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

a reply to: dug88

Next time I am at a restaurant, I'm gonna complain so hard if they don't have Borden's milk on hand... I'm so sick of these high assed business owners making choices of what to provide me for the agreed upon prices and then demanding I actually stick to their menu or, the horror, take my business elsewhere.

a reply to: DupontDeux

No, you can choose to pay for what you use or tiers.

Anyone talking on this site from America is probably familiar with the structures and the fact many of us only have one broadband choice or dsl which often times is far worse.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Many of us can't take our business elsewhere. I live in a city of 200,000~ and we have one cable internet provider and very crappy dsl.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Many of us can't take our business elsewhere. I live in a city of 200,000~ and we have one cable internet provider and very crappy dsl.

Satellite is always an option.

Obviously some folks are not going to be happy with their options. This is where invention and competition comes in. If enough people are mad, then someone will setup a competing provider in a community of 200,000.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Many of us can't take our business elsewhere. I live in a city of 200,000~ and we have one cable internet provider and very crappy dsl.

I live in a small town with around 5000 people living in the city limits.

I live half a mile outside the city limits, and there is one service provider (dsl). The top DL speed available is 3mbps. I tried to get 6 and 9 at one time, but I live too far outside the hub and the service would periodically drop because of the distance.

Satellite is too damned expensive.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Satellite is always an option.

Way too expensive.

This is where invention and competition comes in. If enough people are mad, then someone will setup a competing provider in a community of 200,000.

What about smaller communities, rural communities?

It takes money to set up towers, run the lines, installation services, repair services, etc. It's hard for a start-up company to do that. That is one problem, and why the monopoly is such a huge problem.

ETA:

While the monopoly exists regardless of NN, an example would be: My service provider decides to throttle or drop access to ATS because ATS doesn't offer or pay enough to be hosted versus a large content provider. My access to ATS suffers or is severely limited, whereas currently all content streams at the same rate (depending on number of users).

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Many of us can't take our business elsewhere. I live in a city of 200,000~ and we have one cable internet provider and very crappy dsl.

Satellite is always an option.

Obviously some folks are not going to be happy with their options. This is where invention and competition comes in. If enough people are mad, then someone will setup a competing provider in a community of 200,000.

Satellite internet equipment can cost more than a cheap car, hardly an option.

ISP's and cable providers have worse customer service ratings than most any other industry and I've yet to see competition.

Why would they compete if they can just claim part of an area to control with no opposition. It's almost an unwritten rule not to go into other territory.

Not good, especially when most internet providers are monopolies. You can't just chose another internet provider if you don't like the one you have. They pretty much have us over a barrel right now. It's too bad we don't have anti monopoly laws anymore. Not really.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

We all want our ISPs and cable TV providers but that doesn't mean we like them.

Both industries have sunk even lower in the ranks of customer satisfaction, according to a report released Tuesday by the American Customer Satisfaction Index. The rating for Internet service providers fell by 3.1 percent from a year ago to a score of 63 on a 100-point scale. The grade for subscription TV providers dropped by 4.4 percent to 65.

Both industries are at the bottom of the barrel for customer satisfaction among the 43 tracked in total by ACSI.

cnet

So deregulation in an industry that has the lowest consumer ratings? I don't see the plus side.

Most people live in monopolized areas with no competition. It's a reality, and I don't see deregulation (I'd hardly call forcing them to provide what's promised is regulation) helping at all.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Many of us can't take our business elsewhere. I live in a city of 200,000~ and we have one cable internet provider and very crappy dsl.

Satellite is always an option.

Obviously some folks are not going to be happy with their options. This is where invention and competition comes in. If enough people are mad, then someone will setup a competing provider in a community of 200,000.

People try to do this all the time. Often it is totally shut down by the existing monopolies.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: dug88

Next time I am at a restaurant, I'm gonna complain so hard if they don't have Borden's milk on hand... I'm so sick of these high assed business owners making choices of what to provide me for the agreed upon prices and then demanding I actually stick to their menu or, the horror, take my business elsewhere.

It's about control of information. You want someone else deciding what information you have access to? What if they don't approve of the content of a website. You're okay with your ISP blocking access to that website on political grounds or for even less substantial reasons?

From what I've been reading, it comes down to who is worse: The government or big corporations. The government would/could charge an internet tax annually of $72. But they would make sure that there was no discrimination against people regarding speed and accessibility.

By defining ISP’s as common carriers, the FCC is essentially defining broadband Internet service providers as a utility. They are mandated by government to provide the same service to everyone without discrimination—much like electricity and gas services.

On average, consumers would pay an additional $67 for landline broadband, and $72 for mobile broadband each year, according to PPI’s calculations, with charges varying from state to state. ...

(this was a 2015 article, before the changeover to NN I think. )

The corporations would be able to pretty much do as they wished it seems. Charging w/e prices they deem fit and also limiting access to areas. They could throttle your connection by monitoring your internet usage and slowing down connection during peak hours/off hours.

By classifying ISP’s as common carriers the FCC has banned ‘paid prioritization’—there will be no fast lanes and slow lanes of the Internet. And this is a good thing for the average consumer. Last June, John Oliver on his show Last Week Tonight (which is well worth watching) noted that 96% of Americans have access to two or fewer cable companies. That means that even if your Internet was being delayed or distorted you may not have the option to change to another provider.

Moreover, privacy advocates have noted that in order for ISP’s to play bandwidth favorites, they need to monitor what you are doing online via deep packet inspection. While deep packet inspection is certainly important to protect against nefarious viruses or malware, it can, under certain circumstances, lead to invasions of privacy. Defining ISP’s as ‘common carriers’ helps prevent against that. ...

If nothing has changed before or after the NN law went into effect. Why do we need to change it again? It is a honest question..why keep pushing back and forth if what it is categorized as (utility versus information service) doesn't matter? There must be a reason...


blend57

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: dug88

Next time I am at a restaurant, I'm gonna complain so hard if they don't have Borden's milk on hand... I'm so sick of these high assed business owners making choices of what to provide me for the agreed upon prices and then demanding I actually stick to their menu or, the horror, take my business elsewhere.

Was that restaurant's infrastructure built using tax payer subsidies? Do millions of people rely daily on the availability of Borden milk in a restaurant to to make a living, keep food on their table, keep a roof over their head?

How about a more comparable example, say if electricity were billed the same way. Let's pretend you're electrical company owned electronics manufacturers that competed with electronics manufacturers owned by a competing energy company and those companies were allowed to charge you more for using electronic devices produced by their competitors.

This is what happens without net neutrality:

www.iflscience.com...

Thanks to the actions of certain corporations and governments, net neutrality is under threat. Instead of being seen as a public utility, it is becoming more of a product. As highlighted by Quartz, Portugal – a nation with no net neutrality protective laws in place – may be a vision of a dark future in this sense.

MEO, a Lisbon-based telecommunications company, is taking advantage of the lack of regulations. They’re now offering packages at different prices that give their customers varying levels of access to the Web. If you pay a few euros per month, you just get to use messaging apps; a bit more, and you can use Facebook more, or perhaps Netflix more.

Christ, they are just bound and determined to rip every last shred of pleasure out of living on this f'ing rock.

Based on the tax rate I'd be paying about $200/month for service.

this will change nothing, the free market will work and they will have to compete with other companies who offer better packages

the entire economy now rests on the internet and data they will not throttle it and nothing will change

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Ksihkehe

While you were correct I misread and misspoke,is that all you have to add to the story?

This is the control of information, I hope you're not as apathetic as your comment seemed.

This will effect global markets and information.

This is not the "control of information" any more than a store deciding not to carry books by a certain publisher is. IPs are corporations, they have provided an infrastructure and charge for the use of it, same as with any other privately owned resource or commodity. The fact that the internet has become massively pervasive into our lives is immaterial to the base argument here. The same could be said for cable TV, yet we frequently see pay-to-play in that venue... hell, two years ago we lost AMC here on GCI cable because of a dispute between AMC and the provider.

Net Neutrality is a federal overreach which never should have been passed and needs to be removed ASAP.

A simple question:
How many ISPs do you have available to you?

A note:
Much of that 'private infrastructure' was funded by the government.

It's not like private companies came up with the internet, anyway... that was the federal government and universities. Cable TV is a completely different animal, one where cable companies take money that they get from subscribers to buy / fund content that is then aired on cable TV.

originally posted by: dug88
How about a more comparable example, say if electricity were billed the same way. Let's pretend you're electrical company owned electronics manufacturers that competed with electronics manufacturers owned by a competing energy company and those companies were allowed to charge you more for using electronic devices produced by their competitors.

So exactly what the heavily regulated cell phone provider industry does today? We get taxed and still have limited choice... Yeah, not seeing the advantage to all that regulation.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Ksihkehe

While you were correct I misread and misspoke,is that all you have to add to the story?

This is the control of information, I hope you're not as apathetic as your comment seemed.

This will effect global markets and information.

This is not the "control of information" any more than a store deciding not to carry books by a certain publisher is. IPs are corporations, they have provided an infrastructure and charge for the use of it, same as with any other privately owned resource or commodity. The fact that the internet has become massively pervasive into our lives is immaterial to the base argument here. The same could be said for cable TV, yet we frequently see pay-to-play in that venue... hell, two years ago we lost AMC here on GCI cable because of a dispute between AMC and the provider.

Net Neutrality is a federal overreach which never should have been passed and needs to be removed ASAP.

A simple question:
How many ISPs do you have available to you?

Not sure. I believe we have 1 cable, 1 DSL, plus 2 sattelite options, but could be wrong. Remember, I'm in Alaska so we're a bit behind things.

It's not like private companies came up with the internet, anyway... that was the federal government and universities.

...yet we have private water companies which are locally regulated, not federally... hmm.

originally posted by: toysforadults
this will change nothing, the free market will work and they will have to compete with other companies who offer better packages

the entire economy now rests on the internet and data they will not throttle it and nothing will change

That's not totally true. Verizon throttles my data if they think I'm burning too many gigs. I think it's a lot of crap because I'm paying a f'ing fortune for service already and I'm as low as I can get for price.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Ksihkehe

While you were correct I misread and misspoke,is that all you have to add to the story?

This is the control of information, I hope you're not as apathetic as your comment seemed.

This will effect global markets and information.

This is not the "control of information" any more than a store deciding not to carry books by a certain publisher is. IPs are corporations, they have provided an infrastructure and charge for the use of it, same as with any other privately owned resource or commodity. The fact that the internet has become massively pervasive into our lives is immaterial to the base argument here. The same could be said for cable TV, yet we frequently see pay-to-play in that venue... hell, two years ago we lost AMC here on GCI cable because of a dispute between AMC and the provider.

Net Neutrality is a federal overreach which never should have been passed and needs to be removed ASAP.

A simple question:
How many ISPs do you have available to you?

Not sure. I believe we have 1 cable, 1 DSL, plus 2 sattelite options, but could be wrong. Remember, I'm in Alaska so we're a bit behind things.

It's not like private companies came up with the internet, anyway... that was the federal government and universities.

...yet we have private water companies which are locally regulated, not federally... hmm.

That's not uncommon; in fact that's typical of many states, not just Alaska. There is not much in the way of choice to speak of. DSL is an inferior product to cable, as are satellite options. We tend to call these things monopolies, and regulate them because otherwise they get out of control, like lobbying state legislatures to restrict public broadband options.

Also, besides telecoms wanting to get rid of net neutrality, they're also pushing the FCC to preempt states:
Comcast asks the FCC to prohibit states from enforcing net neutrality

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: darkbake
I found this:

Check it out, you have to pay extra for things like Netflix or even Steam. Hell, you have to pay extra for pretty much everything. With all that is available on the internet, how can anyone afford that?

So you found a made up infographic? Cool. It's fake.

Was your internet like this before? Mine wasn't.

Something like this happened in real-life. Canadian mobile phone operators were completely blitzed by the fact that Skype completely bypassed their pricing plans, and attempted to impose Skype minutes to make up for the loss of revenue.