Forum - View topicNEWS: FCC to Vote on New Anti-Net Neutrality Guidelines
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
potatochobit
 Posts: 1373 Location: TEXAS |
|
|||
|
The problem with this is most americans dont have the right to choose a different service provider.
Give people a few choices and I guarantee you comcast will change their tune very fast. I only know how horrible they are from visiting other people who use their services. |
||||
|
||||
|
Danette-Anime-Otaku
Posts: 115 |
|
|||
|
The largest ISPs promised not to introduce a tier-based charging system for its customers. President Obama commented on court decision in January, saying that he would continue to work with the FCC, Congress, and the private sector "to preserve a free and open Internet."
Free and open internet my a**. Out freedoms on the internet are being taken away because of this. A company shouldn't be able to charge me extra for watching Youtube or any other streaming sites and they shouldn't slow or completely block websites. This is just a way for companies to charge people more money. |
||||
|
||||
enurtsol
 Posts: 14891 |
|
|||
They're not charging you extra - they're charging the content companies for the first time:
But in the end, you'll be charged extra from content companies where you already pay subscriptions, as those content companies pass the cost to you to pay the ISPs for more bandwidth. That means if Crunchyroll wants to keep up to speed with Netflix, Amazon Video, Youtube, Hulu, etc., they'd have to pay the ISPs too. (If you don't already pay a subscription, it will still be free........ for now.) |
||||
|
||||
kanjineogeo
 Posts: 166 Location: Flordia, USA |
|
|||
|
This is your chance to fight it. Sign these.
www.savetheinternet.com/ https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-true-net-neutrality-protect-freedom-information-united-states/9sxxdBgy I don't know why ISP are doing this. Maybe because they are losing money from priacy. |
||||
|
||||
TheAncientOne
 Posts: 1896 Location: USA (mid-south) |
|
|||
How would an ISP lose money from piracy? |
||||
|
||||
Polycell
 Posts: 4623 |
|
|||
|
They do, however, lose money from cannibalizing their TV services; steaming media is also a great way to expose how little bandwidth they actually have.
Of course, the real problem is that many companies that want to compete with them aren't allowed to thanks to "franchises" that prohibit anybody from interfering with the monopolist(I remember TWC throwing a mammoth hissy fit when AT&T lobbied the state of Texas to allow it to bypass all that bullshit and compete in the TV market). |
||||
|
||||
notrogersmith
 Posts: 194 |
|
|||
|
There's an interesting discussion of the effect of the proposed FCC rules here: https://medium.com/p/7805f8049503
One thing I especially find interesting is this bit:
Near as I can tell, companies like Netflix, Amazon, etc., already pay for the bandwidth necessary to push out their bits onto the Internet, and that cost scales with the number of their servers, the fatness of the "pipes" that they connect to, and so on. So it's not as if they are some unfair load on the ISPs. What the ISPs seem to want to do is have Netflix, etc., pay for the "privilege" of not having the bandwidth (which they already paid for) artificially degraded. Comcast particularly wants to do this because it is both a content provider and an ISP, and it sees companies like Netflix as competing content providers. |
||||
|
||||
|
ajh2
Posts: 15 |
|
|||
|
It has to do with band-with the streaming services use. Movies and TV streams, especially in HD, take more band-with than a simple web-page. The issue is the availability of band-with for the different ISPs and what the FCC allows to be used. For example, an animated GIF takes more band-with to run than a simple picture. A 1 minute video uses more band-with than the animated GIF and so on.
This is the reason why the courts allowed the change. The ISPs were able to provide real data the data streaming videos via phone were using more band-with than telephone calls and text messages. Here is an excellent explanation of the whole thing. This is from ZDNET: http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-7000028770/?s_cid=e540&ttag=e540&ftag=TRE5369823 Last edited by ajh2 on Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||
|
||||
|
Polycell
Posts: 4623 |
|
|||
|
The issue is that the ISPs were advertising connections with the necessary bandwidth - they just oversold their capacity and don't like competition anyway.
|
||||
|
||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15594 |
|
|||
|
Petition via @angryvoters and @patginsd.
|
||||
|
||||
|
mangamuscle
Posts: 2658 Location: Mexico |
|
|||
This is a quite common misconception. I live in Mexico (you know, like, third world country) and I have only two major cable internet providers. But I have no monthly bandwidth caps/web throttling of my bandwidth and no attempt has been of racketeering websites for not throttling their websites. The simple truth is that the USA is an oligarchy and it will make no difference if you have one or ten ISP, they will still suck you dry because the goverment is at the service of big business. Last edited by mangamuscle on Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:38 pm; edited 2 times in total |
||||
|
||||
|
notrogersmith
Posts: 194 |
|
|||
We already have a way of dealing with that. Consumers who want to access more than a simple web page pay for the extra bandwidth to stream or download. Also, this part of the ZDnet article is simply wrong:
Comcast is both an ISP and a content provider, and as a content provider, it does compete with Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Video. It has an interest, then, in messing with Netflix's bytes in order to give customers an incentive to consume its own bytes. |
||||
|
||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15594 |
|
|||
|
mangamuscle:
That's 'cus you're in a country where corporations still place value in doing things for the the public good, and not just their bottom line. 
|
||||
|
||||
|
mangamuscle
Posts: 2658 Location: Mexico |
|
|||
Not at all, big corporations will steal you blind in a jiffy if allowed, no matter where in the world they have their headquarters. The difference is that here they do not give orders to politicians, at least that is the only way to read when Obama appointed Tom Wheeler as the new head of the FCC, who, per wikipieda "Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry". So, they have put the fox to protect the henhouse
|
||||
|
||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15594 |
|
|||
|
mangamuscle:
Well, you guys also banned slavery before us, so...Makes sense. |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group