Trump's new FCC head Ajit Pai, has taken the first swing at NN by affirming carriers' rights to offer "free" service to its customers. (Eg. AT&T's offer of free streaming on your phone with Direct TV service.)

It may be too late to regain control of ICANN since that was consummated (and we were the folks who got ******) in October.

A big win for telecoms. A big loss for consumers. The internet is going to get a lot more expensive for everyone.

(02-06-2017 08:58 AM)Niner National Wrote:  A big win for telecoms. A big loss for consumers. The internet is going to get a lot more expensive for everyone.

If that's the price to keep the nanny state from over-regulating it, I'm fine with paying it.

(02-06-2017 08:58 AM)Niner National Wrote:  A big win for telecoms. A big loss for consumers. The internet is going to get a lot more expensive for everyone.

So allowing the telecoms to give away free stuff is bad for consumers. Got it.

(02-06-2017 09:05 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 08:58 AM)Niner National Wrote:  A big win for telecoms. A big loss for consumers. The internet is going to get a lot more expensive for everyone.

So allowing the telecoms to give away free stuff is bad for consumers. Got it.

No it allows them to prioritize data, which can favor their own services over competing services. Someday, they could tell georgia_tech_swagger that he has to pay an additional fee or they'll slow his website speed down. Website speed is an increasingly important component to how websites are ranked in search engine results because it is the most important factor in user experience. Google has studied this extensively and slow websites have considerably worse user metrics because people are impatient.

Comcast already did this with Netflix and other content providers. If the cost of delivering content goes up, the price to the consumer goes up.

Your ISP sells you an internet speed, but net neutrality essentially allows them to not give you the promised internet speed if the content provider also isn't paying to guarantee that speed. They're double dipping.

Since in many markets, ISPs hold a monopoly, or if you're lucky, a duopoly, there isn't competition. They are a utility and should be regulated as such to protect consumers and businesses from price gouging.

[quote='Niner National' pid='14066752' dateline='1486392784']

Quote:No it allows them to prioritize data, which can favor their own services over competing services.

So a teleco invests in new infrastructure (or maintaining old/inherited infrastructure) and they want to *gasp* be able to prioritize data?

Look I'm sure this can go bad a thousand ways, but so can federal over regulation. The difference being that the consumer market can bend the ear of ATT a lot more than it can of unelected bureaucrats.

(02-06-2017 09:53 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 09:05 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 08:58 AM)Niner National Wrote:  A big win for telecoms. A big loss for consumers. The internet is going to get a lot more expensive for everyone.

So allowing the telecoms to give away free stuff is bad for consumers. Got it.

No it allows them to prioritize data, which can favor their own services over competing services. Someday, they could tell georgia_tech_swagger that he has to pay an additional fee or they'll slow his website speed down. Website speed is an increasingly important component to how websites are ranked in search engine results because it is the most important factor in user experience. Google has studied this extensively and slow websites have considerably worse user metrics because people are impatient.

Comcast already did this with Netflix and other content providers. If the cost of delivering content goes up, the price to the consumer goes up.

Your ISP sells you an internet speed, but net neutrality essentially allows them to not give you the promised internet speed if the content provider also isn't paying to guarantee that speed. They're double dipping.

Since in many markets, ISPs hold a monopoly, or if you're lucky, a duopoly, there isn't competition. They are a utility and should be regulated as such to protect consumers and businesses from price gouging.

Youtube is own by Google, and Comcast wants to slow down or block Youtube and similar sites from their customers because it competes with their online streaming service. The Net Neutrality was put in place so that we can have equal access to those sites. Altice took over 70% in Suddenlink, and they wanted to bid on Time Warner (Parent Company of CNN, HBO, TNT, TBS and so forth.) Youtube would have been a competitor to Time Warner online streaming sites.

Looks like its happening...

Quote:Federal regulators unveiled a plan Tuesday that would give Internet providers broad powers to determine what websites and online services their customers can see and use, and at what cost.

The move sets the stage for a crucial vote next month at the Federal Communications Commission that could reshape the entire digital ecosystem. The FCC’s Republican chairman, Ajit Pai, has made undoing the government's net neutrality rules one of his top priorities, and Tuesday's move hands a win to broadband companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.

Pai is taking aim at regulations that were approved two years ago under a Democratic presidency and that sought to make sure all Internet content, whether from big or small companies, would be treated equally by Internet providers.

Washington Post

Just another reason why geriatric politicians are a threat to the science and technology fields. Net neutrality is vital for the consumer and American public.

(11-21-2017 01:24 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Just another reason why geriatric politicians are a threat to the science and technology fields. Net neutrality is vital for the consumer and American public.

You want to bet? If you win, I'll cut off my internet access. If I win, you cut off yours.


Uh, um, nevermind... you'll welsh

Where does google/youtube, twitter, and facebook censoring conservative content fall under "net neutrality"?

If that is allowed, what is stopping spectrum from cutting off my internet or verizon listening in on my phone calls and cutting off my service if I commit a similar thought crime, defined as any thought that strays from or is inconvenient to the alt-left agenda?

(11-21-2017 01:24 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Just another reason why geriatric politicians are a threat to the science and technology fields. Net neutrality is vital for the consumer and American public.

We all know the real reason you're interested in this topic.

Net Neutrality was something that is popular no matter what background you are in. The companies can't slow your speed down if you visit Infowars and all that. With this gone? Internet companies can slow traffic to all these sites and use a bribe for these websites to pay money to speed up traffic to those sites. What would hurt the most are the small businesses that are online who can not pay these companies money to speed up access to their sites. This could put the small businesses out of business which means lost of jobs. We need to send an email to the FCC chief to keep Net Neutrality.

(11-21-2017 01:49 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Where does google/youtube, twitter, and facebook censoring conservative content fall under "net neutrality"?

If that is allowed, what is stopping spectrum from cutting off my internet or verizon listening in on my phone calls and cutting off my service if I commit a similar thought crime, defined as any thought that strays from or is inconvenient to the alt-left agenda?

I'd have to quit the internutz....

it's almost time to either move to the woods with my guitars, guns, and health supply of keg delivery and live the rest of the years shootin', fishin', huntin', pickin', and most importantly, drankin'....

or #costa

I've long been finished with stupid *****.....

The internet is a utility.

It should be treated like one.

(11-21-2017 04:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The internet is a utility.

It should be treated like one.

^This.

(11-21-2017 04:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The internet is a utility.

It should be treated like one.

Utilities usually don't have any competition.

(11-21-2017 05:19 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 04:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The internet is a utility.

It should be treated like one.

Utilities usually don't have any competition.

Do ISPs have any real competition? Not In my area for sure.

(11-21-2017 05:28 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 05:19 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 04:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The internet is a utility.

It should be treated like one.

Utilities usually don't have any competition.

Do ISPs have any real competition? Not In my area for sure.

FINALLY! .....been campin' on that one waiting for someone to figure it out.......



what ends up happening is the rural centers become serfs (pardon the pun).....and there are quite a few of those that will always be ignored

My choices are Comcast Xfinity, or Hughes Net Satellite Internet (which is insanely slow and expensive).

I'm afraid we're gonna start seeing ISPs charging extra for unencumbered access to various sites. For example, do you plan on streaming a lot of Netflix and Hulu? That'll be an extra $5 a month? Planning on using social media? Fork over another $7.99. You like streaming Pandora or Spotify on your commute? I'm gonna need about $3.50...



Apparently that how it's like in Portugal now that they removed net neutrality.

http://www.businessinsider.com/net-neutr...cc-2017-11