Net Neutrality ruling leading to data caps from service providers (1 Viewer)

[SocialD]

So last Month the court ruled in favor of a white house backed position on net neutrality

A federal appeals court Tuesday upheld a White House-supported effort to make internet service providers treat all web traffic equally, delivering a major defeat to cable and telephone companies.
Court upholds Obama-backed net neutrality rules - POLITICO

This month we have a host of articles regarding Comcast, Centurylink, AT&T and other providers implementing and changing data caps.
This is something I saw coming and have told people this would be the alternative. If you cant put limits on the providers of high bandwidth services ( Netflix, Hulu etc etc.. ) then they ( the ISPs ) are going to throttle the end user.
Several articles talking about whats going on below including the last one which talks about a straight up usage based broadband.

Currently ( what providers have already implemented this month ) are extra fees if you go over your data ranging from $30 to $100 dollars more per month depending on your usage or the particular providers method.
I question whether the fight was worth it.

Comcast?s Netflix Deal Could Open a New Front in Net Neutrality War | WIRED
https://consumerist.com/2016/07/19/...in-charging-you-for-going-over-your-data-cap/
CenturyLink charges data overage fees, may disconnect ?excessive? users | Ars Technica
Usage-Based Broadband Picks Up More Steam | Multichannel

 

[joG]

So last Month the court ruled in favor of a white house backed position on net neutrality

A federal appeals court Tuesday upheld a White House-supported effort to make internet service providers treat all web traffic equally, delivering a major defeat to cable and telephone companies.
Court upholds Obama-backed net neutrality rules - POLITICO

This month we have a host of articles regarding Comcast, Centurylink, AT&T and other providers implementing and changing data caps.
This is something I saw coming and have told people this would be the alternative. If you cant put limits on the providers of high bandwidth services ( Netflix, Hulu etc etc.. ) then they ( the ISPs ) are going to throttle the end user.
Several articles talking about whats going on below including the last one which talks about a straight up usage based broadband.

Currently ( what providers have already implemented this month ) are extra fees if you go over your data ranging from $30 to $100 dollars more per month depending on your usage or the particular providers method.
I question whether the fight was worth it.

Comcast?s Netflix Deal Could Open a New Front in Net Neutrality War | WIRED
https://consumerist.com/2016/07/19/...in-charging-you-for-going-over-your-data-cap/
CenturyLink charges data overage fees, may disconnect ?excessive? users | Ars Technica
Usage-Based Broadband Picks Up More Steam | Multichannel

You are quite right. Like any privat good optimal production is via pricing. If the state prevents it, there will be a suboptimal amount produced. If pricing can be implemented at a different point in the supply chain then that is where it will take place. Usually the quantity will remain suboptimal, but it will be a closer to the optimum, than it would have been before.

 

[CMPancake]

Since no one in their right mind believed that ISPs should further slam consumers with artificial prices they are now finding another way to slam consumers with artificial prices. This is just a short term money grab before the FCC's ruling allows for actual competition in Internet service.

 

[PeteEU]

Would help if there was competition in the market..... this would never ever happen in the most of Europe since there is so much competition. All the companies that have these limits are gone pretty much. I know of one, but they target the holiday tourist types mostly so a cap wont matter much.

The problem is simple.. the ISPs refuse to invest their vast profits in better and more infrastructure. Because they have a quality of service agreement with the consumer, then they have to figure a way to make sure everyone gets internet. This is done via caps or/and throttling in general.

Here in Spain we have a combo of the American and northern European markets... If you live in the cities/towns you have tons of providers, but if you live outside in the suburbs, you can get into trouble. Why? Because the main internet provider has not been able to keep up with the population growth and hence has not expanded the infrastructure. They even have a problem finding phone numbers for people (landline) because they have run out. So what happens is that Telefonica as they are called, sell you a 10 mb ADSL line with free phone, but cap you at 1 or 2 mbs because they have to keep the quality of service in the area.. in geek language that means that the local telefon exchange does not have the capacity to deal with the amount of traffic that is coming. Of course you could just say.. expand the capacity then, but that would of course cut into profits! People have been battling for years over this, while the big telecoms have been putting in fiber-optics in all major towns and cities but ignoring the suburban areas often. That is now changing because of law changes.. in the old days you could sell an internet connection with up to 10 mb .. now (soon) that will be a guaranteed 10 mb. What this has done, is a massive push by Telefonica (the company who maintains the infrastructure and expands it) to extend fiber-optics further and further out and expanding capacity in the suburban areas. But point is, it took a law change to force them to do so. And because there is so much competition in the market from cable companies and phone companies, then Telefonica can really put the extra cost on the consumer by raising prices.. which is why prices have fallen while speeds have gone up.. and yes no caps.

Of course it is nothing compare to the northern European countries when it comes to prices.. but that is another discussion.

All it boils down too.. is competition and as much as possible and that in many cases in the US, is down to local and state laws that prevent competition... once that is solved then watch prices go down, speeds go up and caps go bye bye.

 

[dimensionallava]

The problem is simple.. the ISPs refuse to invest their vast profits in better and more infrastructure. Because they have a quality of service agreement with the consumer, then they have to figure a way to make sure everyone gets internet. This is done via caps or/and throttling in general.

If infrastructure is the problem then why dont the cities and states build the infrastructure their citizens want, in order to have better access to the internet, in the major cities, and if a private company wants to expand into rural areas it can.

 

[Cardinal]

If infrastructure is the problem then why dont the cities and states build the infrastructure their citizens want, in order to have better access to the internet, in the major cities, and if a private company wants to expand into rural areas it can.

They do, actually, at least where the lack of available isps is a critical problem. Funny thing is, when local municipalities have done this, there were numerous states where isps successfully lobbied state congresses to prevent those municipalities from establishing their own isps. Those who hate internet neutrality because they've somehow associated it with Obama defended in full those lobbying efforts.

 

[dimensionallava]

They do, actually, at least where the lack of available isps is a critical problem. Funny thing is, when local municipalities have done this, there were numerous states where isps successfully lobbied state congresses to prevent those municipalities from establishing their own isps. Those who hate internet neutrality because they've somehow associated it with Obama defended in full those lobbying efforts.

okay so the isps are blocking municipalities from building there own infrastructure, so that they can get paid for building it themselves, and charge whatever they want too? And their selling the idea by promoting privatization and neo liberalism. Do I have that about right?

 

[jonny5]

So last Month the court ruled in favor of a white house backed position on net neutrality

A federal appeals court Tuesday upheld a White House-supported effort to make internet service providers treat all web traffic equally, delivering a major defeat to cable and telephone companies.
Court upholds Obama-backed net neutrality rules - POLITICO

This month we have a host of articles regarding Comcast, Centurylink, AT&T and other providers implementing and changing data caps.
This is something I saw coming and have told people this would be the alternative. If you cant put limits on the providers of high bandwidth services ( Netflix, Hulu etc etc.. ) then they ( the ISPs ) are going to throttle the end user.
Several articles talking about whats going on below including the last one which talks about a straight up usage based broadband.

Currently ( what providers have already implemented this month ) are extra fees if you go over your data ranging from $30 to $100 dollars more per month depending on your usage or the particular providers method.
I question whether the fight was worth it.

Comcast?s Netflix Deal Could Open a New Front in Net Neutrality War | WIRED
https://consumerist.com/2016/07/19/...in-charging-you-for-going-over-your-data-cap/
CenturyLink charges data overage fees, may disconnect ?excessive? users | Ars Technica
Usage-Based Broadband Picks Up More Steam | Multichannel

Well at least everyone is equally poor now.

 

[NeverTrump]

So last Month the court ruled in favor of a white house backed position on net neutrality

A federal appeals court Tuesday upheld a White House-supported effort to make internet service providers treat all web traffic equally, delivering a major defeat to cable and telephone companies.
Court upholds Obama-backed net neutrality rules - POLITICO

This month we have a host of articles regarding Comcast, Centurylink, AT&T and other providers implementing and changing data caps.
This is something I saw coming and have told people this would be the alternative. If you cant put limits on the providers of high bandwidth services ( Netflix, Hulu etc etc.. ) then they ( the ISPs ) are going to throttle the end user.
Several articles talking about whats going on below including the last one which talks about a straight up usage based broadband.

Currently ( what providers have already implemented this month ) are extra fees if you go over your data ranging from $30 to $100 dollars more per month depending on your usage or the particular providers method.
I question whether the fight was worth it.

Comcast?s Netflix Deal Could Open a New Front in Net Neutrality War | WIRED
https://consumerist.com/2016/07/19/...in-charging-you-for-going-over-your-data-cap/
CenturyLink charges data overage fees, may disconnect ?excessive? users | Ars Technica
Usage-Based Broadband Picks Up More Steam | Multichannel

Net Neutrality was always an appeal to an emotional communist view of the world. The problem most of these pro-NN groups had was that they didn't understand data and how it works. It can't be regulated like the Net Neutrality laws say. There is just soo much in the law and it is way too broad with more loopholes than swiss cheese.

 

[NeverTrump]

They do, actually, at least where the lack of available isps is a critical problem. Funny thing is, when local municipalities have done this, there were numerous states where isps successfully lobbied state congresses to prevent those municipalities from establishing their own isps. Those who hate internet neutrality because they've somehow associated it with Obama defended in full those lobbying efforts.

The science behind internet neutrality is lacking to me and I just see it as an emotional appeal, not really anything to do with politics per se. Though, there were hints of libertarian minded politics infused with the laws. The "treat everyone equally for freedom on the internet," slogans were downright ridiculous, as that is a practice that has never happened in tech and never will. As someone who works in the field I just don't see it working all that well. Especially now that these deals are seeing the light of day. The tech industry moves too fast for this law to be of any consequence, and as always people will find a way around such a broad theme.

 

[dimensionallava]

Net Neutrality was always an appeal to an emotional communist view of the world.

It does? how?

 

[NeverTrump]

It does? how?

No one treats the data the same, it doesn't work like that. We are seeing this come to light now, because of the deals that the telecoms are making. The End result of NN is laughable

 

[Cardinal]

The science behind internet neutrality is lacking to me and I just see it as an emotional appeal, not really anything to do with politics per se. Though, there were hints of libertarian minded politics infused with the laws. The "treat everyone equally for freedom on the internet," slogans were downright ridiculous, as that is a practice that has never happened in tech and never will. As someone who works in the field I just don't see it working all that well. Especially now that these deals are seeing the light of day. The tech industry moves too fast for this law to be of any consequence, and as always people will find a way around such a broad theme.

Then I'd suggest you wiki "net neutrality" because it's a bit more than "an emotional appeal."

 

[Cardinal]

okay so the isps are blocking municipalities from building there own infrastructure, so that they can get paid for building it themselves, and charge whatever they want too? And their selling the idea by promoting privatization and neo liberalism. Do I have that about right?

More or less, though the isps were so perfectly apathetic to the needs of remote municipalities that they didn't even have an interest in building infrastructure there for themselves. I think they just didn't like the principle of competition springing up.

 

[NeverTrump]

Then I'd suggest you wiki "net neutrality" because it's a bit more than "an emotional appeal."

hm it's funny you think I haven't. They make a fair argument, but the results are too easily manipulated for it to warrant any measurable change in the way internet companies do business. I believe the biggest hypocrites of them all being Netflix and ESPN.

 

[Cardinal]

hm it's funny you think I haven't. They make a fair argument, but the results are too easily manipulated for it to warrant any measurable change in the way internet companies do business. I believe the biggest hypocrites of them all being Netflix and ESPN.

People who try to mitigate the importance of net neutrality, as you do, typically don't know what net neutrality is and they frequently bring up netflix like it's a mic drop. What netflix says or does has no bearing on the benefits that net neutrality has to you. And if you did so much as wiki net neutrality, which you imply you did, and we all know perfectly well you didn't, then you'd know that.

 

[NeverTrump]

People who try to mitigate the importance of net neutrality, as you do, typically don't know what net neutrality is and they frequently bring up netflix like it's a mic drop. What netflix says or does has no bearing on the benefits that net neutrality has to you. And if you did so much as wiki net neutrality, which you imply you did, and we all know perfectly well you didn't, then you'd know that.

What the heck??? Netflix has been one of it's primary supporters. Of course it has an effect. To say it doesn't is being dishonest, about Netflix's intentions and is avoiding that very problem. Are you telling me that the success of NN is telecom mergers? Telecoms buying internet companies? And Netflix making deals with telecoms??? That's success of NN? All that has happened after NN passed and to me it sounds like business as usual.

How has NN been a successful piece of legislation? It being passed is not a success. What are the after affects if any?

 

[Cardinal]

What the heck??? Netflix has been one of it's primary supporters. Of course it has an effect. To say it doesn't is being dishonest, about Netflix's intentions and is avoiding that very problem. Are you telling me that the success of NN is telecom mergers? Telecoms buying internet companies? And Netflix making deals with telecoms??? That's success of NN? Because to me it sounds like business as usual.

How has NN been a successful piece of legislation? It being passed is not a success. What are the after affects if any?

If you knew what net neutrality was you'd know what a gigantic, irrelevant non-sequitur Netflix is. Go research this subject a bit more than you already have (which is to say, none at at all) and get back to us.

 

[NeverTrump]

If you knew what net neutrality was you'd know what a gigantic, irrelevant non-sequitur Netflix is. Go research this subject a bit more than you already have (which is to say, none at at all) and get back to us.

I have researched the topic, I don't see why you think I haven't. Maybe you haven't because you refuse to answer my very valid questions. Hint: They aren't all about Netflix.

What do you think Net Neutrality does well?

 

[Cardinal]

What the heck??? Netflix has been one of it's primary supporters. Of course it has an effect. To say it doesn't is being dishonest, about Netflix's intentions and is avoiding that very problem. Are you telling me that the success of NN is telecom mergers? Telecoms buying internet companies? And Netflix making deals with telecoms??? That's success of NN? All that has happened after NN passed and to me it sounds like business as usual.

How has NN been a successful piece of legislation? It being passed is not a success. What are the after affects if any?

Along with the Wiki article, also check out the timeline of net neutrality. After you've gone through this, your knowledge will officially be greater than zero.

A Timeline of Net Neutrality

 

[Cardinal]

I have researched the topic,

No you haven't.

I don't see why you think I haven't. Maybe you haven't because you refuse to answer my very valid questions. Hint: They aren't all about Netflix.

What do you think Net Neutrality does well?

 

[NeverTrump]

Along with the Wiki article, also check out the timeline of net neutrality. After you've gone through this, your knowledge will officially be greater than zero.

A Timeline of Net Neutrality

I know the timeline well. I have done extensive research on the topic, probably more than you have. Now answer my question. How do you measure the success of Net Neutrality? Or do you not want to have a debate on the issue and you just want to push that agenda.

 

[Cardinal]

I know the timeline well. I have done extensive research on the topic, probably more than you have. Now answer my question. How do you measure the success of Net Neutrality? Or do you not want to have a debate on the issue and you just want to push that agenda.

I don't want to have a debate with someone who is so poorly informed on the topic that he thinks net neutrality is "an appeal to an emotional communist view of the world."

 

[NeverTrump]

I don't want to have a debate with someone who is so poorly informed on the topic that he thinks net neutrality is "an appeal to an emotional communist view of the world."

I'm sorry that you are butt-hurt by my opinions, but posting a link and saying educate yourself is insulting and close to spreading propaganda or at the least disinformation because when you asked me about how I came to this conclusion, you just automatically assumed I did not research the topic. An informed debate would be one where you point out where I am wrong on the issues and you haven't even done that. You just attacked my intelligence which is not surprising. People don't understand why I am against this legislation and when I point it out that they are crying over something that can never work in practice, they strike back with emotional platitudes about it. The same as the communists did. That's why I say it's like communism. It's a fair argument in theory, but it never works in practice.

But did you ask me this? No, I freely shared this with you so you can stop being so ignorant.

 

[dimensionallava]

I'm sorry that you are butt-hurt by my opinions, but posting a link and saying educate yourself is insulting and close to spreading propaganda or at the least disinformation because when you asked me about how I came to this conclusion, you just automatically assumed I did not research the topic. An informed debate would be one where you point out where I am wrong on the issues and you haven't even done that. You just attacked my intelligence which is not surprising. People don't understand why I am against this legislation and when I point it out that they are crying over something that can never work in practice, they strike back with emotional platitudes about it. The same as the communists did. That's why I say it's like communism. It's a fair argument in theory, but it never works in practice.

But did you ask me this? No, I freely shared this with you so you can stop being so ignorant.

so fairnesss=communism? makes sense