FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use

a reply to: Tempter

And why SHOULDN'T it? These sites cost the most to maintain due to their traffic requirements. Why should ISP's have to bear the brunt of the costs induced by specific sites or protocols?

Because that is a bunch of BS.

Why should I not get 50mb download speed if that is what I'm paying for?

Why should MY ISP be able to charge me for 50mb download speed, but then PURPOSELY reduce my speed to 1mb because they want to extort a content provider?

In addition their is already arrangements performed between the ISP and the content providers that is performed in the back end with the hosting of the data.

Even the ISP have admitted this has nothing todo with overhead or technical constraints. Its purely a money grab.

Just because it hasn't been posted yet and this thread's gotten fairly dour:


Sorry for anyone who hasn't purchased the youtube package from your ISP

a reply to: dug88

This is probably going to be banned or reported but today I learned of the name FCCucks. I thought it was pretty clever, and on point.

originally posted by: Tempter
Yes, exactly! More choice is good!

Ok, so what does that have to do with NN? What you're talking about is consumer choice for users, that's not what NN is targeting. NN largely targets content providers. Yes, the users can have their internet broken up into content packages but the main target is those who actually provide the content. It's about limiting them so that only those who create burdensome complicated contracts can deliver content to the users. This is 100% about streaming video.

Where's the choice in getting to choose what company I stream from? The ISP gets to make that decision, and stop me from using any non approved source. Basically like approved TV channels... another uncompetitive market.

Right now, I can pay for internet service and go to any website I want. That is consumer choice. If we restructure internet access in the way Pai and the large telecoms want, that choice will disappear.

Remember when the phone companies took away Unlimited Plans? I needlessly hung on to that old plan for years not wanting to get screwed. Eventually I had to call ATT one time and a rep told me that in my years of history I had never even went above 6gb of data in a month.

They did away with unlimited plans, because they knew that 20 years in the future, when 5g service comes out, we'll all be downloading 100 GB a month, and they can continue to sell it in 10GB chunks. Where as in 2005 10GB could last you 2 months, in 2025 it will be good for 2 days. They're playing the long game here.

I know what I am saying doesn't relate so much to the internet as it does to cable TV. I don't watch a lot of TV but was tired of paying $100+ a month for the 3 shows I watch each week and cancelled it. I know I could download the episodes via torrents or use Kodi to watch them but discovered an even better solution ... C Band satellite (and yes when I moved into my place there was one already out in the yard) ... Just like in the 80's it is making or going to and at least around here is making a comeback. I get true 4K definition, and am doing nothing illegal (like one had to do back in the FTA days you needed to enter Keys etc ....) It is great television and is also the source where most cable companies get there streams from too, so I am am pretty sure it will not be cut off anytime soon either. ... And hey if the FCC don't like it, then maybe they need to figure out a way to quit having Sat signals beamed into my yard without my permission! Until then I will enjoy the 3 shows a week I watch.


BTW I am new here and not sure if we are allowed to share external links but if anyone wants to know what is available on C-Band I can post. ... and no it's not just shopping channels or religious networks either.

Why should ISP's have to bear the brunt of the costs induced by specific sites or protocols?

What difference does one packet make versus another. The ISP is just forwarding packets to you. Why care what is in them.

They already get paid more for a user to have more bandwidth if that user wants more packets faster.

Here's another example of what the restriction on Net Neutrality would do:

pbs.twimg.com...:large

They wanted in the past for the website providers (Youtube, Skype) to give them payments to cover the cost of transporting all that internet traffic. There isn't any capacity problem. It's simply a case that they think they could make more money if they could leverage this payment method. Website owners already have to pay their own ISP's for the amount of traffic that is transferred across the network. What they want is either "double dipping" or to have charge customers for "value-added" features.

a reply to: stormcell

This isn't quite true, Tempter brought it up briefly. There actually is a pretty severe capacity problem with US networks. Interestingly, enough though it's cheaper/easier to deliver faster speeds to high population density areas, that's not what we're seeing in the US.

The best internet services in the US actually belong to small towns in the 20,000 person range.

The reason for this, is that the population density in town is still high enough to make running fiber profitable, but the number of users is so low, that there's more bandwidth for everyone.

One of the big issues is that the ISP's don't want to deliver content digitially because streaming uses a constant chunk of their bandwidth. It's no different from downloading large files. Other activities like email and web browsing happen in bursts, which requires far less hardware.

The ISP's have therefore been put into the situation by the cord cutters that they now have to deliever their TV content through a platform that needs significant upgrades to carry it. The ISP's simply don't want to spend the money.

The counter argument is that the money would be spent if we repealed Net Neutrality, let the ISP's use their plan to repush TV, and let competition handle it.

Unfortunately, that doesn't work because the ISP's would still control the network and the distribution of content over that network.

There are a few solutions here, but none of them involve letting ISP's maintain a monopoly

a reply to: Aazadan Not a direct post or response but I hope the FCC will not limit access to pornhub ;-)

a reply to: chibsonguitarplayer

Never used it. But I don't see why they wouldn't.

There needs to be more net neutrality or free net not less. This is how the world communicates and creates innovation and economic growth. So the gov and big corps want to play dictator and commit digital suicide or Armageddon. I am fine with that. Let Comcast throttle my internet and block my content and I will just cancel my subscription to everything and not buy or sell and have anything to do with the net. If everyone did the same, then Comcast, the net and everything else would wither and die. I am a consumer and I must consume for both you and I to prosper. If they continue on this path they will be paying me to use their internet connection.

a reply to: sean

That's just it, they don't want you to use the internet for anything than the most basic of tasks. They want you to watch TV because that doesn't require infrastructure upgrades.

This is solely a money-grab brought about by Trump via Pai (aka Verizon stooge).

The largest ISPs have the money to upgrade infrastructure, but they don't. Take Comcast for example. Making literally billions of profit each year. They wanted to create a new offering for their subscribers - so you can log into the Internet with your account almost anywhere! See an Xfinity network? Just log on!

What they didn't say (and most folks who are not tech savvy don't know), those Xfinity wireless networks you are seeing are not new infrastructure they put into place for this new "service." They are.. YOUR modems that are providing this service! Do you have Comcast? Have you logged onto the 2nd network on your modem to disable the Xfinity wireless connection, or managed to find the deeply hidden opt out link in your account settings? If not, strangers are using YOUR paid bandwidth to connect to Comcast. This should be off by default - but they didn't say a thing to their consumers when they rolled this out, they enabled it, and most people STILL don't even know about it. Most have no idea there are two networks on their modem, one for your service.. and one stealing your bandwidth to provide other Comcast customers a wireless "service." When I called and asked Comcast about this, they told me.. "Oh.. the impact to your network is minimal." Which is a load of crap.

Saved Comcast billions in new infrastructure at the expense of their own customers. That is the sort of people you are dealing with. If you think in any way they are going to look our for your best interest, think again.

Also, why SHOULDN'T we have tiered access? Again, why shouldn't we pay for what we consume?

What are you talking about? There is tiered access. Are you saying your provider doesn't offer these sorts of plans?

(below is Comcast)
Performance Starter: 10 Mbps $29.99/mo.*
Performance 25: 25 Mbps $39.99/mo.*
Performance Pro: 100 Mbps $49.99/mo.*
Blast! Pro: 150 Mbps $59.99/mo.*

All major providers offer different bandwidth plans.

You don't understand the NN issue at all.

originally posted by: fleabit
What they didn't say (and most folks who are not tech savvy don't know), those Xfinity wireless networks you are seeing are not new infrastructure they put into place for this new "service." They are.. YOUR modems that are providing this service! Do you have Comcast? Have you logged onto the 2nd network on your modem to disable the Xfinity wireless connection, or managed to find the deeply hidden opt out link in your account settings? If not, strangers are using YOUR paid bandwidth to connect to Comcast. This should be off by default - but they didn't say a thing to their consumers when they rolled this out, they enabled it, and most people STILL don't even know about it. Most have no idea there are two networks on their modem, one for them.. and one stealing your bandwidth to provide other Comcast customers a "service."

Because of how cable modems work, they're not really taking your bandwidth. Cable modems basically only have one speed which is the maximum on the network. Software on the modem throttles it down to what you're paying for. As a result, one modem can service both a household and extra people connecting without actually slowing down your bandwidth (provided the network isn't overloaded at the time).

Look into uncapping a cable modem sometime, it's pretty easy to do (or it used to be years ago when I did it, at least). Your ISP will most likely catch on and let you stop being a customer but it's completely doable.

Actually, where I live for part of the year, we have fantastic internet service, but because of technical limitations on the ISP side anything over 150 MB service (which is what I pay $60/month for) is actually uncapped and you get as much as the network has available... it comes with free cable TV too, because at that speed the filter doesn't work (but they don't tell you about that, and most who get the service already buy TV).

Because of how cable modems work, they're not really taking your bandwidth.

Sorry.. to clarify, taking wireless bandwidth. Due to saturation (unless you know what channel their public WiFi is using and switch to another.. again, something most people don't know how to do). And the 2nd network in the modem also takes electricity. Even if not used - people can expect an estimated 20 to 30 bucks a year in electric costs for that additional hotspot - which Comcast is being sued over.

Regardless of how little bandwidth it might or might not take, or electric you have to pay to support their service, the fact remains that they rolled this out very quietly, did not inform their customers, and did it to offer a service fully at the expense of their existing customers.

But I've dealt with a myriad of larger ISPs with businesses, and they are almost all absolute crap in how they deal with you. Auto-renewing contracts (I've seen many businesses on the hook for 10s of thousands of dollars for early termination fees as a result with different ISPs - they do it to avoid taxes, and the customers as a result pay the price.. states are trying to remove this practice), poor business practices and sad customer support. Example - one customer I was working with recently moved floors in a building. When they did, the tech handed the receptionist a form for the moving of the equipment. She signed it, assuming that is all it was. The tech did not bother to mention that by default, Comcast automatically renews your contract if you move locations, and she was signing a contract for 3 more years. So they were on the hook for early termination when they switched providers, and Comcast refused to work with them.

I've dealt with these situations for years. ISPs that charged a company for NINETEEN accounts that had NO SERVICE for years. Because of turnover, this company did not even know they existed.. but their accounting department kept paying for them monthly. They probably payed close to 3/4s of million over 5 years. The 2 ISPs involved would not refund anything.. said it was not their responsibility, you have to cancel via an official email address.. even though there was literally no traffic going over the circuits (they were set up on job sites.. and were as bad as 10Mbps connections).

Larger ISPs by and large will screw you or your company over in a heartbeat - they couldn't care less. And giving them carte blanche to create "packages" for their consumers will end very badly. You'll pay more.. and ironically service providers like youtube or facebook etc. will pay them, more as well.. as they double-dip once they get rolling. That anyone would support this move boggles the mind.

originally posted by: Yvhmer
a reply to: burdman30ott6

ok, so consider this then: your current ISP decides there is nothing to gain from allowing their customers to see ATS, 4chan and other alternative websites, In fact, given the fact that these sites generates traffic is a cost per byte to the ISP, so it is not carried as a potential ....eh..."books by a certain publisher". As you can see, it is quite easy to terminate access to a site not on par with political correct thought.

What are you going to do?

ISP's are basically nothing more than the car rental dudes. But now, the car rental dudes want to tell you where, when and how you can travel. O, and the installed camera in the car is catching all you are doing and saying in order to provide you with targeted adverts and better understand how you interact with the car.

Have fun!

You missed out the GPS tracker that alerts the police if you go out of county, records top speed, whether you went on the freeway and where you stopped overnight. Additional charges apply for parking at entertainment venues, nightclubs and casinos.

Trust me companies like Amazon will come through and obliterate verizon - it's a fraction of a cent to deliver 1gb of data now, all costs included - Google and Amazon and Apple will be your new gods soon enough, I'm already using google project fi for cell and some data now.

Back in 2004 I was at a meeting with Motorola who were discussing how far we would go now that 3g enabled 1gb of data under 1 dollar deliver for the tel-cos, all that's happened since is unjust enrichment.

tick tock mofotelcos

A SIMPLE SOLUTION for TV at least is get one of those big ugly dishes that were popular in the 80's They work more than other too and a great way to watch TV for free in in 4K too. No way is my hard earned cash going to the big cable companies anymore.

It floors me too how many people on this site actually want to pay more for there internet and access to it too with repealing net neutrality. Netflix will costs to you you and you will pay to access Facebook, Redit ad maybe even this site too. Not sure why people want to pay more either.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

So sick of this net neutrality spam bot campaign everywhere. Less government. You really want a bloated regulation heavy government to regulate more? Come on now.

Let capitalism and competition do the talking. If someone blocks something, go someplace else with your money. Or use a vpn/proxy to get around it. Get over these talking points.

The only thing government does well is the military and roads. Roads are because the military needs them. That's it.