Say Goodbye to Net Neutrality....

[Mick]

You have no idea. ........ Really, you have no idea.

It will cost us more to visit VN to ***** about internet speeds and data caps from ISPs which will completely f*** with the ability to enjoy some of our favorite streaming services. When this happens it will all be Al Gore's fault because he invented the internet.

 

[Septic]

I suggest you read the article I posted with an open mind and see if still feel this way.

Telecoms have bent over backwards, lobbied for years and have undoubtedly paid millions to get this to where it is.

They wouldn't be doing that if there was going to be less money in it for them.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Telecoms have bent over backwards, lobbied for years and have undoubtedly paid millions to get this to where it is.

They wouldn't be doing that if there was going to be less money in it for them.

Shouldn't data hogs be charged more?

 

[Septic]

Shouldn't data hogs be charged more?

Content providers or end users? What is considered to be a data 'hog'? Where will the telecoms draw that line? 1mb, 10mb?

I highly doubt that the cost of your cable or dsl internet bill will become less expensive.

I'd bet a paycheck that the content you're served now will get exponentially more expensive. Then what? You going to vote with your wallet? Most providers have little to no competition, this will further limit that.

There's not a scenario where this is good for consumers, unless those consumers are also telecom shareholders.

 

[n_huffhines]

Content providers or end users? What is considered to be a data 'hog'? Where will the telecoms draw that line? 1mb, 10mb?

I highly doubt that the cost of your cable or dsl internet bill will become less expensive.

I'd bet a paycheck that the content you're served now will get exponentially more expensive. Then what? You going to vote with your wallet? Most providers have little to no competition, this will further limit that.

There's not a scenario where this is good for consumers, unless those consumers are also telecom shareholders.

Why do you think this? It's just a rollback of 2015 rules. My internet service got better in the years leading up to 2015.

 

[Septic]

Why do you think this? It's just a rollback of 2015 rules. My internet service got better in the years leading up to 2015.

When Netflix, Hulu, directTVnow, PS Vue,etc have to pay to keep their content in the fast lane - you have to believe they'll pass that cost along to the consumer.

The cord cutting revolution is taking its toll on content providers, they won't have the luxury of absorbing the higher cost of arbitrary delivery.

My service is better than ever, fiber showed up down here and suddenly competitors perked up.

 

[armchair]

If the left pushes something, its always to take from the working and give to the lazy. Keep up that socialistic dream.

First, you're comment is straight out of the 70s.




Second, this is about net neutrality--not taxes or social spending. Try to stick with the topic.

Something like 90 percent of Americans who understand net neutrality support the the idea--and why wouldn't they? Do understand that this is simply another gift to big business by an administration that is completely devoted to big business--it's carte blanche for corporate America. Carte blanche for corporate America means higher prices for most everything--count on it. And this from a man who was supposed to be a populist president. Where's the Trump who was going to help working Americans? He's nowhere to be seen--and hasn't been since the election. He blithely goes along with everything our venal, Republican-led Congress wants, and what the GOP wants is to lick the boots of its big corporate donors and offer them all many of favors to ensure that the campaign contributions keep coming--and screw the great majority of Americans. '

 

[armchair]

If the left pushes something, its always to take from the working and give to the lazy. Keep up that socialistic dream.

First, you're comment is straight out of the 70s.




Second, this is about net neutrality--not taxes or social spending. Try to stick with the topic.

Something like 90 percent of Americans who understand net neutrality support the the idea--and why wouldn't they? Do understand that this is simply another gift to big business by an administration that is completely devoted to big business--it's carte blanche for corporate America. Carte blanche for corporate America means higher prices for most everything--count on it. And this from a man who was supposed to be a populist president. Where's the Trump who was going to help working Americans? He's nowhere to be seen--and hasn't been since the election. He blithely goes along with everything our venal, Republican-led Congress wants, and what the GOP wants is to lick the boots of its big corporate donors and offer them all many of favors to ensure that the campaign contributions keep coming--and screw the great majority of Americans. Look at what's been happening at the EPA--disgraceful; education department--disgraceful. Betsy DeVos is fond of for-profit colleges that have a long history of marketing fraud and sticking their unlucky students with big bills for fourth-rate degrees. Interior Secretary wants to shrink National Monuments to that oil and gas companies can drill on what is now public land. And on and on it goes....This will change come next year and the mid-term election--and well it should.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Content providers or end users? What is considered to be a data 'hog'? Where will the telecoms draw that line? 1mb, 10mb?

I highly doubt that the cost of your cable or dsl internet bill will become less expensive.

I'd bet a paycheck that the content you're served now will get exponentially more expensive. Then what? You going to vote with your wallet? Most providers have little to no competition, this will further limit that.

There's not a scenario where this is good for consumers, unless those consumers are also telecom shareholders.

All users. Just like just about everything else, the more of it that is used up the more the consumer of that good or service should pay for it. Water and electricity users pay more when they consume more. I'm at a loss as to why data usage should be any different. The providers will compete with each other and risk becoming regulated utilities if they abuse the free market.

The companies that sell the last mile do have competitors. Cable, cable over-builders, telephone, wireless, electrical utilities, dish companies and others all have developed technologies and/or invested in extensive infrastructure. The wholesale providers of fiber or broadcast spectrum have the least competition and have built their delivery systems over government property... so they'll always be regulated to some degree and unlikely to be able to exploit abusive pricing practices.

The more that Netflex and similar users utilize the infrastructure the more they should pay. If that means their customers must pay more, then there's really no problem with that. The Comcasts, Charters, AT&Ts, Verizons, Speints, T-Mobiles, US Cellular/TDSs already charge their customers a variable rate based on capacity.

The residential waste disposal industry should have a more usage based model too. The household producing 10 pounds of trash a week gets charged the same as the one that puts 300 pounds a week into the landfill.

 

[n_huffhines]

When Netflix, Hulu, directTVnow, PS Vue,etc have to pay to keep their content in the fast lane - you have to believe they'll pass that cost along to the consumer.

The cord cutting revolution is taking its toll on content providers, they won't have the luxury of absorbing the higher cost of arbitrary delivery.

My service is better than ever, fiber showed up down here and suddenly competitors perked up.

So either Hulu passes the cost directly onto the users of the content or the ISP passes the cost onto all customers.

 

[NEVolFan]

You have no idea. ........ Really, you have no idea.

LOL... you are in denial. He nailed it... you won't admit it, but you knew that.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

What Netflix, Comcast and others are saying about the FCC’s plan to end net neutrality - MarketWatch

Those opposed to the reversal say getting rid of the protections will allow internet service providers (ISPs) to throttle the connection of some sites, giving preferential treatment to others at a price. FCC officials say ISPs will have to disclose any such actions, which will then be reviewed, most likely by the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission.

 

[Weezy]

When municipal broadband came to Chattanooga, Comcast and ATT boosted speeds and lowered prices. The telecoms don't need to charge for more data usage. They just want to protect their monopolies and keep the revenue they are losing from cord cutters.

 

[Septic]

All users. Just like just about everything else, the more of it that is used up the more the consumer of that good or service should pay for it. Water and electricity users pay more when they consume more. I'm at a loss as to why data usage should be any different. The providers will compete with each other and risk becoming regulated utilities if they abuse the free market.

The companies that sell the last mile do have competitors. Cable, cable over-builders, telephone, wireless, electrical utilities, dish companies and others all have developed technologies and/or invested in extensive infrastructure. The wholesale providers of fiber or broadcast spectrum have the least competition and have built their delivery systems over government property... so they'll always be regulated to some degree and unlikely to be able to exploit abusive pricing practices.

The more that Netflex and similar users utilize the infrastructure the more they should pay. If that means their customers must pay more, then there's really no problem with that. The Comcasts, Charters, AT&Ts, Verizons, Speints, T-Mobiles, US Cellular/TDSs already charge their customers a variable rate based on capacity.

The residential waste disposal industry should have a more usage based model too. The household producing 10 pounds of trash a week gets charged the same as the one that puts 300 pounds a week into the landfill.

The fatal flaw in your premise is that 1's and 0's flowing through twisted pair copper is an infinitely renewable resource. You're conflating data usage with the usage of a finite resource like water. The wires work the same way whether I'm streaming video or posting to VN.

Using your example would allow the water "company" to charge us not just for the water we consume, but now a new and additional fee for how much could flow through the pipe and how fast, or at all or which kind. But to truly make this water argument accurate, we'd also have to assume the water is being provided free of charge and in infinite supply to the water "company." They'd cease to be the water provider and simply a conduit in which they could be in a better position to strangle more cash from the water 'producers' and the end user.

Electricity costs money to produce, the more we use - the more it costs the electric company. The telecoms aren't producing data, they simply own the rights to the infrastructure.

Data, despite your attempt to paint it as a nonrenewable commodity, isn't.

This is a money grab. I'm not salty about that - the telecoms have a duty to their shareholders. Let's acknowledge that and stop trying to paint this as something it's not.

 

[Septic]

When municipal broadband came to Chattanooga, Comcast and ATT boosted speeds and lowered prices. The telecoms don't need to charge for more data usage. They just want to protect their monopolies and keep the revenue they are losing from cord cutters.

Now more than ever.

 

[1972 Grad]

When Netflix, Hulu, directTVnow, PS Vue,etc have to pay to keep their content in the fast lane - you have to believe they'll pass that cost along to the consumer.

The cord cutting revolution is taking its toll on content providers, they won't have the luxury of absorbing the higher cost of arbitrary delivery.

My service is better than ever, fiber showed up down here and suddenly I made a poo poo turd.

fyp

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

The fatal flaw in your premise is that 1's and 0's flowing through twisted pair copper is an infinitely renewable resource. You're conflating data usage with the usage of a finite resource like water. The wires work the same way whether I'm streaming video or posting to VN.

Using your example would allow the water "company" to charge us not just for the water we consume, but now a new and additional fee for how much could flow through the pipe and how fast, or at all or which kind. But to truly make this water argument accurate, we'd also have to assume the water is being provided free of charge and in infinite supply to the water "company." They'd cease to be the water provider and simply a conduit in which they could be in a better position to strangle more cash from the water 'producers' and the end user.

Electricity costs money to produce, the more we use - the more it costs the electric company. The telecoms aren't producing data, they simply own the rights to the infrastructure.

Data, despite your attempt to paint it as a nonrenewable commodity, isn't.

This is a money grab. I'm not salty about that - the telecoms have a duty to their shareholders. Let's acknowledge that and stop trying to paint this as something it's not.

The ISPs have to have bigger pipes to handle the increased flow of data. That's the flaw in your theory that Xs and Os are infinite. Plus the capacity has to be built out to handle the maximum flow at peak times. Water companies don't create the water. They condition it and deliver it. That's very similar to what data providers are doing. Water companies pump it. ISPs amplify it.

 

[Septic]

The ISPs have to have bigger pipes to handle the increased flow of data. That's the flaw in your theory that Xs and Os are infinite. Plus the capacity has to be built out to handle the maximum flow at peak times. Water companies don't create the water. They condition it and deliver it. That's very similar to what data providers are doing. Water companies pump it. ISPs amplify it.

You're moving the goal posts. Before it was about supplying a commodity and now it's about the cost of infrastructure?

True, telecom do need to maintain the infrastructure, they should be and are compensated for the equipment upgrades. But that is arguably a cost of doing business.

Your assertion that data flowing over wires is a finite commodity isn't convincing. The wires don't care if it flows in kilobytes or terabytes.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

You're moving the goal posts. Before it was about supplying a commodity and now it's about the cost of infrastructure?

True, telecom do need to maintain the infrastructure, they should be and are compensated for the equipment upgrades. But that is arguably a cost of doing business.

Your assertion that data flowing over wires is a finite commodity isn't convincing. The wires don't care if it flows in kilobytes or terabytes.

The internet pipes and the water pipes don't carry unlimited quantities. Water, sewer, and electricity require regulation because it's not feasible to have multiple options. With internet access there are almost always 2 terrestrial options, usually 3, and even 4 or more in many cases. Plus there are multiple wireless options.

 

[Mick]

The internet pipes and the water pipes don't carry unlimited quantities. Water, sewer, and electricity require regulation because it's not feasible to have multiple options. With internet access there are almost always 2 terrestrial options, usually 3, and even 4 or more in many cases. Plus there are multiple wireless options.

You do know that without net neutrality they can go back to phone bill from phone company, cable bill from the cable company and internet bill from your isp. You do realize this don't you. Hope your 401k can keep up.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

You do know that without net neutrality they can go back to phone bill from phone company, cable bill from the cable company and internet bill from your isp. You do realize this don't you. Hope your 401k can keep up.

And what's wrong with that? Cable, telcos, and ISPs can deliver any if those individually or bundled. Wireless providers can provide those services. Electrical companies could too. The ISPs don't need the government interference. Consumers are not at risk.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

This is the funny thing about these regulatory roll-backs. Team Obama went hardcore in amping regulation, Trump is rolling back to what we had before Obama and people act like we're going all Thunderdome.

Can I have Tina Turner?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

what caused the massive recession of 2007--lack of regulation of the financial sector. Regs put in place to prevent a recurrence, but regs will be rolled back by trump and gop. Consumer protection is a good thing--perhaps you missed the giant wells fargo scandal. Conservatives are always a scream--always caterwauling about guv'mint while their pants are being pulled and their wallets emptied by corporate america. Regs tend to be put in place for good reasons--same with environment, etc.

wow!

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

1. straw man. 2007 was a housing issue, not the internet.
2. the regulations placed made the big corporations even more powerful as it kept out small players. which is actually what happened in 2007, so much of the bad debt ended up in too few hands.
3. you are also forgetting that, at least for now I don't think the case is closed, Trump's admin is actually blocking a big merger of AT&T and someone else. you know keeping that mega corp you hate so much from getting even worse.

He's a straw stuffed armchair.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Regulating businesses to lower the cost to consumers is a misnomer. It's just moving the money around. Sure, it's possible that the cable bill could be a few dollars less. But growing the government and raising taxes just takes that money out of a different pocket. Plus innovation stagnates with unnecessary government interference. Concepts that liberals just can't understand and will never embrace.