FCC's Net Neutrality vote today

[horsemen_]

who watching the vote and how dose it effect everyone?

[Sava700]

I'm mixed.. while I'm all for unlimited use of the web as we the consumer have paid for, as in the services we paid for and signed up for on that ISP I don't care for the part where they ( the ISP) can still "MANAGE" their network to restrain congestion... this still gives them the power to restrict data flow and use excuses to do it such as Comcast slowing down torrent users. That part is total BS and they know it. Now I do know the language they used gave them the ability to "refine" it later if need be or tweak it but that still doesn't excuse that one little part for me. If I want to use Torrents or any other traffic I should be able to with the full speed and reliability promised and obtained from the network, the same network I'm paying to access.

Comcast for example was found to be restricting traffic and the FCC went after them..but it was appealed. The good thing about this is they have to disclose it to the public now prior to doing anything so this way a customer can just step up and say HELL NO and leave them for another that doesn't do this which is good cause it will force them not to lose customers in the long run...once people know they are getting filtered they will raise hell its just that simple.

This vote is through the FCC but I believe it still has to go through Congress to get anywhere so it may get trashed or it may get altered more..who knows.

[Easto]

Whether it's "net neutrality" or whatever they want to call it I feel that they day is coming where there will be different "tiers" of service. I don't like the idea but I do think it's coming. The players have too much to gain to let it go. It will be like different phone and cable plans. They'll confuse you with apples and oranges and you'll keep buying and changing trying to get the "perfect" deal. In the end, it will be the same 'ol internet that cost a little more.

[Shinobi]

Whether it's "net neutrality" or whatever they want to call it I feel that they day is coming where there will be different "tiers" of service. I don't like the idea but I do think it's coming. The players have too much to gain to let it go. It will be like different phone and cable plans. They'll confuse you with apples and oranges and you'll keep buying and changing trying to get the "perfect" deal. In the end, it will be the same 'ol internet that cost a little more.

Not just a little more, a lot more. I've said this before, and it is 100% true and accurate. Comcast and others always stand with the comments about how consumers using programs like p2p and media services (like netflix) tax their internet service overall. And these same ISP's would love that "tier" idea to happen.

The real issue, is that the "only reason" why certain ISP's are saying this, is they do not want to pony up their own money "now" to upgrade their networking equipment and infrastructure. These ISP's get new customers every day, and they refuse to upgrade their equipment and circuits that are way overloaded presently. And they swing it all back around, blaming who? You guessed it... the end user for using these "bad programs" or movie streaming companies (EX: Netflix, Hulu). So sure.. they would love to have a tier type of solution and charge You, the end user bigger money for what service they should be providing to you already.

So that is really what "Net Neutrality" is. Either keep the ISP's working the same as they are right now, across the board (and for them to upgraded their own services to match the demand and volume of their new users). And if not, the ISP's basically tell you what programs you can or cannot use, and / or make you pay more depending on what price tier they think is best, and You, the end user get less.. way less.

[YeOldeStonecat]

I don't mind some form of net neutrality....or rather....at least some tiered plans. Gone are the days of "all you can eat buffet" on the internet.
The internet is made up of a bunch of businesses, your packets travel across the copper and fiber of many different businesses, it all costs money.
The more you use, the more you should pay. The less you use, the less you should pay.

Much like the history of many other innovations which the public ended up using..and chunks of people end up abusing....look at...roads, or airspace, for example.
With the first cars and the first public transportation...roads were wide open and little rules. But pretty soon due to an increase in popularity..and traffic, and crazy accidents...rules had to be put in place. And growth and maintenance and upkeep cost money...so taxes, and tolls, and extra taxes for those that use them heavily.

The first people to fly airplanes enjoyed wide open unrestricted fun. But soon after a growth in popularity, airports, safety, accidents, etc...rules and costs had to be put in place.

Another viewpoint....look at utilities out there. The electric grid for example...much like the internet, you electricity hops across the wires of many different companies as it gets from its source...to your AC panel. The more you use, the more you pay. The less you use, the less you pay. And you have choices as to which utilities company you can purchase from.

[YARDofSTUF]

But with electricity I dont have to pay for the speed at which I get the electricity. I don't agree that we should have to pay for both the speed and the amount of content.

As it is now ISPs make money, and they can change for different plans. People pay for their home net, net on their phones, ipads, tablets, all that junk. Its already costly enough.

[YeOldeStonecat]

But with electricity I dont have to pay for the speed at which I get the electricity. I don't agree that we should have to pay for both the speed and the amount of content.

As it is now ISPs make money, and they can change for different plans. People pay for their home net, net on their phones, ipads, tablets, all that junk. Its already costly enough.

What amp service do you have? There ya go!
Plus in more big appliances, build a few more buildings on your lot and power those up.....hey, you're using more now...need more delivered to your premise...

Or...should everyone pay a "flat rate"...and the little old lady next door to you that runs on 3 lightbulbs has to pay a high monthly amount so the electric company can still make money cuz of people like you?

At current rate...prices go up....and the "light" and even "medium" users are getting hit in their own wallet because the ISPs are trying to cover the cost of the high resource utilization put upon them by a small amount of crazy high bandwidth users. Sorry..that ain't fair in my book.

I like being in control of my own consumption and costs. If I feel like using a lot...I don't mind paying for what I use. If I need to cut back on my budget I will use less, and/or...if I use less, I expect to be charged less. Just like my phone bill, just like my electric bill, just like my propane bill, just like my trips to the gas station for my Jeep, Kia, boat, and Harley.

I like being in control of my own usage, consumables, and budget. The internet is a consumable. Freedom to impact that how I want. My choice, not theirs. Not forced to pay out the arse because of the poor system where the abusers cause skyrocketing costs to ruin it for the majority of others.

[YARDofSTUF]

I like the idea of having control over my net usage, but if that were to go into effect the way things are now, it would cost more money. I feel 50 bucks a month is what my service is worth, with a little premium to Comcast. I doubt they would lower it if they started billing for quantity as well. Though technically I am capped at 250 gigs a month so I if they wanted to offer a similar plan capping the bandwidth at say 100 a month for less, I'd consider that.

Also considering I have TV with them, I would be very annoyed to have to pay more to watch a show I get from them over the net.

As for the amp service, isnt that a 1 time charge?

[Shinobi]

I don't mind some form of net neutrality....or rather....at least some tiered plans. Gone are the days of "all you can eat buffet" on the internet.
The internet is made up of a bunch of businesses, your packets travel across the copper and fiber of many different businesses, it all costs money.
The more you use, the more you should pay. The less you use, the less you should pay.

Much like the history of many other innovations which the public ended up using..and chunks of people end up abusing....look at...roads, or airspace, for example.
With the first cars and the first public transportation...roads were wide open and little rules. But pretty soon due to an increase in popularity..and traffic, and crazy accidents...rules had to be put in place. And growth and maintenance and upkeep cost money...so taxes, and tolls, and extra taxes for those that use them heavily.

The first people to fly airplanes enjoyed wide open unrestricted fun. But soon after a growth in popularity, airports, safety, accidents, etc...rules and costs had to be put in place.

Another viewpoint....look at utilities out there. The electric grid for example...much like the internet, you electricity hops across the wires of many different companies as it gets from its source...to your AC panel. The more you use, the more you pay. The less you use, the less you pay. And you have choices as to which utilities company you can purchase from.

I understand what your saying "if" the internet was "brand new" and service was not established yet across the board. But the way things are going now it is like certain ISP's are saying like.. "I give you this.. and I give you this happy TOS, for the past 15 to 20 years. But oh no wait! Now.. I'm going to give you this, and this and charge you more than you were paying already for." .. sorry that's just wrong... wrong for the end user and wrong for You, Me and everyone in I.T.

[Sava700]

I understand what your saying "if" the internet was "brand new" and service was not established yet across the board. But the way things are going now it is like certain ISP's are saying like.. "I give you this.. and I give you this happy TOS, for the past 15 to 20 years. But oh no wait! Now.. I'm going to give you this, and this and charge you more than you were paying already for." .. sorry that's just wrong... wrong for the end user and wrong for You, Me and everyone in I.T.

I certainly don't agree with a usage based charging method either. I'm happy with "Unlimited" but to keep it the way it is with no caps, no way to prevent how and what I push and pull through the pipes! The US is so far behind speed for broadband and the amount we can or will use from other very small countries its just beyond stupid to go into the direction of a usage "pay as you go" idea.

[Shinobi]

I understand some views on the subject.. but the ISP's are not trying to do anything in your best interests.. it basically to save some $$$ while making more $$$ off of the end user. That's it.

[YeOldeStonecat]

As a technology still under development...and as a consumable, and as a deliverable, it is still relatively new. One could probably say, without doubt, that it's the fastest growing, fastest developing, fastest changing, most widely abused, most widely exploited consumable/deliverable in the history of mankind. Some clamps have to be put in place for it to survive...and ISPs have to review their rules 'n regs on an almost daily basis just to try to keep their heads above the water.

Much like cell phone plans....I'd rather have an option of "all you can eat" plan, and a high plan, and a medium plan, and a low plan...and I don't mind paying for overage if I go over. After all, I'm responsible, I'm not one that tries to get away with things at the expense of others.....I don't think that's right. And trying to keep things all one cost, so that I can squeeze every last drop out of something.....forces the ISPs to spread the cost incurred to them by people like me to other normal users. That ain't fair to others.

The days of the "all you can eat buffet" of the internet are over, that's a fact. Gotta find ways to keep it afloat now.

The fact that the US averages lower broadband speeds has zip to do with it. We're larger in numbers, as a whole we're way up there in overall usage.

[Leatherneck]

The internet is one helluva bang for the buck. Gaming, research, TV, radio, fantasy sports, video conferencing, slingbox, porn, ebay, business, email, social sites, school and on & on. These activities consume HUGE amounts of time and provide great pleasure for very little. Some folks spend maybe 4+ hours on it a day and at that rate it comes to about 35 cents or so an hour for all you can eat. Are we spoiled? I personally watch less than 4 hours a week of TV so the internet is by far my main source of entertainment while I am home. Nobody wants to pay more for less or more for more for that matter but there needs to be a model that suits the customer while keeping jobs also. My company likes to make money and in turn I survive. I harbor a lot more disdain for the current spike in gas prices than I do for any entertainment venue. I don't have the choice to walk to work like I do to turn off the TV or computer and read a book.

[Sava700]

I understand some views on the subject.. but the ISP's are not trying to do anything in your best interests.. it basically to save some $$$ while making more $$$ off of the end user. That's it.

Your right, they will try to get every last $$ they can out of the consumer. Best thing for innovation while using the internet now is to keep it unlimited and not introduce pay per usage packages. The only ones that would really like to raise hell about it are those that think every john boy and billy kid next door are downloading gigs of porn or torrents flying when that isn't the case. It's not that wide spread of a issue and wouldn't be a issue at all if the ISP's would increase funding going back into their infrastructure to catch up with these smaller countries.

[YARDofSTUF]

We're fine for speed IMO. And we will never catch up, it simply costs so much more for us to upgrade everything needed than smaller countries.

Leatherneck, that rate of 35 cents an hour depends on what a person is doing too. As not all sites and services are free.

And ISPs are making money.

[Sava700]

We're fine for speed IMO.

Yeah if you want to pay over $100 for 50/5 speed packages like Comcast has, that's just insane based on what others in other countries pay. Too much of a monopoly as well if they or any other ISP are the only provider for a certain area. I pay higher costs for my speed here than others do in a bigger area on the same network, same company and same package and that's wrong to me.

[YARDofSTUF]

50mbps down isn't needed, its a luxury, so it having a luxury price isn't a problem to me.

[Sava700]

50mbps down isn't needed, its a luxury, so it having a luxury price isn't a problem to me.

meh I don't call it a luxury.. I call it a average of what everyone should be getting from broadband. But to each his own I reckon.

[Leatherneck]

Leatherneck, that rate of 35 cents an hour depends on what a person is doing too. As not all sites and services are free.

True, but that figure was based on 4 hours. I'd imagine that millions spend twice that making it cheap as heck. One Starbucks coffee a day pays for high quality internet.

[JawZ]

What amp service do you have? There ya go!
Plus in more big appliances, build a few more buildings on your lot and power those up.....hey, you're using more now...need more delivered to your premise...

Or...should everyone pay a "flat rate"...and the little old lady next door to you that runs on 3 lightbulbs has to pay a high monthly amount so the electric company can still make money cuz of people like you?

At current rate...prices go up....and the "light" and even "medium" users are getting hit in their own wallet because the ISPs are trying to cover the cost of the high resource utilization put upon them by a small amount of crazy high bandwidth users. Sorry..that ain't fair in my book.

I like being in control of my own consumption and costs. If I feel like using a lot...I don't mind paying for what I use. If I need to cut back on my budget I will use less, and/or...if I use less, I expect to be charged less. Just like my phone bill, just like my electric bill, just like my propane bill, just like my trips to the gas station for my Jeep, Kia, boat, and Harley.

I like being in control of my own usage, consumables, and budget. The internet is a consumable. Freedom to impact that how I want. My choice, not theirs. Not forced to pay out the arse because of the poor system where the abusers cause skyrocketing costs to ruin it for the majority of others.

You just outlined my entire argument lol.

The problem with Comcast is that people like me were paying the highest amount for their consumer services and receiving "less than advertised" service. I had never gone over the 250GB cap but my service was throttled as if I had. That right there is the problem.

The internet is the internet is the internet. If I pay for internet usage, then I should get what I pay for just as I'm charged for electric usage...use more, pay more. In this case however, I'm not using more than than what I pay for.

So why pay for more is you are not going to receive the level of service you pay for?

This all comes back to the content argument. Comcast is trying to equalize content delivery. That's what net neutrality rails against. It shouldn't matter what content comes to me via the internet...because the net is the net is the net. If all I did was surf websites (text and html) and email, then I wouldn't need or pay for a higher level of service. But I do it all online...and that's why I paid more. Then, I got thrown into the pool of relative equitable distribution and my service was dumbed down to that of someone paying less.

A megabyte of info is exactly a megabyte of info. But because that megabyte can have different info in it, Comcast takes advantage of it. They see the type of info as a commodity itself. Net neutrality says that ISP's should be BLIND to the type. My MB of info is the same as your MB of info.

Why do you think that Google is pushing HTML 5?

If I pay for it, shouldn't I expect to receive 100% of service paid for? If you don't agree, then what percentage of service should I be entitled to?