- 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: FCC Votes in Favor of Net Neutrality Rules, Broadband Service is Now a Utility
Posted on 2/27/15 at 9:53 am to Street Hawk
Posted on 2/27/15 at 9:53 am to Street Hawk
If you support more government control, then I guess you think this is a good think. But just as with Obamacare, businesses will respond in a way that mitigates the impact which will likely be a net negative for consumers.
0
Posted on 2/27/15 at 9:58 am to TigerGman
Hey guys, how many pages is the bill that we havent seen? I havent heard yet. Its like no one wants to say how many pages there are. I havent heard the number of pages 1,000 times yet, which i need to know in order to form my opinion on this.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 9:58 am to DelU249
quote:
So then you will switch providers, and if they all do it, someone will step in to fill the demand and/or developments in technology will come about to give people what they want
Big brother policing them is the wrong way to go.
You don't realize that you really don't have any options when you choose your ISP? You don't realize that these companies are all govt approved monopolies? I sent this in an email yesterday discussing NN:
quote:
NN was something I grappled with a long time because it flies in the face of free market thinking. /r/Anarcho_Capitalism hates it. But you have to realize that this is not the free market we’re talking about here. It’s government sponsored monopolies. The reason we have government sponsored monopolies in the cable tv/broadband industry is because of redundancy. Right now, Cable co’s don’t lease their networks out to other businesses (think of MVNO’s in the cell industry like Cricket, Ting, Virgin Mobile, Boost who ride on top of ATT, Verizon, Sprint). So the only way to compete with a Cox or Suddenlink is to lay all of your own cable which is a huge headache (tearing up roads, years to build) even if the municipality lets you do it (they don’t want the traffic jams, etc created by laying cable, especially if it’s already there). That’s one of Google Fiber’s biggest hurdle, fighting the telephone pole owners for the right to lease space for their fiber. I believe these rules will force Cable Co’s to lease their network to competitors at fair market rates so you don’t have to have 3 different cable networks all on top of each other to have a choice between 3 different Cable Co/ISP’s.
So in a world that forces us to have these govt sponsored monopolies, NN and Title II regulation is the best solution that can pass IMO. It will allow more competition and keep ISP’s honest.
The comparison’s to the Affordable Healthcare Act are enraging “Obamacare for the internet”. JFC, how stupid are American’s to buy this shite. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor = If you like your ISP, you can keep your ISP” WELL WE DON’T frickING HAVE A CHOICE WHAT ISP WE GET NOW.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 10:18 am to colorchangintiger
quote:
You don't realize that you really don't have any options when you choose your ISP? You don't realize that these companies are all govt approved monopolies? I
This part that makes me nervous. The banning of throttling and fast lanes is great. Having the govt decide where competition is needed is not. A lot of people seem to think this will lead to a huge boost for infrastructure, but that will still be up for a case by case decision. If Comcast can buy enough votes they can get monopoly status like other utilities have around the country. That decision will now be up to the FCC not local governments.
I'm also not excited about the extra taxes we will likely pay to fund this new branch of the FCC and the additional Universal Service fees we will likely be paying to fund internet to unprofitable places.
I'm also concerned with how well govt will be able to keep up with changes in technology. They will now have the ability to set standards for things like speed. It takes the FCC years to updated rule for the regulations, and it takes decades to get congress to pass updates to the regulations. This could essentially make their standards useless after initial implementation.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 10:20 am to poochie
quote:
Is this good or bad?
Since we have no idea what was actually passed, and won't for 2 months, we have no idea. Overall, properly implemented Net Neutrality should be very good for us, the consumer. It should keep broadband companies from pressuring high volume sites such as Netflix and Youtube to pay extra fees or face slower speeds.
The question though, is where they will make up the profits lost? If they will be treated as a utility, as the FCC is suggesting (but not disclosing) then it should take approval and justification for increased fees to the consumers.
On the other hand there is a fear that increased regulation will lead to political jockeying and, for the more libertarian minded, screw-ups.
Either way, this ruling will be in the court system for years to come.
This is, imho, a wait-and-see thing.
This post was edited on 2/27/15 at 10:22 am
Posted on 2/27/15 at 10:25 am to Hester Carries
quote:
Hey guys, how many pages is the bill that we havent seen? I havent heard yet. Its like no one wants to say how many pages there are. I havent heard the number of pages 1,000 times yet, which i need to know in order to form my opinion on this.
So? a better alternative is to let Comcast & AT&T screw the internet all to hell?
Posted on 2/27/15 at 10:30 am to TigerGman
quote:
So? a better alternative is to let Comcast & AT&T screw the internet all to hell?
i just finished an HOUR AND A HALF phone call with comcast yesterday trying to resolve a fricked up problem with my account that has been going on 3 years.
i was literally at my wit's end and dealt with an endless bureaucracy of asshats who were completely condescending to me and laughed off my continual protests to get to someone with more clout.
i literally had a guy laugh me off the phone as he put me in touch with his tech manager (yes this guy was also a tech) who, when he finally got on the phone with me and reviewed my account history for the last 3 years was horrified at the gross trail of incompetence that lead to constant bullshite charges.
i can provide the gory details (but no one wants that) but after THREE
frickING
GODDAMN
MISERABLE
years....
someone was finally able to figure out the issue with my account.
frick you comcast. i've probably spent 30+ hours on the phone in the last 3 years trying to get this resolved.
eta for those interested, it had to do with a transposed digit on my modem provisioning that kept allowing a 'ghost' modem show up on my account (i bought my modem from amazon) so like clockwork, every 6 months the little audit fricksticks would catch the 'error' and pro-rate charge me for the previous 6 months of comcast modem rental..FOR A frickING MODEM THAT NEVER EXISTED.
it was a bullshite 'audit scrape' looking for errors across comcast and it runs once every 6 months to wring some additional blood out of CAD's turnip.
This post was edited on 2/27/15 at 10:33 am
Posted on 2/27/15 at 10:32 am to TigerGman
The ideal solution would have been for a reasonable NN bill. This is still possible since the rule changes wont be in affect for a while.
This solution accomplishes NN, but also injects a yet to be determined amount of govt into the equation. If they choose to be very limited in their approach it may not be bad. Govt tends to overreach though and with this reclassification, they have the potential to screw up more than they have fixed.
This solution accomplishes NN, but also injects a yet to be determined amount of govt into the equation. If they choose to be very limited in their approach it may not be bad. Govt tends to overreach though and with this reclassification, they have the potential to screw up more than they have fixed.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 10:53 am to MamouTiger65
Answer me this anti-Net Neutrality crowd: I don't remember a single fuss being made in 2010 when the FCC wrote the net neutrality rules that were overturned last year. The overturn lead to the new rules being voted on yesterday. Why no fuss then, but it's a huge partisan issue now?
Posted on 2/27/15 at 10:59 am to colorchangintiger
You know exactly why. And if you don't, check the Poli Board. 
Posted on 2/27/15 at 11:06 am to rbWarEagle
I read the first few pages. Is it solely because they wouldn't release the new rules? Also, if Ajit Pai really wanted the people to see the rules, why didn't he just say frick it and publish them?
You could have made that happen man.
quote:
I wish the public could see what's inside.
You could have made that happen man.
This post was edited on 2/27/15 at 11:07 am
Posted on 2/27/15 at 11:15 am to colorchangintiger
General distrust of the government ---> Conservative mind ---> Obama in office ---> Definitely evil
*See post immediately below*
*See post immediately below*
This post was edited on 2/27/15 at 11:33 am
Posted on 2/27/15 at 11:27 am to colorchangintiger
This is going to be obama care all over again
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:10 pm to Byrdybyrd05
Posted on 2/27/15 at 1:14 pm to colorchangintiger
quote:
Why no fuss then, but it's a huge partisan issue now?
Cause the talk brigade got its marching orders and got the mindless automatons and usual rabble all stirred up--they can't think for themselves past Obama=Bad, anything anti-Obama=good.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 1:41 pm to colorchangintiger
NN is one thing and I'm for it.
What this reclassification does achieves NN, but will likely go much further than that. Without knowing how much further the FCC plans to take it, I think it is reasonable to be cautious.
For those that think this will bring forth faster cheaper internet and upgrades to fiber across the country, I think there will be a lot of disappointment with how much actually changes. The rules they choose to enforce will have to fall within existing regulations, and Title II was intended for this.
For those that think this will spur on competition, that may be true in larger cities. But this was already happening and expanding. The opposite may happen in smaller cities and rural areas where the FCC could setup virtual monopolies to encourage a company to service that area. To top that, our universal service fees would actually pay Comcast or one of the other big ones to go out there and be a monopoly.
What this reclassification does achieves NN, but will likely go much further than that. Without knowing how much further the FCC plans to take it, I think it is reasonable to be cautious.
For those that think this will bring forth faster cheaper internet and upgrades to fiber across the country, I think there will be a lot of disappointment with how much actually changes. The rules they choose to enforce will have to fall within existing regulations, and Title II was intended for this.
For those that think this will spur on competition, that may be true in larger cities. But this was already happening and expanding. The opposite may happen in smaller cities and rural areas where the FCC could setup virtual monopolies to encourage a company to service that area. To top that, our universal service fees would actually pay Comcast or one of the other big ones to go out there and be a monopoly.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 2:03 pm to MamouTiger65
quote:
For those that think this will bring forth faster cheaper internet and upgrades to fiber across the country, I think there will be a lot of disappointment with how much actually changes.
I agree. I don't see any change in the pace of investment into the networks. Even though some ISP's are saying they will cut back, I think it's an empty threat.
quote:
The opposite may happen in smaller cities and rural areas where the FCC could setup virtual monopolies to encourage a company to service that area. To top that, our universal service fees would actually pay Comcast or one of the other big ones to go out there and be a monopoly.
The broadband ISPs are already virtual monopolies because of the initial cost of investment and municipalities not wanting multiple, redundant broadband networks installed. The initial cost of investment was worth it to govt granted cable co's/broadband ISPs because they knew that they had sole rights to every customer in that area (barring satellite TV and DSL which is no longer considered broadband). Municipalities didn't want redundancy because they would have to tear up roads, yards, right of ways multiple times to simply put another cable right next to an existing, exactly the same cable.
Title II will require the govt granted monopolies to lease out their already installed broadband networks to other ISPs, so they no longer have to be the sole option and avoid the problem of redundancy at the same time. These new ISPs will work like MVNO's work
quote:
A mobile virtual network operator (MVNO), or mobile other licensed operator (MOLO) is a wireless communications services provider that does not own the wireless network infrastructure over which the MVNO provides services to its customers. An MVNO enters into a business agreement with a mobile network operator to obtain bulk access to network services at wholesale rates, then sets retail prices independently. An MVNO may use its own customer service, billing support systems, marketing and sales personnel or it may employ the services of a mobile virtual network enabler (MVNE).
Posted on 2/27/15 at 2:06 pm to TigerGman
quote:
So? a better alternative is to let Comcast & AT&T screw the internet all to hell?
That seems like an odd response to my post.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 2:08 pm to Hester Carries
to be fair, your post was an odd response to his
Posted on 2/27/15 at 2:17 pm to jcole4lsu
quote:
The idea of nn is unquestionably good, 300 pages of new regulation and big government regulation... Probably bad.
Right. In the long run, it's probably going to be shite.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News