Basically it's going bye bye. what it means is that trump supporters will have slower internet and access to websites might come with additional charge...such as the way it works with cable providers. but since they only go to breitbart, infowars, and such - they will still be able to get their daily propaganda
Essentially without net neutrality, ISP providers can throttle bandwidth for individual domains on their own terms. For example, If Verizon decided to launch their own movie streaming service similar to Netflix, without net neutrality, Verizon could throttle bandwidth allocation for Netflix making their site slower and less usable for Verizon ISP costumers. The scariest possiblity is any politically charged online activism such as any opposing opinions to ISPs can be throttled into obscurity. Also, this is another fear of what happens without net neutrality: Essentially, ISPs can create these silly packages where you have to pay more for certain 'packages' that don't throttle bandwidth for those sites. Someone against net neutrality which can only be two types of people(corporations and naive libertarians) will say "LET THE FREE MARKET HANDLE IT!!!" yet somehow 60% of Americans reside in an area with literally one ISP provider. Free market my ass.
Large, cumbersome regulation written in the 1930s (to handle the monopoly Ma Bell) being placed on the fastest growing market in the world to solve issues that don't exist. No company(ies) has every been singled out by the ISPs for throttling (not that i think throttling is all that bad). Clinton era regulations have worked great and should continue. link? I believe the number is closer to 15% of the population has one ISP available to them. Also if you are worried about monopolies, dont pass legislation that ensured it before (Ma Bell phone service). Does anyone feel like the outcome of Title II on Ma Bell lead to good things? The goal should be to create more competition by removing the governmental barriers in getting into the marketplace. 20 years ago, we were recieving AOL discs in the mail to run on 56K modoems, and now we are trying to lay Gigabyte fiber in major cities. This is not the behavior of a marketplace controlled by a monopoly. AT&T Gigapower (called Fiber now) is priced at $50 to compete with Goggle Fiber (at least when they both came out). This is not the behavior of a marketplace controlled by a monopoly. Does anyone doubt that in 10 years we will all pretty much have more data then we know what to do with? Finally, who thinks its a good idea to have such an issue decreed by un-elected officials (FCC)? You think maybe it should be voted on by our legislative branch?
We are both wrong. 30% have a choice of 1. 60% I believe is a choice of 2 or less. The concept of throttling services is relatively new and hasn't been abused at a prominent by ISPs YET. Also, Im, sorry but this statement is absurd. The inherent nature of ISPs and all the underlying infrustructure and massive cooperation required between the industry and government to lay network infrustructure on public grounds will always make it a industry impossible for entry unless you are some supergiant like Google or Elon Musk trying a radical approach. That's a silly excuse to allow ISPs to throttle on their own whims. Tax payer dollars have provided majority of the underlying infrustructure that ISPs take advantage of anyways.
the 30% number is from 2014... the concept is new? ISPs have had this ability for quite some time. Netflix is the one throttling customers without permission (AT&T and Verizon customers) There are lots of small ISPs right now. We should strive for more.
How are ISPs not being allowed to throttle bandwidth on their own whims increasing the bar for entry? Tax payers throw massive amounts of money at these people to build their infrustructure. At this point, the interent and telecommunication services in general are a public utility. I agree that the whole title I vs title II nonsense is only a short term solution. These are ancient regulations for a modern infrustructure. Congress needs to stop being lazy and generate an entire new system of regulations for modern communication infrustructure. It's way past that time. We agree somewhat on that.
The web is wide and worldwide, with enormous number of contributors and owners. But your particular access is limited through one or maybe two or in rare cases 3 choices. That last line connecting you and others in your region to the world web has mostly been open with no restriction. NN goal is to maintain that. Without NN, the ISP, provider of that last line to you and nearby folks can do as they please.
This doesn't seem to reflect the market. First, the "cumbersome regulations don't seem to be hurting the market players, as companies like Comcast and AT&T appear to enjoy significant profitability. And the number of competitors seem to be diminishing as the largest vendors acquire competitors (ie. AT&T acquiring Time Warner... an acquisition even Trump worried it reduced competition by creating monopoly). In my area there is only one ISP (Consolidated). They sell high speed Gigabit fiber that in reality is 300-500M/s on the best of days. And we have to put up with it since there is no competitor to go to. Throttling doesn't exist? Anyone that attempts to watch a Netflix stream and experiences the "stuck at 25%" has experienced throttling. The ISPs want to describe the market as filled with competition, but they can only do so if they expand the definition of competition. So they'd like to describe Red Box as a competitor. Or NetFlix. But in many areas, there is no real competition. Lastly, it is the un-elected Trump appointed FCC that is dictating the loss of net neutrality. The majority of Americans (61%) support net neutrality while only 18% oppose... http://thehill.com/policy/technolog...ry-poll-majority-support-net-neutrality-rules
There are very valid concerns with net neutrality, however the first few accusations are none of them. Net Neutrality states that every data transmission should be treated equally. There were false concerns that ISP's were going to throttle your speeds down to kilobits to access the normal web or competitor sites. The reality is most websites do not use tons of data in the first place. There is no advantage to offering "packages" like cable companies do (what a stupid comparison from people who do not understand the internet architecture in the first place). It was a problem that never existed in the first place only to bring irrational fear to the topic. Net Neutrality address problems like ISP's throttling down high bandwidth websites like Netflix ... who use massive amounts of data resources. Its a legit concern which should not be addressed with blind sweeping regulation. Net Neutrality also address unfair competition, like ATT/DirecTV allowing their mobile subscribers to use their TV steaming service w/out it counting against their data. Again, this could have been prevented by stopping massive companies forming large conglomerates that would create this unfair competition in the first place.
Wow... many modern websites are actually using massive amounts of bandwidth because many websites are starting to stream 1080p and even 4k content over their own servers and try to avoid services like youtube in order to generate more of their own revenue. That's the direction the intetnet is going. 10 years ago, the average site didn't require much bandwidth, but there are SO MANY entities that require massive amounts of bandwidth today besides your major streaming services. Your take is extremely short sided. Bandwidth requirement per use/site is only increasing. Data is getting larger. ISPs having the power to throttle is dangerous.
Oh noes! Poor wittle millennials need their cute wittle 4k videos. If your "average" website consists of Netflix, Youtube, porntube, or other video website, I suggest you expand your horizon. Yes, data usage is increasing. However the average website is not using a gig of data per hour per user. Content owners/distributors should bear the cost of outbound transmission. And yes, ISP's should keep up with the demand.
I agree. if ISPs ever throttle Netflix (they haven't yet) then the FTC should handle it on a case by case basis. This is how the Clinton era regulation worked and is also what Ajit Pai is pushing for. Netflix accounts for around 35% of the bandwidth in the US. Its a huge anomaly. zero-rating is very popular, and even net neutrality supporters don't necessarily agree it should be applied to zero-rating.
ISP hasn't tried to throttle? This was only back in 2014 Verizon caught throttling Netflix traffic even after its pays for more bandwidth
And Netflix also paid Comcast in 2014 to avoid throttling: Netflix Agrees To Pay Comcast To End Slowdown https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/
Depends on how the zero-rating is implemented. T-Mobile implemented an open zero-rating system. As long as the mobile app passes a signature that tells the T-Mobile servers what the video quality is, then T-Mobile can apply zero-rating to 480p and below video. The system is completely open, any application can opt-in to their program. AT&T and Verizon on the other hand are zero-rating their own applications and content only which to me shouldn't be allowed. If you're going to apply zero-rating, it should be available to anyone.
Netflix admitted in 2016 it was them throttling verizon and AT&T customers. Netflix did not tell its customers it was doing this. No ISP has ever throttled Netflix or targeted any company for throttling. At least that we know of.
We've got to beat back the conservative corporate elite who don't want competition with their businesses or even more importantly their political ideology. We must defang the corporate elite and the billionaire class to protect our democracy. Until then we will have to do this again and again.
