Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it is on the topic. Everyone argues back that without net neutrality, their one and only choice for ISP will control what content they get (exactly as they do their cable television right now, which exactly nobody seems to mind since the 1984 law that created this bundling monopoly madness in the first place), and that such controls over content are OMFGWTFBBQZ!!1!!!!
My argument, made for me so well by both the Ma Bell breakup in 1982 and the current delivery method for cell phone content across the entire nation, is that instead of asking for a heavier government hand running a monopoly of their own creation, we should GET RID OF THE FREAKING MONOPOLY and get out of the way of new competition.
And the competition is out there, trying to get into the market, all across the country. Google Fiber is the one everyone knows about, but in small localities all over the country, small/medium providers are trying to become players in the ISP space, and they are being bludgeoned to death with massive government barriers to entry, red tape, legal morass, etc. So instead of asking the government to assume power, we should be demanding they pull back on the power they have.
That is indeed relevant to the freaking topic.
They are related issues in that the existence of a monopoly requires increased consumer protection (eg Net Neutrality), but the repeal of net neutrality alone exacerbated the problem. As I said before, if you want to talk measures to get robust market competition and then repeal net neutrality, I have much less of a problem with it. But that is indeed a totally different topic.
I have a question: If Net Neutrality rules only came into effect in 2015, why weren't the ISPs making us pay extra to use YouTube, Facebook, etc at faster speeds before then?
Some did throttle Youtube, and Netflix.
Also, remember that millions more have cut their cable TV, and there have been a great deal of revenue lost by the telecommunications companies, which they will now make up with higher internet prices.
I have a question: If Net Neutrality rules only came into effect in 2015, why weren't the ISPs making us pay extra to use YouTube, Facebook, etc at faster speeds before then?
Internet throttling did happen pre-NN regulations. ISPs were talking about what you mention - that is why this debate existed.
This is not a new issue, and didn't spring out of a vacuum in 2015.
Internet throttling was quite widespread and happened.
Consumers and users may not have been aware of those practices, but they occurred.
Why did these two MASSIVE threads get merged. That was a dumb move. The old thread should have been locked/archived and the thread today after the final verdict on Net Neutrality should be the valid one as it pertains to todays events. This thread is listed as started in July. When people come here to vent they will more than likely be commenting on posts from July.
I have a question: If Net Neutrality rules only came into effect in 2015, why weren't the ISPs making us pay extra to use YouTube, Facebook, etc at faster speeds before then?
This has been covered multiple times already. The answer is (a) the technology was largely too nascent to warrant throttling; and (b) they did start throttling websites.
Sounds like a business opportunity to me. Where is this monopolized area? Do you feel overcharged for service? Or are more populated areas similar in pricing for the same services?
Seriously, the way things are going, I smell a good market to tap. I cannot be alone.
How many choices do you have in phone service?
That makes zero sense. You need to connect to the internet somehow, unless you are talking satellite in many parts of the country there is only one service provider, if they laid the cable, they don't have to share it with a new start up. For copper wire phone service I have one choice - AT&T. For TV I have two choices, Comcast cable provider and one fiber provider, that's it. For cell service I have several choices which has nothing to do with TV because I don't want to watch movies on my cellphone. I don't know what you are smelling but it's not new competition
Okay, but I don't recall being asked to pay more to not be throttled. I use Cox and their statement is as follows:
Cox is committed to an open Internet experience for our customers. This means the following:
No blocking of legal content
No throttling
No unfair discrimination
Transparency in our customer practices
We stand by an open Internet because it’s good for our business, and our customers expect and deserve it.
I have a question: If Net Neutrality rules only came into effect in 2015, why weren't the ISPs making us pay extra to use YouTube, Facebook, etc at faster speeds before then?
Exactly.
And oh by the way, two weeks ago when I got my new 4k TV, during the idyllic days of Obama's net neutrality, Netflix charged me $5 more per month to stream 4k ultra. And AT&T UVerse charges me more than customers who get slower speeds, and have since before Obama's "net neutrality" and after. Wow, so before, during and after net neutrality rules, I am charged differently for content, speed, etc.
Exactly... Liberals think that the repeal of NN is going to cause all sorts of problems accessing internet content. Of course, these problems didn't exist before NN.
Meanwhile, Leftist outfits like You Tube, Facebook and Twitter regularly delete and block conservative content and that was WHILE NN was in place.
you are conflating issues.
yes they did Tyster, but not around ISPs. Microsoft was sued in the US and EU precisely because they were abusing their position to promote their products over competitors.
MSFT was at the time powerful enough to block competitors browsers, and to make MS sites the "PORTAL" to the web.
MSFT around 1995-2005 literally had the power to declare winners and losers . Google would never have survived, because MS could have simply broken their product or directed users to an MS one.
remember back then people got their browser preloaded or on disk. AND MSFT at the time did not disclose APIs etc. the Courts forced MS to open its OS and to offer competitors browsers...
these days Google Apple , FB seem inevitable , but they most certainly were not. It was stopping the big fish that allowed even bigger fish to grow.
If not for federal gov sueing MSFT around 1999 they would have owned the web for at least 20 years. Cell phones might be years behind, and Apple would likely be out of biz or still tiny.
It was 100% the gov keeping the field level that allowed this to blossom the way they have. Net Neutrality simply preempted the big ISPs doing the samething on a smaller level.
Comcast will now be able to push its products in front of competitors again and again and again until they have the share they want.
Sony Playstation Vue..... there is a service that could very well go out of business if comcast decides they don't want the comp.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
