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

[nexgencpu]

Maybe add a bald eagle emblem holding Ethernet and coax cables in it's talons to drive it home.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

 

[tybo31316]

What are you guys/gals thoughts on Ajit Pai and the republican FCC repealing NN?

[utiz4321]

4 hours ago, tybo31316 said:

What are you guys/gals thoughts on Ajit Pai and the republican FCC repealing NN?

I personally could careless. It was a fight between big teleco/cable and big content providers about how the industry profits are divided up. I fall to see how that is anyones business but those companies and their consumers. 

[tybo31316]

I personally could careless. It was a fight between big teleco/cable and big content providers about how the industry profits are divided up. I fall to see how that is anyones business but those companies and their consumers. 

Issue is that ISP’s will start charging the U.S. consumers for services (ie. YouTube, Netflix, etc). ISPs throttling competitors services choosing winners and losers. Stun the growth of innovation. Most Americans only have 1 maybe 2 options for broadband access in the US. Also I think that network expansion and investment would decrease. Even if the things you say as far as ISPs and content providers are battling for profits. The extra cost are always trickled down to the consumers the corporate corporations aren’t going to take a hit on profit.

[utiz4321]

7 hours ago, tybo31316 said:

 

Issue is that ISP’s will start charging the U.S. consumers for services (ie. YouTube, Netflix, etc). ISPs throttling competitors services choosing winners and losers. Stun the growth of innovation. Most Americans only have 1 maybe 2 options for broadband access in the US. Also I think that network expansion and investment would decrease. Even if the things you say as far as ISPs and content providers are battling for profits. The extra cost are always trickled down to the consumers the corporate corporations aren’t going to take a hit on profit.

 

There is no extra cost. The profits of the industry are just being divided up differently. The ISPs are unlike to charge consumers for access to certain sites, they did not do this any time before 2015 and they wont know. 

Netflix, during peak time consumes something like a Third of all internet trafficking, why should the Isle be able to change Netflix for the cost it imposes on them? This happens all the time in the shipping industry. 

 

[tybo31316]

There is no extra cost. The profits of the industry are just being divided up differently. The ISPs are unlike to charge consumers for access to certain sites, they did not do this any time before 2015 and they wont know. 
Netflix, during peak time consumes something like a Third of all internet trafficking, why should the Isle be able to change Netflix for the cost it imposes on them? This happens all the time in the shipping industry. 
 

I would hate for our internet plan to looks like Cable packages.

[utiz4321]

1 hour ago, tybo31316 said:

 

I would hate for our internet plan to looks like Cable packages.

 

They haven't at anypoint from the creation of the internet to 2015 when net neutrality went into effect. 

[radem]

23 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

They haven't at anypoint from the creation of the internet to 2015 when net neutrality went into effect. 

Yes, they were starting to mess with traffic and that is why Net Neutrality was put into effect.  It started with a demand that Netflix pay your ISP to carry high speed traffic to you over the ISP interconnections without being throttled.  They also started messing with torrent traffic to keep people from using torrenting programs.  Now they have low caps on high speed connections while exempting their own content from their caps or forcing their competitors streaming products to lower bandwidth so they have an inferior product.  I have to pay $30 extra each month to so that I can go over 1TB of data download in a household were I often work from home and all our entertainment is streaming.

Net Neutrality was supposed to be about forcing ISPs to be dumb carriers and not allowing them to mess with any traffic that they carry. Without it we will continue down the path of monopoly ISPs deciding what internet traffic to pass to and from their customers and at what speed.

[utiz4321]

1 minute ago, radem said:

Yes, they were starting to mess with traffic and that is why Net Neutrality was put into effect.  It started with a demand that Netflix pay your ISP to carry high speed traffic to you over the ISP interconnections without being throttled.  They also started messing with torrent traffic to keep people from using torrenting programs.  Now they have low caps on high speed connections while exempting their own content from their caps or forcing their competitors streaming products to lower bandwidth so they have an inferior product.  I have to pay $30 extra each month to so that I can go over 1TB of data download in a household were I often work from home and all our entertainment is streaming.

Net Neutrality was supposed to be about forcing ISPs to be dumb carriers and not allowing them to mess with any traffic that they carry. Without it we will continue down the path of monopoly ISPs deciding what internet traffic to pass to and from their customers and at what speed.

You are mixing up different things into the net neutrality basket. ISP were messing and are messing with torrent sites because content providers were threatening them with law suits. The part about netflix is true but why do you carw who gets what profits? 

[radem]

13 minutes ago, utiz4321 said:

You are mixing up different things into the net neutrality basket. ISP were messing and are messing with torrent sites because content providers were threatening them with law suits. The part about netflix is true but why do you carw who gets what profits? 

I care that I can send and receive whatever traffic I want on my connection without my ISP deciding what I should be able to use.  I use my wired connection for work and for entertainment.  I transfer a lot of data and I do not want anyone messing with my traffic in any way.

The FCC has decided that with 3 nationwide wireless providers there would not be enough competition but with most areas having 2 wired ISPs or less, that the monopoly practices of the wired ISPs are just fine with them.

[tybo31316]

You are mixing up different things into the net neutrality basket. ISP were messing and are messing with torrent sites because content providers were threatening them with law suits. The part about netflix is true but why do you carw who gets what profits? 

If ISPs charge Netflix to plug into their network. Who do you think is going to pay for the additional costs that Netflix is charged?

The US consumers will.

[utiz4321]

25 minutes ago, tybo31316 said:

 

If ISPs charge Netflix to plug into their network. Who do you think is going to pay for the additional costs that Netflix is charged?

The US consumers will.

 

It depends on the depends on the  elasticity of demand for Netflix, which I would think is rather high, meaning Netflix would pay most of the addition cost. Look, why wouldnt the ISPs just raise prices on consumers by the amount they want to extract from Netflix? The same reason, elasticities of demand. It wont raise costs to consumers, it just adjusts the distrabution of profits. 

[utiz4321]

34 minutes ago, radem said:

I care that I can send and receive whatever traffic I want on my connection without my ISP deciding what I should be able to use.  I use my wired connection for work and for entertainment.  I transfer a lot of data and I do not want anyone messing with my traffic in any way.

The FCC has decided that with 3 nationwide wireless providers there would not be enough competition but with most areas having 2 wired ISPs or less, that the monopoly practices of the wired ISPs are just fine with them.

Why wouod the FCC have any idea what they "right" amount of wireless carriers are? Unless you consume 1 percent of the internet traffic at any given time you have little to worry about fron your ISP. ISPs do currently restrict torrenting because they can be held libel for their users actions. if that was gone, they wouldnt care. 

[tybo31316]

It depends on the depends on the  elasticity of demand for Netflix, which I would think is rather high, meaning Netflix would pay most of the addition cost. Look, why wouldnt the ISPs just raise prices on consumers by the amount they want to extract from Netflix? The same reason, elasticities of demand. It wont raise costs to consumers, it just adjusts the distrabution of profits. 

That makes sense. I don’t like the idea of ISPs being gatekeepers. We all know that the cable cos are losing video customers to cord cutting. They may want to block the competitors offerings and promote their own.

[utiz4321]

Just now, tybo31316 said:

 

 

That makes sense. I don’t like the idea of ISPs being gatekeepers. We all know that the cable cos are losing video customers to cord cutting. They may want to block the competitors offerings and promote their own.

 

 

I think there are some free speach issues that i am concerned about but that extends to platform owners like Facebook and google. I think these platforms have become so ubiquitous that i am uncomfortable with a hand full of companies having the ability to restrict access to them. But that can exist in a net neutrality environment, so that isnt a solution to the problem I am concered with. 

[ingenium]

You are mixing up different things into the net neutrality basket. ISP were messing and are messing with torrent sites because content providers were threatening them with law suits. The part about netflix is true but why do you carw who gets what profits? 

Or if the ISP decides they don't want to pay more for Netflix and pull access to it, like cable and satellite providers do all the time when they have a contract/price dispute with a channel.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[ingenium]

ISPs do currently restrict torrenting because they can be held libel for their users actions. if that was gone, they wouldnt care. 

Actually that's not true, that's a benefit of being a common carrier is that they aren't liable unless they are alerted to that particular instance. Once they start monitoring it and restricting it on their own, then they are responsible for policing it. As it stands, they just have to alert the responsible parties of the copyright infringement.

Also, not all torrents are piracy. Some games use torrents to distribute updates for example.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

14 minutes ago, ingenium said:

Or if the ISP decides they don't want to pay more for Netflix and pull access to it, like cable and satellite providers do all the time when they have a contract/price dispute with a channel.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

If netflix doesnt want to pay? That is who they are tryinf to charge. Look, these companies are more than able of figuring out the costs and pricing for the delievery of content. The government should just let them. I dont see why the government would be better able to fihure out the proper pricing of content delivery. 

[ingenium]

If netflix doesnt want to pay? That is who they are tryinf to charge. Look, these companies are more than able of figuring out the costs and pricing for the delievery of content. The government should just let them. I dont see why the government would be better able to fihure out the proper pricing of content delivery. 

Netflix is just an example here. Netflix may be able to afford it, but not a new entrant to the market. Look at YouTube when they first started. It prevents new players from entering the market in the future, not even necessarily in video, but anything bandwidth heavy. The logistics of paying extra to every ISP as a startup is absurd and logically insurmountable. You basically lock in the current players as the content providers going forward.

As a customer, you pay for the bandwidth, the ISP shouldn't care what it's being used for. Charge the customer what you need to to handle the costs for the level of bandwidth they subscribe to, don't try to double dip and charge the other end as well.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

3 minutes ago, ingenium said:

Netflix is just an example here. Netflix may be able to afford it, but not a new entrant to the market. Look at YouTube when they first started. It prevents new players from entering the market in the future, not even necessarily in video, but anything bandwidth heavy. The logistics of paying extra to every ISP as a startup is absurd and logically insurmountable. You basically lock in the current players as the content providers going forward.

As a customer, you pay for the bandwidth, the ISP shouldn't care what it's being used for. Charge the customer what you need to to handle the costs for the level of bandwidth they subscribe to, don't try to double dip and charge the other end as well.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

You are missing the point. They are a symbiotic industry. One cant exist with out the other. ISPs have no inceitive to destroy innovation on the internet. Small companies wont be effected until they become large consumers of bandwidth, I.e. large content providers. The innovation of the internet is good for the ISP s. 

[S4GRU]

Missing the point?  Or just disagreeing?

[Trip]

8 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

You are missing the point. They are a symbiotic industry. One cant exist with out the other. ISPs have no inceitive to destroy innovation on the internet. Small companies wont be effected until they become large consumers of bandwidth, I.e. large content providers. The innovation of the internet is good for the ISP s. 

What?  They have every incentive.  If they can make video streaming from providers other than themselves so expensive that nobody uses it, that benefits them.  Innovation on the Internet threatens their profits.  And since in most places, there is no competition in the home Internet access space from anyone except another provider with its own video service (think Verizon FiOS TV versus Comcast), the market won't be able to correct this behavior.  Even if you count wireless, AT&T and Verizon now own their own streaming services and would benefit from pushing you to those as well. 

- Trip

(This comment is my own and does not necessarily reflect the view of my employer, the FCC.)

[utiz4321]

5 hours ago, Trip said:

What?  They have every incentive.  If they can make video streaming from providers other than themselves so expensive that nobody uses it, that benefits them.  Innovation on the Internet threatens their profits.  And since in most places, there is no competition in the home Internet access space from anyone except another provider with its own video service (think Verizon FiOS TV versus Comcast), the market won't be able to correct this behavior.  Even if you count wireless, AT&T and Verizon now own their own streaming services and would benefit from pushing you to those as well. 

- Trip

(This comment is my own and does not necessarily reflect the view of my employer, the FCC.)

That isnt true. People have to want to go to the internet to want to pay for the ISP. the content providers are not going to be chanrge so much, nor will content providers be able to pass the cost on to consumer. Look, why would the ISP s just charge consumers more per gig so that it would be prohibatively expensive for them to stream video? That is another way the could go even in a net neutral environment, but guess what, they havent done it. Weird thing is it doesn't maximize profits. They arent going to charge the other side of the market so much that they make netflix so expensice no one would use it, that would kill their business because that is what people want to use on the internet, why they want to pay for ISPs. 

You guys are scaring youselves with fantastic outcomes that arent coming to happen and dont make sense, all to protect the profits of big content. It is going to be fine if Netflix makes a little less money.  

[cyclone]

Just because somebody hasn't done something, doesn't mean that they won't. The issue with all the net neutrality concern is that the protections to keep those scenarios from happening are at risk of going away. It's a precautionary measure, not a reactionary measure.

[jefbal99]

3 hours ago, utiz4321 said:

That isnt true. People have to want to go to the internet to want to pay for the ISP. the content providers are not going to be chanrge so much, nor will content providers be able to pass the cost on to consumer. Look, why would the ISP s just charge consumers more per gig so that it would be prohibatively expensive for them to stream video? That is another way the could go even in a net neutral environment, but guess what, they havent done it. Weird thing is it doesn't maximize profits. They arent going to charge the other side of the market so much that they make netflix so expensice no one would use it, that would kill their business because that is what people want to use on the internet, why they want to pay for ISPs. 

You guys are scaring youselves with fantastic outcomes that arent coming to happen and dont make sense, all to protect the profits of big content. It is going to be fine if Netflix makes a little less money.  

Do you want to be nickle and dimed for every service you want to use?

Example...

Comcast/Xfinity is your ISP, you pay say $70/month, so all the NBC Universal Streaming services are untiered, they want you to use their services, view their commercials, etc

But wait, you want ESPN GO, Fox Sports Go, NBA League Pass, MLS Live, etc then in addition to paying the provider for those services, you need yo pay Comcast an extra $5/month

Hold on, you love you social media platforms, well Twitter, Instagram, facebook, reddit, etc are going to cost you $5/month

Oh you like video streaming? Netflix, Hulu, HBO Go, Paramount, etc kick Comcast about $15/month, on top of paying for the services.

You might still be able to use all these services for your $70/month, but the data rates will be heavily capped or rate shaped to extort more money from you.

Couple years down the road, new ISP pops up and you switch because its the same $70 for faster speeds.  Uh oh, its not Xfinity any longer, so all those NBC Universal streaming services that have been given network priority at no cost to you, stump up $25/month to the new ISP.

As noted earlier, just because this hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't.  Corporations a greedy and will squeeze every penny they can out of every side of a business deal to drive up stock prices.  There isn't any competition in the Wired Internet market because the infrastructure is so freaking expensive and so hard to deploy with the myraid of local government regulations.