This net neutrality move seems a good thing.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Under Title II, carriers were required to share access to their infrastructure. Meaning they were required to "rent" access to other ISPs. Meaning a new ISP did not have to install its own infrastructure.

The big boys don't like that. The big boys won.

a reply to: jacobe001

It is faster and cheaper in European countries and even Communist China has us beat.
Explain

The average speed in china is 4.1mbps. The average speed in the US over 14. Internet speeds by country

But to your point, speed has to do with a variety of conditions, very little of which is "net neutrality", for example South Korea:

While there isn't good data on how many broadband carriers the average consumer has access to, "I think we can infer that South Korea has more [competition in broadband] than the United States," Faris said. "In fact, most countries have more than the United States."

Why internet connections are fastest in South Korea.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Nope.

Just aware of reality.

Can you explain how this is a good thing? How it will help the flow of information and not create more censorship?

Or are you just trolling?

Are you saying that prior to 2015, the flow of information wasn't exponential?

What horrors did you personally witness prior to 2015?

a reply to: Phage

Under Title II, carriers were required to share access to their infrastructure. Meaning they were required to "rent" access to other ISPs. Meaning a new ISP did not have to install its own infrastructure.

The big boys don't like that. The big boys won.

No one, big boys or not, should be required to share their infrastructure.

a reply to: jacobe001

That is making them bigger, not competing with them.

The revenue they were allowed to collect was regulated.

It is analogous to cellular telephone services. There are cell carriers who use Verizon's network who do indeed, compete with Verizon.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Lol, read up bud. That isn't the case. And check out the lawsuits prior...someine listed them a few pages back.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Phage

Under Title II, carriers were required to share access to their infrastructure. Meaning they were required to "rent" access to other ISPs. Meaning a new ISP did not have to install its own infrastructure.

The big boys don't like that. The big boys won.

No one, big boys or not, should be required to share their infrastructure.

So how much are drones, laying cable, launching satellites? Could that be the real expense of starting an isp?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well, you're going to have to go back to 1934 to argue the point about what it means to be a common carrier and to operate as one.

That's regarding communications, telephone lines and stuff. There are other regulations for things like pipelines and stuff.

a reply to: luthier

So how much are drones, laying cable, launching satellites? Could that be the real expense of starting an isp?

You could ask one of the many small ISPs how much it costs.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Wardaddy454

The parallel is cable tv. In the beginning it was 24 hour, cheap and commercial free. Grew into a megalith with fifteen hundred channels, at one basic flat fee.

Then they divided access into tiered packages; the most information , the most channels, unedited movies (commercial free) are the most expensive.

Heres the future ATS after net neutrality.

I'm sorry your cable service does not support access to this channel (click okay to upgrade).

Then you buy access at a higher tiered package and now you can watch it, but can't skip ads. When you try to comment though, on screen message will say, We're sorry, comments are disabled at this service level (click okay to upgrade).

Now you're paying the highest monthly fee to run full speed, skip ads and comment (like what you enjoy now). The difference right now between the lowest or basic package on cable tv and the highest tier is hundreds of dollars a month.

If you can afford that you can have full internet access and discuss issues with the other fifty members on ATS, the only ones left.

Essentially it eventually means the end of free speech, censorship and full ads restored, except for those who can pay the most money per month, just like cable tv is now.

Poor people can buy a newspaper or hear the official narrative on radio and Tv.

Ever have to sit through the 30 second unskippable ads on a YouTube video? Thanks net-neutrality...


Its like the Mandela effect is real here. We've already had tiered packages post net-neutrality, as I stated earlier. 10mbps for the basic user (email and so on) up to 2gbps for the power user (online gaming streaming and so on)
Besides that, the FCC's rules never required ISPs to upgrade their infrastructure which led to, you guessed it, throttling! Because ISPs are within their rights to do so in the cases of CDN or peering arrangements, as per those FCC rules.

As consumers we pay ISPs to get a certain level of connection to the Internet, via the last mile the ISPs operate. We do not pay for any kind of "guarantee" to be able to reach a certain website or video service, with a certain level of quality. Many think that is what they are paying for, but it isn't.

a reply to: Phage

Well, you're going to have to go back to 1934 to argue the point about what it means to be a common carrier and to operate as one.

Sounds like an old mistake.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I would but I haven't seen any survive.

If you live in a city it's easier. Your cable run per customer is 100x smaller. However, they usually have parent companies and large investors. Many go belly up and get bought.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Under Title II, carriers were required to share access to their infrastructure. Meaning they were required to "rent" access to other ISPs. Meaning a new ISP did not have to install its own infrastructure.

The big boys don't like that. The big boys won.

Which is actually criminal since tax payers built the initial backbone of the internet from one side of the country to the other.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Only if you don't grasp the reasoning. It has to do with providing a vital service which extends across state lines and internationally.

For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination
on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the ''Federal Communications Commission,'' which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act.

a reply to: luthier

I would but I haven't seen any survive.

If you live in a city it's easier. Your cable run per customer is 100x smaller. However, they usually have parent companies and large investors. Many go belly up and get bought.

That's very true.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: jacobe001

It is faster and cheaper in European countries and even Communist China has us beat.
Explain

The average speed in china is 4.1mbps. The average speed in the US over 14. Internet speeds by country

But to your point, speed has to do with a variety of conditions, very little of which is "net neutrality", for example South Korea:

While there isn't good data on how many broadband carriers the average consumer has access to, "I think we can infer that South Korea has more [competition in broadband] than the United States," Faris said. "In fact, most countries have more than the United States."

Why internet connections are fastest in South Korea.

Our monopolies and lack of competition has more to do with the Big ISPs purchasing politicians to give them complete control over the country.

a reply to: jacobe001

Which is actually criminal since tax payers built the initial backbone of the internet from one side of the country to the other.

Ok, so internet should be free and run by the government. Sure thing.

a reply to: Phage

Only if you don't grasp the reasoning. It has to do with providing a vital service which extends across state lines and internationally.

I don't grasp the reasoning, nor what this has to do with anything.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It has to do with the 1934 Communications Act. Specifically Title II. Which is what net neutrality is about. Which is what the topic is.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Nope.

Just aware of reality.

Can you explain how this is a good thing? How it will help the flow of information and not create more censorship?

Or are you just trolling?

Are you saying that prior to 2015, the flow of information wasn't exponential?

What horrors did you personally witness prior to 2015?

Prior to the year 2015, we had a Free and Open Internet.
After the year 2015, we have a Free and Open Internet.

We have the same internet NOW as we did before 2015.
Can you explain this?