The FCC votes on Net Neutrality tomorrow...

[Carson Dyle]

Yes they were however they put a halt to these plans temporarily to see how this issue would play out for them and their plans to merge with their rival TWC.

This ruling has nothing to do with data caps.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

This ruling has nothing to do with data caps.

Never said it had anything to do with data caps directly other than serving as a reason for the likes of Comcast to institute data caps by using this ruling that did ZERO to change anything as justification.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes they were however they put a halt to these plans temporarily to see how this issue would play out for them and their plans to merge with their rival TWC.

That doesn't make any sense. Net neutrality like this was considered extremely unlikely when Comcast started rolling out it's data caps a few years back. It clearly had nothing to do with net neutrality.

Data caps come from one thing: monopoly power.

 

[mu11et]

Everyone talks about monopolies. What other companies out there are willing to fork over millions/billions to build out networks?

 

[crownjules]

Here is a pretty good write up by Cnet pointing out just how meaningless this ruling is in the grand scheme of things.

http://www.cnet.com/news/7-things-net-neutrality-wont-do/#ftag=YHF65cbda0

The author isn't writing that to state that net neutrality is worthless. He's addressing some misconceptions the general public may have about it. It's not about breaking up monopolies and improving data caps. It's making sure those monopolies don't control and stifle the Internet because of their greed.

 

[Subyman]

Everyone talks about monopolies. What other companies out there are willing to fork over millions/billions to build out networks?

Municipalities, yet they were blocked.

 

[Subyman]

Here is a pretty good write up by Cnet pointing out just how meaningless this ruling is in the grand scheme of things.

http://www.cnet.com/news/7-things-net-neutrality-wont-do/#ftag=YHF65cbda0

That is a very disingenuous article. Of course nothing will change, that is the entire point! We don't want corporate overlords on the internet. We don't want to be blocked from going to certain websites unless we pay for a bundle, etc. This is a preventative measure to keep the internet as it is, which is great.

 

[mu11et]

Municipalities, yet they were blocked.

What Municipalities?

 

[sphenodont]

What Municipalities?

Chatanooga spent at least $330 million and is looking to expand.

 

[Engineer]

What Municipalities?

There were 19 states that had laws on the books prohibiting government municipalities from starting up networks to compete with incumbent local ISP's. From the looks of it, the first two, in Tennessee and North Carolina will be taken down by FCC to see how competition fairs once the local governments can build their own town networks. If it works well, I suspect it will expand to the rest of the country quickly.

 

[kage69]

There were 19 states that had laws on the books prohibiting government municipalities from starting up networks to compete with incumbent local ISP's. From the looks of it, the first two, in Tennessee and North Carolina will be taken down by FCC to see how competition fairs once the local governments can build their own town networks. If it works well, I suspect it will expand to the rest of the country quickly.

Beat me to it.

Pretty amazing to hear some people act like the companies are just trying to make an honest buck and are somehow being victimized by regulation like this.

I shouldn't have to cover what Comcast has pulled in the past. Closer to home, I know Fairpoint, who took over a bunch of Verizon areas, took fed money to help roll out broadband coverage in rural areas. Not long afterward, they decided they didn't want to. Better to put that money and time towards insuring other companies can't service the area in their absence. Utter fucking bullshit. They treat their employees about as well as the customers too.

 

[Engineer]

Beat me to it.

Pretty amazing to hear some people act like the companies are just trying to make an honest buck and are somehow being victimized by regulation like this.

I shouldn't have to cover what Comcast has pulled in the past. Closer to home, I know Fairpoint, who took over a bunch of Verizon areas, took fed money to help roll out broadband coverage in rural areas. Not long afterward, they decided they didn't want to. Better to put that money and time towards insuring other companies can't service the area in their absence. Utter fucking bullshit. They treat their employees about as well as the customers too.

West Virginia? I know that massive government money was taken and used for anything but what it was supposed to be used for and that was to expand broadband in the state.

 

[blankslate]

Municipalities, yet they were blocked.

^so much this.

Chatanooga spent at least $330 million and is looking to expand.

not only that but they also have very competitive prices for the bandwidth you get compared to some other ISPs...

http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/20/technology/innovation/chattanooga-internet/

Chattanooga rolled out a fiber-optic network a few years ago that now offers speeds of up to 1000 Megabits per second, or 1 gigabit, for just $70 a month. A cheaper 100 Megabit plan costs $58 per month.

If there was true competition among the ISPs then there would be less call for Net Neutrality rule by the tech industry... but as most here know there is at best a duopoly in most places... or the ISPs agree to divvy up a region and let Comcast have this area and AT&T have that area of a city.

....

 

[Sonikku]

Everyone talks about monopolies. What other companies out there are willing to fork over millions/billions to build out networks?

Been a member for five years, have 16 posts, and you come out of the woodworks to defend the telecom companies over net neutrality? :hmm:

 

[drebo]

You people realize that "net neutrality" is nothing but a power grap by the FCC, right? Under the guise of protecting consumerism, the government gets to regulate the Internet, which is something they've wanted to do for years. That's not a good thing.

The FCC is about the most anti-consumer organization in existence. They are institutionalized lobbyism and the embodiment of crony capitalism.

People expecting anything good to come from "net neutrality" are naive at best.

The real answer to the sorry state of broadband in this country is more options. The holdup to that is last-mile infrastructure. You know, all the cables in the ground that the FCC gave billions to ILECs and cable providers to put in and modernize (that last bit never actually happened.) That is the part that needs fixing. Municipalize it and open it up. Get rid of franchises and geographic monopolies.

Nothing else matters or will have any positive effect until this is addressed.

 

[jackstar7]

So government is the problem... and the answer. Got it.

 

[fskimospy]

You people realize that "net neutrality" is nothing but a power grap by the FCC, right? Under the guise of protecting consumerism, the government gets to regulate the Internet, which is something they've wanted to do for years. That's not a good thing.

The FCC is about the most anti-consumer organization in existence. They are institutionalized lobbyism and the embodiment of crony capitalism.

People expecting anything good to come from "net neutrality" are naive at best.

The real answer to the sorry state of broadband in this country is more options. The holdup to that is last-mile infrastructure. You know, all the cables in the ground that the FCC gave billions to ILECs and cable providers to put in and modernize (that last bit never actually happened.) That is the part that needs fixing. Municipalize it and open it up. Get rid of franchises and geographic monopolies.

Nothing else matters or will have any positive effect until this is addressed.

So you don't like what the FCC is doing because you think it's a power grab, but you want the government to nationalize the infrastructure owned by telecoms now, which is a far more intrusive power grab than what is being proposed here.

By the way I agree with your solution to open up the last mile to anyone who wants to provide service through it, but your logic about the issue seems a bit strange.

 

[drebo]

So you don't like what the FCC is doing because you think it's a power grab, but you want the government to nationalize the infrastructure owned by telecoms now, which is a far more intrusive power grab than what is being proposed here.

By the way I agree with your solution to open up the last mile to anyone who wants to provide service through it, but your logic about the issue seems a bit strange.

No, I did not say "nationalize". I said "municipalized." Don't put words in my mouth.

It's a difference in scope. Big government is the problem; local government is the solution in this case. Why? Because last-mile infrastructure is not one-size-fits-all. Every municipality is different and needs their own set of rules and standards based on existing buildout, geography, etc.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I did not say "nationalize". I said "municipalized." Don't put words in my mouth.

To nationalize is to transfer something from private to public control, which is exactly what you want to do.

It's a difference in scope. Big government is the problem; local government is the solution in this case. Why? Because last-mile infrastructure is not one-size-fits-all. Every municipality is different and needs their own set of rules and standards based on existing buildout, geography, etc.

You're right, it is much different in scope. What the FCC is doing is relatively modest as compared to the mass seizure of private property that you're advocating. There's almost nothing more 'big government' than that.

 

[feralkid]

A bad ISP can and will be regulated by Capitalism, and Rational Man.

It doesn't take Government to "nanny" me.

It sure as hell doesn't take Government to regulate me.

etc.

-John

Keep your government hands off my lead paint.

 

[mu11et]

Chatanooga spent at least $330 million and is looking to expand.

Who's money? Tax payers money? So now local municipalities are spending tax payers money go into competition against private companies?

Look at what government does when it interferes with business. WHat does the government not screw up. VA, Obamacare, Heathcare.guv website........

 

[berzerker60]

Who's money? Tax payers money? So now local municipalities are spending tax payers money go into competition against private companies?

Look at what government does when it interferes with business. WHat does the government not screw up. VA, Obamacare, Heathcare.guv website........

I'm sure glad you know better than the local residents of those areas how they should govern themselves, using their own tax dollars.

Small examples of the endless things the government does well: Roads, science and tech research funding, policing / fire / ambulance, national defense, postal service, social security, medicare, public health, providing clean, practically free water to everyone in a huge country, etc. etc. etc. It's such a delusional idea that government does nothing well. Some things are perfect fits for governments are the private sector is a terrible replacement.

 

[jackstar7]

Who's money? Tax payers money? So now local municipalities are spending tax payers money go into competition against private companies?

Look at what government does when it interferes with business. WHat does the government not screw up. VA, Obamacare, Heathcare.guv website........

Trolls gonna troll.

 

[Zorkorist]

You people realize that "net neutrality" is nothing but a power grap by the FCC, right? Under the guise of protecting consumerism, the government gets to regulate the Internet, which is something they've wanted to do for years. That's not a good thing.

The FCC is about the most anti-consumer organization in existence. They are institutionalized lobbyism and the embodiment of crony capitalism.

People expecting anything good to come from "net neutrality" are naive at best.

The real answer to the sorry state of broadband in this country is more options. The holdup to that is last-mile infrastructure. You know, all the cables in the ground that the FCC gave billions to ILECs and cable providers to put in and modernize (that last bit never actually happened.) That is the part that needs fixing. Municipalize it and open it up. Get rid of franchises and geographic monopolies.

Nothing else matters or will have any positive effect until this is addressed.

I can't hardly believe what I am reading in a Tech Forum, like anandtech. Just incredible that technology professionals could be sitting here wishing for Government Control of the internet.

The Cable Industry, independent of Government, laid a new network down along side AT&T's phone network. At HUGE COST. At HUGE RISK.

It is their network, that Government wants to control.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Even the last mile is okay.

Who doesn't have cable? Raise your hand.

This is a pure power grab by Government.

-John