dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1895
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

Nanaki (banned) to dave

Member

to dave

Re: FCC Passes Net Neutrality: Internet Iron Curtain?

honestly na i don't see any business adding in what they pay for rent in to their prices. Your pretty well limited in what you can charge for a product based on the industry as a whole. How much does cell phone store x charge for a blu studio 5.5s? Well if i go above them in price and i am not offering something in return im going to loose sales to them.

The taxes are pretty standard and by law they have to list those.
I remember working at a local comp shop years ago and we damn near got busted for including the taxes in the price with out showing the price before taxes heh. Our customers loved it they could pick up a vid card hard drive printer monitor what ever and know exactly what it would cost out the door no muss no fuss.

So after our close call we listed price before tax and including tax.

Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN

Blackbird to dave

Premium Member

to dave
said by dave:

... So, out of that, I see two genuine charges that the government makes me pay on telecomms: federal excise tax and MA sales tax. The rest is all bullshit from VZ, who pass all their costs of doing business on to me. ...

Call them BS or whatever, they are costs imposed by the burden of the regulatory structure. Do you honestly believe there's a business on the planet that doesn't pass its taxes and regulatory overhead billings on to its customers? They embed it into their prices, only most of the time it's not itemized for customers to read like some of the utilities have chosen to do. While it's unpopular to say it, companies aren't money machines - every cent they pay in taxes and fees must come from their customer base. The inevitable fees and taxes associated with regulating the Internet will be no different.

CylonRed
MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
·Metronet

4 recommendations

CylonRed

MVM

There is a virtual guarantee that not all of those fees cover costs and instead go into the pocket of the company. No different than 'fuel surcharges' on my garbage pick up. Created to offset the $3.75-4.25 gallon prices of fuel. Except now - they have not paid that for awhile AND the fee goes up and the prices are increased for service.

Fact is - if companies would operate ethically - there would be no need for regulation of any type but they have proved thru the years that they don't give 2 shits about being ethical in any way. If Comcast hadn't tried to screw users over - this would not be a debate. If we had true internet competition it would likey not be needed but we don't.

It is fair to say that if the huge ISPs are against a law - then it is very well likely needed. When huge companies and Congress agree on something - then hold on to your wallet - it is generally bad for the consumer.
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

Nanaki (banned)

Member

Companies esp monopolies hide lots under the line. On water bills (sewer and water) you see epa mandated recovery fee and they will state how it is xx% of your bill eg 78% for sewer and 15% water (here in akron) What this really means is hey we got our asses handed to us in court by the epa and because we paid out a huge fine we are going to charge you yes you the guy who we supplied with polluted water who the epa sued us on behalf of this massive fee to recover the money we were forced by law to pay.
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17

OZO to CylonRed

Premium Member

to CylonRed
said by CylonRed:

There is already a law to not tax internet service.

The Net Neutrality is about prohibiting prioritization of the Internet traffic for the profit gaining purposes by Internet providers. Is there such a law, that prohibits exactly that?

I think FCC just tries to piggy back on that problem and want to start to collect money from it...

BKayrac
Premium Member
join:2001-09-29

1 recommendation

BKayrac to Cartel

Premium Member

to Cartel
I think most people are missing the point of this whole situation.

Current situation before decision:
Large ISP's control everything about their industry, be it laws written on a federal, state, and local level. They also do whatever they please.

I am not a big fan of government involvement. BUT, in this situation the government would have to mess things up royally to make it worse than what we already had. So at the end of the day, even if you don't like the government, you really have to assume that they are not going to botch this so badly that we are in a worse situation.

However, there is always the chance it may happen......But lets hope it does not and this can be a net positive!
Expand your moderator at work

sivran
Vive Vivaldi
Premium Member
join:2003-09-15
Irving, TX

2 edits

sivran

Premium Member

Re: FCC Passes Net Neutrality: Internet Iron Curtain?

said by Nanaki:

The thinking is they he might try to leverage this new law to regulate what we can get online.

How exactly would that work?

Bear in mind, voice has long been under the same regulation.

From what I heard, most of the 317 pages quoted is so much support material and the "meat" is a fraction of that.

The Wired article on it links to a 100 page document from last year.
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

Nanaki (banned)

Member

I have no clue. Im just stating what some are implying.

It would need to be quite a round about thing.
And yes voice hs been under this for decades now. And i would say we are better off for that. Our land line bills have never really went up. Yeh there was some slamming and cramming done by people like aol etc back in mid to late 90s. But that was not a long term problem. For the most part even before voip exploded and just slaughtered land lines our bills were on the down swing. Seriously who pays for example long distance with a land line any more? At most you pay 5 to 10 extra a month for free long distance. Att has and this is the only good thing great bundles for home phone and basic dsl. You can get for example 6mb and land line for sub 30 a month free long distance and feature packed land line. Like i said basic dsl that today no longer even qualifies as broadband.

If this bill is what it is suppose to be we should get some benefits. But the problem is this why in the hell did we never get to see it? This is the real problem imo. It has lead to speculation and fear. Not all of it unfounded not with our current leadership.

BKayrac
Premium Member
join:2001-09-29

BKayrac to Anon

Premium Member

to Anon
said by Nanaki:

Some are afraid this is yet another power grab by obama and crew and rightly so. The thinking is they he might try to leverage this new law to regulate what we can get online. Example a ability to block us from all dissenting opinions about him eg nuke conservative media.

The issue as i see it is this. We have no damn clue what is in this 317 page bill. We had no clue before it went to vote during the vote and now after the vote. For all we know it could be obama declaring him self emperor of the us. Ok obviously not but you get the idea. Point is it could in fact be something that will make it much much worse for us as users of the internet.

Yeah, but thats based on the assumption that the government doesn't already track everything we do. Which we know from snowden they are capable of, and have been doing to many people for quite some time.

Basically they already have that ability, because the companies that operate the networks are already forced to follow the laws, and due to the patriot act, or whatever law they use, they can already force companies to give them whatever information they want.

From my viewpoint, it could be god awful. It really could. BUT it really doesn't give the government access to anything they didn't already have access to. And there is a damn good chance it will force ISP's(looking at you verizon), to stop screwing everyone over constantly.
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

Nanaki (banned)

Member

Less fear pf snooping than fear pf censoring is my take on it.
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

1 recommendation

dave to Blackbird

Premium Member

to Blackbird
Only in the same sense that making sure your medicine isn't poisonous is a burden imposed by the regulatory structure of the FDA.

I view the 'property tax recovery fee' to be the exemplar of Verizon's sliminess. In effect, they are whining about being singled out by having to pay property tax.

Most legitimate businesses build their overheads into their prices. How do I know that Verizon isn't building the overheads into their prices, and then adding the same overheads on a second time as explicit "fees"? Everything I read about their wheeling and dealing suggests that I should not trust them to be straightforward.

Meanwhile of course I have the choice between Verizon and Comcast. This is a duopoly, and needs to be regulated because there is insufficient scope for competition.
dave

1 recommendation

dave to BKayrac

Premium Member

to BKayrac
I agree in principle, but am reserving opinions until I know what was passed.

"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" - St. Thomas of Waits.
dave

4 recommendations

dave to Anon

Premium Member

to Anon
said by Nanaki:

Some are afraid this is yet another power grab by obama

and some watch too much Fox news.
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

Nanaki (banned) to dave

Member

to dave
Same going to wait and see. Then ill complain.
Nanaki

Nanaki (banned) to dave

Member

to dave
I read fox huffinton and a dozen other sources liberal and conservative and any thing in between I don't trust any simgle source. Hell I piss off both side comstantly. And I'm fine with that.
Mele20
Premium Member
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI

Mele20 to StuartMW

Premium Member

to StuartMW
said by StuartMW:

Coming soon... Taxes on internet use and online shopping.

I'm surprised the intertoobs have remained relatively regulation free for so long.

Internet has ALWAYS been taxed in Hawaii as has online shopping.

Snowy
Lock him up!!!
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI

Snowy

Premium Member

said by Mele20:

Internet has ALWAYS been taxed in Hawaii ...

You've confused the Hawaii General Excise Tax that every business in Hawaii pays with a tax on internet access.

Your service provider is charging you a tax that is not in any way an "internet tax", it's the same tax that most business (certain exemptions apply) here charge their customers regardless of the nature of the business be it dog walking services or internet services.

Further, a business in Hawai is not required to charge a customer the GET.
They may act as if it's a tax on the customer but that is not the case.
It's a tax on the business gross sales that the State allows to be added to a customers total bill.
All companies doing business in Hawaii have the option of not collecting the GET as long as the GET is paid by the company.

Cartel
Intel inside Your sensitive data outside
Premium Member
join:2006-09-13
Chilliwack, BC

Cartel

Premium Member

“When you see this document, it’s worse than you imagine,” said O’Rielly at a conference in Washington organised by the think tank TechFreedom.

»www.theguardian.com/tech ··· utrality

Mele20
Premium Member
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI

Mele20 to CylonRed

Premium Member

to CylonRed
said by CylonRed:

There is already a law to not tax internet service. It just has to be renewed or made permanent.

That law has NEVER applied to Hawaii (and some other areas) and never will. So all you quit with the misinformation. Some of us USA citizens in certain states have always paid tax on internet connection and also things we buy on the internet. Plus, we pay a fortune for shipping stuff we buy and Homeland Security forbids the sale of many items mainlanders can buy on the net but Homeland Security refuses to allow shipping to Hawaii ...even things like some better computer speakers and flashlights, etc.

So get over it guys, the internet is not this special place...has never been for me and so if it isn't for you now I say great! Finally level the playing field!
bennor
Premium Member
join:2006-07-22
New Haven, CT

1 edit

bennor to dave

Premium Member

to dave
said by dave:

said by Nanaki:

Some are afraid this is yet another power grab by obama

and some watch too much Fox news.

And some watch too much MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc. and assume the government doesn't have an ulterior motive in reclassifying broadband as a utility. Some may, probably will, be shocked to find that their idea of "net neutrality" isn't the same as the government's idea of "net neutrality".
bennor

bennor to BKayrac

Premium Member

to BKayrac
said by BKayrac:

I think most people are missing the point of this whole situation.

Current situation before decision:
Large ISP's control everything about their industry, be it laws written on a federal, state, and local level. They also do whatever they please.

I am not a big fan of government involvement. BUT, in this situation the government would have to mess things up royally to make it worse than what we already had. So at the end of the day, even if you don't like the government, you really have to assume that they are not going to botch this so badly that we are in a worse situation.

However, there is always the chance it may happen......But lets hope it does not and this can be a net positive!

What was announced by the FCC doesn't change the fact that large ISP's will still control everything about their industry right down to the pricing they charge their customers. The announcement doesn't indicate a break up the big ISP's. It doesn't unbundle the last mile or pole to the curb. It doesn't do a LOT of things some have come to expect when they think "net neutrality".

Some feel that this is a good thing. Just as they did with the healthcare "overhaul". Others feel this is a bad thing after seeing what happened with the healthcare "overhaul" when they were told by these very same politicians who are currently promising good things about these FCC net neutrality regulations, that they wouldn't loose their healthcare or that rates wouldn't rise and they witnessed both happen as they lost their healthcare coverage and had to settle for more expensive lower coverage policies.

The devil is in the details as they say. If this turns into the mess the healthcare overhaul has turned into for many, it will be too late to undue the damage. I never have a good feeling when the government decides to throw its weight around and regulate something for our supposed benefit. History has often shown the politicians, and government in general, have ulterior motives when doing something for the supposed benefit of its citizens.

No matter what happens the cost of the new government fees and regulations will be "passed though" by businesses as they always are to the customer/end user.
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

dave to bennor

Premium Member

to bennor
That comment was specifically in response to Nanaki See Profile's unattributable comment that "Some are afraid...". He doesn't say he's afraid, he's just raising the bogeyman that some unspecified people are afraid. This technique is well-known to yellow journalism; the news source is making no claim, it is merely "reporting" that "some" people make a claim. I mention Fox because I know of Nanaki See Profile's political leanings, and because the "some are saying" trope is well-known as a Fox technique. Hope that clears up the rationale for you. Nanaki See Profile didn't seem too offended by it.

Meanwhile, I think I already said that I don't have a position on the bill until I see it.
bennor
Premium Member
join:2006-07-22
New Haven, CT

bennor

Premium Member

said by dave:

That comment was specifically in response to Nanaki See Profile's unattributable comment that "Some are afraid...". He doesn't say he's afraid, he's just raising the bogeyman that some unspecified people are afraid. This technique is well-known to yellow journalism; the news source is making no claim, it is merely "reporting" that "some" people make a claim. I mention Fox because I know of Nanaki See Profile's political leanings, and because the "some are saying" trope is well-known as a Fox technique. Hope that clears up the rationale for you. Nanaki See Profile didn't seem too offended by it.

Not offended by it at all. The media (pretty much all of them) have their own stake in this net neutrality battle and are often spinning their coverage because of that. Some media outlets spin their coverage for political/ideological reasons to either support or oppose the current administration. Other media outlets are simply supporting or opposing the idea of government mandated "net neutrality" simply to generate viewership.

whit
@electrainfo.com

whit

Anon

said by bennor:

Other media outlets are simply supporting or opposing the idea of government mandated "net neutrality" simply to generate viewership.

Most of the Net neutrality coverage wasn't in the television or print media, but on Websites, mostly those with a strong interest in not being crowded out by ISP preferences for those who can pay for the fast lane. The FCC got a couple million public comments submitted based on that. Apart from Netflix, the big media companies were all happy with the prospect of neutrality going away, and so downplayed the issue until late in the game when they amplified the Republican-corporate panic about it.
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

1 recommendation

Nanaki (banned) to dave

Member

to dave
Na I'm not at all. Lots of fear has been shown by people here amd on other sites. I omited any sources incliding topics as I figured it was common knowledge. I my self also am not taking a hard nosed position on ither side. I do say this some thing had to be done to reign in the isps cell carriers etc who are out of comtrol. Will this bill be able to do this? Don't know have to wait and see.

Yeesh so hard to type stuff out on amdroid key boards ...
bennor
Premium Member
join:2006-07-22
New Haven, CT

1 edit

1 recommendation

bennor to whit

Premium Member

to whit
said by whit :

Most of the Net neutrality coverage wasn't in the television or print media, but on Websites, mostly those with a strong interest in not being crowded out by ISP preferences for those who can pay for the fast lane. The FCC got a couple million public comments submitted based on that. Apart from Netflix, the big media companies were all happy with the prospect of neutrality going away, and so downplayed the issue until late in the game when they amplified the Republican-corporate panic about it.

The problem with all the coverage, where ever it may be, of the "net neutrality" debate in the run up to what the FCC announced was it was generally reported by people who brought their own biases and self interest to the table. A media outlet, tech blog, personal blog that typically leans one way or the other will rarely voice opposing views that run contrary to their normally published/reported content.

You call it "Republican-corporate panic", in reality it was two groups looking out for their interests be it monetary or political just as those who support government involvement were doing in looking out for their own interests. One reason why there wasn't a surge until late in opposition was there wasn't much publicly known about what the FCC was going to do until the commissioners started voicing their views and issuing draft reports. There were people voicing concern over what the politicians and FCC might do but those views were drowned out or ridiculed by others.

Frankly as an end user who's sat and listened to the noise from all sides, I know most of what was said is total BS, based on one's concept of what they think or feel "net neutrality" should be. What is a fact is that not much will change from my end user perspective. I'll still have only Frontier or Comcast (unless I move) that provided wired broadband. Both will still be expensive. My speeds will still vary (sometimes wildly) due to network line usage/issues both on the local ISP's network and on the national networks. Both local providers will raise their prices to pass through the regulatory costs the FCC regulation will impose on them. Both will continue to try and maximize their profits while offering as little as possible. Both (as well as all other corporations) will still be the big bad evil corporate entities they currently are that so many here love to hate. In the end for the end user sitting at home nothing much will change (for the most part) in the short term. Only time will tell long term if the FCC plan will have any positive impact for the home user other than raising their rates.

whit
@electrainfo.com

whit

Anon

said by bennor:

Both local providers will raise their prices to pass through the regulatory costs the FCC regulation will impose on them

Agree with everything except the implication that Net neutrality imposes regulatory costs on IPSs. It keeps them from exploiting their monopoly in certain ways (where they have one - in a large part of the nation Comcast, for example, does), and so "costs" them in this way. But regulation also "costs" us by making it illegal to break into our neighbors' homes and take what we want. It's correct to talk about regulatory costs when the regulations make firms file extra paperwork, which costs them labor to prepare. But it's not truly a regulatory cost when the regulation requires, instead of doing something that requires labor, merely not doing something that is without the regulation only an option, not a necessary part of your business, such as robbing your neighbor.
bennor
Premium Member
join:2006-07-22
New Haven, CT

bennor

Premium Member

By regulatory costs I was talking about costs, fees and taxes like USF that are imposed when they reclassify broadband under Title II. While the FCC announcement indicated that USF wouldn't be collected under Section 254. They also indicate; "the question of how best to fund the nation's universal service programs is being considered in a separate, unrelated proceeding that was already underway." Rumors are that broadband will not be exempt from what that proceeding has unofficially already decided. Speculation is that broadband will get tagged with the USF fee (currently 16.8%) as a result of that proceeding.

Msradell
Premium Member
join:2008-12-25
Louisville, KY

Msradell to Cartel

Premium Member

to Cartel
To see what the Internet would deteriorate into if this wasn't passed or if it gets overturned you just need to look at cable service. Originally the FCC had a rule that cable providers had to carry all local channels and places they served. The major networks fought this and finally got it rescinded. Now every year or two we see network programming turned off by various providers for a period of time while the carrier and network argue over how much the network is going to pay the service provider to carry their channel! In the end the only people that lose if consumers who end up paying the increased costs.