it is. It is an overreach by the govt to apply anti-competitive regulations on private businesses.
The fact that a company such as facebook is protected by the govt to the extent that it punishes the ISP by forcing them to handle the huge bandwidth of facebook without being able to charge more is a disgrace.

I find it funny that liberals are never up in arms when companies such as twitter and facebook sensor content - defending them to the hilt because they are a private company - but are crying now about free speech in relation to other private companies - the ISPs. Hypocrisy at it's finest. Free speech is not protected when using a private companies services... REMEMBER? It never ceases to amaze me how free speech is so selectively used by those who clearly do not understand the concept.

And, yes, it will also spill over to consumers as is happening in countries that are not subject to net neutrality - Companies will also start to package deals to pass on costs, making it more expensive (hopefully much more expensive) to access content requiring heavy bandwidth usage, and making it cheaper for others who don't want to use as much bandwidth. ISPs will also bundle packages and offer cheaper access for those not requiring access to certain types of site. They will have far more flexibility in pricing, always a good thing. This is an obvious point you seem to have missed. It costs money to maintain an ISP service... if all content providers are paying the same, then ISP's HAVE to charge more to those who don't consume high bandwidth services in order to make a profit. It's yet another example of charging more for some in order to subsidise others - a philosophy liberals seem to love but is a wholly anti-free market.

We'll pay for what we want to consume and the content providers will pay for what they want to publish - perfection. The added big benefit is it will put a massive dent in the ability for companies like Google to monopolise the market and all their lobbying money to bribe the govt into anti-competitive regulations like net neutrality will have been wasted - bliss as it will be much harder, almost impossible, for the govt to control information through their cosy relationships with companies like google and facebook

Perhaps it's you who hasn't thought it through and are looking at one angle.
Here is some helpful information:
www.bloomberg.com...

The internet is not a public utility and should never be treated like one.

The real focus should be on opening up competition in the ISP market, so that ISP's can not use their market position to inflate prices with their new powers. What you actually have now with limited competition in ISPs and favour given to large content providers is a backwards system that only promotes control over people with limited choice for access AND huge power given to a small group of content providers cosied up with the govt through lobbying deals.

A free market here means that I decide which content I want and how I will access it and I have the choice to switch should my current choices ever become too expensive or too restrictive in my opinion. Most of all, the govt. stays the hell out of my decisions and I do NOT have to pay for the content consumption habits of others.

a reply to: UKTruth

The Mafia got its start in Sicily by monopolizing the water supply. The internet is necessary for modern commerce and should not be controlled by monopolies. Private money seeking corporations should not be allowed to determine access to free trade and uncensored communications. Revoking Net Neutrality is like allowing a business to build a dam across a river that towns downstream rely on for sustenance and livelihood.