FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[Herador]

I have one option of ISP, AT&T, and they know it. The service is awful, the lines are from early 2000, there are outages regularly, and they put an absurd cap on my data that costs a frankly ridiculous amount for the already measly 5mb down speed I get (it's worth mentioning that every speed test I've taken since picking up this service has put it at ~3.5 down/0.5 up).

There are no other options for me, and this isn't an uncommon occurrence. This is an effective monopoly.

While I can't speak for your situation, this is at best a rareally occurance, over 99% of Americans have access to sat Internet exceeding 10 mbps.

Feel free to prove it.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I have one option of ISP, AT&T, and they know it. The service is awful, the lines are from early 2000, there are outages regularly, and they put an absurd cap on my data that costs a frankly ridiculous amount for the already measly 5mb down speed I get (it's worth mentioning that every speed test I've taken since picking up this service has put it at ~3.5 down/0.5 up).

There are no other options for me, and this isn't an uncommon occurrence. This is an effective monopoly.

While I can't speak for your situation, this is at best a rare occurance, over 99% of Americans have access to sat Internet exceeding 10 mbps.

>mfw I get 200 Mbps on bad days

Feels good man

[Albrenia]

While I can't speak for your situation, this is at best a rare occurance, over 99% of Americans have access to sat Internet exceeding 10 mbps.

>mfw I get 200 Mbps on bad days

Feels good man

Nice.

[Napoleonic Europa]

While I can't speak for your situation, this is at best a rare occurance, over 99% of Americans have access to sat Internet exceeding 10 mbps.

>mfw I get 200 Mbps on bad days

Feels good man

Impressive.. very nice...

[Telconi]

While I can't speak for your situation, this is at best a rareally occurance, over 99% of Americans have access to sat Internet exceeding 10 mbps.

Feel free to prove it.

Don't have the full FCC report on my phone. But there's a handy chart.

[Petrasylvania]

He didn't push this shit while Obama was in office.

lol you're so fucking wrong.

As was pointed out, didn't fucking matter until Trump made him FCC chairman.

[Salandriagado]

Here's my thing about Net Neutrality. I don't care if Netflix pays ATT $3.3 Billion to speed up their service on that network. If Netflix is typically 1.6 Gs and they pay for 2.3 Gs that's fine as long as two things don't happen. 1) Consumers aren't charged access to certain websites and 2) 3rd Party sites aren't slowed down. So if Netflix pays for 2.3 Gs instead of 1.6 Gs, Hulu can't be slowed from 1.6 to 1.3. And if I pay $60/mo for internet, I can't be charged and extra $5 for Social Media. Other than that I frankly don't care.

Slowing third party sites down is literally the only way to implement it: the current state is that all sites are served as quickly as the infrastructure can handle it. The only way to have a "fast lane" is to slow everybody else down.

Same reason why your electricity company shouldn't be able to say "you only get full power from your electric line if you are using that electricity with our affiliate's electronic devices". That'd be anti-competitive to the extreme and blatantly harmful to consumer.

Hahaaa no. Most people won't blame their ISPs, they will blame the websites because that is what is infront of them. Of the few who do blame their ISP, significant proportion's choice will be "move to area with more ISPs" because basically no one has 3+ providers (unless you're planning on relying exclusively on 4g max). Idea that there will just be 'more competition' is silly and naive, Google with all the power google has managed to connect 453,000 households in seven years because wiring a major city is estimated to cost ~$1 billion. Have fun trying to recoup that $1bn initial investment in rural area with population density of shitall.

If it is truly harmful to the consumer, the said consumers would, or should, choose services from a different corporation. Corporations won’t do this unless all others do, because if they do, and others don’t, then it’ll be a push factor away from themselves, putting them out of business

It's a monopoly (and one created by these companies taking government funds), so they can't. If the companies don't want to be bound to these rules, they can damned well give back all of the infrastructure that the government paid for, and pay for the use they've had of it over the years to boot.

In 2012, a Canadian ISP figured out a way to deliver gigabit speeds over copper cable. The method of doing so is public knowledge. Any ISP in the US could have implemented it then. Zero of them did. Tell me more about how these ISPs are just dying to innovate but being held back by the mean government.

G.fast? Didn't work as advertised

No, not G.fast. A local company in Vancouver that just issued fancy modems and cut all of the bullshit not-internet crap off the lines (like the vast swathe previously reserved from analogue TV). The tech is there, and worked: I used it once, while visiting a friend.

I have one option of ISP, AT&T, and they know it. The service is awful, the lines are from early 2000, there are outages regularly, and they put an absurd cap on my data that costs a frankly ridiculous amount for the already measly 5mb down speed I get (it's worth mentioning that every speed test I've taken since picking up this service has put it at ~3.5 down/0.5 up).

There are no other options for me, and this isn't an uncommon occurrence. This is an effective monopoly.

While I can't speak for your situation, this is at best a rare occurance, over 99% of Americans have access to sat Internet exceeding 10 mbps.

You say that as if that's the only number that matters. What are the ping times on that? What are the setup costs? What are the drop rates? What are the packet loss rates?

And besides which: how many providers of such? It's still a duopoly if you have two options, one of which happens to be by satellite.

[Telconi]

Here's my thing about Net Neutrality. I don't care if Netflix pays ATT $3.3 Billion to speed up their service on that network. If Netflix is typically 1.6 Gs and they pay for 2.3 Gs that's fine as long as two things don't happen. 1) Consumers aren't charged access to certain websites and 2) 3rd Party sites aren't slowed down. So if Netflix pays for 2.3 Gs instead of 1.6 Gs, Hulu can't be slowed from 1.6 to 1.3. And if I pay $60/mo for internet, I can't be charged and extra $5 for Social Media. Other than that I frankly don't care.

Slowing third party sites down is literally the only way to implement it: the current state is that all sites are served as quickly as the infrastructure can handle it. The only way to have a "fast lane" is to slow everybody else down.

If it is truly harmful to the consumer, the said consumers would, or should, choose services from a different corporation. Corporations won’t do this unless all others do, because if they do, and others don’t, then it’ll be a push factor away from themselves, putting them out of business

It's a monopoly (and one created by these companies taking government funds), so they can't. If the companies don't want to be bound to these rules, they can damned well give back all of the infrastructure that the government paid for, and pay for the use they've had of it over the years to boot.

G.fast? Didn't work as advertised

No, not G.fast. A local company in Vancouver that just issued fancy modems and cut all of the bullshit not-internet crap off the lines (like the vast swathe previously reserved from analogue TV). The tech is there, and worked: I used it once, while visiting a friend.

While I can't speak for your situation, this is at best a rare occurance, over 99% of Americans have access to sat Internet exceeding 10 mbps.

You say that as if that's the only number that matters. What are the ping times on that? What are the setup costs? What are the drop rates? What are the packet loss rates?

And besides which: how many providers of such? It's still a duopoly if you have two options, one of which happens to be by satellite.

The claim was one ISP. Leave the goalposts alone. And there are three nationwide sat up link outfits IIRC, Hughes, Excede, and DISHnet. Although Dish might not be nationwide.

[Salandriagado]

Slowing third party sites down is literally the only way to implement it: the current state is that all sites are served as quickly as the infrastructure can handle it. The only way to have a "fast lane" is to slow everybody else down.



It's a monopoly (and one created by these companies taking government funds), so they can't. If the companies don't want to be bound to these rules, they can damned well give back all of the infrastructure that the government paid for, and pay for the use they've had of it over the years to boot.



No, not G.fast. A local company in Vancouver that just issued fancy modems and cut all of the bullshit not-internet crap off the lines (like the vast swathe previously reserved from analogue TV). The tech is there, and worked: I used it once, while visiting a friend.



You say that as if that's the only number that matters. What are the ping times on that? What are the setup costs? What are the drop rates? What are the packet loss rates?

And besides which: how many providers of such? It's still a duopoly if you have two options, one of which happens to be by satellite.

The claim was one ISP. Leave the goalposts alone. And there are three nationwide sat up link outfits IIRC, Hughes, Excede, and DISHnet. Although Dish might not be nationwide.

The claim was that it's a functional monopoly. Which it is.

[Telconi]

The claim was one ISP. Leave the goalposts alone. And there are three nationwide sat up link outfits IIRC, Hughes, Excede, and DISHnet. Although Dish might not be nationwide.

The claim was that it's a functional monopoly. Which it is.

What the hell is a functional monopoly?

[Saiwania]

They hold monopolies because the government funds said ISP’s millions and millions dollars each year and puts damaging regulations on that industry, making it near impossible for new start ups to gain traction

It is massively expensive to deploy fiber or cable infrastructure so telecommunications can be thought of as what is known as a "natural monopoly" in economics. In any case, it usually isn't something a start up can handle or afford. It makes less sense for competing ISPs to build duplicate lines covering the same routes when one major entity (such as a municipal government) can accomplish it for cheaper.

[MERIZoC]

lol you're so fucking wrong.

As was pointed out, didn't fucking matter until Trump made him FCC chairman.

"Didn't matter" is quite the stretch, but I'll let that go for the sake of this point. Your hard on for Obama is absolutely ridiculous, when he was 100% beholden to business, appointing lobbyists like Pai to these positions. You can't see past your boneheaded partisan blinders because you worship at the altar of Obama and Clinton, even though they're a huge part of the reason we have many of these problems in the first place. Ajit Pai wouldn't be in the position to be FCC chair were it not for Obama, and you can hardly claim he didn't know what kinds of views he held.

[MERIZoC]

The claim was that it's a functional monopoly. Which it is.

What the hell is a functional monopoly?

Exactly what it sounds like.

[Telconi]

What the hell is a functional monopoly?

Exactly what it sounds like.

A bogus made up term used to complain about a problem that rarely if ever exists?

[MERIZoC]

Exactly what it sounds like.

A bogus made up term used to complain about a problem that rarely if ever exists?

I mean there's no serious economist or market expert that would endorse what you just said, but whatever floats your boat in fantasyland, sure.

[Telconi]

A bogus made up term used to complain about a problem that rarely if ever exists?

I mean there's no serious economist or market expert that would endorse what you just said, but whatever floats your boat in fantasyland, sure.

So then it isn't what it sounds like then? Perhaps you'd care to offer a real explanation this time around.

[Salandriagado]

Exactly what it sounds like.

A bogus made up term used to complain about a problem that rarely if ever exists?

No, a very basic economic concept that describes a reasonably large percentage of economic activity.

[MERIZoC]

I mean there's no serious economist or market expert that would endorse what you just said, but whatever floats your boat in fantasyland, sure.

So then it isn't what it sounds like then? Perhaps you'd care to offer a real explanation this time around.

Unless I'm wildly misunderstanding what Salandriagado means by "functional", it's a de facto monopoly as opposed to a de jure monopoly. But maybe it's better for him to explain what he meant.

[Camicon]

So then it isn't what it sounds like then? Perhaps you'd care to offer a real explanation this time around.

Unless I'm wildly misunderstanding what Salandriagado means by "functional", it's a de facto monopoly as opposed to a de jure monopoly. But maybe it's better for him to explain what he meant.

Three companies which each have a 33% market share are not technically a monopoly. If they all stay out of each other's way and don't compete for business then they act like a monopoly from the consumer level.

[UniversalCommons]

A man owns a bookstore, his brother owns the bookstore on the same street. They pretend to compete with each other. But, when they go home, they share the same house. They exchange employees. This is how the telecoms act when they are not watched.

[Tribes Republic]

A man owns a bookstore, his brother owns the bookstore on the same street. They pretend to compete with each other. But, when they go home, they share the same house. They exchange employees. This is how the telecoms act when they are not watched.

what are you getting at so what if they share customers and employees a lot of industries do the same thing. I'll put it this the more you regulate businesses for things they may do worse off it'll become so if it happens on a small scale then what you're saying is that governments should punish the businesses that haven't done anything because of a few.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The claim was that it's a functional monopoly. Which it is.

What the hell is a functional monopoly?

Why make your prices lower than the competition's when you can both have higher prices?

Thinkingblackman.jpeg

[Salandriagado]

A man owns a bookstore, his brother owns the bookstore on the same street. They pretend to compete with each other. But, when they go home, they share the same house. They exchange employees. This is how the telecoms act when they are not watched.

what are you getting at so what if they share customers and employees a lot of industries do the same thing. I'll put it this the more you regulate businesses for things they may do worse off it'll become so if it happens on a small scale then what you're saying is that governments should punish the businesses that haven't done anything because of a few.

Yeah, none of that is true. For an example of how functional monopolies fuck everybody over, try comparing DDR4 RAM prices today vs 18 months ago.

[The Land of Home]

The government has an obligation to take care of its people, because it is the people who vote for its administrators, leadership, and ultimately its policies. A Business does not, they exist to make profit for their shareholders, they are under no obligation to any of us. They can and absolutely will use and abuse you and without government regulations there's nothing you can do about it

[Gurori]

Living in UK so this doesn't affect me as much but for christ's sake America, let your people roam the internet in peace!