When FCC Kills Net Neutrality, Here's What Internet Could Look Like

Josey Wales said:

That was 2 1/2 years ago. This is 11.27.2017 what is your point?
Maybe if you took some time to read jato this is about you may have a different view.

https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now



Will they hand the internet over to the big cable companies? Not if we do something about it.

June 11, 2015 was also before net neutrality went into affect. And you are correct, though. This is a different political environment than in the past. Every day we are "progressing" towards a government controls everything socialist society and away from the free society that the founding fathers fought for. Before net neutrality, Netflix paid for their bandwidth, and they passed on that cost to those people that wanted to subscribe to Netflix. With net neutrality, every subscriber to internet services helps pay for the bandwidth that the ISPs are required to provide for Netflix, whether or not that subscriber wants Netflix or not.

Now, if a company charges CNN 3x as much for the same bandwidth that they charge Netflix for - then and only then should the government step in and ask why? But if the ISP is charging CNN 5X as much for 3X the bandwidth that they are charging the Mom and Pop Hardware Store for - there's nothing wrong with that. Now under net neutrality, the Mom and Pop Hardware Store is paying 1.5X as much because the extra .5 is going to help "subsidize" the bandwidth that is provided to CNN at a lower rate because that is what the government is requiring.

NavyLCDR said:

I just don't remember things being all that bad on June 11, 2015...

I think??? this was before the big rush to "cut the cable" (TV/Phone) and get all your "entertainment etc" via the internet, which in most cases is still cable.

that's why net neutrality was started, there were those who knew what could happen if companies could charge for different access speed to certain things....it was to set up a even playing field.

pigpenz said:

that's why net neutrality was started, there were those who knew what could happen if companies could charge for different access speed to certain things....it was to set up a even playing field.

So there was no problem in existence for it to correct? It was set up to prevent a problem that "could" occur. And that is the exact basis for my comment earlier, "I just don't remember things being all that bad on June 11, 2015... " There was no problem that the government had to correct.

But, I suppose the title of this this thread is Here's What Internet Could Look Like....

Or it could also be if Grandma wants to use less than 1 GB per month to check her email at 50MB/S speed, she would be able to purchase an internet plan to do that for $15/month instead of having to pay $30+/month in order to subsidize those who don't want to pay extra for their huge bandwidth requirements.

Hi,
Indeed I never saw a issue either before all this started
My internet bill was low
Now it's high and most are saying it could get worse :)
I tried Amazon prime it's full of old crappy movies.
Netfix is the same
The decent movies I have dvd's for

All I know now is I have 1tb of data I barely use and guess what it is a basic contract at a not so basic rate :/
My cell phone isn't much different way too much data that I don't need or want
I'd happily take lower data/ minutes packages if it will save me money dang that sounded like a gallery furniture commercial lol

The reason for the news thread is to learn and stay current on tech and/or tech companies as much as possible. Looks to me that some either didn't do some research or relying on their own opinion. This is really all about our modern communications, not just surfing the Net. The Net is probably our last communications frontier.

Although I haven't had one for ten years, I used and paid for a landline telephone extensively since I was a teener like I'm sure most of you have. With a long career in construction I've been buying cell service since bag phones in the 90’s. My first ISP was AOHell where basically they kept customers in their walled playpen. I have a brother that started out with landline Ma Bell back in the 60's, worked his way up to management, then went with AT&Bleed data his last 20 years when they broke Bell up. He retired 10 years ago with much AT&Bleed stock that he watches like a hawk. I have a nephew that works for AT&Bleed cellular out of Twin Cities. A good friend that retired from managing all the Veri-con garages on the East Coast. Another good friend that manages the site/portal for a very large medical lab certification company who has a very large ISP contract. I converse with all them regularly.

From just this Wikipedia article, which pretty much sums up with just a few things that went on through the years and what they tried/want to get away with: Net neutrality - Wikipedia

A widely cited example of a violation of net neutrality principles was the Internet service provider Comcast's secret slowing ("throttling") of uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications by using forged packets.[7] Comcast did not stop blocking these protocols, like BitTorrent, until the FCC ordered them to stop.[8] In another minor example, The Madison River Communications company was fined US$15,000 by the FCC, in 2004, for restricting their customers' access to Vonage, which was rivaling their own services.[9] AT&T was also caught limiting access to FaceTime, so only those users who paid for AT&T's new shared data plans could access the application.[10] In July 2017, Verizon Wireless was accused of throttling after users noticed that videos played on Netflix and Youtube were slower than usual, though Verizon commented that it was conducting "network testing" and that net neutrality rules permit "reasonable network management practices".[11]

In referring to the bold type in my article quote; There's a swamp in Washington and I smell a swamp rat. Ajit V. Pai is a lawyer that used to hold a position with Veri-con and now FCC chief. Why would the FCC let Veri-con get away with that stunt? Let's put 2 and 2 together.

Personally, I'm all for net neutrality with no throttling and watching ISPs as it is now. I'm not for bundling of cable TV stations, ISP/Cell/TV, cell phones per account, or any combination imaginable thereof. I'm for pay what you use at the speed/cell/landline minutes one uses on any device, although I doubt it’ll go to that extent.

Think of all the data, cell minutes, TV stations not watched, or even landline minutes not used in just the US alone. You think one group is subsidizing another group? I suggest you think again. Then think of all the profit they make with the ads they shove in our faces while paying for their services. Do you think they’re hurting?

As you may tell, I'm no respecter of data companies. Enough. Talk is cheap. I did my part and took the action to comment about net neutrality on the FCC site. I advise all to do likewise whichever way you think it should go.

I think the internet (in the US) will have to implode under the greed of the telecoms before it gets better.

We’re going to have to sit back and watch it burn until people get mad, raise enough stink for the government to step in and put a stop to it.

When it finally happens, I hope it begins with the breakup of ATT, Comcast, Charter and Verizon. After that, bar any ISP from also owning a media company. It’s a conflict of interest. You’re a dumb pipe, nothing more. Finally classify ISPs as a utility like the power company. The internet is no longer a luxury service and it’s time to start treating it as such.

ThrashZone said:

Hi,
Last I checked there's not a whole lot of different internet speed plans to choose from all are pretty much the same speed
The price has already gone up to do that
So that was due to net neutrality and if you tested your internet speed it usually falls far short of any advertised speed since all say "Up Too" ...speed :)
So it was all a crock anyway.

I actually get more than my "up-to" speed.