Net Neutrality Is Getting Replealed

[nickf2005]

Until your internet service costs and fees go through the roof, and you can only stream one movie per week before getting hit with overage charges. My household streams hundreds of gigs of data through our ISP each month. I can't even imagine what the fees would be like for "tiered service" for that amount of data. Look at what cell companies charge just for a handful of gigs of data. Those same cell companies are the ones lobbying against net neutrality, and you're onboard with this? There's a reason AT&T keeps trying to buy Time-Warner, and it's not to make things better or cheaper for consumers. These are the same companies that said <100mbps service is all we need.

Just to stir the pot a little here Premi... Let's say you're my neighbor and we both have the same ISP. We're paying the identical amount for our service yet you're using hundreds of gigs, while I'm using 40 (I looked my usage up). I'd be willing to look into a tiered data usage in order to lower my bill for using less than somebody else.

I can tell you one thing, I'm tired of dropping $200/month for cable/internet and another $140 on cell. I'm so close to cutting the cord I can taste it. Just can't quite put it in my mouth... Wait, that doesn't sound right.

In the end, deregulating this result in one of two things:
1. The big ISP will completely screw the consumer and we all end up with a bill twice the amount with service that is worse than before.

2. Capitalism will prevail, private companies will offer competitive services to win customers, and the consumer is happier with their service and/or price.

We call ourselves a free country, but I certainly see the government poking its nose in a lot of areas that it may not belong. Before long you'll have to ask Uncle Sam if it's OK to use that extra pull of toilet paper to wipe yourself clean.

 

[hoamskilet]

I can kinda see both sides of the argument.

I cut the cord probably 6 years ago and stream God knows how many GB worth of content every month, so the last thing I want is anything restricted or slowed down.

But I also work for a telco and see first hand the flip side of it. Streaming sites like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc....are gaining steam at a rapid pace as users are looking to cut away from traditional cable/satellite. Those sites are reaping the rewards of it all the while having no stake in the game as far as footing for the bill for the buildout of the network across the country supporting the streaming of their content. People's thirst for bandwidth is insatiable and the cost of continuing to build out the networks is incredible.

Not sure what a good answer is.

 

[thomas91169]

I can tell you one thing, I'm tired of dropping $200/month for cable/internet and another $140 on cell. I'm so close to cutting the cord I can taste it. Just can't quite put it in my mouth... Wait, that doesn't sound right.

I cut the cord, its great, but you still cant cut it fully. You'll save money but not an entire cord-cutting amount. IE $200 for cable/internets combo will drop down to maybe $50-60 for just internet, then you start throwing in $10/mo for each netflix, hulu, hbogo or AZP and it starts to get back up there. Now Disney wants their own streaming service, CBS, etc. These will all start to nickel and dime people back to cable prices.

You should definitely put it in your mouth to see how it tastes......

 

[DaleM]

Meh

Sent from my XT1650 using the svtperformance.com mobile app

 

[M91196]

Access to the internet is a fundamental right.
We are the only civilized nation in the world that doesn't have access for all to an ISP.
If you like your ISP you can keep it.

 

[nickf2005]

I cut the cord, its great, but you still cant cut it fully. You'll save money but not an entire cord-cutting amount. IE $200 for cable/internets combo will drop down to maybe $50-60 for just internet, then you start throwing in $10/mo for each netflix, hulu, hbogo or AZP and it starts to get back up there. Now Disney wants their own streaming service, CBS, etc. These will all start to nickel and dime people back to cable prices.

You should definitely put it in your mouth to see how it tastes......

I actually called AT&T a little bit ago to discuss my options, and you hit the nail on the head. $60/month for 18M or $70 for 24M. I can get U200/24M for $130, so for $60 additional dollars, I get to keep all of my stations.

To be honest, if I did forgo cable TV, I probably wouldn't use streaming services outside of Amazon Video, as I already am a Prime member for the shipping reasons alone. I'm in Indy, so I can catch all of the locals OTA easily.

Access to the internet is a fundamental right.
We are the only civilized nation in the world that doesn't have access for all to an ISP.
If you like your ISP you can keep it.

 

[quad]

How is it propaganda when the companies are on record saying those very things?? I didn't just pull that out of my ass. https://www.wired.com/2013/02/time-warner-cable-2/

I think he is saying the propaganda is coming from the companies that are on record saying these things?

I can see both sides' arguments here - so not sure which is best and I don't know enough about the issue. I would prefer not to pay data rates similar to cell phone rates - who would?. That would not be cool.

Right now we are paying $70 per month for symmetrical Gigabit Internet via ATT Fiber with unlimited data transfers!

 

[Coiled03]

I can kinda see both sides of the argument.

I cut the cord probably 6 years ago and stream God knows how many GB worth of content every month, so the last thing I want is anything restricted or slowed down.

But I also work for a telco and see first hand the flip side of it. Streaming sites like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc....are gaining steam at a rapid pace as users are looking to cut away from traditional cable/satellite. Those sites are reaping the rewards of it all the while having no stake in the game as far as footing for the bill for the buildout of the network across the country supporting the streaming of their content. People's thirst for bandwidth is insatiable and the cost of continuing to build out the networks is incredible.

Not sure what a good answer is.

That's the business the telcos are in....providing infrastructure.

They've been living large for a long time, charging people out the ass for mediocre service. Now that people want to utilize what they're supposed to offer to the fullest extent, they're getting mad that they have to deliver. ****ing assholes.

 

[Hwy. Chile]

How is it propaganda when the companies are on record saying those very things?? I didn't just pull that out of my ass. https://www.wired.com/2013/02/time-warner-cable-2/

Time Warner Cable and Time Warner (which AT&T wants to buy) are two separate companies.


Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app

 

[Hwy. Chile]

Enron was more than accounting fraud.

They deliberately exported electricity out of California to drive demand up and then imported it back at a higher price.

Even so much that they would have generating units shut down for maintenance time just to drive the price up.

Remember the whole rolling blackouts thing in California? Enron.

I should add that all of these things were recorded on their own phone system. It came out when they were investigating the accounting fraud.

Still has nothing to do with net neutrality


Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app

 

[BigPoppa]

Still has nothing to do with net neutrality


Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app

The fact that Enron was able to manipulate the prices was due to deregulation of electricity in the 90s.

Just like the shenanigans that is going to occur with deregulation of the internet.

 

[BigPoppa]

I actually called AT&T a little bit ago to discuss my options, and you hit the nail on the head. $60/month for 18M or $70 for 24M. I can get U200/24M for $130, so for $60 additional dollars, I get to keep all of my stations.

To be honest, if I did forgo cable TV, I probably wouldn't use streaming services outside of Amazon Video, as I already am a Prime member for the shipping reasons alone. I'm in Indy, so I can catch all of the locals OTA easily.



View attachment 1446385

Ouch.

I'm paying $100 for 1gb. From a mom and pop telco too.

Comes in handy when I've got 6 people all streaming HD at the same time.

 

[Serpent]

The fact that Enron was able to manipulate the prices was due to deregulation of electricity in the 90s.

Just like the shenanigans that is going to occur with deregulation of the internet.

Exactly, you do not want Net Neutrality to be repealed, we will all ****ing lose. Look at the companies supporting repeal, At&t, Comcast, Verizon. All the data providers.

The companies against net neutrality repeal? Amazon, google, reddit, facebook, pornhub.

 

[thomas91169]

pornhub.

That's all the proof I needed, thanks!

 

[jrandy]

I can't believe some of the responses in here. Everyone bitches about customer service at the current telecom companies and how evil they are, yet everyone magically thinks that the telecoms are going to do right by the customers?

Net neutrality repeal means that everything will change for the benefit of the companies, at the cost of the subscribers.

The elimination of net neutrality means that internet providers can carve up service into fast and slow lanes, charging more for higher speeds. Comcast could demand fees from Netflix, for example, in exchange for preferential treatment. (In response to the FCC plan, Netflix took to Twitter to show “strong support” for net neutrality.)

If content companies don’t want to pay, internet service providers could make them so slow that they’re unwatchable or even block access to competitors’ sites.

 

[BigPoppa]

Let's put it in perspective what net neutrality tries to prevent.

Let's say AT&T, Verizon, and others decide that anyone who isn't a buy-in "partner" will only have their web site served at a very low speed.

Now that would mean websites like SVTP would have to pay these service providers an extra fee to maintain the delivery speed it already enjoys.

That means Sid would have to increase advertisements and/or the cost of direct sponsors, etc., or we all just deal with slow page loads.

 

[DHG1078]

Let's put it in perspective what net neutrality tries to prevent.

Let's say AT&T, Verizon, and others decide that anyone who isn't a buy-in "partner" will only have their web site served at a very low speed.

Now that would mean websites like SVTP would have to pay these service providers an extra fee to maintain the delivery speed it already enjoys.

That means Sid would have to increase advertisements and/or the cost of direct sponsors, etc., or we all just deal with slow page loads.

Or no access at all

 

[jrandy]

Let's put it in perspective what net neutrality tries to prevent.

Let's say AT&T, Verizon, and others decide that anyone who isn't a buy-in "partner" will only have their web site served at a very low speed.

Now that would mean websites like SVTP would have to pay these service providers an extra fee to maintain the delivery speed it already enjoys.

That means Sid would have to increase advertisements and/or the cost of direct sponsors, etc., or we all just deal with slow page loads.

But, but, but government regulations

The entire thing is worded in ways to try to make it as confusing as possible. I think that most people don't realize how incredibly slanted it is. ISP's will be able to single handedly kill whatever websites they want by throttling due to "not included in *insert internet plan*".

 

[Gravik]

Just to stir the pot a little here Premi... Let's say you're my neighbor and we both have the same ISP. We're paying the identical amount for our service yet you're using hundreds of gigs, while I'm using 40 (I looked my usage up). I'd be willing to look into a tiered data usage in order to lower my bill for using less than somebody else.

I can tell you one thing, I'm tired of dropping $200/month for cable/internet and another $140 on cell. I'm so close to cutting the cord I can taste it. Just can't quite put it in my mouth... Wait, that doesn't sound right.

In the end, deregulating this result in one of two things:
1. The big ISP will completely screw the consumer and we all end up with a bill twice the amount with service that is worse than before.

2. Capitalism will prevail, private companies will offer competitive services to win customers, and the consumer is happier with their service and/or price.

We call ourselves a free country, but I certainly see the government poking its nose in a lot of areas that it may not belong. Before long you'll have to ask Uncle Sam if it's OK to use that extra pull of toilet paper to wipe yourself clean.

Hopefully #2 would happen.

Right now most of the major companies that provide internet are a joke. Cox, cable one, century link (the worst) all suck

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

Hopefully #2 would happen.

Right now most of the major companies that provide internet are a joke. Cox, cable one, century link (the worst) all suck

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

you take away net neutrality the vision of the "market dictating" will be the same shit but on a different platter, served by a different asshole who spit on it.

think about your mobile options right now. all plans are basically the same, you just choose who fists you.

but i guess that's what people against net neutrality want.