"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government - Ted Cruz
quote
Originally posted by theBDub: I think someone needs to explain to the Republican poster boy what Net Neutrality is. Let's see how many Americans believe this and all-of-a-sudden go against Net Neutrality ...
I will put you down for a "maybe" on Net Neutrality and a "possible" on Ted Cruz.
Ahhhhh ... Net Neutrality. I see visions of [bliss] unicorns lounging in the field basking in the warm sunlight, with butterflies fluttering around their heads. The baby unicorns are frolicking and playing within sight on the edge of the babbling creek. The rainbow overhead adds comfort to the scene [/bliss].
Do you know how to spot a Progressive cause ? It's name is anything but what it implies. Think " Patient Protection Affordable Care Act". Net Neutrality is anything but neutral. How 'bouts we have an honest discussion/debate. There are pros and cons on this issue. I am not sure what side of the fence I am on about this. I like Ted Cruz but what he says does not sway me. I am not a stupid lemming.
Did you know that Michael Powell, (he was appointed to the Federal Communications Commission by President Bill Clinton on 3 November 1997. President George W. Bush designated him chairman of the commission on January 22, 2001.) disagrees with Nobama's Net Neutrality stance. For a few reasons. The FCC (which implements Net Neutrality ... yes it already exists) is itself supposed to be a neutral agency. Powell's criticism stems in large part because [url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutralityhis ideology[/url] is too ambiguous. In fact, the current FCC Chairman said Nobama's remarks undid weeks of FCC work on the subject.
I do not wish to argue against you. I want to discuss. Because I don't know how I feel about the issue. It would seem from your challenge that we have no Ted Cruz fans. More I would suspect with no concrete opinion on the matter. I see Taijiguy agrees with your plateau. So let me be the devil's advocate and take on your issues.
quote
Originally posted by theBDub: And it's a monopoly because ISPs bought out local governments to only allow themselves in the area. We are already living in a time of Crony Capitalism. I'm usually all for big business. But I'm not for business in politics, and the majors have used the government to stifle all competition, and they want to do it again by making Net Neutrality sound bad.
Is this a problem we need to address with local governments ? Should we do the same top down approach to local governments that do not allow Wal-Mart into their abodes ?
quote
Originally posted by theBDub: Made up? We already saw Netflix get throttled by major ISPs until Netflix was forced to pay more to keep their site accessible. The made up scenario is Obama hushing Conservative voices.
Hmm. Netflix's site was taking up a lot of bandwidth. More than the average joe's. ISP companies need to be able to provide for everybody, even the ones who can't afford the $5.00 a month for Netflix. Netflix's success impacts everybody else in slower speeds. Why shouldn't they pay more ? Indeed, Netflixs needs higher speeds to keep their operation profitable. Those pause/reload delays are an annoyance. Why should they expect ISPs to invest in newer technology to make their zhit work at a profitable level ?
quote
Originally posted by theBDub: ... the major ISPs have already corrupted the government to take away competition, and they want to corrupt the government again to allow them to control what we see without us having a second option.
Do you have any proof of that ? What exactly can I not see that I might have been able to ? Stuff that needs new high speed data ability ? Michael Powell, Clinton's FCC Chairman, mentions an unregulated internet as the reason it grew so popular. Though the internet exists, users need connectivity. The ISP's have provided that at great cost. Newer better faster means need to be developed so we can see more stuff better, and deal with more crowded pathways. Even the current FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is not in favor of Nobama's idea.
quote
Originally posted by NEPTUNE: OK, let one of the smarter guys explain why Ted Cruz is full of ignorance. I know you guys all hate Senator Franken because he's smarter and better informed than your stone age heroes. But when a man is right, he's right.
Originally posted by cliffw: Hmm. Netflix's site was taking up a lot of bandwidth. More than the average joe's. ISP companies need to be able to provide for everybody, even the ones who can't afford the $5.00 a month for Netflix. Netflix's success impacts everybody else in slower speeds. Why shouldn't they pay more ? Indeed, Netflixs needs higher speeds to keep their operation profitable. Those pause/reload delays are an annoyance. Why should they expect ISPs to invest in newer technology to make their zhit work at a profitable level ?
everyone who used Netflix already pays for their bandwidth. Netflix pays for its bandwidth. Its all paid for.
How much bandwidth does Netflix use? Less than 1/10th of what ComCast claims to deliver to its customers. The bandwidth is already paid for. On all sides. ComCast just does not want to make good on what it sells.
Yes, Netflix uses alot of bandwidth. But, ComCast sells people WAY more bandwidth than Netflix uses. BY FAR. So, how is there a problem?
they should re-package their product, if they can not actually deliver what they are selling.
Not only will net neutrality cause slower bandwidth, cost more, and be another F***ed up government run service. Also remember the FCC added equipment to shut down all (AM & FM) radio stations along with all the TV Stations that is what is going to happen with your internet in the US. It has happened in other countries, maybe just limit what you can see. It is the FCC and they can do whatever they want they are the government.
I don't think putting the Internet in the hands of the FCC is a good move. That's not to say that there doesn't need to be some kind of protection, but I don't think the FCC is the answer. It kind of IS like Obamacare in that it's just the first thing someone throws out, and people jump all over it as the ultimate answer to a perceived threat.
But here's something to think about. With Google rolling out it's fiber networks, and launching weather balloon wireless devices to bring Internet to every possible corner of the globe, doesn't that sort of make the whole thing moot? I predicted years ago that home phones would become a thing of the past due to cell phones. Google's program could make conventional Internet providers irrelevant, or at least bring in some serious, SERIOUS competition to them. What if this whole thing is just one big scam on the American people to encourage regulation on the Internet providers just so they can make Google's life miserable as they try to put all these other companies out of business? Hmmmm.
Originally posted by NEPTUNE: OK, let one of the smarter guys explain why Ted Cruz is full of ignorance. I know you guys all hate Senator Franken because he's smarter and better informed than your stone age heroes. But when a man is right, he's right.
More like when a man is a liar, he is a liar. Liar says the acceleration of the internet was only possible because the taxpayer paid for DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). That is false. The taxpayer did not pay for connectivity to their homes nor the increase in speeds from dial up to whatever advance speed we may enjoy now. Liar says that NOW, because of Net Neutrality, ALL companies have to let information flow at the same rate of speed. That is also false. If so, why would we need the push now to keep the status quo ? Liar says a fast lane will allow big business and corporations to be able to get their info to the public faster. That is also false. First off, the "fast lane" moniker is just a made up scare tactic. The speed something takes to get to my computer depends on what I pay for. Some companies (Netflix, perhaps Youtube) send meta data to allow us to see their product. It clogs the bandwidth of which we depend on. They should pay for infrastructure improvement. Liar also says that this is a freedom of speech issue. That it would silence our voices. That is also false. Many site are already "pay for content". Netflix is.
Neptune. Can you point out a lie Ted Cruz makes in the video your next door brother avengador1 posted ?
Not only will net neutrality cause slower bandwidth, cost more, and be another F***ed up government run service. Also remember the FCC added equipment to shut down all (AM & FM) radio stations along with all the TV Stations that is what is going to happen with your internet in the US. It has happened in other countries, maybe just limit what you can see. It is the FCC and they can do whatever they want they are the government.
Earl
thats the best part. what we use right now IS Net neutrality. just not enforced. ComCast is trying to NOT go with Net Neutrality. the government has nothing to do with it, except, enforce it. and what Ted Cruz is asking for is in fact what you are worried about in your statement: Limit what you can see. Net Neutrality is all data is equal. Thats it. being against that is in fact being FOR censorship. and not by government, but by corporations. which is in fact anti-compitition. anti-growth. anti-development.
so, again, just to be clear: the internet has been on the policy of Net Neutrality all along. This is not something new.
Originally posted by MadMark: So then explain again why we need our nanny state federal government to jump in and regulate this then?
because ComCast and Verizon want to break away from Net Neutrality that has existed all along. ComCast already made its intentions clear when it throttled bandwiidth to Netflix. Bandwidth ComCast subscribers already paid for.
Why is it either one, or the other? Why can't Cruz be right about not putting the 'net in the hands of the FCC? It doesn't mean there can't be other options. Most in the tech field oppose "net neutrality", but agree that providers should be held to a standard. Providers in this country are ripping us off, providing bare minimum speeds at premium pricing. It *is* time they be steered, but not by the FCC.
There are some really good blogs and analysis on the whole thing, and that's pretty much the consensus.
Neptune. Can you point out a lie Ted Cruz makes in the video your next door brother avengador1 posted ?
I can. Then I'll get to your other post.
Ideally, the government should be involved with the government [edit:internet] as little as possible. But Ted Cruz is wrong on quite a bit of this. He talks about phones and the innovation that has occurred with them due to classifications, but he leaves out very important parts... The internet has had innovation but do you realize that ISPs currently stomp out that innovation? Check out how hard Google has had to push to get Fiber anywhere. Cities have agreements with many cable providers to be the only source of that kind of internet. "We laid the foundation so we get the people." sort of thing.
He talks about favoring the big guys with lobbyists... that's what is currently happening! Every big name ISP is against net neutrality. The current laws have allowed for monopolies. You can't just choose another internet provider in much of the U.S. And soon, when Comcast and TWC merge, most people will all have that one choice.
I don't want the internet to be labeled all of Title II. The FCC shouldn't have to get involved, but parts of Title II look great for open competition (sections 202 and IIRC 254, though I don't currently have it open). Otherwise, expect this:
And when I say expect it, I don't mean it could happen. They've tried with things like Netflix. In your post above, you mention that Netflix uses more bandwidth. You aren't understanding what's going on. Netflix already pays for that bandwidth. We already pay for that bandwidth. Data amounts were set. They aren't saying "You can't use Netflix because you don't have enough data." They're saying "You can't use your 250gigs for Netflix because we don't like how they take competition away from our TV services."
"Don't mess with the internet." Net Neutrality got struck down in 2010. Before, we essentially had it, but the classifications were different. Then it was struck down, and the Netflix debacle happened and many ISPs became the worst rated companies for customer service in the nation. So people and companies are stopping in to say they won't be bullied by the monopoly.
You know what would stop this without any classification? Local governments allowing competition between all. But to do that you have to create more regulations on what ISPs and government can do.
Think of it this way: Would you be against the Bill of Rights when it was first drafted up? I'm less comparing the two and more saying: Government involvement at ALL isn't the worst thing ever. If there are strict limits set in place on what the government can and can't do after the reclassification then what is the problem?
[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 11-19-2014).]
Originally posted by Taijiguy: Why is it either one, or the other? Why can't Cruz be right about not putting the 'net in the hands of the FCC? It doesn't mean there can't be other options. Most in the tech field oppose "net neutrality", but agree that providers should be held to a standard. Providers in this country are ripping us off, providing bare minimum speeds at premium pricing. It *is* time they be steered, but not by the FCC.
There are some really good blogs and analysis on the whole thing, and that's pretty much the consensus.
who do you propose? the UN? I would say "the IETF"? but, since the IETF already imposes Net Neutrality - we see their stance carries no weight. and I would highly question the statement "most in the tech field oppose net neutrality". I see the exact opposite of that statement. with a bang.
edit: did some checking about the IETF and Net Neutrality. Seems they want to stay out of it. But, they have in fact created 64 layers of prioritizing traffic.
[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 11-19-2014).]
You mean the FCC should enforce net neutrality for free with no overhead?
If the telecommunications industry is a precedent, the price paid to ensure a free and open internet would be far worth it. The internet is incredible because its been open and free for so long. Giving ISPs, especially ones with no regard for customer satisfaction such as Comcast, ultimate control over what businesses live and die online would be horrific.
If Comcast gets into a feud with Amazon and decides to simply shut them out, what is the customer going to do? They are f*cked, and so is Amazon. In most areas of the country there are no alternate ISPs and thus the free market model DOES NOT WORK.
In theory, in a perfect market economy, you would think that alternate ISPs would emerge and offer better customer service. This has not happened - why?
The reason behind it actually doesn't matter. The fact that ISPs maintain monopolies in their markets, despite lousy connections, horrible customer service, and low customer satisfaction, means that internet access is not functioning as a free market.
With the lack of free market dynamics, giving ISPs ultimate control over internet access just allows them to exploit their monopoly status at the expense of everyone else.
As much as a disapprove of Obama, this is one thing I fully agree with him on.
You haven't read a single thing I've posted prior to this have you? Let me summarize for you:
Do I think there needs to be protection: Yes
Do I think the FCC should be in charge of that protection: No
Why: Because the FCC isn't set up to handle the Internet. The net is not a utility. It's unlike anything they've ever dealt with before, not to mention, if you think the FCC isn't in bed with the ISPs in some way, you're more than a little naive.
Do I think Cruz is a hero: No
Who should handle it: I can't say, I don't have all the answers, but there are some good suggestions in the article I posted earlier.
Originally posted by masospaghetti: You mean the FCC should enforce net neutrality for free with no overhead?
Umm ... the FCC has no overhead. Neither does Congress or the Executive office.
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti: If the telecommunications industry is a precedent, the price paid to ensure a free and open internet would be far worth it. The internet is incredible because its been open and free for so long. Giving ISPs, especially ones with no regard for customer satisfaction such as Comcast, ultimate control over what businesses live and die online would be horrific.
It has worked so far. The infrastructure needs to continually be upgraded. Do you want the ISPs to charge all of us more (who may not even use NetFlix/Amazon/et al) or the sites that use more traffic ?
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti: If Comcast gets into a feud with Amazon and decides to simply shut them out, what is the customer going to do? They are f*cked, and so is Amazon. In most areas of the country there are no alternate ISPs and thus the free market model DOES NOT WORK.
I get your point but collective bargaining comes to mind. Not that I have a point.
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti: In theory, in a perfect market economy, you would think that alternate ISPs would emerge and offer better customer service. This has not happened - why?
I think that is a matter for local government.
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti: The reason behind it actually doesn't matter. The fact that ISPs maintain monopolies in their markets, despite lousy connections, horrible customer service, and low customer satisfaction, means that internet access is not functioning as a free market.
I can agree with that except in my town (population 20,000) I have Time Warner, Dish Network, the local land line phone company, and a few other choices which depend on the local land line company.
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti: With the lack of free market dynamics, giving ISPs ultimate control over internet access just allows them to exploit their monopoly status at the expense of everyone else.
I don't see ultimate control existing.
quote
Originally posted by theBDub: In your post above, you mention that Netflix uses more bandwidth. You aren't understanding what's going on. Netflix already pays for that bandwidth. We already pay for that bandwidth. Data amounts were set. They aren't saying "You can't use Netflix because you don't have enough data." They're saying "You can't use your 250gigs for Netflix because we don't like how they take competition away from our TV services."
Thanks for the reply. I am NOT the most ignorant person to the understanding of the internet. But I am close to him, . Evidently I do not understand what's going on. I have seen Cliff's "buy me a beer" banner (but I won't use PayPal). I have seen Cliff mention bandwidth is not cheap. I assumed that was because of his system ... computer set up. I had no idea NetFlix had to pay for bandwidth. I had no idea I had to pay for it. I thought I was buying "speed", and that needs connectivity infrastructure, which is what ISP's supply. I don't get your point. You say Netflix is paying for bandwidth. Who ? ISPs ? So, what is the problem with a company wanting more for their goods ? Are you saying each local monopoly is charging Netflix more ? I am losing myself trying to figure out which way I feel. Who is the intermediary between the local ISP's and the connection to DARPA(?).
Originally posted by cliffw: I had no idea NetFlix had to pay for bandwidth. I had no idea I had to pay for it. I thought I was buying "speed", and that needs connectivity infrastructure, which is what ISP's supply.
This is really what the debate is about. With a net neutrality, when you buy "speed" from the ISP, you are guaranteed that level of access to any internet site, regardless of how much bandwidth you actually use.
What the ISPs want to do is make high bandwidth sites, like Netflix, to pay extra - essentially double dip and charge for both speed and bandwidth. What's scary about this is the amount of power this gives the ISP. What if they just decide they "don't like Netflix"? By being that gatekeeper, they could do serious damage to any business that they don't like, or that doesn't pay them royalties.
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:
You haven't read a single thing I've posted prior to this have you? Let me summarize for you:
Do I think there needs to be protection: Yes
Do I think the FCC should be in charge of that protection: No
Sorry, didn't mean jump to conclusions about where you stand on the issue. I was more targeting the article you linked on Fox News, which made it sound like the FCC / Obama are plotting some insidious hidden internet tax.
Originally posted by Taijiguy: You haven't read a single thing I've posted prior to this have you? Let me summarize for you:
Do I think there needs to be protection: Yes
Do I think the FCC should be in charge of that protection: No
Why: Because the FCC isn't set up to handle the Internet. The net is not a utility. It's unlike anything they've ever dealt with before, not to mention, if you think the FCC isn't in bed with the ISPs in some way, you're more than a little naive.
Do I think Cruz is a hero: No
Who should handle it: I can't say, I don't have all the answers, but there are some good suggestions in the article I posted earlier.
thanks - that makes much more sense. you do realize that one of them C's in FCC is "communication". This is well within their scope. but, I wholly agree in NOT have ANY government intervention on the internet. But, I see little other option. We have seen the corporate interests and the public interests here do not meet. And that is exactly what government is for. I most certainly do not like the idea of creating a Internet Czar.
but, in the end, I am wondering if ComCast subscribers who are also Netflix Subscribers have a case with a class-action lawsuit, being ComCast intentionally degraded advertised bandwidth.
Thanks for the reply. I am NOT the most ignorant person to the understanding of the internet. But I am close to him, . Evidently I do not understand what's going on. I have seen Cliff's "buy me a beer" banner (but I won't use PayPal). I have seen Cliff mention bandwidth is not cheap. I assumed that was because of his system ... computer set up. I had no idea NetFlix had to pay for bandwidth. I had no idea I had to pay for it. I thought I was buying "speed", and that needs connectivity infrastructure, which is what ISP's supply. I don't get your point. You say Netflix is paying for bandwidth. Who ? ISPs ? So, what is the problem with a company wanting more for their goods ? Are you saying each local monopoly is charging Netflix more ? I am losing myself trying to figure out which way I feel. Who is the intermediary between the local ISP's and the connection to DARPA(?).
Alright. Websites pay an ISP for connectivity and bandwidth. One ISP may have that website while the other doesn't. ISPs connect together usually for free because it's a benefit to all for every person to be able to access every website. Let's say you type in a web address. What you're doing is setting out a ping to your router to look for that address. But your router has no idea where that address is. So your router talks to one of your ISPs local router's and asks for the address. That router still may not know, but it may know where to look, so it sends it to the city-wide ISP router, which sends it to the country wide, which then says "Oh, it's hosted over here" and sends to you another router which then essentially does the reverse until it hits where the website is hosted.
So for Cliff's website you probably go *something like*: House > Area Code > Kerrville > County > State > USA > Netherlands > Area > City > Hosting location
And in that direction you went through a few different ISPs that have all agreed to communicate.
You also misunderstand how the internet works. Everyone has been misled to believe that it costs money to send bandwidth That's not really true. ISPs lay down the infrastructure for a certain speed to go through, let's say 50 gb/sec, for an entire neighborhood. They then offer speeds to 40 houses for 10 gb/sec internet (which would be insanely fast, I'm just using random numbers), with the assumption that everyone won't be online at the same time. But in many cases, this results in "peak hours" where the internet is slow because everyone is using the internet at the same time. The problem is that the infrastructure costs a lot of money to upgrade, so the ISPs want to give priority to things like gaming and video which are much more "right now" than something like Pennocks which can wait 1.5 seconds between clicks and be okay. This sounds fair, right? I'd agree with you, but the infrastructure that is in place is ancient even though the government gave them money to upgrade it. The ISPs want to fix the problem with a band-aid, and that's not okay because in 10 years we'll still be using band-aids with extremely low caps and extremely high prices if we keep going down this road.
"In terms of legislation, we don’t believe it’s necessary given that the FCC has the authorities that it needs under Title II," a White House official told Reuters.
I guess the American people do not need a Congress, .
WASHINGTON, DC -- Yesterday, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, spoke at the #RebootCongress conference organized by Lincoln Labs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. There, Sen. Cruz spoke about the need to protect constitutional rights online, how raising taxes on the Internet would hurt small businesses, and warned about the dangers of the FCC’s net neutrality plan that would reclassify the Internet as a public utility under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.
“The FCC has now rolled out its initial plan, it’s 332 pages” Sen. Cruz said. “Although when I say rolled out, that word has to be used lightly, because you and I are not allowed to read those 332 pages. They literally have a book, this is how we are going to regulate the internet, and by the way, no one gets to read it. One FCC commissioner held up the book and said ‘I guess you got to pass it to find out what’s in it,’ echoing Nancy Pelosi.”
He continued, “If the FCC turns the Internet into a regulated public utility, the innovation, the creativity that has characterized the Internet from its dawn, will inevitably be stifled. Now Title II by the way, gives all sorts of authority to regulate pricing and terms of service, and one of the implications if the Internet is regulated under Title II is 11 billion dollars a year in new taxes… Think about whether 11 billion dollars a year on the Internet is a good thing or a bad thing.
“Now here’s where the FCC says, ‘no don’t worry, we won’t collect those taxes, we’re going to exercise forbearance,’ I don’t know if you’ve heard the ancient fable about the frog who gives the scorpion a ride across the river, and half way across the river the scorpion stabs the frog and they both sink under the water and as they’re going under, the frog says, ‘why, now we both will die’, and the scorpion tells the frog, ‘because it is my nature.’ I promise you, it is the nature of the government regulators, if they have it, they will use it, 100 percent of the time, it will grow, the taxes will come.
“Which has greater innovation, the United States Post Office or Facebook and Twitter? Which has greater innovation, taxi commissions in local cities or Lyft and Uber? Every time you put unelected bureaucrats in charge of a market, they stifle innovation and what they also do is they favor the big boys. If you think for a minute that the FCC is going to listen to small start-ups, than you’re ignoring the history of every other instance of regulation. What has made the Internet so incredibly successful has been the freedom, and so I would encourage each of you, do not accept the promise of Washington politicians who are telling all of us, ‘if you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet.’ That promise cannot be trusted, and I hope that we all stand together defending freedom on the Internet in every respect.”
Sen. Cruz also joined a panel moderated by Katie Biber of Airbnb with Chris Massey of Lyft, Justin Bedecarre of 42Floors, Pia Mancini of Net Democracy, and Nick Grossman of Union Square Ventures.
I guess the American people do not need a Congress, .
"The...Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."
Stu Burguiere Net neutrality will not help your internet experience. The government will not make the internet better. Companies won't be ruining your internet experience anyway. The arguments in favor of net neutrality ignore the advancements in technology that would solve the supposed problems being addressed by net neutrality. There is no compelling reason for the government to get involved. The internet is absolutely not a human right. The truth about the Comcast / Netflix battle that is used as the evidence to support net neutrality, proves the exact opposite of what net neutrality supporters argue. But, other than that, net neutrality is awesome!
As Senator Ben Sasse mentioned the other day, net neutrality itself is a ridiculous term. We are talking about the creation of the Department of the Internet.
Think about what you know about how the government works. To boil it down-- pick one: Private schools or public schools? Private pools or public pools? Private bathrooms or public bathrooms? Private housing or public housing?
I can understand how progressives argue for net neutrality. It results in a massive increase in government control of what is currently free. And this is just the beginning. That's what progressives do. But, it's painful to hear conservatives flail through bizarre "its a utility!" and "but, monopolies and stuff!" arguments.
Yes, the internet is awesome. There is a difference between what is a right, and what is awesome.
And no, the internet was not invented by the government. Don't make me post that segment too.
Why is anyone here trying to make this a right or left issue? I lean to the conservative side but I would most definitely like Net Neutrality. You guys realize that the next logical step is to charge each of us based on our usage? The ISPs no longer have to treat each of us the same. It will be like your data plan on your cell phone. This is not acceptable to me.
How so ? I don't have a problem with my cell phone data plan nor have I heard anybody complain about theirs.
With the court ruling throwing out the FCC concept of Net Neutrality everything could change. The key word is could. I'm glad it has not changed but will not be surprised if it does.
OK, for clarity, let me be your first complainer. My data plan sucks. I get raped by AT&T on a stupid 300mb plan. The data plan I have in China is awesome compared to AT&T. If my ISP tried to charge me something similar (to my cell plan) I would look elsewhere for service. ANYWHERE else. And I would make sure my representatives knew of my displeasure.
[This message has been edited by Hudini (edited 02-18-2015).]
Originally posted by Hudini: With the court ruling throwing out the FCC concept of Net Neutrality everything could change.
I'm lost. When did they throw out what ruling ? If the FCC gets more control everything will change. They don't exist to do nothing.
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti: You mean the FCC should enforce net neutrality for free with no overhead?
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti: I was more targeting the article you linked on Fox News, which made it sound like the FCC / Obama are plotting some insidious hidden internet tax.
How are they gonna pay for their overhead ? I am not sold on Net Neutrality, especially when they are voting on a 700 page enactment of which they will not even allow the public to see beforehand, thus are not allowed any input.
quote
Originally posted by Hudini: OK, for clarity, let me be your first complainer. My data plan sucks. I get raped by AT&T on a stupid 300mb plan.
I am with AT&T. Define raped. Just asking, I am curious. I am also computer illiterate. Is mb speed or amount ? I don't use mine much and have never gone over my allotted allowance. Raped being cost ? I shopped around and my plan is competitive. The service/product has always worked fine even when others around me have problems (I get to distant areas). The customer service I have no issues with and would give them at least a six out of ten.
"Pennock's Fiero Forum? Oh, we are sorry to inform you that specialty websites are only offered in our Premiere Package which starts at $89.99/month, but if you sign a 2 year contract we can get you a deal for $79.99/month!"
As far as AT&T data plans go; I have 4 phones on my account. All are 'smart phones' (iPhones). AT&T requires any smart phone to have a separate data plan. The absolute minimum plan was for 300 megs of data. This is an amount, not a speed. (Speed is whatever you can get in your area and is based on installed equipment, 3G, 4G, LTE, etc.) This charge was about $20 for me. It was about $30 each for the other phones for 2 gigs of data. If you go over it's $10 per gig.
Now imagine your ISP charging you for data used on your internet connection at home. Consider that the average movie is 2 gig. If ISPs are allowed to charge based on usage of data then I think you will see costs rise dramatically. There is nothing stopping the ISPs from this behavior other than market forces. Will that be enough? The FCC is moving to regulate the ISPs the same as the government regulates utilities. I cannot tell you if this is good or bad, but IMHO the ISPs asked for it by challenging the FCC's Net Neutrality policy in court.
.
. Evidently I do not understand what's going on. I have seen Cliff's "buy me a beer" banner (but I won't use PayPal). I have seen Cliff mention bandwidth is not cheap. I assumed that was because of his system ... computer set up. I had no idea NetFlix had to pay for bandwidth. I had no idea I had to pay for it. I thought I was buying "speed", and that needs connectivity infrastructure, which is what ISP's supply.
.
?
