Net Neutrality ruling leading to data caps from service providers

[NeverTrump]

so fairnesss=communism? makes sense

No but they share similarities in this case. I like fairness, but as the OP points out, if you think what has come out of NN since the law became legal is "fair" in the true sense of the way the law was supposed to be enforced. Then no, this result isn't fair and the future of NN likely won't be either. As i said few people saw this coming, even though it was obvious, but I was one of them.

 

[Somerville]

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.

Funny in a sad way that those who say they advocate for and believe in capitalism, seem to be supporters of institutions which suppress competition by lobbying legislators

21 Laws States Use to Crush Broadband Competition
This week (Jan 2015), President Obama ​said that he would direct the Federal Communications Commission to help cities that want to build their own broadband networks navigate or completely ignore state laws in 21 states that make it difficult or, in some cases, illegal to create networks or sell internet service to their citizens.

Well, he said 19, but ​there are 21 with restrictions. It's an important move, if not a shift in policy. Last year, the ​FCC said that it would help cities navigate the process of pre-empting (essentially ignoring) state laws, and two cities—Wilson, North Carolina and Chattanooga, Tennessee—have already filed official petitions, which are still pending. But the president actually going on the record certainly doesn't hurt, and Obama says that he's actually starting a new initiative to create further projects, which is welcome news: Municipally owned networks have proven to be popular, extremely fast, and quite cheap.

But what the heck are these laws he's talking about? And how did they come into play in the first place? The specifics in each state are hard to dig up, but, in many cases, the laws were lobbied for by cable companies (called "incumbents" in broadband circles) to kill local competition.

"The general rhetoric behind these laws, from the incumbents, ​is that cities are too incompetent to run their own networks, so it's a risk to taxpayers," Craig Settles, a broadband consultant who works with cities to create municipal networks told me. "But then, the other side of it is that cities are so competent that they represent unfair competition."

Which is it? Government workers are, as the right always claims when they promote privatisation, too incompetent to do a good job OR Governments are so good at performing the tasks asked of them, they provide "unfair competition" to private businesses?

 

[Deuce]

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

Wait, you warned people based on "can't put limits on Netflix?"

Who said you can't put limits on them?

 

[reinoe]

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

Actually providers who are wise enough to offer "unlimited data plans" will make a killing. That's why me and my housemates have Sprint for our cellphones.

 

[SocialD]

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.

What it is purely a cost/profit barrier to internet service providers vs a potential cost/profit barrier to steaming services like Netflix. Any other thing that you think net neutrality is is simply the fanciful imaginings of people who haven't a clue about the tech business world.

 

[Deuce]

What it is purely a cost/profit barrier to internet service providers vs a potential cost/profit barrier to steaming services like Netflix. Any other thing that you think net neutrality is is simply the fanciful imaginings of people who haven't a clue about the tech business world.

Says the guy who thinks net neutrality means "can't place limits on"

 

[SocialD]

Says the guy who thinks net neutrality means "can't place limits on"

You can make all the snarky comments you like, doesn't change the reality of it.

 

[SocialD]

Wait, you warned people based on "can't put limits on Netflix?"

Who said you can't put limits on them?

You are misreading it.
What I'm saying is in previous discussions regarding net neutrality my position was if the net neutrality proponents get the regulations in there... which they did... that internet service providers will simply restrict and/or charge more to the end user instead... which they did.

 

[SocialD]

Actually providers who are wise enough to offer "unlimited data plans" will make a killing. That's why me and my housemates have Sprint for our cellphones.

Cell data is a little bit different and not fully under the umbrella of all the laws. so yea I would take advantage of that while its available.
I used to work for one of the big telecoms and this was just after the deregulation. cell phones and data was not part of that and the reason at the time was that it was independent of the telecom infrastructure.
As time as gone on they are overlapping more than more though.

 

[Helix]

data caps would happen with or without net neutrality because the ISPs can make money off of it. i still fully support net neutrality, and so should everyone else who enjoys sites like DP not being relegated to the slow lane.

 

[Deuce]

You are misreading it.
What I'm saying is in previous discussions regarding net neutrality my position was if the net neutrality proponents get the regulations in there... which they did... that internet service providers will simply restrict and/or charge more to the end user instead... which they did.

Data caps were already a thing. Net neutrality didn't cause them.

 

[beerftw]

Actually providers who are wise enough to offer "unlimited data plans" will make a killing. That's why me and my housemates have Sprint for our cellphones.

That works for phones, but for general computer internet, the is almost no competition in any area. The broadband providers either agree not to compete, or flat out lobby to ban competitors.

For a major city, you might have other choices, for smaller cities and rural towns, you usually get one or two choices for broadband. Cable, which my brother used to have to buy in a tiny town in washington, that charged over 100 a month for basic internet, and all they did was run infrastructure out there and used comcasts grid. The other option satellite, which is usually extremely expensive and I have not seen one yet with unlimited data, most charge heavily for low data caps.

 

[ludin]

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.

actually this is just a money grab. It is 100% nonsense. The demand in the internet space is in speed. Internet providers already pay for the bandwidth whether it is used or not.
most backbones are 100-200 gig lines. smaller networks might be 50gig lines. either way there is no reason to implement cost why?
they don't use hardly any or all of that at one time anyway.

They are not in my neighborhood.

I really wish I had another option. I might switch back to bright house simply to get better speeds, but their package is introductory and will skyrocket
as soon as the time is up. I hate that crap.

They are going to get trashed when more independent fiber companies start building. google fiber is trashing them everywhere they go.
cities are getting tired and building their own network.

There is a fiber company in Orlando that is in my area. I can get a 50/50 mb line for like 40 bucks. I think it was 80 dollars for TV.
it beats the 165 dollars a month I pay for att uverse with a 6mb connection.

 

[SocialD]

Data caps were already a thing. Net neutrality didn't cause them.

yet another person who doesn't read. Here is the relevant sentence from what I said.
'This month we have a host of articles regarding Comcast, Centurylink, AT&T and other providers implementing and changing data caps.'

Notice the and changing part of that sentence.

then read the articles which you didn't read which show that there are new or changed data caps.
There is nothing incorrect about what I said. you just have to bother to read.

 

[Deuce]

yet another person who doesn't read. Here is the relevant sentence from what I said.
'This month we have a host of articles regarding Comcast, Centurylink, AT&T and other providers implementing and changing data caps.'

Notice the and changing part of that sentence.

then read the articles which you didn't read which show that there are new or changed data caps.
There is nothing incorrect about what I said. you just have to bother to read.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[SocialD]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Still not willing to read and still making snarky comments.. although this time you attempted to sound intelligent by using latin.
whatever. I wont waste any further time with someone who isn't even willing to read the material.

 

[LaylaWindu]

data caps would happen with or without net neutrality because the ISPs can make money off of it. i still fully support net neutrality, and so should everyone else who enjoys sites like DP not being relegated to the slow lane.

100% correct. "Blaming" this on Net Neutrality is similar to blaming murder on guns. It just doesn't make sense. I also fully support it and I worked in the industry and understand it.

 

[Deuce]

Still not willing to read and still making snarky comments.. although this time you attempted to sound intelligent by using latin.
whatever. I wont waste any further time with someone who isn't even willing to read the material.

Usage caps are becoming more common, but you failed to make the case that net neutrality was the cause of this.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - "followed by, therefore caused by."

Except it's not even a good example, because usage-based billing started appearing before net neutrality rulings came up.

 

[SocialD]

Usage caps are becoming more common, but you failed to make the case that net neutrality was the cause of this.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - "followed by, therefore caused by."

Except it's not even a good example, because usage-based billing started appearing before net neutrality rulings came up.

well.. I cant 'prove' it was but the timing is too coincidental to think that the net neutrality ruling didn't have a lot to do with it.

 

[Deuce]

well.. I cant 'prove' it was but the timing is too coincidental to think that the net neutrality ruling didn't have a lot to do with it.

Except it's not. This has been going on for longer than you think.

 

[danarhea]

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

I have ATT, and yes, I have a cap. It's 150 GB per month. It's enough for everything I want to do. I believe their concern is piracy via torrents. There are some people who have terrabytes of pirated material they make available to others, and for them, running over 150 GB is pretty damn easy to do.

 

[Deuce]

I have ATT, and yes, I have a cap. It's 150 GB per month. It's enough for everything I want to do. I believe their concern is piracy via torrents. There are some people who have terrabytes of pirated material they make available to others, and for them, running over 150 GB is pretty damn easy to do.

I watch a lot of Netflix/Youtube/HBO Now, and download games from steam. 150GB is easy for me too.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I watch a lot of Netflix/Youtube/HBO Now, and download games from steam. 150GB is easy for me too.

I went up to 300GB ceiling, cracked it one month by 400 extra GB.

Between my Steam, Netflix and Xbox one... my god.

Halo the Master Chief Collection, when all the patches and core game was taken into account, was almost 100GB by itself.

 

[Renae]

Still not willing to read and still making snarky comments.. although this time you attempted to sound intelligent by using latin.
whatever. I wont waste any further time with someone who isn't even willing to read the material.

Deuce isn't in it for debate, he likes to snipe snark at threads trying to be cool and runs off.

 

[SocialD]

Except it's not. This has been going on for longer than you think.

I'm aware of how long its been going on. I worked for a major telecom from 2003-2008 and there was talk of it then.