|
|
Post by vin on May 10, 2018 18:43:19 GMT -5
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Landmark U.S. “net neutrality” rules will expire on June 11, and new regulations handing providers broad new power over how consumers can access the internet will take effect, the Federal Communications Commission said on Thursday in setting the date. The FCC in December repealed the Obama-era open-internet rules set in 2015, which bars providers from blocking or slowing down access to content or charging consumers more for certain content. The prior rules were intended to ensure a free and open internet, give consumers equal access to web content and bar broadband service providers from favoring their own material or others. The new rules require internet providers to tell consumers whether they will block or slow content or offer paid “fast lanes.” Comcast Corp, Verizon Communications Inc and AT&T Inc have all pledged to not block or discriminate against legal content after the net neutrality rules expire. www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet/us-net-neutrality-rules-will-end-on-june-11-fcc-idUSKBN1IB1UNPAID "fast lanes"?  So you mean to tell me that on top of paying out the nose on my internet, I might have to pay MORE after June 11? FUCK YOU!! Oh and the Cable companies can "pledge" all they fucking want that they won't do. When there's money to be had from suckers(like me), they'll block...they'll discriminate...they'll fuck us over and make us watch what THEY want us to watch. |
|
|
|
Post by Mond the Bagnificient on May 10, 2018 21:48:29 GMT -5
I’m sure this site is on top of the list to block.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2018 22:09:19 GMT -5
Any market guys see a bump in those Big 3 carriers? With more favorable rules those networks are more valuable? Is their stock trending ^?
|
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on May 11, 2018 9:13:48 GMT -5
Normally Im pretty pro-business, but in this case, for all intents and purposes, local internet providers are a monopoly. I know where I am, the only real option for high speed internet is Optimum. We cant get Comcast or FIOS, so there's no competition, and Optimum can charge us whatever they like. So Optimum can decide to slow traffic or charge for paid fast lanes, and there's no other option for me to go with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2018 9:38:46 GMT -5
Normally Im pretty pro-business, but in this case, for all intents and purposes, local internet providers are a monopoly. I know where I am, the only real option for high speed internet is Optimum. We cant get Comcast or FIOS, so there's no competition, and Optimum can charge us whatever they like. So Optimum can decide to slow traffic or charge for paid fast lanes, and there's no other option for me to go with. Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by Trades on May 11, 2018 10:05:53 GMT -5
Normally Im pretty pro-business, but in this case, for all intents and purposes, local internet providers are a monopoly. I know where I am, the only real option for high speed internet is Optimum. We cant get Comcast or FIOS, so there's no competition, and Optimum can charge us whatever they like. So Optimum can decide to slow traffic or charge for paid fast lanes, and there's no other option for me to go with. So the solution for government sanctioned monopolies is more government? Makes no sense. |
|
|
|
Post by adpz on May 11, 2018 10:19:45 GMT -5
FWIW I think the real lay of the land here has little to do with charging consumers more for 'fast' content - at least directly. The cable monopolies are much more focused on getting more $ from the large internet services who soak up high percentages of web traffic - like Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, Youtube, etc. Those business are each huge portions of US bandwidth capacity and while they pay for access, they (under NN) pay no more per byte of traffic than the Hampur does.
So while higher prices may trickle down to consumers (who else), I think the corporate focus is very much on the services that monetize bandwidth (while the cable cos were essentially restrained from doing so).
|
|
|
|
Post by vin on May 11, 2018 18:40:43 GMT -5
I’m sure this site is on top of the list to block.  Who gives a fuck? (aside from you.....and maybe Bing if he's horny) |
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on May 14, 2018 10:46:14 GMT -5
Normally Im pretty pro-business, but in this case, for all intents and purposes, local internet providers are a monopoly. I know where I am, the only real option for high speed internet is Optimum. We cant get Comcast or FIOS, so there's no competition, and Optimum can charge us whatever they like. So Optimum can decide to slow traffic or charge for paid fast lanes, and there's no other option for me to go with. So the solution for government sanctioned monopolies is more government? Makes no sense. Its not. I wasnt saying that at all, just musing about the lack of competition when it comes to the internet. They're already boning us at will, and have been for years. |
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on May 14, 2018 10:50:04 GMT -5
FWIW I think the real lay of the land here has little to do with charging consumers more for 'fast' content - at least directly. The cable monopolies are much more focused on getting more $ from the large internet services who soak up high percentages of web traffic - like Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, Youtube, etc. Those business are each huge portions of US bandwidth capacity and while they pay for access, they (under NN) pay no more per byte of traffic than the Hampur does. So while higher prices may trickle down to consumers (who else), I think the corporate focus is very much on the services that monetize bandwidth (while the cable cos were essentially restrained from doing so). Following that train of thought, that may is almost certainly a WILL, and your Netflix and Amazon subscription prices will rise with the rising cost of access. |
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on May 14, 2018 10:54:53 GMT -5
Here's one part Im having trouble parsing:
How is this going to lead to me as a consumer getting faster, cheaper internet access?
|
|
|
|
Post by 2foolish on May 14, 2018 11:08:11 GMT -5
Here's one part Im having trouble parsing: How is this going to lead to me as a consumer getting faster, cheaper internet access?doesn't technology historically take care of that? |
|
|
|
Post by Trades on May 14, 2018 12:55:45 GMT -5
So the internet WITHOUT net neutrality is what we have been living with since its inception. Why exactly would be need government intervention to keep it as is? It is a power grab by the government and unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on May 14, 2018 13:24:48 GMT -5
Here's one part Im having trouble parsing: How is this going to lead to me as a consumer getting faster, cheaper internet access?doesn't technology historically take care of that? When there's unfettered competition, usually yes. |
|
|
|
Post by quantum on May 15, 2018 14:05:41 GMT -5
don't freak out: what the end of NN really means is big providers like Google, Facebook, etc can't monopolize the bandwidth and be locked in like Obozo did for them. It was deceptively named to make the public think it was a good idea.
it NEVER was a good idea
|
|
