FCC Revokes Net Neutrality [WAS: FCC Approves Net Neutrality]

[superbluepsd]

1 minute ago, utiz4321 said:

So? If the could raise prices and increase profits (your claim) they would do it now. Why wait? That doesnt make sense. 

You are missing the point.   Netflix will just pass along the added cost to the end user.   This isn't about added profit, its about added cost to provide product to end user.  

[radem]

3 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

That sounds like you chose to live in an area with limited access to broadband. Fortunately the majority of Americans did not inflict that probelm on themselves. Only 2 percent of americans are in you position. 63 percent have more than two broadband wired choices. 

Where did you get that 63% number from?  I have rarely seen any home with more than 3 wires attached to it.  Those wires are electric, telephone and cable.  There is no effective internet over electric lines so that leaves 2 wired internet providers at most for homes that are wired for both telephone and cable.  I live in a suburb of Chicago which is a heavily populated area and there are only 2 wired internet providers both of which have messed with internet traffic in the past.  Both of which have low caps for the speed of the connections they offer and where they promote their own content by making it exempt from caps while doing everything they can to limit access to their competitor's content.

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing or do you not believe the evidence that ISPs effectively have monopolies and have a desire to increase their revenue while disadvantaging their competitors?  This fundamental business desire is in conflict with the open internet that has existed for the past 20 years.  As they started to put those business desires into practice, Net Neutrality was proposed to make them common carriers.  This is not about regulating the internet, it is about keeping it open.

[JustinRP37]

31 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

So? If the could raise prices and increase profits (your claim) they would do it now. Why wait? That doesnt make sense. 

They literally just did raise the price! Twice, actually, in the last year! And again Netflix is NOT highly profitable given how much they are spending for content. An additional cost will change their business model, likely either have less money for content or more expensive. That in turn makes the video provider (likely your ISP) the better choice. 

Further, your claim that 63% of Americans have more than two broadband wireless choices is based on the old definition of broadband (4Mpbs/1Mpbs). The new standard is 25/3 as decided in 2015. Based on 2013 numbers, 83% of Americans only have access to 1 true wired broadband provided. These numbers have not really improved all that much in the last few years either. You market (Phoenix) actually fares quite well with broadband connectivity. Living in NYC, it always shocks when I go to more rural places in the Midwest a) how much the service costs, b ) how slow the speeds are, and c) that there is usually only one fixed broadband provider. You are right though people can move to areas with better connectivity, especially in an economy that is really more and more tech based. If you throw wireless into the mix then yes you have slightly more 'competition', but that is not really a fair comparison because of deprioritization based on usage. Most families would reach deprioritization early in their billing cycle if they were using their wireless provider as their sole source of internet and streaming video. And usually in these areas that have lack of choice, the wireless networks are on the fringe and since many people do try to use it to power their homes, it tends to be much slower. 

Also, while pointing out to others that they are not giving evidence, you should show us your sources to better inform us as well.

 

[utiz4321]

2 minutes ago, radem said:

Where did you get that 63% number from?  I have rarely seen any home with more than 3 wires attached to it.  Those wires are electric, telephone and cable.  There is no effective internet over electric lines so that leaves 2 wired internet providers at most for homes that are wired for both telephone and cable.  I live in a suburb of Chicago which is a heavily populated area and there are only 2 wired internet providers both of which have messed with internet traffic in the past.  Both of which have low caps for the speed of the connections they offer and where they promote their own content by making it exempt from caps while doing everything they can to limit access to their competitor's content.

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing or do you not believe the evidence that ISPs effectively have monopolies and have a desire to increase their revenue while disadvantaging their competitors?  This fundamental business desire is in conflict with the open internet that has existed for the past 20 years.  As they started to put those business desires into practice, Net Neutrality was proposed to make them common carriers.  This is not about regulating the internet, it is about keeping it open.

It isnt about keeping the internet open. It is about big content asking the government to tilt the profits of an industry towards them. It is package as keeping the internet open, but that is just a marketing. 

 

Low caps are the way ISP make up for not being able to charge netflex for the data they use. Caps are an effect of net neutrality not solved by it. 

[JustinRP37]

11 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

It isnt about keeping the internet open. It is about big content asking the government to tilt the profits of an industry towards them. It is package as keeping the internet open, but that is just a marketing. 

 

Low caps are the way ISP make up for not being able to charge netflex for the data they use. Caps are an effect of net neutrality not solved by it. 

Not at all! Deprioritization caps are there to keep the network usable by the masses! If you provided truly unlimited wireless then data speeds would be abysmal! Wireless is not a replacement for fixed connections! Wireless is limited by spectrum, so you have to have a balancing mechanism to make sure that people can have a decent experience. 

This is just Michigan btw: http://www.bridgemi.com/public-sector/need-broadband-michigan-rural-life-can-mean-youre-out-luck

Also: https://www.cio.com/article/2689996/consumer-technology/us-lags-in-broadband-speed-due-to-serious-lack-of-competition.html

Don't tell me our networks are the best out there because that just isn't true. I would be more likely to forgive slower speeds if all our urban and suburban areas were doing great with broadband, but even that isn't the case. 

[utiz4321]

3 minutes ago, JustinRP37 said:

Not at all! Deprioritization caps are there to keep the network usable by the masses! If you provided truly unlimited wireless then data speeds would be abysmal! Wireless is not a replacement for fixed connections! Wireless is limited by spectrum, so you have to have a balancing mechanism to make sure that people can have a decent experience. 

We were talking about wired. But now that you mention it what companies are most responsible for wireless data being unusable if it we're truly unlimited? Netflix, YouTube? Hmmm....... Should they flip part of the bill?

 

 

[JustinRP37]

1 minute ago, utiz4321 said:

We were talking about wired. But now that you mention it what companies are most responsible for wireless data being unusable if it we're truly unlimited? Netflix, YouTube? Hmmm....... Should they flip part of the bill?

 

 

I do not know what Radem meant by low wired caps (maybe speed?) because I do not know of many areas that have low fixed broadband caps. And again, wireless data won't be more usable if Netflix was paying more to wireless providers. There is still a fixed amount of spectrum, which in turn means a fixed amount of speed. So I do not get your argument. But while we are at you, do you really believe that if Netflix was forced to pay higher interconnect fees they would not pass that cost on? I mean it's the same principle of 'you cannot tax corporations' because they can simply choose to pass that cost on, which most corporations rightfully do because it is a cost beared to them. Show me evidence of a cost being imposed upon a company and that company just sitting by and taking the profit hit without trying to recoup that. I'll just leave it at that. You have been calling out many people for not providing evidence, yet your only evidence for your argument is that it has not been done in the past.

[Trip]

1 hour ago, utiz4321 said:

That sounds like you chose to live in an area with limited access to broadband. Fortunately the majority of Americans did not inflict that probelm on themselves.

Ah yes, the "I got mine, screw you" argument.  When your house in the country is worth $50,000, how do you afford to move into the city, exactly?  And if everyone were to move to the city, the value would plummet to approximately $0.

Besides, everyone should move into the cities!  Who needs food, lumber, or minerals anyway?

- Trip

[radem]

3 minutes ago, JustinRP37 said:

I do not know what Radem meant by low wired caps (maybe speed?) because I do not know of many areas that have low fixed broadband caps.

What I mean is that I can get 100Mbps download speed but I am limited to a 1TB cap.  That is an unreasonable cap in my opinion for the speed offered.  If you actually use the connection speed that you are paying for, you will quickly find yourself at the cap.  A 1TB or 1000GB monthly cap equates to around 33GB downloaded or uploaded per day.  At 100Mbps, you can reach 33GB of data downloaded in just over 45 minutes or 1/32 of a day.  Because of my job I usually go past 33GB uploaded/downloaded every day that I work from home.  I normally exceed 1TB of data usage well before the end of the month.  If however I was only using content that my wired ISP wants me to use, that data usage would not be subject to the 1TB cap and I would not have to pay extra each month to use it.

[tybo31316]

We were talking about wired. But now that you mention it what companies are most responsible for wireless data being unusable if it we're truly unlimited? Netflix, YouTube? Hmmm....... Should they flip part of the bill?
 
 

ISPs need to keep investing and adding capacity. YouTube and Netflix also has to have a network to send out all the video feeds to the customers of the ISPs. So should ISPs pay Netflix and YouTube for all the ISPs users accessing and using Netflix and YouTube’s data services?

[utiz4321]

Just now, tybo31316 said:

 

ISPs need to keep investing and adding capacity. YouTube and Netflix also has to have a network to send out all the video feeds to the customers of the ISPs. So should ISPs pay Netflix and YouTube for all the ISPs users accessing and using Netflix and YouTube’s data services?

 

If netflix can get them to pay, yes. But they can work that out amongst themselves. The profits of the industry isnt my concern. 

[tybo31316]

If netflix can get them to pay, yes. But they can work that out amongst themselves. The profits of the industry isnt my concern. 

ISPs are profitable and will be profitable in the future. Internet prices will double to cover the loss of video subscribers. I also read an article a while back that Comcast isn’t losing much money on internet only subscribers vs internet and tv subscribers. The reason is most people that has internet and tv combined. Usually buy a lower speed internet package. Internet only users buy a higher speed package. That internet only packages has a higher profit margin than tv services anyways.

[tybo31316]

So Chairman Pai wants to end Net Neutrality because of the things posted on Social Media sites?

https://www.recode.net/2017/11/29/16715650/fcc-chairman-pai-twitter-threats-harassment-social-media

[rkitt]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171129/13111538698/as-net-neutrality-repeal-nears-comcasts-promise-to-avoid-paid-prioritization-disappears.shtml

[tybo31316]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171129/13111538698/as-net-neutrality-repeal-nears-comcasts-promise-to-avoid-paid-prioritization-disappears.shtml

Net Neutrality isn’t repealed yet and companies already doing a 180.

[afazel]

On 11/29/2017 at 8:07 AM, superbluepsd said:

You are missing the point.   Netflix will just pass along the added cost to the end user.   This isn't about added profit, its about added cost to provide product to end user.  

He's not missing the point. He's either trolling this thread (and others here and there), or intentionally ignoring the point.

[utiz4321]

On 11/29/2017 at 7:07 AM, superbluepsd said:

You are missing the point.   Netflix will just pass along the added cost to the end user.   This isn't about added profit, its about added cost to provide product to end user.  

They can't. They are a profit maximizing firm and demand for their produce isnt perfectly inelastic. 

[utiz4321]

2 hours ago, afazel said:

He's not missing the point. He's either trolling this thread (and others here and there), or intentionally ignoring the point.

Neither. The point isnt correct. 

[nexgencpu]

Good Bye Net Neutrality, it was nice while you lasted and protected the free internet.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

 

[though]

7 minutes ago, nexgencpu said:

Good Bye Net Neutrality, it was nice while you lasted and protected the free internet.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

 

Good News!

[tybo31316]

Good Bye Net Neutrality, it was nice while you lasted and protected the free internet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
 

It still has to go through Congress. Fingers crossed.

[nexgencpu]

1 minute ago, though said:

Good News!

Do you run an ISP? How is this good news?

[though]

9 minutes ago, nexgencpu said:

Do you run an ISP? How is this good news?

In general I am against what the Oligopolies want, particularly, Facebook.

[RedSpark]

A little levity (and some truth) here.

The Internet was fine before these rules. It’ll be fine after these rules are repealed. The FTC will take over to ensure fair competition.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/12/statement-acting-ftc-chairman-maureen-k-ohlhausen-fccs-approval

 

[nexgencpu]

1 minute ago, though said:

In general I am against what the Oligopolies want, particularly, Facebook.

Force feeding vs consumers making bad choices are not one and the same. At any given time the next "big thing" can happen organically (isn't Capitalism the American way?) and totally disrupt the industry. Good luck trusting ISP's choosing the winners and losers.