Jump to content

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


JThorson

Recommended Posts

My feelings also. I don't need an unlimited choice of providers. But I would hope most people would have the choice of a couple wired providers, plus some fixed wireless options.

The order above does nothing to improve competition. Nothing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The order above does nothing to improve competition. Nothing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And nowhere in my post do I claim that it will....

 

I was trying to point out that there is a huge customer benefit just from customers who have 1 or maybe 2 options, getting 3 or 4 options. I'm not trying to score points for Title II here, just making the point that even if you don't have a highly competitive market with dozens of options, even moving from monopoly/duopoly to oligopoly or Monopolistic competition is a substantial improvement from the customer's point of view.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pay $45/mo for 3/1 and only get on average 1.5/.75. I'm not happy about it either.

LoL

Well, per the title II regulations passed, while the FCC is going to wait until later to work out how to implement them, the FCC is required by the regs just passed to impose taxes on your already expensive internet connection. To quote the dissenting FCC commissioner:

Title II “authorizes the Commission to impose universal service contributions requirements on telecommunications carriers—and, indeed, goes even further to require ‘[e]very telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services’ to contribute.”

 

And so the FCC now has a statutory obligation to make sure that all Internet service providers (and in the end, their customers) contribute to the Universal Service Fund. That’s why the Order repeatedly states that it is only deferring a decision on new broadband taxes—not prohibiting them.

 

 

 

Of course, my objection to the new regs is the subjective catchall provision, requiring ‘just and reasonable’ conduct.” Keeping in mind this is the same agency which spent its entire history persecuting what it considered unreasonable obscenity on the airwaves, how long do we have until they decide it is  unreasonable for ISPs to not actively filter traffic for piracy and obscenity? 

Edited by LoneSnark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Cogent, Level 3 threaten to file net neutrality complaints over unfair telco, cable interconnection practices

 

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/cogent-level-3-threaten-file-net-neutrality-complaints-over-unfair-telco-ca/2015-04-10

 

"The Net Neutrality wars, begun they have" lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't been keeping up with it, but is the FTC going to put a halt to AT&T's throttling practices on their unlimited data plans?

Possibly. FTC won a jurisdiction ruling.

Imagine how much lower att speeds will be once a couple million users get truly unlimited! He he he he

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't been keeping up with it, but is the FTC going to put a halt to AT&T's throttling practices on their unlimited data plans?

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/att-court-narrowly-interprets-ftc-common-carrier-exception-and-permits-throttling-ca

 

Case will proceed.

Att could just declare unlimited to be over - even for tho grandfathered subs. Once your 2 yr contract is up, no more restrictions on att.

 

The fact it's spending sooo much money and energy fighting this is puzzling.

Only reason I can think of is that it's scared of the backlash if it has to stop lying to its millions of grandfathered customers and say "you no longer have unlimited but you're gonna keep on having the 3 or 5gb throttled.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it. Att is not lying to customers. ATT has never told a singal customer in marketing or in any other form that they have unlimited 4g or 3G data in the past five years. You don't have it on ATT, you do have unlimited data just not 4g, 4g lte or 3G. There is nothing deceptive about what att or Verizon has done. The FTC is grandstanding and customer who are unhappy about the fact that they are throttled have choices. No customer grandfathered or not has a right to unlimited 4g data on att or Verizon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it. Att is not lying to customers. ATT has never told a singal customer in marketing or in any other form that they have unlimited 4g or 3G data in the past five years. You don't have it on ATT, you do have unlimited data just not 4g, 4g lte or 3G. There is nothing deceptive about what att or Verizon has done. The FTC is grandstanding and customer who are unhappy about the fact that they are throttled have choices. No customer grandfathered or not has a right to unlimited 4g data on att or Verizon.

They're not trying to force att to give unlimited. The problem is att passed off the 3gb or 5gb as unlimited.

 

If att had simply said "you're off contract, no more unlimited for you. You get 5gb on lte then throttled" there wouldn't be a problem.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not trying to force att to give unlimited. The problem is att passed off the 3gb or 5gb as unlimited.

 

If att had simply said "you're off contract, no more unlimited for you. You get 5gb on lte then throttled" there wouldn't be a problem.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No att has not. 3 or 5 gigs of 4g data and then unlimited access to 2g data is in fact unlimited data. The amount of data a user can used is not limited by definition it is unlimited. If att or Verizon told people they have unlimited 3 or 4g data the FTC would have a point. They don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Die, "unlimited" wireless data, die.  You were not made for this world.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Die, "unlimited" wireless data, die. You were not made for this world.

 

AJ

I always figured find the smartest guy in the room, flip an idea they just hated then flip it upside down to make it work well, and wait for that to happen to me if I couldn't do it to myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

These examples shouldn’t surprise anyone. After all, the President’s own Small Business Administration warned the FCC last year that its proposed rules would unduly burden small businesses. And yet the FCC decided to treat each and every small, scrappy broadband provider as if it were an anticompetitive industrial giant.The FCC still has a chance to heed these calls and stay the effect of President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. But I doubt this will happen. That’s because moving forward with this plan isn’t about logic, the law, or marketplace facts. It’s about fulfilling a political imperative.

 

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0507/DOC-333383A1.pdf

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 year later...

And to the Supreme court it goes...

 

You betcha.  VZ, AT&T, Comcast, et al., and their lobbyists and the politicians in their pockets are not going to take this lying down.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three separate courts have upheld the ruling. I'd put money on the Supreme Court favoring the FCC. Especially so with scalia out

 

A Supreme Court 4-4 split decision along partisan lines would uphold the lower appellate court's ruling.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing to take note too is with the recent acquisitions, part of the agreements have been expansion.

 

AT&T has to expand FTTP/FTTH to 12 million residents (they strung fiber down my street a couple weeks ago so now I have four ISP options! lol).  And Charter has to expand coverage to 1 million new customers.  Charter has stated they will avoid entering areas with cable providers and enter areas served by only DSL.  Plus they can't do caps for 7 years. 

 

So with NN being upheld, and the expansion of these companies we are winning some of these battles.  Granted, ATT and Charter did just get larger.  At least with Charter, there was no coverage overlapping and with ATT they have a sizable agreement to uphold. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
  • 1 month later...

They should really consider renaming "Net Neutrality" to something more marketable "internet freedom act" or something to that effect. 

The word "freedom" is used so loosely in politics (almost to the point of an inverse meaning) this one would actually be fitting and have weight behind it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should really consider renaming "Net Neutrality" to something more marketable "internet freedom act" or something to that effect.

 

The word "freedom" is used so loosely in politics (almost to the point of an inverse meaning) this one would actually be fitting and have weight behind it.

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

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Seriously! LOL, I love my liberals and what they stand for, but they have a lot to learn about the whole "marketing legislation" thing from the GOP.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • My s24 Ultras auto updated to April 1 security patch over night. Not on wi-fi.  Play system remains at March 1. No notice that update occurred on screen.
    • Got the latest update. On my S24 ultra the NR-ARFCN display remains constant (which is inaccurate according to diags) while n41 and 38 toggle back and forth.  I updated then rebooted before testing. Two sims active. My security patch level updated automatically to April 1 before this update. Diags sent while n38 was displaying.
    • Was able to install the March 1 Android security patch. Seems slightly more accurate with 5g ca band id, but can not swear by it. Updated google play system update through the software information screen to March 1. *#73# still works. Froze updates waiting on SCP update beta to fix n41 showing as n38.
    • Just installed it. Thanks for the info.  71 mb mar 1st date.
    • There's a permit for a new 47 story building at 205 Montague St in Downtown Brooklyn. The problem is that  T-Mobile eNB 48352 is on the building next door and this new building will block two out of 3 sectors of the site. For reference, the new building will be roughly as tall as 16 Court St which is right across the street. This site is the primary site covering Cadman Plaza so I wonder what the plan is. Will they just try to change sector placement, move to a different building, or will this just speed up the conversion of the Sprint site at 25 Monroe Place?
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...