FCC Repealed Net Neutrality Today
- Thread starter LoneRanger
- Start date
- Status
Largely agree.
If they really want to address the situation, then allow more competition.
After all, what organization prevents new providers from entering the market? Governments. They give virtual monopolies to providers.
I do think much of the issue will be helped as we see even more wireless internet. While we have both uVerse and Charter in our community providing wired (or fiber in the case of my neighborhood) the advances in wireless internet will make it possible to have more providers in a community.
More choice is good for the consumer.
If you want a provider that filters traffic so your experience is not negatively impacted by your 17 year old neighbor torrenting Anime or whatever, having that choice could be a positive.
ISPs can be motivated by competition. If consumers have the choice to go elsewhere, they are less likely to establish policies and plans that are unpopular.
But if there are virtual monopolies protected by government gatekeepers, there is little incentive to compete.
Originally Posted By: JustN89
I don't see much impact for the worse. In fact, the increased competition has the potential to make it better. The increase in viable competition helped out the consumer in the cell phone market bringing about nearly universal unlimited data services. When you live in an area like mine, which is dominated by AT&T with little else to choose from, some competition would be a breath of fresh air in a market where most AT&T customers have felt neglected and overcharged.
As for repealing Net Neutrality allowing for censorship by the ISPs... we already experience censorship. The battle here is between ISPs (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc) and Content Providers (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc). The stuff we put on the internet is already censored, but by the Content Providers which is almost worse because due to Net Neutrality, the regulations make it nearly impossible for another service to compete with a company in their market such as Facebook. There is documented evidence of censorship by Facebook and YouTube against Right-favoring ads and news articles. Repealing Net Neutrality just means that it is possible for ISPs to censor the Content Providers, only the difference is that you can find a new ISP. You can't find a new Facebook or YouTube, at least not one that provides nearly the same amount of content and connectivity.
Either way, both sides of the argument offer valid points. I fall somewhat in the middle here, as I think the consumer loses either way. However, I do not believe that the repeal of Net Neutrality is the "end of the Internet as we know it", and the amount of fear mongering and mislabeling that has been going on the last 24-48 hours is absolutely absurd.
If they really want to address the situation, then allow more competition.
After all, what organization prevents new providers from entering the market? Governments. They give virtual monopolies to providers.
I do think much of the issue will be helped as we see even more wireless internet. While we have both uVerse and Charter in our community providing wired (or fiber in the case of my neighborhood) the advances in wireless internet will make it possible to have more providers in a community.
More choice is good for the consumer.
If you want a provider that filters traffic so your experience is not negatively impacted by your 17 year old neighbor torrenting Anime or whatever, having that choice could be a positive.
ISPs can be motivated by competition. If consumers have the choice to go elsewhere, they are less likely to establish policies and plans that are unpopular.
But if there are virtual monopolies protected by government gatekeepers, there is little incentive to compete.
Originally Posted By: JustN89
I don't see much impact for the worse. In fact, the increased competition has the potential to make it better. The increase in viable competition helped out the consumer in the cell phone market bringing about nearly universal unlimited data services. When you live in an area like mine, which is dominated by AT&T with little else to choose from, some competition would be a breath of fresh air in a market where most AT&T customers have felt neglected and overcharged.
As for repealing Net Neutrality allowing for censorship by the ISPs... we already experience censorship. The battle here is between ISPs (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc) and Content Providers (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc). The stuff we put on the internet is already censored, but by the Content Providers which is almost worse because due to Net Neutrality, the regulations make it nearly impossible for another service to compete with a company in their market such as Facebook. There is documented evidence of censorship by Facebook and YouTube against Right-favoring ads and news articles. Repealing Net Neutrality just means that it is possible for ISPs to censor the Content Providers, only the difference is that you can find a new ISP. You can't find a new Facebook or YouTube, at least not one that provides nearly the same amount of content and connectivity.
Either way, both sides of the argument offer valid points. I fall somewhat in the middle here, as I think the consumer loses either way. However, I do not believe that the repeal of Net Neutrality is the "end of the Internet as we know it", and the amount of fear mongering and mislabeling that has been going on the last 24-48 hours is absolutely absurd.
Originally Posted By: loneryder
What is "torrent traffic"?
Peer to peer downloading of data tied to torrent files. Technically they are not illegal assuming the data in the torrent file is not copyrighted.
What is "torrent traffic"?
Peer to peer downloading of data tied to torrent files. Technically they are not illegal assuming the data in the torrent file is not copyrighted.
The internet was ruined with Net Neutrality in place. Look how slow websites are now. No matter what speed you pay for. Everything has so many ads and [censored] all over it takes forever to load or scroll. Big Companies find a way to make money either way. I say so long. FCC can now go back to cracking down on half time shows.
Ads and pop-up on the internet are never going away.
I'd like to see what happens with someplace like YouTube (Google owned) if they decide to start charging a monthly fee for people to use their site, and they end up losing a big share of people who currently use it. Just think how many people YouTube pays for posting their daily Vlog videos that get hundreds of thousands views - some people make millions just Vlogging for living. Saw a blurb on TV the other day that some 6 year old kid who "reviews" toys made 11 million dollars last year from his YouTube videos. Crazy stuff.
I'd like to see what happens with someplace like YouTube (Google owned) if they decide to start charging a monthly fee for people to use their site, and they end up losing a big share of people who currently use it. Just think how many people YouTube pays for posting their daily Vlog videos that get hundreds of thousands views - some people make millions just Vlogging for living. Saw a blurb on TV the other day that some 6 year old kid who "reviews" toys made 11 million dollars last year from his YouTube videos. Crazy stuff.
Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Originally Posted By: loneryder
[These big companies are not going to massively [censored] off their customers.
They'd never do that...
Comcast Is America's Most Hated Company
Should be enough to know that if Comcast wants it, we don't.
Originally Posted By: loneryder
[These big companies are not going to massively [censored] off their customers.
They'd never do that...
Comcast Is America's Most Hated Company
Should be enough to know that if Comcast wants it, we don't.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Originally Posted By: 2strokeNorthstar
The internet was ruined with Net Neutrality in place. Look how slow websites are now. No matter what speed you pay for. Everything has so many ads and [censored] all over it takes forever to load or scroll. Big Companies find a way to make money either way. I say so long. FCC can now go back to cracking down on half time shows.
So how would corporate or small business users view it?… they need to send a just completed technical package in time for management or client review (conference call) … and it’s more than a minor inconvenience when the stream is slow …
The internet was ruined with Net Neutrality in place. Look how slow websites are now. No matter what speed you pay for. Everything has so many ads and [censored] all over it takes forever to load or scroll. Big Companies find a way to make money either way. I say so long. FCC can now go back to cracking down on half time shows.
So how would corporate or small business users view it?… they need to send a just completed technical package in time for management or client review (conference call) … and it’s more than a minor inconvenience when the stream is slow …
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,294
Originally Posted By: loneryder
Get out your wallet. The up-charges are coming.
And how do you know this???
I refuse to be called out by someone who doesn't even know how to use the quoted reply function and types out my post instead. Internet much?
Get out your wallet. The up-charges are coming.
And how do you know this???
I refuse to be called out by someone who doesn't even know how to use the quoted reply function and types out my post instead. Internet much?
Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Originally Posted By: JustN89
I don't see much impact for the worse. In fact, the increased competition has the potential to make it better. The increase in viable competition helped out the consumer in the cell phone market bringing about nearly universal unlimited data services. When you live in an area like mine, which is dominated by AT&T with little else to choose from, some competition would be a breath of fresh air in a market where most AT&T customers have felt neglected and overcharged.
As for repealing Net Neutrality allowing for censorship by the ISPs... we already experience censorship. The battle here is between ISPs (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc) and Content Providers (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc). The stuff we put on the internet is already censored, but by the Content Providers which is almost worse because due to Net Neutrality, the regulations make it nearly impossible for another service to compete with a company in their market such as Facebook. There is documented evidence of censorship by Facebook and YouTube against Right-favoring ads and news articles. Repealing Net Neutrality just means that it is possible for ISPs to censor the Content Providers, only the difference is that you can find a new ISP. You can't find a new Facebook or YouTube, at least not one that provides nearly the same amount of content and connectivity.
Either way, both sides of the argument offer valid points. I fall somewhat in the middle here, as I think the consumer loses either way. However, I do not believe that the repeal of Net Neutrality is the "end of the Internet as we know it", and the amount of fear mongering and mislabeling that has been going on the last 24-48 hours is absolutely absurd.
And what evidence do you have to the contrary? Or can you only post in videos?
This is the problem. People are fear mongering over deregulating something that's only been regulated for 2 years, yet are freaking out because certain groups (including the Content Providers - who benefit from Net Neutrality by the way) telling them that they need to freak out.
Originally Posted By: JustN89
I don't see much impact for the worse. In fact, the increased competition has the potential to make it better. The increase in viable competition helped out the consumer in the cell phone market bringing about nearly universal unlimited data services. When you live in an area like mine, which is dominated by AT&T with little else to choose from, some competition would be a breath of fresh air in a market where most AT&T customers have felt neglected and overcharged.
As for repealing Net Neutrality allowing for censorship by the ISPs... we already experience censorship. The battle here is between ISPs (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc) and Content Providers (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc). The stuff we put on the internet is already censored, but by the Content Providers which is almost worse because due to Net Neutrality, the regulations make it nearly impossible for another service to compete with a company in their market such as Facebook. There is documented evidence of censorship by Facebook and YouTube against Right-favoring ads and news articles. Repealing Net Neutrality just means that it is possible for ISPs to censor the Content Providers, only the difference is that you can find a new ISP. You can't find a new Facebook or YouTube, at least not one that provides nearly the same amount of content and connectivity.
Either way, both sides of the argument offer valid points. I fall somewhat in the middle here, as I think the consumer loses either way. However, I do not believe that the repeal of Net Neutrality is the "end of the Internet as we know it", and the amount of fear mongering and mislabeling that has been going on the last 24-48 hours is absolutely absurd.
And what evidence do you have to the contrary? Or can you only post in videos?
This is the problem. People are fear mongering over deregulating something that's only been regulated for 2 years, yet are freaking out because certain groups (including the Content Providers - who benefit from Net Neutrality by the way) telling them that they need to freak out.
Originally Posted By: daves87rs
Depends on what the FCC wants to feed you today....
Or what Content Providers (Google, Facebook, Youtube) want you to see with Net Neutrality in place.
Someone is censoring you, the question is do you want these Content Providers with established political agendas censoring the information you see, or do you want corporations which are driving by profits censoring what you see?
Depends on what the FCC wants to feed you today....
Or what Content Providers (Google, Facebook, Youtube) want you to see with Net Neutrality in place.
Someone is censoring you, the question is do you want these Content Providers with established political agendas censoring the information you see, or do you want corporations which are driving by profits censoring what you see?
Quote:
Someone is censoring you, the question is do you want these Content Providers with established political agendas censoring the information you see, or do you want corporations which are driving by profits censoring what you see?
"There's a sucker born every minute."
Comcast owns NBC Universal, which is the parent of MSNBC. Who do you think its going to get priority when Comcast is handling packets, MSNBC or Fox News?
Fox News is part of 21st Century Fox, of which most is being sold to Disney. Fox News isn't part of the sale. How is Fox News going to pay these "corporations which are driving by profits" when a sizable chuck of their cash generating unit is gone?
Time Warner has revenues of $28.1 billion and owns CNN. How will Breitbart News compete with a company of that size when it comes to purchasing anything?
Amazon is the 25th largest company by revenue in the world. Jeff Bezos and The Washington Post have money to spare.
Facebook has revenues of over $27 billion. Alphabet, Google's parent, is over $90 billion. Again, they have cash to feed telecoms for preference.
You're being conned.
Someone is censoring you, the question is do you want these Content Providers with established political agendas censoring the information you see, or do you want corporations which are driving by profits censoring what you see?
"There's a sucker born every minute."
Comcast owns NBC Universal, which is the parent of MSNBC. Who do you think its going to get priority when Comcast is handling packets, MSNBC or Fox News?
Fox News is part of 21st Century Fox, of which most is being sold to Disney. Fox News isn't part of the sale. How is Fox News going to pay these "corporations which are driving by profits" when a sizable chuck of their cash generating unit is gone?
Time Warner has revenues of $28.1 billion and owns CNN. How will Breitbart News compete with a company of that size when it comes to purchasing anything?
Amazon is the 25th largest company by revenue in the world. Jeff Bezos and The Washington Post have money to spare.
Facebook has revenues of over $27 billion. Alphabet, Google's parent, is over $90 billion. Again, they have cash to feed telecoms for preference.
You're being conned.
I love everyone saying "it was fine before 2015". No one remembers ISPs throttling Netflix and denying they were? Plenty of tests were done to prove it, and I and many others noticed it. I believe there are example countries where internet is sold as package deals. "oh you want youtube/netflix/hulu? thats an extra $10 a month". No, this won't happen tomorrow. But its clearly what the telecoms want.
Also, whats all this about competition? Who is competing with verizon/comcast? I don't understand how people don't see all of this as a cash grab. These are monolithic corporations who will find any way possible to take our money.
The idea of speaking with our money is a tough one. Many people need the internet (why it should be a service for all, you know, in a well run 1st world country).
Also, whats all this about competition? Who is competing with verizon/comcast? I don't understand how people don't see all of this as a cash grab. These are monolithic corporations who will find any way possible to take our money.
The idea of speaking with our money is a tough one. Many people need the internet (why it should be a service for all, you know, in a well run 1st world country).
1) Net Neutrality does not seem beneficial at all for anyone except anti government regulation freaks and business itself
2) I think people are dreaming up ways of what might happen. I think some may come true but lots of theory and extrapolation.
3) Some folks simply deserve to be throttled especially those folks who just download all day and night from bit torrent stealing movies.
2) I think people are dreaming up ways of what might happen. I think some may come true but lots of theory and extrapolation.
3) Some folks simply deserve to be throttled especially those folks who just download all day and night from bit torrent stealing movies.
Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Quote:
Someone is censoring you, the question is do you want these Content Providers with established political agendas censoring the information you see, or do you want corporations which are driving by profits censoring what you see?
"There's a sucker born every minute."
Comcast owns NBC Universal, which is the parent of MSNBC. Who do you think its going to get priority when Comcast is handling packets, MSNBC or Fox News?Priority may be given to MSNBC, but if that's the case, choose another carrier. Again, all this is doing is promoting an open market. If Comcast decides to go down this route, they decide to potentially lose customers. However, as the goal of a corporation is to make money and not lose it, this logically doesn't make any sense. Instead, what you might see is that which has been done by cell phone carriers, where use of a certain site doesn't count against your data (such as AT&T and Netflix or TMobile and Twitch).
Fox News is part of 21st Century Fox, of which most is being sold to Disney. Fox News isn't part of the sale. How is Fox News going to pay these "corporations which are driving by profits" when a sizable chuck of their cash generating unit is gone? Again, this is now an open market. They have a product that will be in demand by a large percentage of the American people. In all reality, they likely won't have to pay anything to get carried by a certain ISP as it is in the ISPs interest to host that channel/website and attract that percentage of people.
Time Warner has revenues of $28.1 billion and owns CNN. How will Breitbart News compete with a company of that size when it comes to purchasing anything? They could start by severing ties with Steve Bannon. In all seriousness though, do they compete now? The answer is no, CNN has a giant amount of traffic (535.35 million views) and Breitbart is MUCH smaller in comparison (82.98 million views). The only way they are similar is that they were treated the same in terms of speed of service. This goes back to my first point though. If your carrier doesn't offer Breitbart at the speed you wish to get it, choose another provider. Oh, and deregulating the market will make that an easier thing to do.
Amazon is the 25th largest company by revenue in the world. Jeff Bezos and The Washington Post have money to spare.
Facebook has revenues of over $27 billion. Alphabet, Google's parent, is over $90 billion. Again, they have cash to feed telecoms for preference. And considering that one of the biggest concerns I see is that Amazon Prime rates will increase or that we will have to pay for Google, considering these numbers I believe that these concerns are overblown. Clearly, these companies are doing just fine. However, if they aren't concerned about this and have the cash to dominate the market, ask yourself, why are they dumping millions of dollars into lobbying against the repeal of Net Neutrality? If your claims are true, they should welcome this as it's an opportunity to grow their market share by simply burying everyone with cash.
You're being conned.
I think you are looking through blinders here and are falling subject to fear mongering by the Content Providers and the Left.
Edit: As I said before, I don't fall on either side of this discussion really, as I believe we lose either way. However, the amount of fear mongering and stories of horror that people are just parroting is past being ridiculous. At the end of the day, I seriously don't believe that the internet will be changed very much, if at all.
Quote:
Someone is censoring you, the question is do you want these Content Providers with established political agendas censoring the information you see, or do you want corporations which are driving by profits censoring what you see?
"There's a sucker born every minute."
Comcast owns NBC Universal, which is the parent of MSNBC. Who do you think its going to get priority when Comcast is handling packets, MSNBC or Fox News?Priority may be given to MSNBC, but if that's the case, choose another carrier. Again, all this is doing is promoting an open market. If Comcast decides to go down this route, they decide to potentially lose customers. However, as the goal of a corporation is to make money and not lose it, this logically doesn't make any sense. Instead, what you might see is that which has been done by cell phone carriers, where use of a certain site doesn't count against your data (such as AT&T and Netflix or TMobile and Twitch).
Fox News is part of 21st Century Fox, of which most is being sold to Disney. Fox News isn't part of the sale. How is Fox News going to pay these "corporations which are driving by profits" when a sizable chuck of their cash generating unit is gone? Again, this is now an open market. They have a product that will be in demand by a large percentage of the American people. In all reality, they likely won't have to pay anything to get carried by a certain ISP as it is in the ISPs interest to host that channel/website and attract that percentage of people.
Time Warner has revenues of $28.1 billion and owns CNN. How will Breitbart News compete with a company of that size when it comes to purchasing anything? They could start by severing ties with Steve Bannon. In all seriousness though, do they compete now? The answer is no, CNN has a giant amount of traffic (535.35 million views) and Breitbart is MUCH smaller in comparison (82.98 million views). The only way they are similar is that they were treated the same in terms of speed of service. This goes back to my first point though. If your carrier doesn't offer Breitbart at the speed you wish to get it, choose another provider. Oh, and deregulating the market will make that an easier thing to do.
Amazon is the 25th largest company by revenue in the world. Jeff Bezos and The Washington Post have money to spare.
Facebook has revenues of over $27 billion. Alphabet, Google's parent, is over $90 billion. Again, they have cash to feed telecoms for preference. And considering that one of the biggest concerns I see is that Amazon Prime rates will increase or that we will have to pay for Google, considering these numbers I believe that these concerns are overblown. Clearly, these companies are doing just fine. However, if they aren't concerned about this and have the cash to dominate the market, ask yourself, why are they dumping millions of dollars into lobbying against the repeal of Net Neutrality? If your claims are true, they should welcome this as it's an opportunity to grow their market share by simply burying everyone with cash.
You're being conned.
I think you are looking through blinders here and are falling subject to fear mongering by the Content Providers and the Left.
Edit: As I said before, I don't fall on either side of this discussion really, as I believe we lose either way. However, the amount of fear mongering and stories of horror that people are just parroting is past being ridiculous. At the end of the day, I seriously don't believe that the internet will be changed very much, if at all.
Last edited:
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
3) Remember that nice pond that the old farmer used to let you fish at until teenagers kept leaving beer cans all over
"Net neutrality" yeah right! They did a good job of choosing the name.
If you support this that means you support Internet control, something that goes totally against the idea behind the Internet.
If you support this that means you support Internet control, something that goes totally against the idea behind the Internet.
Originally Posted By: JustN89
I think you are looking through blinders here and are falling subject to fear mongering by the Content Providers and the Left.
I think you've fallen for cons all your life. You've effectively been programmed to do so. It influences every decision you make and thought you have. You believe so much in what you're typing that despite being completely inane, it is the only thing you know.
That's terribly sad.
I think you are looking through blinders here and are falling subject to fear mongering by the Content Providers and the Left.
I think you've fallen for cons all your life. You've effectively been programmed to do so. It influences every decision you make and thought you have. You believe so much in what you're typing that despite being completely inane, it is the only thing you know.
That's terribly sad.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
"Net neutrality" yeah right! They did a good job of choosing the name.
If you support this that means you support Internet control, something that goes totally against the idea behind the Internet.
wut... Control is something the telecoms want, and with this gone now they have it. What, in your mind is "the idea behind the internet?".
"Net neutrality" yeah right! They did a good job of choosing the name.
If you support this that means you support Internet control, something that goes totally against the idea behind the Internet.
wut... Control is something the telecoms want, and with this gone now they have it. What, in your mind is "the idea behind the internet?".
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
"Net neutrality" yeah right! They did a good job of choosing the name.
If you support this that means you support Internet control, something that goes totally against the idea behind the Internet.
Interesting, eh?
Many of us are tired of hearing how MORE control by .gov is better. It also gets old when positively anything removing or altering the status quo is a HUGE CRISIS!
"Net neutrality" yeah right! They did a good job of choosing the name.
If you support this that means you support Internet control, something that goes totally against the idea behind the Internet.
Interesting, eh?
Many of us are tired of hearing how MORE control by .gov is better. It also gets old when positively anything removing or altering the status quo is a HUGE CRISIS!
- Status
