It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should Congress regulate your Internet service plan?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 08:58 AM
Ok, we know that INTERNET providers wants to gouge the users with tagging extra charges for how much you download because they claim that with the increasing popularity of web sites like your tube and music downloads, people are putting a burden on the INTERNET providers.

So they want to charge as you used.

But at the same time they are complaining that if the government starts to regulate their pricing this will make them start charging more for INTERNET overall.

what a whole bunch of crocks.

But we know what happen with cable TV when price gouging became a problem.

The bill, H.R. 2902, would allow the Federal Trade Commission to review whether the pricing plans are fair.

This bill was introduced in 2006 and now it will be in congress for review.

Should the FTC get involved?

I am split on this one.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by marg6043]

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:38 AM
reply to post by marg6043

No we do not need the government to get involved. They will just make it worse like everything else they touch.

If you dont like your service plan then cancel your service and find a new one. If enough people do then they will adjust their plan.

Also, bandwidth is not free for your provider so they have a valid claim in wanting more money from people who download everything they see.

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:40 AM
No the government needs to just go away and leave the internet the way it is! There is nothing wrong with it. I dont want to pay more or have them sticking their noses in my internet activities, although I am sure they do to some extent. I wish the greed in our Government would STOP!

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:43 AM
reply to post by grapesofraft

While I understand the problem that INTERNET usage is causing now with so many INTERNET users, I have no problem with anybody that wants to download and do their thing.

But me, I barely download and beside music I don't care much for videos.

So, what is better, having the INTERNET provider charge me for how much I am in the INTERNET? or how much I download? or just one price fit all.

BTW in places like I am right now we only have two INTERNET providers, Mediacom and Southern bell.

Still I hate both of them as they are lousy, but I don't have home phone as we all cellular users and I hate the cable companies I rather use satellite, but to have INTERNET I am stuck with the cable company paying 70 dollars a month with a cable service I don't use.

Now how fair is that.

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:43 AM
I know what Congress can do, and if has nothing to do with regulation.

I don't download much, so maybe I would not be affected by any prices increase. At the same time, I don't want to see the cable companies make anymore money.

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:50 AM
reply to post by mblahnikluver

Still with the new INTERNET Czar working with the Defense Department and the home land of deception, they will be up to our butts checking for everything we do.

So I would not be surprised that legislation will be coming our way one way or the other, directly from the White House as that were the new Czar will be.

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 11:50 AM
Absolutely NOT!!!! These clowns can not even regulate congress or themselves!! They have no buisness passing down regulations on something they know nothing about in the first place in my opinion.

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:28 PM
There has to be some gov't regulation involved in industry so people don't get gouged. Regulation is what prevents all companies suddenly charging 2k a month for internet.

I think people forget that when internet first started, you paid by the time you were on(boy does that seem like ancient history) and families fought over minutes.

So I dont' find it unreasonable that you should be charged for content. I check email and browse some sites, so I wouldn't pay that much. So it doesnt affect me.

The government may have to step in whether businesses or residential should get charged more, and what is considered fair prices.

From what I understand, a lot of foreign and European countries are limited on how much bandwith can be used. I really don't consider it gouging.

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 04:27 PM
reply to post by nixie_nox

That is exactly what happen with cable until the government step in to regulate them.

They were getting out of hand.

I agree that some regulation should be in place because while is capitalism sometimes corporations and groups can become very greedy.

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 05:04 PM
There is a very real problem with the Internet today. Cable and Telco companies now rule the Internet, and they are bringing their Pay Models and questionable Business Practices to the table.

When they advertise a 5Mb/sec Connection to the Internet, then you should be able to utilize that full 5MB/sec Connection however you see fit when you lease that connection from them. Granted, ISPs count on you utilizing only 50% of that bandwidth daily, but still what you do with that connection that you have leased, is entirely up to you (so long as it doesn't violate the TOS or Terms of Service of your ISP or is used to commit crimes).

Does it cost the ISP anymore more money if they have leased you a 5Mb/sec Connection if you use it only 20% of the time or if you only use it 10% of the time. Of course not!

However, could the ISP make even more money by charging you a Bandwidth Surcharge on top of the Monthly Flat-Rate? Of course they could!

So, the Telcos and Cable Companies that have run the local ISPs out of town and now have monopolies in almost every geographical area of the United States, are motivated by nothing more than greed in charging a Bandwidth Surcharge based on how much of the Bandwidth you are already leasing that you actually use.

In addition, these Telcos and Cable Companies are doing other things that are restricting your Internet Use. They block entire Port Ranges to prevent you from doing what you choose with your Internet Connection. Their DNS Servers provide Non-Authoritative Responses to queries (generally providing outdated or wrong information)...meaning you are hijacked and what you think is may not really be! They utilize Caching of popular Websites, meaning that the website you are visiting may be a duplicate of that website from an hour ago, 8 hours ago, or even 24 hours ago! Many of them add their own Advertising to Websites that they serve to you, and some even change the actual content of Websites that they give to you! They perform Packet-Shaping and even route Packets differently, delaying Packets for certain Internet Services while giving others preferential treatment (basically throttling the bandwidth they have guaranteed you in your lease). Most importantly, they monitor all traffic, log it and have no reservations about handing that information over to the highest bidder or to any authority that asks for it, whether they have a warrant or not.

And let's not forget that if ever you have a problem, these Cable and Telco companies all utilize off-shore Customer Service Departments from India!

The sad thing is that they now manage the majority of the Internet Backbone as well...and the Internet does not quite work the same as Telephone and Cable Networks do. This definitely shows when entire Geographical Regions spanning 5 - 7 States suffer from prolonged outages or reduced service because some IT Tech at Qwest can't figure out BGP Routing to save his life.

What it comes down to however, is that the Telcos and Cable companies are scared. Who has a Land-line anymore? Yet almost everyone has Skype. Who uses Cable anymore when you can just watch your shows online for free at either the official website or portals like Hulu? Rather than remain competitive, dynamic and evolve with the times, these Mega Corporations are trying to make up for dwindling customers in their primary fields by screwing over those in their secondary fields as Internet Providers. If they can't get a person to pay $50 a month for Cable and $50 a month for Phone in addition to the $50 a month you are paying for Internet Service from them, then they gouge you by giving you $100 extra dollars in Surcharges to make up for the difference!

Corporate Greed and Gouging aside, it really honestly doesn't bother any of you here in the US that we have some of the slowest, yet most costly Internet Service in the world? If providers in Iran can provide faster and less costly Internet Service than what is available in the US, then there is definitely a problem people!!!

When Cable and Telcos have no competitors in their market, like they do today as the independent ISPs seems to have died after Dial-Up went the way of the dinosaur, they have little or no reason to upgrade or remain competitive with the rest of the world. The only incentive they have is to gouge the consumer to bleed them dry of every penny that they can.

And for those that think that you have a choice, in almost every case in the US the only choice that remains is Telco vs. Cable for your Internet Provider. Even if you are lucky to have a local ISP still, chances are they are leasing their bandwidth from either the Telco or Cable company in your area, which means that you will be affected by what the Telcos and Cable companies choose to do, even if you aren't directly getting your service from them.

Regulation is desperately needed, although it now comes about 10 years too late for it to really do any good. This should have happened when Telcos and Cable companies were first running the ISPs out of town.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by fraterormus]

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:28 PM
fraterormus, they just don't know, or they would be angry. But then again, it's regulation in the first place that let this all happen in the first place. An unregulated market would indeed be preferable to the crooked regulation we have now.

This mess is probably even a key part of our economic failure. In the 90s, productivity gains from information technology were a big part of what kept what is happening now from happening then.

The unofficial response was always 'what do you need a fast connection for anyway?' Now we'll have to find out when the rest of the world is doing it and we aren't.

Massive telecommuting would cut our fuel usage many times more than government enforced fuel standards ever could, and we're spending billions on that now. They'll spend $4500 on junkyard cars to increase fuel millage and decrease emissions a tiny amount but they let the telcos hump us dry. Information workers should be doing most of their work from home by now.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 02:13 PM
Good point about how much the Carbon Footprint of the average American would decrease if Telecommuting were more widespread. However, when RDP over a VPN is restricted to 65kbs by your ISP, no one wants to Telecommute as it is just painfully too slow! If you are paying $10/Gig Transfer Rate on top of your Monthly Lease, why would anyone want to Telecommute when it costs more a month than Gas+Car Payment+Insurance?

(Maybe it's the Car and Oil Companies really behind it all...maybe they are strong-arming the Cable and Telcos into discouraging Internet Use in the US...and I've heard stranger theories before! I just assumed it was the MPAA and RIAA, along with Disney that were strong-arming the Cable and Telcos into their current business practices of Bandwidth Usage Surcharges.)

Something I didn't mention in my previous post is the idea of Public Utilities.

When a service becomes a necessity of life, it is regulated by the Public Utility Commission (P.U.C.) in each State. This is done to ensure the widespread availability of this essential service to all residents at the lowest possible price. Many States even grant monopolistic charters to a single provider in exchange for the customers in that state getting a significant price-break for service. In order to retain their charter, the P.U.C. monitors that company closely to ensure that they are not abusing their charter. In my state, we have trounced 3 Telcos, one after another, for failing to meet P.U.C. standards of service.

The Internet is not a luxury any more. For the majority of businesses and people it is a daily necessity. Why then should we treat it differently than we do Natural Gas, Water, Electricity, and Telephones?

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:32 PM
reply to post by fraterormus

But they are not thinking of the average user. This is more for high content users.People who down or upload dozens of videos a day, constantly stream music, or use high volumens of bandwith, which slows the average user down actually.

If you actually help cap a little of the usage, it will make it faster for everybody.

People think of internet as free as air, but the fact is, computers and lines are being used. And those computers, and lines need to be maintained.

As an example, if you only have the post office deliver or take mail from your house, the setup is already in place to do so. But if there was not a cap, and people suddenly are shipping refridgerators at the same price, then that really changes things. and people who only send out an envelope won't get charged, but the people sending stoves and fridges, should.

This system was put into place long before streaming music or video, it wasn't designed for that. All the companies are trying do is limit it.
considering the short existence of the net, it doesn't seem right that technology should have limits, but the fact is, the net morphes constantly, and the companies are having a hard time keeping up with changing technologies and demands, and the system is already getting antiquated.But the cost to upgrade the system would put it out of most people's price ranges. So the obvious choice is to try to curb people's usage.

top topics


log in