• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

FCC rules broadband internet service a public utility

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sinfamy

Sinfamy

Member
bachikarn said:
Will this help pricing go down, and if so why? Is there a chance this will cause more taxes which gets passed on the consumer.
Click to expand...
ISP's make like 97% in profit.
But since they hate you, they probably will raise their prices and say its because of regulations when its not.
 
C

cdyhybrid

Member
Ajit Pai, a Republican commissioner, said the rules were government meddling in a vibrant, competitive market and were likely to deter investment, undermine innovation and ultimately harm consumers.
Click to expand...

Stop it, my sides!
 
J

jmood88

Member
-griffy- said:
Just saw this on Twitter. Is this for real? Come on now.

B-y3PxJVEAA-I2u.jpg
Click to expand...
I'm surprised the Wall Street journal wouldn't have the regulation headline.
 
A

AstroNut325

Member
Some comments from the NY Times article:

HuzzahGuy Ohio 18 minutes ago
Great! Now that we’ve leveled the playing field on the internet, let’s go for “Package Delivery Neutrality.” In the name for fairness and equality let’s force UPS and FedEx to have only ground delivery service. After all, why should the one percenters be allowed to use their wealth to get overnight deliveries when most of us can only afford ground?
Click to expand...

art josephs houston, tx 18 minutes ago
I can't wait for for the myriad of higher fees & taxes like you see on your phone & electric bills. Politicians are looking in the present to extracting higher campaign contributions from various tech & content providers, plus retirement opportunities to lobby, in the future, from these same companies they will soon regulate.More money and power, i wonder who will pay?
Click to expand...

bobw66554322 New Orleans 25 minutes ago
Those of us who can remember the glory that was the US Telephone system under the 1934 Telecommunications act (which this action was taken under) are thrilled with this decision. We can look forward to 50+ years with absolutely no innnovation in the internet, and possibly even a return to 110 baud dialup modems.

Even better still is hope that we can return to "party line" internet usage, where we have to check to see if the local internet line is "open". Of course if it isn't, we can always "listen in".

Only "Progressives" could take such an incredibly regressive action and claim it is necessary under the name of "fairness and equal access."

Party lines were the epitome of "equal access." Glad to see they will be coming back... /sarc/
Click to expand...

Maxine Chicago 1 hour ago
As if this farce is about "net neutrality". Why was it secret then and is that how democratic government works? Amazing how easy it is to disguise a power and revenue grab and shakedown scheme for the American ignorati. Will there be new taxes and will subscriber rates increase because of this scam? No corporate waivers will be granted after big political "donations" to Democrats and no jobs will be given to Democrat patronage workers. Oh no.

Try not to be such immature starry eyed chumps. Love your country - try thinking and basing your views on facts, history and reality.
Click to expand...

The salt is glorious!
 
N

Nokterian

Member
Clydefrog said:
Does this mean that my monthly home internet bill will become like my electricity bill?
Click to expand...

At least a lot lower then what you pay now also no throttling well just read this. We in the netherlands have net neutrality since 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_Netherlands

It's simple..ISP's are gatekeepers nothing more or less. There not obligated to what you can and can;t do on the internet with net neutrality plain and simple because the internet is for the people it's like your first amendment it's free speech it needs to be open and free. If they have problems they need to fix it for them self not you to pay more or netflix or someone else. The internet is just like your electricity and water it goes through 1 tube and you pay 1 price.

Welcome to the club america this is great news.
 
A

Admiral Woofington

Member
Nokterian said:
At least a lot lower then what you pay now also no throttling well just read this. We in the netherlands have net neutrality since 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_Netherlands

It's simple..ISP's are gatekeepers nothing more or less. There not obligated to what you can and can;t do on the internet with net neutrality plain and simple because the internet is for the people it's like your first amendment it's free speech it needs to be open and free. If they have problems they need to fix it for them self not you to pay more or netflix or someone else. The internet is just like your electricity and water it goes through 1 tube and you pay 1 price.

Welcome to the club america this is great news.
Click to expand...

you underestimate the scumminess of ISP's. They have the ability to give us faster internet and no caps, but they'll keep them as long as possible. Unless the wording clearly states that they need to provide us with as best of a service as they can, and you make sure damn well that somebody will get paid so it doesn't, this won't change shit.

edit: actually can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, wording is confusing me lol
 
D

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
This i so simple really...

If the Cable and Tele companies hate it, then it must be good for the consumer.

It's that easy.
 
B

Blanquito

Member
Admiral Woofington said:
^this, name it a public utility all you want if pricing can't be messed with it'll just mean the same shit under a different name
Click to expand...

The pricing part is true, they won't touch that. Which is sad.

But that's not all that was passed as part of this bill, and those parts are VERY important to the internet.

So, it's not the same shit under a different name, by any means.
 
N

Nokterian

Member
Admiral Woofington said:
you underestimate the scumminess of ISP's. They have the ability to give us faster internet and no caps, but they'll keep them as long as possible. Unless the wording clearly states that they need to provide us with as best of a service as they can, and you make sure damn well that somebody will get paid so it doesn't, this won't change shit.
Click to expand...

Well bad for them they need to obey to net neutrality same as here they can't do shit they can struggle all they want but this is preventing them from doing fuckery for you and have a better internet for a good price. This will change they can kick and scream what they want but this is how it is. net neutrality is just the case to prevent all the bullshit you and every american have been through with those ISP's.

Here a video what net neutrality is..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0NloyxJhOk
 
C

Cse

Banned
I endorse Title II reclassification of the ISPs to ensure strong net neutrality standards, but would like to argue from the other side just to see some of your arguments. Why should net neutrality be the default paradigm? Why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to control the content that is flowing over their networks?

As a right wing acquaintance of mine recently put in an email....

But I could never work out why ISPs should be required to deliver service to amazon and netflix to make a profit for free. Seemingly they paid for the switchhubs, the lines, the maintenance... they should be able to control who accesses their bought-and-paid-for property-- especially someone making a profit off that property.

Also realized the FCC would be regulating it. That has almost never been a good thing for the consumer.

Treating all data equally also means that smaller networks and delivery systems will have unlimited demand. History tells us what happens when unlimited demand is mandated--shortages are sure to follow.

It's like if everyone turned on every faucet, hosepipe and sprinkler system in their house at the same time. The system wouldn't be able to keep up. And if you are at the end of the street, you will have the lowest water pressure of anyone.

The internet isn't much different. Unlimited demand will end up hurting those furthest from hubs and on the smallest, poorest maintained delivery systems--the same people that are struggling now.
Click to expand...
 
A

Admiral Woofington

Member
Blanquito said:
The pricing part is true, they won't touch that. Which is sad.

But that's not all that was passed as part of this bill, and those parts are VERY important to the internet.

So, it's not the same shit under a different name, by any means.
Click to expand...

Ok let me clarify. What affects ME as a consumer is:

1. I still have caps
2. Speeds won't get better (most likely)
3. Pricing won't get better
4. I guess they can't have preference for websites
 
C

Captain Tuttle

Member
My wife is a stock analyst and she covers Comcast and she thinks the only reason this went through was because it will be advantageous to them and their merger with Time Warner, she now expects the merger to go through.

She's a cynical sort but a good analyst
 
T

TheJLC

Member
The government needs to stop interfering with our internet. Companies know what's the best price for us and how we should use the internet better than the government.
 
B

BSsBrolly

Banned
Cse said:
I endorse Title II reclassification of the ISPs to ensure strong net neutrality standards, but would like to argue from the other side just to see some of your arguments. Why should net neutrality be the default paradigm? Why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to control the content that is flowing over their networks?

As a right wing acquaintance of mine recently put in an email....
Click to expand...

Because I pay for a certain download speed as a consumer. I should get what I pay for regardless of what I'm doing. I don't like the idea of corporations controlling what I can and cannot do online by throttling the speed I paid for.


Edit: the line about Netflix and Amazon profiting for free is absurd. Every website profits for free using that logic...
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Admiral Woofington said:
Ok let me clarify. What affects ME as a consumer is:

1. I still have caps
2. Speeds won't get better (most likely)
3. Pricing won't get better
4. I guess they can't have preference for websites
Click to expand...

No, but it opens the door to fixing these things instead of letting them get worse.
 
N

Nokterian

Member
BSsBrolly said:
Because I pay for a certain download speed as a consumer. I should get what I pay for regardless of what I'm doing. I don't like the idea of corporations controlling what I can and cannot do online by throttling the speed I paid for.
Click to expand...

And people still don't understand this when your saying it..still baffles me. What i do on the internet is not the business from my ISP..like i said there a gatekeeper i pay for access and after that well i do what i want that is net neutrality preventing ISP's to fuck me over what i can and cannot do.
 
D

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Cse said:
I endorse Title II reclassification of the ISPs to ensure strong net neutrality standards, but would like to argue from the other side just to see some of your arguments. Why should net neutrality be the default paradigm? Why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to control the content that is flowing over their networks?

As a right wing acquaintance of mine recently put in an email....
Click to expand...

Because cable companies have a monopoly?

Where I live in NYC, I can only get Broadband from Time Warner.
 
W

whatsinaname

Member
Cse said:
I endorse Title II reclassification of the ISPs to ensure strong net neutrality standards, but would like to argue from the other side just to see some of your arguments. Why should net neutrality be the default paradigm? Why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to control the content that is flowing over their networks?

As a right wing acquaintance of mine recently put in an email....
Click to expand...

Because the internet is like a road. If you (or the government on your behalf) give a private contractor the permission and funding (in the form of initial grants followed by permission to collect tolls) to build and maintain a road, would you be ok with the contractor charging Walmart extra and giving them one reserved lane? Or charging UPS extra when they deliver your package?
 
P

Pankratous

Member
jimwhat said:
I'm always amazed of how many people can actively use the internet, yet not understand how it works.
Click to expand...

What?

That's like saying people can't play games or watch movies without understanding how the special effects are made.

For a lot of people, internet is magic magic.
 
D

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
Cse said:
I endorse Title II reclassification of the ISPs to ensure strong net neutrality standards, but would like to argue from the other side just to see some of your arguments. Why should net neutrality be the default paradigm? Why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to control the content that is flowing over their networks?

As a right wing acquaintance of mine recently put in an email....
Click to expand...

Because our society essentially runs on the internet now. It's one of, if not arguably the most important infrastructures we have. Why should a select handful of monopolistic corporations who do nothing but rent out bandwidth to access the internet have control over content of the internet and who gets to access what?
 
G

-griffy-

Banned
Cse said:
I endorse Title II reclassification of the ISPs to ensure strong net neutrality standards, but would like to argue from the other side just to see some of your arguments. Why should net neutrality be the default paradigm? Why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to control the content that is flowing over their networks?

As a right wing acquaintance of mine recently put in an email....
Click to expand...

They provide access to the internet. They don't pay for or service the internet itself. They don't host the content on Netflix, or Amazon's websites, or pay for the shipping and storage of the products Amazon sells. Would it be okay for a phone company to say you can order pizza from Pizza Hut but not Dominos? Would it be okay for the water company to say you can use their water to water plants bought from Bachman's but not from the Cub foods floral section? Then why would it be okay for an ISP to do the same?

Your acquaintance has a wildly inaccurate view of what the actual issue is and how the internet works.
 
davepoobond

davepoobond

you can't put a price on sparks
I think the funny thing is that universally people don't like cable companies regardless of your opinion about net neutrality but now people are going to bat for these guys who have screwed us over on their billing and rising prices for the past 20+ years
 
B

Blanquito

Member
Admiral Woofington said:
Ok let me clarify. What affects ME as a consumer is:

1. I still have caps [true]
2. Speeds won't get better (most likely) [see below]
3. Pricing won't get better [true]
4. I guess they can't have preference for websites [see below]
Click to expand...

What is your internet speed?

And also: have you ever had a time when Netflix and/or YouTube seemed to be really low quality, despite the speed that you're paying for?

Also: have you ever browsed a niche/smaller website? Maybe, for example, NeoGaf? Have you ever wondered what would happen to your browsing of neogaf if Gawker media made a deal with [your ISP] that they would get a "fast lane" and any competitors of Gawker media were put into a "slow lane"? Since Kotaku could be seen as a competitor of NeoGaf, then [your ISP] will make it so that neogaf takes over 5 seconds to load text, and 10 seconds to load images.

Would that be a bad thing?
 
B

Bubble Metropolis

Member
Ajit Pai, a Republican commissioner, said the rules were government meddling in a vibrant, competitive market and were likely to deter investment, undermine innovation and ultimately harm consumers.
Click to expand...

On my tiny, rural island of 60,000 people here in Japan I have the option of at least four different fiber optic internet service providers, not even considering slower services. Back home in my hub city of around a million people I had the option of Comcast cable and nothing but Comcast at twice the price and less than half the speed. Pls.
 
Rhomega Beta

Rhomega Beta

Member
And here comes Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...-rules-worst-example-government-intervention/

Make no mistake. The greatest tool for freedom of expression to come along in our lifetime is in danger. One cannot have genuine freedom of expression with a government monitor, an overseer, a censor prepared to immediately shut down any “threats” to the state.

The two Republican FCC Commissioners (out of a total of five) know exactly how important this new plan really is. Commissioner Ajit Pai has called the new FCC plan “a massive shift in favor of government control of the Internet…everything from your wireless service plan, to your wire line connection at home.”
Click to expand...

Equally galling is the process by which this government takeover is happening. The 332 pages of new FCC rules have been held in secret, and even after Thursday’s vote, they are not being released. Like Nancy Pelosi said of ObamaCare, “We can read it after we vote on it.”

Back in 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama insisted that the FCC put out in public any changes that they are proposing before they vote on it. As Mr. Obama said at the time: “Congress and the public have the right to review any specific proposal and decide whether or not it constitutes sound policy.” Power does have a way of changing one’s preferences.
Click to expand...

One might think that such a power grab would be countered by a Republican Congress emboldened by its historic 2014 victories. But Congressional Republicans seem clueless about what to do now. Republican Senator John Thune, head of the Commerce Committee, has ruled out a Congressional vote against the new rules. Why?

Republicans have been very vocal and have voted regularly for the Keystone pipeline. But they have been largely silent about the administration’s plan to regulate our information pipeline, which is far more vital to national concerns about liberty, freedom of speech and commerce.
Click to expand...

And Breitbart: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015...gs-will-spill-over-tv-as-you-know-it-is-over/

Cuban began by predicting “the courts will rule the Internet for the next however many years.” He then explained, “let’s just take it all the way through its logical conclusion. All bits are bits, all bits are equal. If all bits are equal, then let’s look at what a stream bit is an example. So when Henry and I do an interview, and it’s streamed lived on the Internet, there’s a camera, it goes through an encoder, it sends it out via server or some manner to the Internet, you click on Business Insider and you watch the stream, right? Now, let’s look at CNBC on Comcast. There’s cameras right in front of you, they go through a switcher, they go through an encoder, it’s put through a server, it goes to Comcast, and it’s streamed in a managed service environment to television. It’s the exact same thing. And if it’s the exact same thing technologically and all bits are equal, then why shouldn’t CNBC and all TV networks that are delivered on cable, and Telco, and fiber like Verizon, why shouldn’t they be part of the open Internet as well? And if they are and all bits are equal, now, let’s take it one step further. It’s the purview of the FCC now. The FCC, right? So, the FCC now has to apply their same standards to content, don’t they, that they do to television content because that’s where it is and there’s going to be certain citizens who think ‘well now, since all content is delivered over the Internet because all bits are bits, and it’s a fair, and open, and equal Internet — decency standards.’ And remember the FCC is the same agency that fought Nipplegate for eight years over a wardrobe malfunction.”

He added, “your TV as you know it is over.”
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Chinese government working on regulations to curb excessive spending on gaming.
News
35
2K
Bkdk replied
US government denies ESRB's AI-powered face-scanning 'age estimation' proposal
News
30
2K
Spukc replied
Twitch to shut down in Korea over ‘prohibitively expensive’ network fees
News Business 2
70
4K
Ansphn replied
[Jez Corden] OPINION: This week's big Xbox drama showcases how little people trust Nadella's Microsoft — a legacy forged in the death of Windows Phone
2 3 4
164
12K
Rosoboy19 replied
[Insider Gaming] Inside Ubisoft – From Low Morale To Internal Tensions
Game Dev
26
2K
BacklashWave534 replied
Top Bottom