FCC chairman says net neutrality was a mistake

What this is going to allow the ISP's to do is create slow lanes and fast lanes to websites and streaming data.

So, besides the bandwidth you already pay for if you want to go to Netflix and Hulu you will have to buy the "media" plan which will be at an extra cost.

The current regulation would not allow this to happen.

these goddamned fricks. i can't even express how pissed i get when i think of the shite they will allow isp's to pull in the future.

I have already resigned to the fact that once this administration is done, we will be way behind the rest of the world. Internet speed/cost, education, renewable energy, etc.

(no message)

quote:

---

Can someone explain this to me since I use dial up. Surely, it won't get slower.

---

It's a really complex topic, but I will try to boil it down the way I see it.


Republicans really, really, really believe in free markets. And that's fine, I do too. But, to me, it's pretty obvious that some markets/industries simply cannot go unchecked without regulation if we care about their impact on society and the economy as a whole. I believe the ISP industry is one such market.

ISPs have already proven that they will do the things that net neutrality advocates worry about. There are many examples of ISPs doing things that give their own products an unfair advantage (several ISPs have been caught throttling Netflix, AT&T blocked Facetime, etc.). And these days, with so many players getting into the streaming video game, what's to stop ISPs from throttling all others in favor of their own services? It's funny how they all exempt their own streaming video services from their own arbitrary data caps, huh? Normally, when companies do shitty things like this, no government involvement is necessary because there are usually other options, but...

Most people have very limited options when it comes to their ISP (as you probably know, Mr. Dialup ). Some blame this fact on past government involvement, and that has played a role, but in my opinion the end result would be similar regardless. We are talking about costly infrastructure, and these things tend to see lots of consolidation. It just makes sense, for the companies involved and for consumers alike. Do you really want to see a dozen wires on every pole? Do you really want to pay for a dozen wires on every pole? Duplication of infrastructure is costly, and those costs are passed on to consumers.

So we are left with a bad situation: in the case of ISPs, free market capitalism is (in my opinion) bad for consumers, which is generally bad for innovation and the economy. Regulations that enforce net neutrality solve some of the problems (unfair "competition"), but they can't really address the other problems that result from a lack of competition (slow innovation, prices).



Hopefully, in the next 10 years or so we will start to see technology that will solve all of the problems. Specifically, satellite internet that uses Low or Medium Earth Orbit (LEO or MEO) satellites instead of the geostationary orbits that "traditional" satellite internet services use. Most current satellite ISPs just have a problem with physics itself. In order for the satellite to stay at a particular point in the sky, they have to be so far away that internet service just can't really be good. Lower orbits means the satellites will keep moving in the sky, so you have to launch a lot of them so one or more are always visible in the sky. Companies like SpaceX are making it cheaper to launch rockets, so I'm hopeful that we will see a lot of competition soon. It would be awesome if the whole world was blanketed with a satellite signal that could be used for home or mobile internet.

Until then, I think we need some net neutrality regulations to prevent a handful of companies from controlling how and what we do on the internet simply because they are the only option for a lot of people.

The Trump administration doing work.

Thanks Trump

I wouldn't necessarily agree with it, but can understand not imposing net neutrality against wireless ISPs as there is great competition amongst carriers (probably because of telco regulations tbh). With broadband it is a completely different story.