dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-05-15 12:24:11: Rather unsurprisingly, the FCC this morning voted three to two along partisan lines to open a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on new net neutrality rules. ..


chamberc
Premium Member
join:2008-08-05
Addison, TX

2 recommendations

chamberc

Premium Member

Pay for what you use...

It's absurd that a few should have to foot the bill for the many... I use over 250gb of data a month at home, and I should pay more than someone who uses 1gb. Somehow, we've come to expect too much free in this society. Entities that pay more, should receive higher priority.

Camelot One
MVM
join:2001-11-21
Bloomington, IN

Camelot One

MVM

Re: Pay for what you use...

said by chamberc:

It's absurd that a few should have to foot the bill for the many... I use over 250gb of data a month at home, and I should pay more than someone who uses 1gb. Somehow, we've come to expect too much free in this society. Entities that pay more, should receive higher priority.

The flaw to that logic is that prices are already based on a balance of your 250Gb and other users only pulling 1Gb. The flat rate + usage model is just dishonest. If they want to bill by the byte, then bill by the byte, just as power is billed by kw/h, and water is billed by the gallon.

davidc502
join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN

1 recommendation

davidc502

Member

Re: Pay for what you use...

said by Camelot One:

The flaw to that logic is that prices are already based on a balance of your 250Gb and other users only pulling 1Gb. The flat rate + usage model is just dishonest. If they want to bill by the byte, then bill by the byte, just as power is billed by kw/h, and water is billed by the gallon.

Why bill by the GB? Most ISP's pay 1¢ per GB going out to the so called "Internet".

Data IS Cheap.

Yucca Servic
join:2012-11-27
Rio Rancho, NM

Yucca Servic

Member

Re: Pay for what you use...

Data is not cheep. We at RWSI pay for fiber optic access and it is not at all cheep.
smitty825
join:2013-06-25

smitty825

Member

Re: Pay for what you use...

Data *is* cheap.

It's the connection to the rest of the internet that isn't cheap.

Let's say that it costs $20,000/month for a 10G fiber connection to a backbone provider. However, once you've paid the $20,000 for that connection, your costs don't really change much regardless of how much data is sent over that line. (It really depends on your peering agreement for the true cost of data, but again, for this argument, let's say it costs 1 cent/GB) For every TB of data, you've increased your costs by $10.

Basically, the ISPs have a (legitimate) issue with needing to put in more-and-more (expensive) fiber connections to handle the growing bandwidth during peak usage periods.

Based on this, if I used 200GB a month every night during "prime time", I'd be costing the ISP more money than if I transferred 2TB of data every month from 3AM to 6AM.

It seems to me that Data Caps are just a way to increase revenue. If ISPs were truly trying to reduce costs (ie. prevent another $20,000/mo connection), then ISPs would be limiting the data during certain "prime time" slots instead of generic data caps.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

1 recommendation

Kearnstd to Camelot One

Premium Member

to Camelot One
If they went 100% metered like power, Water and gas they likely worry they could face becoming a utility which would then make their meters have to be verified by the weights and measures of any state they operated in.

Probitas
@206.248.154.x

Probitas

Anon

Re: Pay for what you use...

That's likely correct, that particular law has some strong and sharp teeth.

coldmoon
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
Fulton, NY

1 recommendation

coldmoon to Camelot One

Premium Member

to Camelot One
And then subsidize unwanted and/or unasked for content...hacking attempts...port scans...etc? No, the only real solution is to reclassify under title II and force innovation through direct competition nation wide.
travisdh1
join:2007-10-20
Wooster, OH

3 recommendations

travisdh1 to chamberc

Member

to chamberc
Ok, that's fine chamberc. Problem is what happens if someone decides to DOS you're internet connection? You receive 1TB of traffic that month, of which you only requested the normal 250gb. The ISP most likely can't tell what traffic you legitimately requested, so you get billed for all of it!

A home internet connection isn't considered an inviting target currently, but what happens when we go to metered billing and you do something to make Anonymous mad?
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA

BosstonesOwn

Member

Re: Pay for what you use...

Heck ever heard of griefing ? What happens when someone does it just for fun ? Or finds it fun to serve chunks of data from your connection to virus infest others ?

BillK
@69.180.93.x

BillK to travisdh1

Anon

to travisdh1
said by travisdh1:

A home internet connection isn't considered an inviting target currently, but what happens when we go to metered billing and you do something to make Anonymous mad?

Wow. FUD. And one using an extreme outlier as an example.

JackKane
@98.226.242.x

JackKane

Anon

Re: Pay for what you use...

Nothing extreme about it. There are plenty of crawlers who hit your IP numerous times an hour. Other unsolicited traffic. And yes, god help you if you piss someone off on the internet and they know your IP. They'll do it for fun.

But the point you miss is that all those are possibilities where the user has no control over it happening, stopping it, or not paying for it. And thinking that this is "ok" is not ok. I can't think of too many other situations - other than getting robbed in broad daylight - where someone has so little control in terms of impact on their wallet. Certainly no commercial transaction comes to mind.
The Antihero
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA

The Antihero

Member

Re: Pay for what you use...

It's happened to me several times. Once, many years ago, I apparently did something to piss someone off in a Usenet group, and he not only posted inflammatory messages in my name, which caused others to send me all kinds of nasty emails, he started mailbombing me himself.

And more recently, someone hijacked my Bill Me Later account, used it to order merchandise from Apple, and then proceeded to mailbomb the hell out of me in an attempt to hide the notification emails I got from Bill Me Later about my address being changed, and from Apple about the order I had supposedly placed. I posted in the Scambusters forum about that one. There were literally tens of thousands of emails from that one, and it took me forver to clean up the mess.

In short, anyone who says it can't happen is either an idiot, or a shill for the internet providers who are trying to push metered billing.

RAZ Black
join:2001-10-04
united state

RAZ Black

Member

Re: Pay for what you use...

I agree with Antihero... anyone thinking that won't be a problem is completely ignorant.

beerbum
Premium Member
join:2000-05-06
behind you..
Motorola MB8600
ARRIS TG862
Asus RT-AC5300

beerbum to travisdh1

Premium Member

to travisdh1
said by travisdh1:

Problem is what happens if someone decides to DOS you're internet connection? You receive 1TB of traffic that month, of which you only requested the normal 250gb. The ISP most likely can't tell what traffic you legitimately requested, so you get billed for all of it!

A home internet connection isn't considered an inviting target currently, but what happens when we go to metered billing and you do something to make Anonymous mad?

or what's to stop an unscrupulous ISP from sending extra (unwanted) data to their customers in order to drive up the bill?

I wouldn't put it past a company to eventually try something like that.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory

Member

Re: Pay for what you use...

It's already in the works with all the ad injection on websites, sometimes by ISPs. Then there going to count THAT traffic against US. I've NEVER purchased anything from those ads, and I actively block them. Still the extra code is added to your pages even if it's not displayed. ....and the images are still downloads (much of the time) even when they're not displayed.
onthecake
join:2003-08-08
Kansas City, MO

onthecake to chamberc

Member

to chamberc
By your logic then all connections should have the same speed then. If I am paying $70 a month for 45 Mbps and your paying $35 for 15 Mbps why should I be expected to use the same amount of data?
Happydude32
Premium Member
join:2005-07-16

1 recommendation

Happydude32

Premium Member

Re: Pay for what you use...

I subscribe to a faster speed tier so I can download things faster, not download more.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Pay for what you use...

Well maybe that is your mistake or wrong view, not his.
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Rekrul to Happydude32

Member

to Happydude32
said by Happydude32:

I subscribe to a faster speed tier so I can download things faster, not download more.

You may not intend to download more, but you do. If you had a slower connection, you probably wouldn't watch as many online videos as you do now because the experience on a slower line wouldn't be as good. You would also be more selective about what you download if you had a slower connection. A person on a 100mbps connection would think nothing of downloading several 700MB files, but a person on a 3mbps connection probably wouldn't want to do the same.

BillK
@69.180.93.x

BillK to onthecake

Anon

to onthecake
said by onthecake:

By your logic then all connections should have the same speed then.

No, that would be your logic. I pay more so that response is faster, not more voluminous in comparison to you. Are there some who would fit your narrow framing? Sure. But posing a false dichotomy as you have does nothing to advance a true discussion of the argument intelligently.
onthecake
join:2003-08-08
Kansas City, MO

onthecake

Member

Re: Pay for what you use...

Your paying more to get a faster response? I didnt know that was an option.

Since I made an unintelligent argument please tell me why I should expect to pay for faster access to content AND a higher limit to the monthly amount of bandwidth I can consume? The ISPs need to pick one or the other.

jseymour
join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

6 recommendations

jseymour to chamberc

Member

to chamberc
said by chamberc:

It's absurd that a few should have to foot the bill for the many... I use over 250gb of data a month at home, and I should pay more than someone who uses 1gb.

What does your private usage have to do with the subject of 'net neutrality?

Jim

MarkusR
@98.193.2.x

MarkusR

Anon

Re: Pay for what you use...

said by jseymour:

...

I imagine it means that netflix would pay for the extra 249gb he uses watching their movies. Then we all, him included, pay the same for that 1gb use.
mob (banned)
On the next level..
join:2000-10-07
San Jose, CA

mob (banned) to chamberc

Member

to chamberc
said by chamberc:

It's absurd that a few should have to foot the bill for the many... I use over 250gb of data a month at home, and I should pay more than someone who uses 1gb. Somehow, we've come to expect too much free in this society. Entities that pay more, should receive higher priority.

So a a DDOS is political speech if I pay for the servers?

abitbent
join:2004-04-23
Brantford, ON

abitbent to chamberc

Member

to chamberc
said by chamberc:

It's absurd that a few should have to foot the bill for the many... I use over 250gb of data a month at home, and I should pay more than someone who uses 1gb. Somehow, we've come to expect too much free in this society. Entities that pay more, should receive higher priority.

We need to remember that data isn't a finite resource. You don't use it up like electricity or water. An internet connection that has been used to access 250Gigs of data over a monthly period costs an ISP no more than one that's used for 1Gig.

Binoculars are sold by how powerful they are, not by how much you look through them.

Data costs nothing. Don't believe the ISP hype.

Mirco Bibic of Bell complained that their networks were congested by "bandwidth hogs" just a few years ago. Once they got their way with usage based billing, network congestion suddenly didn't exist. We're downloading more now as a society than we ever did.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC

Member

Re: Pay for what you use...

said by abitbent:

Data costs nothing. Don't believe the ISP hype.

That's not necessarily true. Maybe for a very large ISP, that has a lot of settlement-free peering and charges other networks to connect to them, but for smaller ISPs, data does indeed cost money. There are transit fees (which are billed on capacity leased), cross connect fees, collocation fees, fixed hardware costs, etc.

Residential connectivity is oversubscribed to a degree, in fact pretty much all connectivity is these days. A carrier might lease a 10G wavelength between POPs and oversell capacity, with the assumption that not everyone is going to saturate their connections at the same time. Same holds true with residential connections, as there is middle-mile connectivity that tends to be oversubscribed.

Go ahead and price out leased point-to-point connectivity within a metro area. A 10G wavelength won't come cheap.

Point is, if the ISPs built out infrastructure to truly allow for 1:1 contention, you would be paying more for your connection. It would require increased CAPEX and OPEX, all of which would require larger revenue to support.

abitbent
join:2004-04-23
Brantford, ON

abitbent

Member

Re: Pay for what you use...

Thanks for the info BlueC. I figured it wasn't as simple as that, but I'm willing to bet that the difference in cost between someone using 250Gigs vs 1 Gig is almost negligible.

If capacity is a problem, manage it with speed.

The fact that they've got the general public believing this "pay for what you use" and using the electric and water utility as an example drives me nuts because it's inaccurate and misleading.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC

Member

Re: Pay for what you use...

said by abitbent:

Thanks for the info BlueC. I figured it wasn't as simple as that, but I'm willing to bet that the difference in cost between someone using 250Gigs vs 1 Gig is almost negligible.

If capacity is a problem, manage it with speed.

The fact that they've got the general public believing this "pay for what you use" and using the electric and water utility as an example drives me nuts because it's inaccurate and misleading.

I agree, the difference between 250GB and 1GB is not much these days, there should be capacity available to support either.

It comes down to a business decision. It probably doesn't make sense to offer 100mbps service on a node with 300+ customers when capacity is only at 200mbps total. Every ISP varies in this category. At the same time, it's certainly a bad idea to let peering (in the core) degrade, which affects every user originating on that POP.

If an ISP discloses their oversubscription ratio, it's meaningless if their core capacity is not adequate.
wispalord
join:2007-09-20
Farmington, MO

wispalord to BlueC

Member

to BlueC
data does not cost anything but the interconnections do and quite a lot... but they make more than enough to keep it running they way it is they want to double dip, kinda like paying extra to drive in the passing lane and not get a ticket but you already pay taxes on the road in the 1st place everytime you buy gas...
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to BlueC

Member

to BlueC
First, a pure residential ISP is ALWAYS going to have more than a 1:1 ratio because that is exactly how they sell their connections.

Second, they can address that by hosting other services to bring the ratio closer to 1:1 thus giving them free peering.

So yes, ALL ISP's have the same opportunity to have pretty much "Zero" cost data regardless of size. Whether or not they manage it to do it is on them, not their subscribers.

••••••

davidc502
join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN

2 recommendations

davidc502 to abitbent

Member

to abitbent
said by abitbent:

We need to remember that data isn't a finite resource. You don't use it up like electricity or water. An internet connection that has been used to access 250Gigs of data over a monthly period costs an ISP no more than one that's used for 1Gig.

Actually, depending on where the 250GB is coming from make a difference to the ISP.

Most ISP's pay 1¢ Per GB hitting the Internet, so an ISP would pay $2.49 more for a user using 250GB vs. 1GB of another user.

As I keep saying.. Data is Cheap and the only reason why we have usage caps is because ISP's that offer TV packages want to keep users from leaving to go to internet TV.

abitbent
join:2004-04-23
Brantford, ON

1 recommendation

abitbent

Member

Re: Pay for what you use...

said by davidc502:

As I keep saying.. Data is Cheap and the only reason why we have usage caps is because ISP's that offer TV packages want to keep users from leaving to go to internet TV.

That's the ultimate truth, everything else is just splitting hairs.

jseymour
join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

jseymour to abitbent

Member

to abitbent
said by abitbent:

Data costs nothing. Don't believe the ISP hype.

While there's little question that Americans pay more and get less for it than consumers in many, or perhaps even most, other developed countries, the assertion that "data costs nothing" is manifestly false. Whether it's on the move or stored, data costs money. Storage is not free. The pipes and infrastructure used to move it from Point A to Point B are not free.

Jim
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Kamus to chamberc

Member

to chamberc
You really don't have the first clue on how information technologies work, do you?
Kamus

1 recommendation

Kamus to chamberc

Member

to chamberc
I guess google's technology is the work of the devil then, because they can magically allow their fiber users to download multiple terrabytes of data a month for just 70 bucks.
Get a clue, or stop trolling.
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Rekrul to chamberc

Member

to chamberc
said by chamberc:

It's absurd that a few should have to foot the bill for the many... I use over 250gb of data a month at home, and I should pay more than someone who uses 1gb. Somehow, we've come to expect too much free in this society. Entities that pay more, should receive higher priority.

Then it will end up just like your electric bill. You'll only pay $0.25 a GB, but there will be an $50 service charge, plus another $10 in taxes and fees. So your average internet bill alone would be around $122, and that's before you add on the TV and phone service (if you have them), equipment rental (if applicable), etc.

Packeteers
Premium Member
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY

Packeteers to chamberc

Premium Member

to chamberc
i think you are confusing net neutrality with data caps.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory

Member

Re: Pay for what you use...

Agreed. But they're tangentialy related and easy to confuse.

Intel008
@67.174.217.x

1 recommendation

Intel008 to chamberc

Anon

to chamberc
My letter to the FCC...

As an I.T. professional I fear that our USA government and corporation are once again using their money and lobby power to manipulate and essentially take control of another American and word-wide service called the Internet. Like many services before, IT WAS and IS WORKING, and now THE GOVERNMENT is trying to FIX IT. The American people are YET again being lied to by methods of fear tactics indicating the ISPs do not have enough resources to keep the Internet working. As an I.T. professional who works with some of the largest ISPs and other data providers, I know this is not true. With new cost reducing competitions to Cisco and Juniper and Huawei and the cost of wire line and wireless technology is becoming cheaper and more efficient, while the profit margins for the ISPs have increased over the years. Hence, I see no valid excuse for justifying data caps, tiered data pricing and charging Internet based services based on usage. The simple and undeniable truth is these large ISPs and data companies need new profit models. The previous services such as text messaging, data tethering, provider specific and proprietary video and voice services which were HUGE profit buckets have been replaced with more efficient and FREE internet based services. The ISPs have now become NO MORE than simple gateways to the Intetnet, and now they are trying to manipulate the American people and FCC government with fear tactics to justify creating new profit models to replace their now obsolete services. These new profit models, IF approved by the FCC, will insure the ISPs will FOREVER have control of ANY small and large internet based service and effectively allow the ISPs and data providers to take a share of the profits of companies that require Internet services. Basically, I can now take a share of the profits of all business that wish to use the streets of my city to have their required products and service delivered. Basically a TOLL road where I can change the TOLL costs anytime I feel I want more profit. And if you don’t pay me, your business will suffer. The larger fear that is not widely being discussed and is heavily connected to this is LACK OF COMPETITION. 10 years ago we had more than 10 wireless and wireline providers. With the mass acquisitions of telco and ISPs and wireless providers. There will be nowhere to RUN. If you don't like my TOLL charge, what other options will you have? There is no more competition! No choices. No way to keep the ISPs in balance. They will make all the rules and that WILL BE the end of the INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT!

davidc502
join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN

davidc502

Member

Re: Pay for what you use...

said by Intel008 :

My letter to the FCC...

As someone else who works in IT, and at a similar level, I see and have the same realizations as you.

A couple of weeks ago I sent a very similar letter to Tom Wheeler.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to chamberc

Member

to chamberc
They do. There are different prices for different speed tiers.

Duffman
@96.53.125.x

Duffman to chamberc

Anon

to chamberc
said by chamberc:

It's absurd that a few should have to foot the bill for the many... I use over 250gb of data a month at home, and I should pay more than someone who uses 1gb. Somehow, we've come to expect too much free in this society. Entities that pay more, should receive higher priority.

Except of course it's the same physical line feeding you 250Gb/mo and your grandmother 1Gb/mo. We (still) pay for Internet ACCESS, not internet usage.

The gross oversubscription of carriers to maximize profit, and failure to maintain or improve those networks is the problem. If your backbone can support, say 192Gbit of traffic why are you throttling and/or capping your customers to fractions of that number? Because if you refuse to upgrade the last-mile infrastructure you can then claim 'congestion' (this is a favourite tactic in Canada) and force usage caps on consumers.

And it's consumers like you who are the shills; you've bought their FUD completely.

250Gb of usage costs an ISP the exact same as 1Gb of usage. Where are their costs? - THE INFRASTRUCTURE. The maintenance, the billing and support and (in theory) expansion. And where are they constantly trying to cut their expenses? - offshoring technical support, automated billing, cutting expansion and upgrades. It is no different than a utility- in fact, it's even LESS operational cost than a utility - the more water you pour through an underground pipe the more corrosion, mechanical wear, etc occurs. You don't get more wear & tear on a router by pushing a trillion bytes through it vs only a million.

davidc502
join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN

davidc502

Member

Re: Pay for what you use...

said by Duffman :

he more water you pour through an underground pipe the more corrosion, mechanical wear, etc occurs. You don't get more wear & tear on a router by pushing a trillion bytes through it vs only a million.

In reality a switch or router just uses electricity to push the bits through, and its not much.

It's going to use relatively the same amount if it's 1mbps or 20gbps.

cableties
Premium Member
join:2005-01-27

2 recommendations

cableties

Premium Member

New sign held up...

"will work for hi-speed internet"


Tamarisk
@46.175.106.x

Tamarisk

Anon

Re: New sign held up...

And here it is...

»imgur.com/Lm6xagZ
Papageno
join:2011-01-26
Portland, OR

2 edits

6 recommendations

Papageno

Member

Our government is so in bed with big business it's disgusting

...and it just keeps getting worse (and won't change till the perverse doctrine of "spending oodles of money = free speech"* is nullified).

*which amounts to: most people's free speech is a 25W light bulb, but the Koch Brothers' free speech is the star Betelgeuse.

••••••••••••

PWGuy097
@174.21.210.x

PWGuy097

Anon

FCC Decision really about Internet vs Internet2 ?

Hey Karl,

A long term question for you related to the underlying technologies that drive the internet and the stance the F.C.C. is positioning itself towards.

Context:
Internet vs Internet 2... not politics or applications or the web of all things but the technology, the switches, the routers, the protocols and fiber that make up Inet2 which is now functioning on many universities, research centers, technology companies and government facilities.

I can understand the challenges of the ISPs, backbone providers, et and that they have a limited function and with those limitations they are always looking for new mechanisms to differentiate themselves from others and offer "something" that they can charge (any) customers for. I also read... I see what other countries are doing, have done, have looked at their business models and see that the entire Internet infrastructure can only do so many things. This "industry segment" has reached their own cap, their own limitations on what they can do to drive new avenues for revenue and are milking what they can now, while they can, from what could become a common carrier arrangement with little to no prospect for new areas of revenue generation.

Isn't the vote by the F.C.C. really a forward leaning vote that enables distinction between what we have and think of today as the Internet vs. what some have and what home consumers some day may have in the form of Internet2? i.e. 1Gbps tops from Google today on Internet, 100Gbps and beyond from Internet2 (»www.internet2.edu)...

I see the F.C.C.'s position as saying consumers (not carriers or edge providers or ISPs but the actual consumers (you, me and the small businesses) can have this current Internet with the current set of limitations and pseudo throttling (not upgrading) and that moving forward as the next set of technologies get implemented to actual consumers there will be a separation between higher speed, bandwidth, QoS, protocol technologies? One level of the Internet based on our current tech is WYSIWYG and if anyone wants access to better infrastructure (Inet2) they (everyone) will pay for those "upgrades"?

Isn't this vote by the F.C.C. really about the future and making Internet2 all about tiered services?

I see this not as consumers vs. the Internet but really about positioning the groundwork for cap and throttle of Internet2.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned)

Member

Much ado about nothing

You do realize that companies have had the ability to have this fast lane for YEARS already.
Kalmus
join:2012-11-21
Boston, MA

Kalmus

Member

Re: Much ado about nothing

Best comment of the bunch. Despite the hysteria expressed here and elsewhere, the internet will survive, innovation will continue to occur, and the overwhelming number of consumers will be unaffected.

Packeteers
Premium Member
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
Asus RT-AC3100
(Software) Asuswrt-Merlin

1 recommendation

Packeteers to 78036364

Premium Member

to 78036364
what's even sadder is without broadband getting Title II classification, the FCC has no teeth to enforce ANY of the bad net neutrality behavior they claim to discourage. every major lawsuit the FCC has filed against ISP's has been ultimately won by the ISP's much to the detriment of consumers, because the FCC must operate with one hand tied behind it's back. it's really up to Congress to give FCC Title II powers, and you can bet that won't happen if the Comcast:TWCable merger is allowed to proceed. I know it's wishful thinking to say this now, but I really hope we manage to get these issues more front and center during the 2014/2016 election seasons.

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

Take the FCC out of the equation

Let state DPUs and local CATV franchising authorities regulate broadband.

Massachusetts is good at regulating business, Verizon ain't shutting their landlines down in this state anytime soon. If they had the authority to regulate broadband, Comcast would unload their systems in this state to a smaller operator or spin off its Massachusetts operations into a new company or a subsidiary and provide the minimum service required by regulation.
Kalmus
join:2012-11-21
Boston, MA

Kalmus

Member

Re: Take the FCC out of the equation

Federal law prohibits states or municipalities from regulating broadband internet services and facilities and that isn't going to change any time soon.
Kommie2 (banned)
join:2003-05-13
united state

Kommie2 (banned)

Member

Stop voting for the two parties.

If you are upset about this, then stop voting for the Two Party System. Hell, if 5% of this Nation voted for a third party, things would change.
old_wiz_60
join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA

1 recommendation

old_wiz_60

Member

Just goes to show

That the FCC chairman is still being paid (undercover of course) by the cable companies. How could anyone doubt this now? Wonder if he gets cash in an offshore bank or what? Or do they hire one of his relatives and pay a huge salary for doing nothing?

I'm really curious as to how bribery works in this day when the only people with large amounts of cash are the drug cartel.

The FCC chair is obviously is not acting for voters or consumers; he is owned by the cable /telco people.

These days big business simply buy the people that make the laws and rules.

We have become so corrupt that it is disgusting; you can buy a seat in virtually any elected office, you can secretly bribe judges and the SCOTUS and of course the White House. It's really disgraceful when the SCOTUS votes for businesses because they own stock in that business.

Probitas
@206.248.154.x

Probitas

Anon

Re: Just goes to show

That's the true American dream. Live it.

wsudelt
Premium Member
join:2002-12-03
New Canaan, CT

wsudelt

Premium Member

Which Party Lines?

To clarify, as there is no mention in the story above as to which party favored or opposed the NPRM, it was approved by the three sitting Democrats and opposed by the two Republicans.

Trimline
Premium Member
join:2004-10-24
Windermere, FL

1 recommendation

Trimline

Premium Member

À la carte Internet

À la carte internet. That's what Wheeler's plan boils down to. His "rules would still allow ISPs to offer "fast lane" access". This means everyone else can just wait, and wait, and wait.

Now enlighten me, we, the consumers have asked ISP/Cable providers for years to do À la carte for TV. Why all the sudden can fast lanes be built for the internet? Money perhaps?

This is totally against the consumer's best interest. I say "reclassify ISPs as common carriers". I wouldn't mind paying the "taxes" as long as the ISP thieves cannot control *anything*, and I want the taxes collected to go to a private company(s) whose only business is to lay fiber to replace existing copper.

And oh by the way, Wheeler proposes "Proposes the creation of an ombudsperson with significant enforcement authority to serve as a watchdog and advocate for start-ups, small businesses and consumers."

Wheeler, I hate to tell you, that is your job in the first place!

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

1 recommendation

KrK

Premium Member

Talk about missing the point

All this talk of caps and metered billing is a completely separate issue from Net Neutrality, but I can see how it's linked in the minds of consumers.

Simply put, without Net Neutrality, Corporations will be able to decide what you will or will not see on the Internet, or what you can or can not do with your connections.

This is basically what it will come down to. Sure, if you have unlimited reserves of cash you could do whatever you want, but for most people, that is simply not possible, so they will be restricted and controlled by the hands on their wallets.

RAZ Black
join:2001-10-04
united state

RAZ Black

Member

What about Ads, who's gonna pay for that extra data I have to get?

I sure as to hell don't want my metered connection getting filled with crap ads like I currently do.. If my data is going to be metered like this, I need a way to be able to cut off ads that consume way to much bandwidth as it is.