by "TahoeSTi" (tahoesti)
Published 12/14/2017 at 16:08
by "TahoeSTi" (tahoesti)
Published 12/14/2017 at 16:08
No Tags
STARS: 1
Net Neutrality is a great idea, but Title 2 is the worst idea.
Even if you think it’s a good idea, how is it even help if it can just be removed every 4 years?
Was the Internet so bad a few years ago? Sure there were a few questionable moves by ISPs and such back in the day but they were all resolved before Title 2.
Should we also be against Toll roads and Toll express lanes?
If we want to keep the net neutral we have to do it with consumer pressure, and innovation. Sure maybe you don’t have a choice in cable company now they are still using old tech what about new wireless tech? Any restrictions an ISP puts on consumers is an opportunity for some startup to fix.
Here’s a better overview of the issues:
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
We have to stop letting fear drive us to big government for help all the time. The government should fear it’s people, we shouldn’t fear our government.
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
12/14/2017 at 16:20, STARS: 7
This is all marking time until Skynet takes over anyway.
"facw" (facw)
12/14/2017 at 16:20, STARS: 3
Yes, the internet was bad a few years ago. ISPs were starting to throttle internet video services, greatly degrading their quality. This is a real issue, and it’s going to get worse now.
"crowmolly" (crowmolly)
12/14/2017 at 16:21, STARS: 4
Any restrictions an ISP puts on consumers is an opportunity for some startup to fix.
What are they going to do, bury new copper/fiber? Wireless is OK but it’s pay by the GB and there’s no WAY performance is equal.
"itschrome" (itschrome)
12/14/2017 at 16:21, STARS: 10
“Should we also be against Toll roads and Toll express lanes?”
that’s not how this works. that’s not how any of this works. we already pay a toll by paying the Service fee. the cost of service is the toll to help maintain infrastructure. which they barely even do any ways.
"TahoeSTi" (tahoesti)
12/14/2017 at 16:23, STARS: 1
New wireless yes. And Google will build more fiber, then Amazon will.
Low Orbit internet, internet from gliders in the sky.....there are solutions, and innovation trumps government regulations....get it...Trump can’t roll back innovations but he can regulations.
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
12/14/2017 at 16:24, STARS: 5
This is a real thing, that happened
"TahoeSTi" (tahoesti)
12/14/2017 at 16:24, STARS: 2
We already pay for roads with taxes at the pump.
"bshappy" (bshappy)
12/14/2017 at 16:25, STARS: 1
Is your internet free? Mine’s not.
"TahoeSTi" (tahoesti)
12/14/2017 at 16:27, STARS: 1
And Title 2 didn’t fix it.....so why do we need it? Title 2 started in 2015.
"bshappy" (bshappy)
12/14/2017 at 16:28, STARS: 0
Put your charts and facts away. Regulation is bad and Telecoms (like other large corporations) have our best interest at heart.
"Rust and Dust - Oppositelock Forever" (rustanddust)
12/14/2017 at 16:30, STARS: 2
On the other side of the coin, has progress stalled and bandwidth speeds slowed since the inception of Net Neutrality, as has been argued?
And sure, some new startup may pop up to try to offset the evil big business ISP, but that new startup will presumably be flexed on by the bigger guys they’re trying to compete with, and summarily shut down.
Toll roads are a false equivalency for ISPs. We’ve already got that with tiered speeds at different pricing, which is perfectly fine.
How would you like it if your local water supplier charged more per gallon between 6am and 8am, when everyone is getting up and showering for work/school? How about if your electric provider charged more after 5pm, when everyone got home, turns lights on and starts cooking dinner?
I’m currently in the midst of beating my head against my desk in an industry where the asshole with the biggest checkbook makes the rules, outcome be damned. This industry has a state regulatory office that is well aware of the issues, and whom is at fault, but they’re crippled to actually do anything of use.
Consumers are getting screwed, and the free market isn’t free, but yeah, let’s let big business sort things out for us.
"TahoeSTi" (tahoesti)
12/14/2017 at 16:30, STARS: 0
Are your roads free? Mine aren’t.
"DucST3-Red-1Liter-Standing-By" (ducst3-red-1liter-standing-by)
12/14/2017 at 16:31, STARS: 3
Now we get to fear the ISP’s yay.... Its all well and good to say that the market will drive innovation, but what about the countless small rural communities with only one provider?
And, studies have shown time and again that net neutrality drives innovation, not vise versa. Without it, it drives up prices and slows down speeds. Which, by the way, the US is far from the top when it comes to the fastest internet in the world. People shouldn’t fear the government regulation so much they hand over their lives to big corporations, that’s absurd. You might as well give your DNA sequences to your insurance company now if that’s where your head is at.
And don’t say that throttlling, blocking etc won’t happen, it already has
https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/
http://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-blocking-google-wallet-2011-12
"TahoeSTi" (tahoesti)
12/14/2017 at 16:31, STARS: 1
Title 2 is the wrong solution.
"farscythe - makin da cawfee!" (farscythe)
12/14/2017 at 16:32, STARS: 2
i fear your government and a good chunk of your people..
for the moment im not too worried about my government yet (useless bastards barely managed to form a coalition)
a good chunk of the people have me worried tho..
i’d be a hippy if i didnt have a temper from hell.... as it stands.. the gubment.. and the people... are fucking everything up
peace love and happiness man..... and affordable interwebs (but hell... we’ll see what the future holds)
im kinda stuck in the catch 22... where i dont trust the gubment to regulate... i dont trust the isps to not exploit everything and i dont trust the people to vote for the right thing... (and i dont trust myself to know what said right thing is)
sleep might help
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
12/14/2017 at 16:32, STARS: 2
Not having title 2 didn’t prevent it.
"benjrblant" (benjblant)
12/14/2017 at 16:33, STARS: 3
Roads are owned by the government for public use. Therefore, the public pays for the maintenance of them. The government does not maintain these roads as a business to bolster their own profit.
Well... at least that’s not how it’s supposed to work.
"bshappy" (bshappy)
12/14/2017 at 16:34, STARS: 5
You are very confused. When you pay the toll you can use the road. When you pay your ISP you can access the internet.
Its not if you pay a $1 toll you can go 30 miles an hour, $2 toll 45 miles per hour, and $5 for the “platinum package 60mph” toll.
No one is arguing for free internet or free roads, only that access is equal.
"Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection" (itsalwayssteve)
12/14/2017 at 16:36, STARS: 4
This argument is rendered moot by the sheer fact that nearly every consumer in the US is limited in their choices of ISP. Generally, each municipality has one phone company, one cable provider, and... that’s about it. Fiber Optic internet service is seriously limited in scope. Wireless data services need to go through hard lines - and thus follow the rules of whoever owns the lines - until broadcast from the cell towers. With a de facto monopoly, the ISPs can block services that we use every day - video streaming is going to suffer as it did before net neutrality was enacted in 2015. Removing regulation from a corporate oligarchy never benefits consumers. There’s not enough competition in the market for the market to take care of it. This will lead to suppression of protected speech, suppression of information, and could possibly lead to rampant corruption. And consumers will continue to suffer.
"Tekamul" (tekamulburner)
12/14/2017 at 16:39, STARS: 2
Except gas taxes are ridiculously low, which is why so much infrastructure is crumbling.
"TahoeSTi" (tahoesti)
12/14/2017 at 16:39, STARS: 1
That will change. It always does, and always has. With new technology, the de facto monopolies (created by the government) will fall. I look forward to a day when I don’t have to have a cable line for highspeed . Pent-up consumer demand will drive innovation.....And the government can’t stop that but they can undo regulations all day. I’d rather wait for a real fix than have this bad band-aid.
"TahoeSTi" (tahoesti)
12/14/2017 at 16:41, STARS: 0
The same thing is happening to the internet. The difference is traffic and demand are growing faster on the internet.
"TahoeSTi" (tahoesti)
12/14/2017 at 16:42, STARS: 0
Semi trucks pay a higher toll, so do trailers.
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
12/14/2017 at 16:42, STARS: 2
The government should fear it’s people, we shouldn’t fear our government.
Yes this I very much agree with.
Title 2 may not be the right solution, but one should not remove a “fix” without having a better one to replace it with.
"TahoeSTi" (tahoesti)
12/14/2017 at 16:44, STARS: 1
It’s not really a good fix if we just keep fighting over it instead of working for a real fix. if it can be repealed every 4 years we’ll just keep fighting for a band aid and never a fix.
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
12/14/2017 at 16:47, STARS: 0
I suppose
"Quadradeuce" (quadradeuce)
12/14/2017 at 16:48, STARS: 1
Your electric provider already probably charges more during peak times. Usually called Peak Demand Charges.
"Sam" (samwellington)
12/14/2017 at 16:50, STARS: 0
Fiber and copper is actually ludicrously cheap to lay down. But the corporations have our best interest at heart, so they don’t perform upgrades or allow new companies to expand in their territory. And they’ve paid the local governments to allow them to do so.
"Sam" (samwellington)
12/14/2017 at 16:53, STARS: 1
That’s literally what the Repugnicans do now though. Remember when they were gonna repeal ACA, but then it was revealed that they LITERALLY DIDN’T EVEN HAVE AN IDEA FOR HOW TO REPLACE IT AFTER EIGHT YEARS OF PLANNING?
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
12/14/2017 at 17:00, STARS: 0
I know, it is fucking stupid.
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
12/14/2017 at 17:00, STARS: 0
I know, it is fucking stupid.
"Nothing" (nothingatalluseful)
12/14/2017 at 17:02, STARS: 1
But who, other than telecoms, were fighting against this? Serious question, as it seems the bulk of American human people didn’t ask the FCC to shitcan it.
"crowmolly" (crowmolly)
12/14/2017 at 17:02, STARS: 0
Ludicrously cheap? Do you have the numbers to back that up based on density? Not being a shithead, what I remember may be out of date. I’ve paid to have fiber laid and it was nowhere near ludicrously cheap.
"SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media" (silentbutnotreallydeadly)
12/14/2017 at 17:02, STARS: 1
Australia has never had Net Neutrality if I understand the US setup correctly. And we do OK in terms of access.
I’m on fixed wireless (rural area, most urban areas are on cable) and pay $45/month for 30GB peak/60 GB off peak at 25 Mbps down and 5 up. I could pay more for faster speed and more data but just don’t have the need for it. Oh and my Netflix data is unmetered so it’s free.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
12/14/2017 at 17:06, STARS: 0
You don’t know how toll roads work in Texas, do you? Here, we pay exorbitant sums of money to foreign companies to build toll roads when we already pay taxes for roads. Somebody is getting really rich on the backs of the driving public.
"crowmolly" (crowmolly)
12/14/2017 at 17:08, STARS: 1
I have a hard time believing Google and Amazon will foot the bill for low or medium density installations where it will take decades to recoup their money. Hell, some ISPs won’t upgrade high density areas where they could make more money now due to the ROI.
"benjrblant" (benjblant)
12/14/2017 at 17:08, STARS: 1
Well aware. I spent countless hours on the Hardy toll road and Beltway 8.
Interestingly, both of these highways were built with little/no cost to taxpayers with the intention that the toll would pay for the road. Once the cost broke even, the toll would be omitted. Then people realized how much cash they brought in, and well, now thanks TX tag.
"Rust and Dust - Oppositelock Forever" (rustanddust)
12/14/2017 at 17:09, STARS: 0
True, I was in a bit of a rush, and that was a bit erroneous. This is more accurate:
How would you like it if your electric company charged you one price tier for lights, a higher price tier for appliances, and then an even higher tier for television/pc/DVD player/etc ?
"Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection" (itsalwayssteve)
12/14/2017 at 17:15, STARS: 0
Because most people understand that “good for big business,” almost always means, “bad for the consumer, the employee, and literally anyone except those at the very top.”
"Sam" (samwellington)
12/14/2017 at 17:19, STARS: 1
Fiber is not -that- cheap (ludicrous is a strong word, but is definitely applicable to the copper line), but it was going to cost Google $140 billion to reach ISP-level coverage with fiber. But that’s starting from scratch. ISPs would certainly be cheaper than that, due to their higher bargaining power, and the infrastructure that already exists in most places. It could be done, without destroying the ISPs, but they never will, because why would they? They can do whatever they want with no oversight and a local, legal monopoly, because fuck the consumer.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-it-would-cost-google-to-build-a-cable-network-2012-12
"TahoeSTi" (tahoesti)
12/14/2017 at 17:29, STARS: 0
Both are working wireless internet for places like Africa soo I think they’ve will.
"crowmolly" (crowmolly)
12/14/2017 at 17:34, STARS: 0
Thanks, Sam. Worth noting that the numbers provided in that article are 5 years old so I hope things would be a bit cheaper today.
However I am not so sure about it being that much cheaper for ISPs. As an example, my office is served by Comcast. There are different suites here and each has Business class copper service. Comcast wanted to bury fiber and upgrade everybody so we said OK. I saw what Comcast was being charged (not on a Comcast work order, from a team of subs) to put everything in the ground and it was $40,000 to go 300m between two buildings. Comcast refused to pay until every company here signed a contract basically guaranteeing them a reasonable ROI. Current ISPs don’t really have the infrastructure. It’s not like you can convert copper to fiber, it’s a new drag. But I guess a case can be made that the legal battles are already fought.
Granted, I have absolutely zero love for any telecom companies for many reasons. The monopoly stuff has been a thorn in my side for many years. But I have a hard time believing that an upstart company will have the money/resources/legal team to start competitive services anytime soon.
"Sam" (samwellington)
12/14/2017 at 18:14, STARS: 0
My father’s company paid something like a quarter million to get their fiber connections to their building/data center (one of them is 10Gb!). I think it was a little more involved than 300m to another building though.
I just figured that the massive buying power of the ISPs compared to a small business would definitely send the cost to be, relative to the revenues of these companies, fairly cheap. I feel like the “spur more investment” is probably dependent on the increased revenues via increased charges, that the ISPs paid the government for. (Thanks Citizens United v. FEC!)
"Quadradeuce" (quadradeuce)
12/15/2017 at 10:08, STARS: 0
I wouldn’t love it, but it’s honestly very common to charge different rates for different uses. It’s just the way the free market works sometimes, for better or worse (as you’ve pointed out).
We are in a transitionary era for how content is delivered. No one really knows how that landscape will look in 30 years. Will TV/cable providers even exist? Will everything be streamed over the internet? Will internet service become a basic utility like power and water?
I would say that the current system is outdated and will go away altogether. To do that, you need to blow up the old system. Market disruptors like Uber have done it to other industries. But there needs to be motivation to do it, and that usually requires pain on the consumers part. People have to NEED an alternative. Perhaps if tel-com companies get greedy and start tightening the screws on consumers, a market disruptor will emerge to bring us to the next stage. Who knows. However, if we maintain the status quo, I don’t see that kind of progress. We’ll continue to get our internet through awful providers like Spectrum or AT&T, paying $90/month for barely adequate internet speeds.