- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NN why not FTC regs?
Posted on 12/15/17 at 9:47 am to LSURussian
Posted on 12/15/17 at 9:47 am to LSURussian
No I definitely pay an increased amount if I go over my bandwidth. What kind of provider do you have for your internet? Its been found before that providers were already throttling access to certain sites whats to say they wont continue to do that now that NN is repealed?
1
Posted on 12/15/17 at 9:47 am to SoulGlo
quote:
This, and the FTC is where any regulation belongs. The FCC move in 2015 was a push for future control of the content on the internet.
Because the FTCs authority came under question through court action.
It's still under question
For some reason this keeps being ignored
Specifically the authority over non-common carrier services offered by common carrier companies
This post was edited on 12/15/17 at 9:49 am
Posted on 12/15/17 at 9:58 am to 25 Point Lead
quote:
Specifically the authority over non-common carrier services offered by common carrier companies
I wasn’t ignoring it, I wasn’t aware of it, but i don’t understand what this means. My understanding was the FCC move in 2015 to Title II classifies them as common carriers do before where they considered non common carriers or common carriers.
This post was edited on 12/15/17 at 9:59 am
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:03 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
My understanding was the FCC move in 2015 to Title II classifies them as common carriers do before where they considered non common carriers or common carriers.
Exactly, because the courts ruled in 2014 that the FTC did not have the authority to enforce non-common carrier services for common carrier companies.
As the FTC does not have authority over common carriers, ISPs were reclassified as a common carrier services so that the FCC would be able to regulate the FTCs blindspot
It wasn't just something the Obama administration came up without reason. It was a direct response to that ruling that took away the FTCs authority to regulate the internet like pre-2014 (or pre-2010).
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:03 am to Greace
quote:And that's with NN in effect? So again, what difference will it make for you with NN being revoked? Nothing changes, right?
No I definitely pay an increased amount if I go over my bandwidth.
How much more do you have to pay your ISP for data overage?
quote:Cox is my primary ISP. I've never come close to hitting the overage break point for data usage so it's been a moot point for our household.
What kind of provider do you have for your internet?
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:06 am to LSURussian
quote:
So you're entitled to unrestricted data usage no matter how much you use? Most cell phone plans don't have that feature. Why shouldn't ISPs have the flexibility to charge more for data hogs?
lol data hogs
stop comparing cell data to hard lined internet.
No one is stealing your bandwidth old man.
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:06 am to LSURussian
quote:
And that's with NN in effect? So again, what difference will it make for you with NN being revoked? Nothing changes, right?
How much more do you have to pay your ISP for data overage?
Things could change that cause me to pay more for access to things i currently have access to already. I dont pay for more because i currently pay for unlimited data but thats a special package. At the base 100 down package you pay 5$ a month for each additional 100gigs you use over the standard 100 gigs that comes with it
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:12 am to Greace
quote:Okay, but they also "could" have changed under NN, too.
could change
quote:And you think your ISP is going to unilaterally change your plan following the revocation of NN?
I dont pay for more because i currently pay for unlimited data but thats a special package.
quote:Interesting. If $5/month (or even $15/month for an additional 300 gigs) is what the chicken littles are crying about.....I don't get the outcry.
At the base 100 down package you pay 5$ a month for each additional 100gigs you use over the standard 100 gigs that comes with it
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:14 am to 25 Point Lead
quote:
because the courts ruled in 2014 that the FTC did not have the authority to enforce non-common carrier services for common carrier companies.
So were they common carriers before or not? If they were then why would they need to be reclassified And what, exactly was the FTC trying to stop, the basics of the case? What counts as non common carrier service in this case?
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:15 am to LSURussian
They couldn't change it under NN. That's why the 2015 NN ruling was put in place. So that Fast lanes or slow lanes werent allowed to be put in place
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:18 am to Greace
quote:
So that Fast lanes or slow lanes werent allowed to be put in place
Then why couldn’t/wouldn’t they just make everything a slow lane? As long as it’s the same for everyone it’s cool right?
My concern with classifying IPSs like a utility is what incentive is there to updraft networks, to innovate?
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:22 am to Stonehog
quote:
Has that ever happened in the history of the internet? Honest question. I see people talk about charging more for "packages" but I've never seen a company actually suggest that.
They haven't been allowed to until now. Welcome to the new reality.
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:23 am to Greace
quote:But an ISP could always charge more for data usage over a certain amount for certain plans, right?
That's why the 2015 NN ruling was put in place. So that Fast lanes or slow lanes werent allowed to be put in place
That's what you said you feared and it's already been that way even under NN with certain plans.
My general rule is businesses should be allowed to charge more for more usage of their service. If they abuse that policy, the customer can vote with his feet and if there isn't a viable alternative for the customer, then additional competition will spring up and consumers win.
That's exactly what happened when Ma Bell was broken up years ago. Real competition was created, not only for telephone service but also for the telephone hardware. Most people don't remember that during the days of the federally regulated (and guaranteed monopoly) of AT&T customers could ONLY use telephone handsets made by or sold through AT&T. You couldn't buy your own telephone from a retail store unless it was from AT&T. That's hard to believe now but that's the way it was.
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:24 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
I have no idea what you mean by this. There have always been sites you have to pay for, I gave some examples, if I wanted those sites I’d pay for it if I don’t or don’t feel like it’s worth it I wouldn’t. I don’t think I’m entitled to free stuff.
You paid for the content, which you will still have to do, but now you'll have to pay the ISP for the privilege of accessing them (on top of what you already pay the ISP for internet access).
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:27 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:Link? What ISP has announced this policy?
but now you'll have to pay the ISP for the privilege of accessing them
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:27 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
So were they common carriers before or not? If they were then why would they need to be reclassified And what, exactly was the FTC trying to stop, the basics of the case? What counts as non common carrier service in this case?
ISPs were non-common carriers. ATT anf telecoms were common carriers that had non-common carrier services (ISPs). The FTC does not have authority over common carriers, but until then asserted authority and penalties over non-common carrier services of common carrier companies. The ruling said that the FTC exemption for common carrier companies extended to the non-common carrier services offered by the companies with common carrier exemptions
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:30 am to 25 Point Lead
quote:And this is why I say that issue should be decided upon by a vote of our elected representatives and not by a court or an appointed commission.
. The FTC does not have authority over common carriers, but until then asserted authority and penalties over non-common carrier services of common carrier companies. The ruling said that the FTC exemption for common carrier companies extended to the non-common carrier services offered by the companies with common carrier exemptions
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:30 am to LSURussian
You have given them the ability to do this. You dont think Cable Companies will use the ability they have gained to squeeze more money out of you?
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:35 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
You paid for the content, which you will still have to do, but now you'll have to pay the ISP for the privilege of accessing them (on top of what you already pay the ISP for internet access).
Ok, i appreciate your answer and that makes some sense. But, why would the ISP automatically start doing that? Just slow down certain sites to charge more? And if they did why wouldn’t another ISP offer you cheaper service of faster speeds at the price? Faster lanes don’t necessarily mean other lanes are unbearably slow. This may not be a perfect analogy but I opt for the cheaper version of Hulu with commercials so the “slow” or regular lane may be fast enough for me
Posted on 12/15/17 at 10:38 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
why would the ISP automatically start doing that? Just slow down certain sites to charge more? And if they did why wouldn’t another ISP offer you cheaper service of faster speeds at the price?
Because it allows them to charge more and allows them to make more money. And them as a business are in the market for making as much money as they can. I dont have access to another ISP that offers the same speeds as my current. My current options are Cable internet or Satellite internet. Two options that arent really comparable
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News