F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules... Thanks Trump.

[shinkyoku]

a question I have about this...

if companies then choose to throttle their speeds, or charge more for certain services or whatever....

why wouldn't competition still apply? would not the company that doesn't resort to those things intice more customers?

you know, like the cell phone market and the unlimited plans? Verizon doesn't have the total dominance it used to.....
edit: I realize that if you live in a rural locale (as I do) that you could be screwed either way due to lack of competition already

 

[chrisdiaz]

I've been in the IPTW local2 since 2004, pretty sure that means I know how this works.

So please explain how you would do it then? Please? Also if were throwing around Titles then yes I am a Cisco CCNA as well and have a very tight grasp on how the internet works.

 

[Rod1]

I hadn't read the entire thread (and I doubt most people will ever read an entire thread before responding), and he broke it down in detail. I was responding to someone else's post based on what I believed to be an accurate perspective of the situation.

If you havent read the entire thread then dont complain that the explanation i gave you (which you ignored) isnt detailed enough.

You could had answered "Why do 3 members need to be from a political party" and then i would had been more open to explain in detail.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Yeah I don't know the technical details but you bet your ass those ISPs will tell them to fuck off!

plus what's to stop them for specifically throttling the lines for that subcontract or license?

man, this shit is getting crazier the more I think about it

GOP acting like they acces the internet directly like Google and shit, dicks

 

[Pupi]

"ISIS is using the Internet better than we are."

 

[Gregolian]

So, my understanding is (and I may be incorrect) is that a lot of the regulations that got rolled back have only been existence for like 2 years haven't they?

Or am I missing something? Posting at work so I just don't have time to read 183 posts so if the snide remarks could be kept to a minimum that'd be nice.

 

[Andy Capp]

It's the second most scummy thing they've done after the tax cut. Shitbags, may they all have their toenails pulled out with red hot tongs.

 

[ChainFlow]

but you dont pay for all you can use water -- you pay per use. and if you want luxury usage of water, you pay extra for that.

if the government wants to ensure 25 gigs at 10 mbps for things like checking email, job searches, filling out drivers licence renewal forms -- for a a reasonable price to all that would cover basic necessity

Data is not comparable to water. This is one of the most pernicious lies fronted by the ISP industry. When some bits travel down the line, they don’t cost anything more than when the line is doing nothing - unless the line is at capacity. The actual limited resource is bandwidth. Which you already pay more for more of.

If I use 500TB of data but I do it all when the line is not at capacity like off-peak hours, I’ve cost the ISP practically nothing.

 

[MilesAbove]

but you dont pay for all you can use water -- you pay per use. and if you want luxury usage of water, you pay extra for that.

if the government wants to ensure 25 gigs at 10 mbps for things like checking email, job searches, filling out drivers licence renewal forms -- for a a reasonable price to all that would cover basic necessity

Yes, for the water analogy it only fits the "necessity" argument in the frame I posed. Obviously the two are not carbon copy situations.

You also don't pay first to have a monthly water access and then pay for each unit of water on top of packages for your water to come faster or slower than anyone else. Nor do you pay for necessary water allotments and then a surcharge on luxury water, but instead on total water used in a given pay period.

What is important, is that there are restrictions and oversight on how water is distributed fairly.

 

[TSO]

So please explain how you would do it then? Please?

All ISP's do is let you use their servers as a jumping off point into the very free internet. If you have the skill and capital you can make your own to use for free in perpetuity. Even sell access and become an ISP yourself.

 

[ChainFlow]

So, my understanding is (and I may be incorrect) is that a lot of the regulations that got rolled back have only been existence for like 2 years haven't they?

Or am I missing something? Posting at work so I just don't have time to read 183 posts so if the snide remarks could be kept to a minimum that'd be nice.

The regulations were instituted in 2015 after previously existing regulations were overturned by Verizon’s lawsuit because they explicitly wanted to start charging content providers for priority access, a fundamental change to the way the internet worked.

The ISPs wanted to change the game, the regulations were put in place to keep it like it always had been, and now they can go back to trying to charge Netflix for the right to access you and charge you extra for HD video streaming on Netflix and charge ad companies for the privilege of your browsing history to sell targeted ads.

 

[chrisdiaz]

plus what's to stop them for specifically throttling the lines for that subcontract or license?

man, this shit is getting crazier the more I think about it

GOP acting like they acces the internet directly like Google and shit, dicks

Exactly, this guy gets it.

Even if you lease say 100 external IPs to provide customers as a 2nd tier ISP, what would stop them from throttling or putting you through their filtering? At the end of the day, you still have to go to the ISP's point of presence and hit their router eventually through hops so it wouldnt stop them from filtering or denying content. Unless they had a special agreement but why would they do that? Telecom companies like AT&t and Verizon bought all of the private IP's years ago, there arent anymore they can magically create until we go to IPV6 which is still several years out from being able to be implemented.

 

[TSO]

but you dont pay for all you can use water -- you pay per use. and if you want luxury usage of water, you pay extra for that.

if the government wants to ensure 25 gigs at 10 mbps for things like checking email, job searches, filling out drivers licence renewal forms -- for a a reasonable price to all that would cover basic necessity

This thread is funny. Move out of the city, drill a well, unregulated water use.

 

[punkmother]

I love how it's "Trump's FCC." Obviously Trump could have weighed in against the vote, but the fucking cocksucker FCC chair Ajit Pai(former Verizon lawyer) who made the tie-breaking vote against net neutrality was appointed by Obama....this is far from a partisan issue. If anything it's the opposite, showing blatant collusion between both parties in order to pander to corporate interests.

while i agree with this entirely, the vote was split down party lines...albeit, probably by design.

 

[deviake]

If you havent read the entire thread then dont complain that the explanation i gave you (which you ignored) isnt detailed enough.

You could had answered "Why do 3 members need to be from a political party" and then i would had been more open to explain in detail.

You didn't explain anything and now you're trying to retell the narrative to make yourself feel better after someone else explained it better and surprise! I listened. You were a fucking dick and acted exactly like the other side does with that dumbass Trump comment which lumps you in the same category as them as far as I'm concerned. Wipe the egg off your face and get over it.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

a question I have about this...

if companies then choose to throttle their speeds, or charge more for certain services or whatever....

why wouldn't competition still apply? would not the company that doesn't resort to those things intice more customers?

you know, like the cell phone market and the unlimited plans? Verizon doesn't have the total dominance it used to.....
edit: I realize that if you live in a rural locale (as I do) that you could be screwed either way due to lack of competition already

Probably the same reason your ideas didn't work with cable television and other telecommunications.

 

[kpt018]

You noted that "ISPs operate regional monopolies" with no qualification. I think the [disingenuous] point you were trying (and failing) to make was obvious.

In any case the claim is incorrect, your lying notwithstanding. The situation I'm in is hardly rare.

How do you reconcile the fact that over 90% of census blocks have access to at least 2 service providers (not even including satellite) with the clear lie you penned in your other posting?

Again - could it be that you're lying and misrepresenting to suit your (laughable) views?

Wrong here. But I am still waiting for you to support your initial claim that this is good for business when that was easily debunked by pointing out how bad it is for many other businesses.

And until you're willing to be honest in the discussion yourself you should hold back claims of lying.

Here's one:

https://arstechnica.com/information...-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/

There's a bunch of stuff out there that will explain why you're wrong.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Yes, for the water analogy it only fits the "necessity" argument in the frame I posed. Obviously the two are not carbon copy situations.

You also don't pay first to have a monthly water access and then pay for each unit of water on top of packages for your water to come faster or slower than anyone else. Nor do you pay for necessary water allotments and then a surcharge on luxury water, but instead on total water used in a given pay period.

What is important, is that there are restrictions and oversight on how water is distributed fairly.

No, you do pay for monthly services regardless of usages; delivery service. You also pay for quality of service via taxation.

But, yes, you cant compare 100% as they are not carbon copy -- but if you are going to make the argument that data is a necessity, if ISP offers a 5mbps at 25 gigs -- for 24 dollars, that would be seen a basic needs met. Anything above that could be seen as luxury.

 

[Gregolian]

The regulations were instituted in 2015 after previously existing regulations were overturned by Verizon’s lawsuit because they explicitly wanted to start charging content providers for priority access, a fundamental change to the way the internet worked.

The ISPs wanted to change the game, the regulations were put in place to keep it like it always had been, and now they can go back to trying to charge Netflix for the right to access you and charge you extra for HD video streaming on Netflix and charge ad companies for the privilege of your browsing history to sell targeted ads.

Ah, well then.

Carry on.

 

[chrisdiaz]

All ISP's do is let you use their servers as a jumping off point into the very free internet. If you have the skill and capital you can make your own to use for free in perpetuity. Even sell access and become an ISP yourself.

their servers? No its their routers they allow you to use. Your home router is given an IP to communate to their router that routes the traffic to the IP of google or whateven website your visting. There has to be an end device forwarding you to the "free internet" and vice versa. If you wanted to become ISP, you would have to purchase a set of external IP's and you would still be routing through their infrastructure. If there arent multiple routers for you to utilize, that the telecom companies provide which makes up the backbone of the internet, your not going to get a reply from the website your trying to visit.