This net neutrality move seems a good thing.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth

YouTube will be just fine.

What will happen is the consumers will pay more across the board as every business uses the Internet.

For me and a mobile inspection company for fleet vehicles I have to upload data and use ip cams. If I get throttled because my isp is different than the website host it's a problem

How about if Verizon and Comcast sponsor different political campaigns?

No, some consumers will pay more... those that want to consume all the content. Others will pay less. As it should be.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth

YouTube will be just fine.

What will happen is the consumers will pay more across the board as every business uses the Internet.

For me and a mobile inspection company for fleet vehicles I have to upload data and use ip cams. If I get throttled because my isp is different than the website host it's a problem

How about if Verizon and Comcast sponsor different political campaigns?

No, some consumers will pay more... those that want to consume all the content. Others will pay less. As it should be.

There already is price differences for the consumer based on how fast and how much.

What the loss of net neutrality means is that providers can differentiate again within that. You might pay for a certain speed but the actual speed you get will depend on the web site you visit.

Allowing preferential treatment will undoubtedly be anti competitive.

originally posted by: orionthehunter
I read online computer requirements for online classes. 10 meg download. My phone company only offers max of 6 meg but I get 4. Something if lucky download and .3 upload if lucky. Several times recently I got less than 1 meg download and upload died. My service died and customer service was terrible. One week to fix. Told me to be at house all day, technician didn't even make it out. Repeated same second day, called at end of day, problem at office, should be working now technician said.

I'm out of work. Couldn't apply for any jobs online. I have online subscriptions I couldn't use but was paying for. This is how centurylink works in my small town. Only other choices I heard were worse with neighbor saying cable internet drops all the time. I'm ready to drop my phone company to the first company that provides a lot better service. My phone and internet bill is about $85 a month after lots of temporary discounts after I threatened to drop service completely. At least they did that. I can hope for more competition in small town USA but haven't seen much in the past 20 years and giving more power to big companies won't help my situation in my opinion. Bigger cities have many more options, much higher speeds, and cheaper prices. I'd enjoy watching anyone who I disagreed with getting frustrated trying to do something online with slower service than dial up at times.

10 years ago I didn't need the Internet. All I did was web surfing. Now I need it for financial transactions, job searches, email communications, data research, online learning, etc, etc. even running a business. I have an in law that works remotely online. I'm sure several who only casually surf online and don't do any work online, nor pay bills online, nor do anything important online need the Internet yet. In small town USA, I can't do many things without the Internet. I could argue you don't need electricity similar to you don't need Internet. It sure would make living more difficult but I could argue I could survive without electricity. If the whole country lost electricity it's estimated the death rate is 90% after 1 year.

Gas stations don't work. Trucks with food don't run. People starve. Water pumps don't operate. You would have to find a stream or pond to get your daily water if no other choices. Life is a lot harder without services like electricity and Internet.

Removing net neutrality just gave all the power to the big monopolies. Now they can say they won't change anything but I've seen how they operate for 20 years. It's all about the money. If you pay a lot more or live in a big city where they can collect a whole lot more money, you get better service while they screw over service in small towns. Many people would be up in arms if they took off work for a whole day and the tech didn't even make it out for repairs that day after waiting a whole week with no internet. Now if you use too much data online, companies from all monopoles can agree to throttle everyone. Their choice now.

If you live in a smaller community, you have the benefits of that life style. There are also liabilities, as well. The same holds true for those that choose large ones. Coverage continues to improve as the systems expand.

However, if you think some company is obliged to provide you with a service level that costs more to produce than your community can generate, even long term, then it's a liability that you incurred by choice of location. At least to some degree.

I'm reminded of a somewhat similar situation way back when. There were two big bus companies in North America-numerous small ones wih their own niche-but only two national 'biggies' . Small communities weren't viable for service at all. Yet the government, rightfully, wanted some form of transportation system to get people in and out.Greyhound would agree to service these small towns, even only once a day, and in exchange they'd be given exclusive rights between the major cities. (i imagine similar scenarios exist today with airlines)

Eventually, gov'ts were forced to open up the competition in those big profit runs, again rightfully, and Greyhound cut the runs that they were losing money on. Resulting in loss of service for many. Go figure, Planet earth.

So if you expect 'hourly service' in a town that doesn'r have the volume- return- to justify the investment then how can one expect top line internet or phone service?

We survived without the 'net' before it existed. We mailed. We faxed, when possible. We found other solutions.

You will, find yours, as well.

I don't trust big gov't. I don't trust big corporations. Relying on either puts you at 'effect point' rather than the source of your own solutions. Will I and do I use these 'conveniences'? Of course!

I tend to yawn at changes, though. Ongoing, never-ending stories.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth

YouTube will be just fine.

What will happen is the consumers will pay more across the board as every business uses the Internet.

For me and a mobile inspection company for fleet vehicles I have to upload data and use ip cams. If I get throttled because my isp is different than the website host it's a problem

How about if Verizon and Comcast sponsor different political campaigns?

No, some consumers will pay more... those that want to consume all the content. Others will pay less. As it should be.

You don't think businesses are going to pay more for access and data....

Uh that gets passed on to you genius. How many businesses can afford to have data throttled?

Nobody will pay less. The has never happened..

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth

YouTube will be just fine.

What will happen is the consumers will pay more across the board as every business uses the Internet.

For me and a mobile inspection company for fleet vehicles I have to upload data and use ip cams. If I get throttled because my isp is different than the website host it's a problem

How about if Verizon and Comcast sponsor different political campaigns?

No, some consumers will pay more... those that want to consume all the content. Others will pay less. As it should be.

You don't think businesses are going to pay more for access and data....

Uh that gets passed on to you genius. How many businesses can afford to have data throttled?

Nobody will pay less. The has never happened..

Obviously, those businesses hogging bandwidth will pay more - that is the point. Who do you think is currently subsidising them, genius?

As for paying less, some will - as already evidenced in countries where ISP's can price more surgically based on content consumption.

The problem in the US is not net nuetrality, or a lack of it, it is a lack of choice.

a reply to: UKTruth

Ah so you dont get it.

It's also different isp's can block, throttle and prioritize the data transfer.

Verizon can block Comcast (go daddy) websites.

a reply to: UKTruth


i'm used to that.

kind of flattering from a certain perspective.

if it wasn't gore or sex or dirty words then it must be the truth they are censoring.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Obviously, those businesses hogging bandwidth will pay more - that is the point. Who do you think is currently subsidising them, genius?

As for paying less, some will - as already evidenced in countries where ISP's can price more surgically based on content consumption.

The problem in the US is not net nuetrality, or a lack of it, it is a lack of choice.

Higher bandwidth sites already pay more though. Go look at a hosting plan at godaddy for example. You're limited by package on number of unique hits, total bandwidth, and hardware utilization. Different packages have different prices. Content producers can limit service, it's their product, they can do what they want with it.

ISP's aren't supposed to be content producers, they merely deliver data. Over the past 5-10 years though, the ISP's have started offering their own competing contend production and since they own the method of delivery, they're leveraging that to push out competitors. It has nothing to do with cost, because the ISP's are delivering the same content over the wire... there's no change in the amount of data processed to stream an episode of TV from UVerse vs Netflix. It's that they want to push Netflix out of the market, so that they can encourage less internet based entertainment and more television based.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What has the Chinese snitching site got to with ICANN? They don't need ICANN to make websites...

a reply to: intrptr

It might be better for you, and I think it might be better for me too. But I don't think it would be super good for the US economy.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Quite simply, under net neutrality, huge companies and bandwidth hogs like Netflix pay the same to the ISPs as the guy who has a single aboutme page. Where do you think the ISPs cover the costs of Netflix??? They have to pass it on to customers, so the Netflix users using huge amounts of bandwidth get subsidised by those that just use the internet for email, checking the news, whatapp, etc.

You're saying Netflix pays what, maybe 60 bucks per month for bandwidth? Could I stream movies to tens of millions of people and not pay more than the average home user? That sounds fully outrageous, so I'm gonna assume I'm an idiot who misunderstood you. [EDIT: Just realized this reads like I'm expecting you to be rude to me, it was not my intention to accuse you of anything.]

But wait... hold on... in the post you quoted Ameilia claimed net neutrality wasn't a thing before 2015. So did millions get free internet before that? And then suddenly their monthly bills skyrocketed and Netflix started streaming practically for free? Something is fishy here.

a reply to: UKTruth

So you are in favor more censorship?

And not that it really matters to the argument, but Youtubes censorship is no more or less political than AT&T's would be. Both are or are owned by private corporations.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Glad you cleared that up. I think people where assuming you believed in it or something.

a reply to: interupt42

It's been basic Marxist Leninist, doctrine to spout off all the good parts of an idea, and then deep down in the fine print, put a line or two, which stands this on it's head. We didn't see the B.S. over censoring conservatives before this Obummer Net Neutrality. Maybe it's just growing pains, but maybe not. I was forced to upgrade my connection, as I was getting walked all over on most sites. I pay for 500 mps up, and 2 megs down, via a micro wave dish to a tower, seven miles away, in another State. But it sure beats the Cable Vision super bandwidth, connection, where they dinged me every month, for some kind of bundle, or upgrades. Net Flix is really marginal, with a lot of time outs. Amazon Prime is better, but still not perfect, on my micro wave up/down link. We run an older Lynksis WiFi router, and that restricts things a little more.

But, you know what?? I'm a happy camper, with this marginal connection. With the Cable modem, I had all the speed, but got all their B.S. along with it. Now, we're looking at terminating the T.V. feeds, ( three cable boxes ), as their hard wires are getting overwhelmed, with only three T.V. feeds. And most of these problems are in their own business setups, not our home installation. We're also going to deep six our hard line telephone acc't, as everything is coming in over cell Phones, today. NO cable, and no Hard Line Telephony, will mean more money in our pockets, at the end of the month.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: intrptr
Free roaming of the whole internet will be reorganized to tiered packages of access, the more you want to surf and participate, the more it will cost. The bottom tier, (Basic service package) will limit the user to channel surfing only, commercial ads, comments disabled, censorship to g or pg rated videos and content, just like on cable tv. You can change channels, scroll, mute the commercials and pay for a whole bunch of channels you will never watch.

Good thing huh?

Censorship, a 'good' thing...

lol and going over the top beyond rational must also be a "good" thing to you. the sky isnt falling. at best youll miss out on netflix, hulu or some other streaming service as they negotiate a deal with the isp just like u see with television companies like direct tv and comcast these days when some channel or another doesnt feel like paying the rate they are charging.

Hah, they always say that. I know, I watched the Cable TV get born, mature and die. The internet will too.

Control freaks will take over and censor just like they did TV and cable.

BTW, how many YouTubes you have bookmarked for future reference, but when you go to reference them it says, 'removed, sorry about that' ?

honestly i have none saved but thats just me and those videos being removed have absolutely zero to do with net neutrality and everything to do with youtubes policies.

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: intrptr
Free roaming of the whole internet will be reorganized to tiered packages of access, the more you want to surf and participate, the more it will cost. The bottom tier, (Basic service package) will limit the user to channel surfing only, commercial ads, comments disabled, censorship to g or pg rated videos and content, just like on cable tv. You can change channels, scroll, mute the commercials and pay for a whole bunch of channels you will never watch.

Good thing huh?

Censorship, a 'good' thing...

lol and going over the top beyond rational must also be a "good" thing to you. the sky isnt falling. at best youll miss out on netflix, hulu or some other streaming service as they negotiate a deal with the isp just like u see with television companies like direct tv and comcast these days when some channel or another doesnt feel like paying the rate they are charging.

Hah, they always say that. I know, I watched the Cable TV get born, mature and die. The internet will too.

Control freaks will take over and censor just like they did TV and cable.

BTW, how many YouTubes you have bookmarked for future reference, but when you go to reference them it says, 'removed, sorry about that' ?

honestly i have none saved but thats just me and those videos being removed have absolutely zero to do with net neutrality and everything to do with youtubes policies.

Nothing to do with net neutrality and everything to do with YouTubes policies? Seems they're very interrelated.

It's individual corporate policy that's potentially worrisome, hence the concern about net neutrality...not that I know anything....

To unlock this comment, you can purchase it for only $0.99!

a reply to: Xaphan


Naw, I'll pass thanks....

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: intrptr
Free roaming of the whole internet will be reorganized to tiered packages of access, the more you want to surf and participate, the more it will cost. The bottom tier, (Basic service package) will limit the user to channel surfing only, commercial ads, comments disabled, censorship to g or pg rated videos and content, just like on cable tv. You can change channels, scroll, mute the commercials and pay for a whole bunch of channels you will never watch.

Good thing huh?

Censorship, a 'good' thing...

lol and going over the top beyond rational must also be a "good" thing to you. the sky isnt falling. at best youll miss out on netflix, hulu or some other streaming service as they negotiate a deal with the isp just like u see with television companies like direct tv and comcast these days when some channel or another doesnt feel like paying the rate they are charging.

Hah, they always say that. I know, I watched the Cable TV get born, mature and die. The internet will too.

Control freaks will take over and censor just like they did TV and cable.

BTW, how many YouTubes you have bookmarked for future reference, but when you go to reference them it says, 'removed, sorry about that' ?

honestly i have none saved but thats just me and those videos being removed have absolutely zero to do with net neutrality and everything to do with youtubes policies.

Everything to do with censorship, disguised as 'policies' because of 'politics'.

Ha, if its costs more for this crap, I might as well take Zen more seriously.

One billion channels and nothing is good is on.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Nothing to do with net neutrality and everything to do with YouTubes policies? Seems they're very interrelated.

It's individual corporate policy that's potentially worrisome, hence the concern about net neutrality...not that I know anything....

Youtube is not a service provider, they're a content creator. They can distribute their content in any system they see fit. Where NN comes in, is they can step in and choose how Youtube gets to distribute their content, and then offer different, more favorable rules for their competing content. Like if your city dictates certain rules of the road for Fords, but also manfactures their own competing brand that dodges the rules of the road.

a reply to: Aazadan

Dodges are pretty good cars.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: interupt42

So basically verizon told its customer yeah we don't care that you are paying for 60mb download we are only going to give you 1mb but continue to charge you until Netflix gives us more money.

Sounds like a great reason to not use Verizon.

Should these corporations decide to throttle, sensor or even paywall sites, will it be public knowledge?

Sounds like a great reason to treat the internet like a utility so it can't be manipulated by ISPs to censor and extort content providers.

a reply to: intrptr
I don't know about these claims of tiered pricing. Nobody has as of yet put out a draft of jusr such a thing from any of the big companies. Shareholder letters or meeting highlights? Do they mention these packages? Me and my brother were just discussing this tonight. He is adamant about keeping net neutrality, but is it really neutral?

Rmember cleverly worded movements tend to be the opposite. The Patriot Act is quite un-patriotic with its spying. The ACA did not care much at all about our liberty of choice. Just like revolutionary movements filled with Democratic party or Fight for Freedom party in their names but turn out to commit the most horrible atrocities.

Maybe Net Neutrality is keeping it from having minimum standards like a utility. For all we know the new minimum standard will be 500MB or 1GB downstream for 35.00 a month or some #.

As they are treated now, there is not much incentive for them giving us any decent pricing for their virtually unlimited bandwidths they actually have. The Fiber Optic lines and Satellites were paid off decades back. Any new expansion is pretty much paid with cash on hand now. We are getting like an extra 5gb per month every year with like ten dollar plan increases as far as mobile goes.

Every state that had to tweak their castle doctrine or stand your ground laws were met with resistance about the Wild West will explode onto our streets and the blood will flow like rivers etc.. etc..

To be frank, its the big boys of content that are against this. I thought we were against the big boys right? Why would we trust the likes of Google, Netflix, Facebook Comcast and some others who basically have literally become the propaganda wing for the last party in power to be honest about consequences?? They will not even allow me to upload videos covering the global war anymore without censoring (read delete) and striking my account. Does that sound like transparency and integrity in telling the truth? You know it, you have lamented the same censorship and blatant spreading of lies from the same companies that we are now to believe can properly explain to us the consequences of revamping this legislation??

If the big companies that together are now like the Modern Ministry of Truth , if they are angry about this, that only tells me they are losing power. If they are losing power from a move like this, we should be getting behind it. L3, AT&T, Charter, what are they saying about this action? It is their infrastructure that is affected by this the most. What are they saying?