Public Service Announcement from FCC Chairman regarding Net Neutrality

[jacobt29]

Yeah what a politically evil move to make all internet traffic equal. So socialist, much oppression, wow. Had to be an evil political plot, at least now we will be free from the socialist perils of internet packet equality.

Exactly! Net Neutrality made it so that a startup company trying to get its foot in the door did not have to pay millions to have a chance on the internet. Companies like Comcast would throttle traffic to this startup so that no one would want to use it. Netflix back in 2013 or 2014 released all the information that Verizon and Comcast where trying to make them pay. Com/Ver told them that they would throttle costumers speeds that tried to access their sites to below SD speeds and that if they wanted their customers to have speeds and bandwidth high enough to download HD Netflix would have to pay extra on top of what they where already paying for access.

[bfrank]

The only example you can give of that happening is ma bell, just like net neutrality the consumers got screwed! Good riddance to this soros sponsored agenda

I gave you two examples in a previous thread... Comcast and a local phone company. I could here crickets followed by your bs political propaganda. 188musky at least provided a source for his concern that I plan to read but I doubt it changes my opinion (could be wrong as I read stuff with an open mind)

[boneil]

By this reasoning then people on Verizon internet should only be allowed to access servers on the Verizon back bone. People on Comcast should only access servers on the Comcast back bone and so on and so on... I am on Comcast and I am not paying Verizon to access servers on their network and neither are you. So if Netflix, Amazon Video, Hulu are paying their local internet provider money to access the Internet then why should they have to pay Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner and others an access fee? Then these companies can slow access to these companies and say "Hey if you want people to be able to download movies in SD then you have to pay this much extra, if you want them to be able to download movies in HD then it will be this much extra..." all this "Extra" is on top of their already normal access fee.

I already pay more to stream HD vs SD with on demand, why shouldn't I pay more for more service of a finite product. Users should pay more if they are using more. That just makes sense. There isn't an infinite amount of data that can travel through the cable at any one time.

[bfrank]

I already pay more to stream HD vs SD with on demand, why shouldn't I pay more for more service of a finite product. Users should pay more if they are using more. That just makes sense. There isn't an infinite amount of data that can travel through the cable at any one time.

That is not what this is about at all. It is strictly about equal access to things on the web. They could already charge for heavy users. I know in every agreement I've signed there was an up charge for heavy users defined by monthly gb or tb transferred.

[Rude196]

I gave you two examples in a previous thread... Comcast and a local phone company. I could here crickets followed by your bs political propaganda. 188musky at least provided a source for his concern that I plan to read but I doubt it changes my opinion (could be wrong as I read stuff with an open mind)

You haven't gave any example! Not one that this piece of garbage prevented. I gave you several examples of overzealous regulations and how they ALWAYS screw the consumers.

Everything you state about this is completely opposite and clearly lacking any factual evidence backing your claims.

[hugo_stiglitz]

I already pay more to stream HD vs SD with on demand, why shouldn't I pay more for more service of a finite product. Users should pay more if they are using more. That just makes sense. There isn't an infinite amount of data that can travel through the cable at any one time.

Just like the water company they can and do charge people for the quantity of packets they deliver to you. Net neutrality meant that every packet you received was like a drop of water didn't matter if it was once in a glacier or came from the rain it went thru the meter. With NN gone, they will decide if that drop was from a glacier then it's $x and if it came from a river then it's $y when they're still delivering you the same number of drops you ever got.

[Rude196]

Just like the water company they can and do charge people for the quantity of packets they deliver to you. Net neutrality meant that every packet you received was like a drop of water didn't matter if it was once in a glacier or came from the rain it went thru the meter. With NN gone, they will decide if that drop was from a glacier then it's $x and if it came from a river then it's $y when they're still delivering you the same number of drops you ever got.

Please give an example of this happening

[Jimoh]

People will realize this is not a good thing when ISP's get to throttle content that is not on their network, for example and just an example for reference. The isp owns netflix so they want people paying them, people forced to used them because they are the only choice want to use hulu. Guess what, that traffic gets throttled back so it does not work.

Same goes for news, you want to see fox but your isp partners with cnn. Guess who gets thru to you......

Ding ding ding. We have a winner here

[bfrank]

Please give an example of this happening

I did in the previous thread where Comcast blocked or slowed torrents in 2008. Keep trolling your good at it.

[hugo_stiglitz]

Please give an example of this happening

It hasn't...yet. because we've had net neutrality. If they don't charge us ala carte, they'll charge Netflix more and it will make our bill go up. Either way the consumer pays more.

You give an example of how Net Neutrality screwed us during the years it was in effect. Since "regulations always screw consumers".

[Jimoh]

Please give an example of this happening

How can you give an example when Net Neutrality has been in place for a number of years.

[Rude196]

I did in the previous thread where Comcast blocked or slowed torrents in 2008. Keep trolling your good at it.

Ok, hope everybody enjoys their internet while it lasts. Thanks for warning us of this dire situation

[boneil]

Just like the water company they can and do charge people for the quantity of packets they deliver to you. Net neutrality meant that every packet you received was like a drop of water didn't matter if it was once in a glacier or came from the rain it went thru the meter. With NN gone, they will decide if that drop was from a glacier then it's $x and if it came from a river then it's $y when they're still delivering you the same number of drops you ever got.

If water company Verizon owns the pipe line and the river and charges $x for a drop or water from the river, and I want a drop of water from a glacier that is owned by Disney, then yes, I understand why I would have to pay more. Why should Verizon supplement the delivery of a drop of water from the glacier?

[Rude196]

It hasn't...yet. because we've had net neutrality. If they don't charge us ala carte, they'll charge Netflix more and it will make our bill go up. Either way the consumer pays more.

You give an example of how Net Neutrality screwed us during the years it was in effect. Since "regulations always screw consumers".

Infrastructure research/development, biased content, and who knows how many startups that google,Netflix,face palm,Microsoft has squashed. .gub should not be in the business of picking winners and losers,never works.

[hugo_stiglitz]

If water company Verizon owns the pipe line and the river and charges $x for a drop or water from the river, and I want a drop of water from a glacier that is owned by Disney, then yes, I understand why I would have to pay more. Why should Verizon supplement the delivery of a drop of water from the glacier?

Netflix doesn't charge Verizon for the drops they send to you, Verizon charges Netflix to send them. From an internet perspective, just like water, once that drop is in the pipe it looks and tastes exactly like all the others from the pipe owners perspective. It doesn't cost Verizon more to pump that drop from any destination, their only concern should be how many drops you use on your end.

[yatesville88fan]

Hummm I always thought that the internet worked GREAT before we had this Net Neutrality. I mean isn't this something that Obama and his people put in place, a couple years ago?? And if George Soros was pushing for this to stay. You Guys need to do some research on this Guy.

[Partie Deux]

Still wonder what prices VPNs will shoot to after this.

[hugo_stiglitz]

Infrastructure research/development, biased content, and who knows how many startups that google,Netflix,face palm,Microsoft has squashed. .gub should not be in the business of picking winners and losers,never works.

Your answer doesn't make any sense making all packets equal didn't pick and choose anything.

[bfrank]

It hasn't...yet. because we've had net neutrality. If they don't charge us ala carte, they'll charge Netflix more and it will make our bill go up. Either way the consumer pays more.

You give an example of how Net Neutrality screwed us during the years it was in effect. Since "regulations always screw consumers".

It's been in effect in a variety of forms since 2003 but only known as net neutrality since 2014. There are a few cases where it was challenged that eventually lead to the current/former wording of net neutrality. That's why rude can act like it being tried in 2008 isn't a big deal because he's failing to mention it was against FCC rules then as well. He's either involved in the cable industry or buying the political propaganda and I wish we could discuss this so people understood it without feeding the political troll. Al can you ban a user from a particular thread so people can discuss what is actually happening here? He has yet to add anything helpful or accurate. I thought maybe he knew something I didn't but I'm still waiting.

[hugo_stiglitz]

It's been in effect in a variety of forms since 2003 but only known as net neutrality since 2014. There are a few cases where it was challenged that eventually lead to the current/former wording of net neutrality. That's why rude can act like it being tried in 2008 isn't a big deal because he's failing to mention it was against FCC rules then as well. He's either involved in the cable industry or buying the political propaganda and I wish we could discuss this so people understood it without feeding the political troll. Al can you ban a user from a particular thread so people can discuss what is actually happening here? He has yet to add anything helpful or accurate. I thought maybe he knew something I didn't but I'm still waiting.

It's ridiculous that people think that it was a political thing. There's too many folks who fancy themselves political experts because they can parrot "Soros, squawk Soros".