Read the wsj thread on it, you fool.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
FCC rules broadband internet service a public utility
- Thread starter Fury Sense
- Start date
- Status
Title 2 opens up options for rate regulation.
ATT and VZ charge comically evil roaming rates for TMUS and Sprint. They are not market rates or in anyway reasonable (mark ups of 1,000%+) - this can start to be regulated from now on. Result is network qulity differences disappearing and true 4-carrier competitive market not the bullshit duopoly you lot currently have.
Then you have unbundling - forced regulated LLU will bring true broadband competition to DSL forcing ATT and fixed access providers to either cut price or invest in faster networks - FTTx in order to differentiate. Everyone wins. Except the shareholders but fuck them. They are just rentiers.
They know they have a fixed line monopoly, this is going to be finished now. Not immediately but rate regulation is the BIG victory from title 2. I love the salt from the shills.
ATT and VZ charge comically evil roaming rates for TMUS and Sprint. They are not market rates or in anyway reasonable (mark ups of 1,000%+) - this can start to be regulated from now on. Result is network qulity differences disappearing and true 4-carrier competitive market not the bullshit duopoly you lot currently have.
Then you have unbundling - forced regulated LLU will bring true broadband competition to DSL forcing ATT and fixed access providers to either cut price or invest in faster networks - FTTx in order to differentiate. Everyone wins. Except the shareholders but fuck them. They are just rentiers.
They know they have a fixed line monopoly, this is going to be finished now. Not immediately but rate regulation is the BIG victory from title 2. I love the salt from the shills.
this is a very succinct way of putting it. I'm going to steal this
NYCmetsfan
Banned
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/tom-wheeler-net-neutrality-114785.html
We didn't maintain the status quo. Internet service wasn't under title II, neither was wireless.
This is actual movement towards more regulation as a common carrier, see clintons comments and votes to over turn state laws.
RustyNails
Member
The FCC ruled 3-2 in favor of net neutrality...one of the two dissenting votes were from (surprise!) Republicans. Here is one of them (Ajit Pai):
soundahfekz
Member
good. fuck you telecoms!
It prevents companies from slowing down your internet traffic. Let's make an example:
Let's say you own a PS4 or an Xbox (just an assumption for the sake of understanding this). Suddenly, Nintendo makes a deal with Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and all the other ISPs that the Nintendo network gets to be on a "fast lane". Great news, right?
Well, what you'll find to actually be happening is that your connection to Nintendo is at the same speed as before, but your connection to Nintendo Network's competitors (PSN/XBL, any PC games) are severely throttled: you can barely connect online, patches take forever, and the lag in online games is even worse than before.
Unless Sony/MS/PC server hosts also pay to get on this "fast lane" (hint, it's not faster. It's just extra money to get the same service that you were getting before) then their networks really suck to play on. So, ok, they pay to be part of that "fast lane". But guess what? That cost millions of dollars, and since Sony/MS/PC server hosts still want to make money, they start charging you $100/year for a sub.
Now imagine that a new company comes along and wants to give you an i7 CPU with an nvidia titan gaming console for $100. Sounds great, right? But that company can't afford to pay to get "fast lane", so their online experience is horrible. Do you think they'll have a chance of surviving, let alone competing with the other console makers and pushing the industry forward?
its a step toward common carrier in the sense that its not. Its title 2 in name only, they stripped all teeth from Title 2 since all they needed was the classification to satisfy the legal needs in order to implement the NN rules.
There is so much focus on title 2 reclassification but that really means nothing
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Interesting. Netflix must be loving this.
The salt is real. Good grief it's fucking glorious.
……forgetit
Member
So broadband data caps going away for good?
Not sure why people are cheering Obama. Remember Wheeler wanted to kill it when he first came into office. Obama didn't stand up for it at that time. It's when the citizens put an awful amount of pressure on politicians that they decided to change their mind.
Hell I usually vote independent and I was writing emails to all parties.
edit: I'm just glad it went through and I hope it stays that way.
Hell I usually vote independent and I was writing emails to all parties.
edit: I'm just glad it went through and I hope it stays that way.
See, I don't get this theory. All internet companies by default have to pay for access in the first place to be on the internet don't they and also don't the ISP's indirectly benefit from all of the services these internet companies provide. It is because these companies exist that consumers pay the ISP's for high speed internet. To me, it seems like ISP is just being greedy and make people pay twice through blackmail by making speed lane threats. This way they can be paid for the same thing multiple times. Basically this removes the double dipping ISP's were trying to pull.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
They promised they weren't going to do rate regulation, I don't believe there is anything preventing them in this. Its more a rhetorical promise.
The FCC also never really discussed anything on the wireless end, that's now subject to net neutrality (it wasn't before)
so to say this did nothing is nonsense. The fight the telecoms put up tells a story that they feel this was something worth fighting against.
Never mind as I said before the way this paves for even more changes (municipal broadband, which passed today and calls for more competition from people like clinton)
It means a lot.
i think you are misremembering, when Wheeler first came to office he wanted to actually enshrine fast lanes and have them approved by the FCC.
Title 2 means nothing, all of the other rules around it have the teeth. The explicitly took 95% of Title 2 and voided it for this implementation. It was spelled out in the summaries and will be spelled out in the details.
Yes, they added wireless, thats great news, and it allowed them to get around the legal issues they had last time with trying NN, which was killed in the courts because they said they couldn't do it without them being under title 2. All the really awesome stuff, like rate regulation and line sharing, were explicitly stripped
Those fuckers have never gotten one penny from me for any service, phone, etc. And now I'll consciously make an effort to keep it that way.
Aaron Strife
Banned
ask yourself if public pressure was more likely to convince Obama to do something or a hypothetical McCain/Romney administration to do something
and then stop throwing your vote away
Led_Zeppelin
Member
Is something REALLY complicated that dates back to 1930 first act of communication, the 1996 communication act and the telecom bumble of the 00's and shit ton of politics.
Watch this if you really want to understand the issue. Beware is over 1 hour long, but it explains the issue with really good detail and on an understandable language.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4
That's what I was saying. He didn't want neutrality. Sorry if it was jacked up.
Angelus Errare
Banned
NYCmetsfan
Banned
People keep insisting on stances that were never taken
from 2007
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mW1qccn8k
ah, i re-read and get it now, yes, public pressure made Obama push for it. Good on us for getting something though!
How much of Comcast's, Time Warner's, etc, network infrastructures have been subsidized by the government?
Has the public funding been substantial enough that one could argue that the current network infrastructures in place that are operated by the ISPs are not truly owned in full by them?
yea, moron. it's not like Obama made video's pressuring Wheeler to crack down...... YEA!
Yup, probably. I mean, how much do you think Hulu (who is owned by Comcast) was paying comcast for good service compared to Netflix? (Cough cough)
Septimus Prime
Member
They didn't. Infrastructure build-out is subsidized, and because it is so expensive, ISPs also had the pot sweetened by having them become local monopolies.
double? /s
(also didn't' know Hulu was comcast owned.... wow they are buying everything)
Conkerkid11
Member
That's strange. I've got Comcast, and Hulu's acquisition of Comedy Central's streaming service absolutely killed it and made everything unwatchable.
That's the service people mock for being able to stream high quality ads and low quality shows.
Zantetsuken
Member
GoldenEye 007
Member
My only concern is that utilities are generally charged by the usage. Such as by kilowatt, gallon, etc.
What prevents them from charging by the megabyte in this instance?
What prevents them from charging by the megabyte in this instance?
Why would this have anything to do with Comcast and Time Warner merging?
FelixOrion
Poet Centuriate
The FCC would establish that.
GoldenEye 007
Member
I see. Works for me!
Mr_Antimatter
Member
There isn't really a limited amount of MB to go around here. Though, internet used to be charged by the hour in the early days.
justjustin
Member
Dear god what have we done. The internet's tubes will burst and data will spill into the soil, poisoning the earth and making it uninhabitable. Leave it to big government to usher in the apocalypse.
I wasn't talking about Obama, I was talking about Wheeler but guess who appointed him.
It wasn't till the citizens from both sides came down hard that they backed away real quick...except the fools that get large payouts from the cable industry.
Edit: Hey lets all be thankful that both sides came together to say no to these huge corporations.
RustyNails
Member
How do you explain 3 Democrats voting in favor and 2 Republicans voting against net neutrality?
Bu..but both parties are the same!!
They classified it as a Title 2 carrier, not utility. They've specifically stated that they wont set prices.
...at least, not yet.
TacticalFox88
Banned
ebullientprism
Member
Im a little clueless about American politics but was it really a 3-2 decision? So you guys were like a vote away from this not happening?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked