Kinda curious to see how this effects pricing. Currently all last mile providers get a pretty penny from the content creators. They aren't just going to let that revenue dry up, they are going to pass it onto the customer. Not to mention that Verizon is going to fight this tooth and nail. It's definitely good overall I just foresee unintended consequences. In general, the US government is incapable of handling anything without majorly ****ing it up.
Possibly. The proposal was over 300 pages and nobody outside of the FCC has seen it. We're simply assuming it's a good thing because it bans the ISPs from prioritizing data for their own benefit, or throttling connections. We still don't know what the negative affects will be. Verizon hates any kind of regulation. The company is largely anti-consumer, much like Comcast. They only present a pro-consumer appearance when it benefits them.
Lets see how well "net neutrality" is working in 5 years when the Government is regulating what you can and can't view on the internet.
Supposedly this proposal doesn't permit the government to censor the internet. Of course, we all know that can change.
Pretty much, I'm excited for the new taxes. I mean who wouldn't want a bipolar fed having more control over the internet.
This is pretty well the result of Comcast trying to decide what their users can and can't do with their internet connection. Maybe had Comcast been a bit less anti-customer, this wouldn't have happened. Seems the only time Comcast is really pro-customer, is pretty well never.
No more throttling ?? this great news, if this includes no more montly bandwidth limits and charge use more then what places like china/japan etc 500mbit for barely 50mbit even better.
I've heard nothing about removing usage caps. Of course, we don't know what all is in the 300+ pages outside of what Tom Wheeler provided to the media. I'm sure it's like everything else the government does though. A "1-step forward, 3 steps back" approach....
This is indeed good news. I also heard about Comcast forcing places like Netflix to pay extra money so they wouldn't throttle their service for Comcast users. This is indeed a good thing it will put a stop to Comcast's bullying tactics.
They do it through the use of algorithms that show one what they are really wanting to see versus just presenting all the results and letting the individual decide for themselves. this way no one really knows what is getting filtered out. Therefore the individual is seeing the whole internet; personalized the way Google thinks the individual wants it personalized. They have or best interests at heart. They are able to personalize the whole internet for each individual and the individual is not even bothered with any pesky questions to answer. Win/win in my book since no conscious thought is involved.
End user can go to another website. Internet is too large to give totally unfiltered results and expect something useful.
Im guessing most here dont remember the lack of innovation and high prices when government regulated 'Ma Bell' controlled phone service in the US. These 'we wont know whats in the bill until after we pass the bill' tactics are used when the bill stinks. I expect bad things to happen with this one.
The FCC still regulates phone service. Back in the "Ma Bell" days, there was only 1 phone service provider (AT&T/Bell Labs). That single provider owned ALL of the phone lines and leased them at high enough rates to prevent any type of real competition. It was federal regulations and being deemed a "monopoly" that made competition possible. Even now, there's little to no competition in most areas. Hell, my city only had 1 landline provider until about 10 years. Now we have 2 and prices have doubled since the second provider came along. In the last 35 years, my city has had C&P Telephone, Bell Atlantic and Verizon. All technically the same company, under different names. Since 2005, we've also had Cox Comm. The average cost for landline service in my area has gone from $25/month to $50/month since 2005. My city won't permit any company to compete directly with Verizon. Cox Comm is using VoIP to offer phone service in my area, which allows them to circumvent local ordinances without any possible repercussions. We've had 3 other landline providers attempt to move into the area over the last 15 years but the state has refused to overrule the city's ordinance (which is anti-competitive in nature and was paid for by Bell Atlantic back in the 80's). Those same 3 companies have attempted to move in as ISPs, but the city won't permit that either. I'd love to have the Federal Gov't step in and force my city to allow it. One of the ISP's that has tried to move in, offers the same service I have, for almost half the price.
I really hate that quote. It was taken way out of context. She was referring to the impact that ACA would have long term. It was a poorly worded sentence that was never meant to mean what you and most others think. Regulation is not a bad thing. There needs to be checks and balances for government and companies. Neither should be allowed too much power. There mere fact that this bill classifies the Internet as a utility is a huge win.
Vote ended 3 against 2. Question is, who those 2 voters against neutrality represent? Government? Corporations?
Comcast is the root of all the worlds evil. Were getting google fiber in Nashville in a bout a 1 year or so. Comcast is the reason I used my LTE on my phone to download my steam games etc. Its very easy to hit 300gb cap with a 10 year that loves minecraft mods, watching minecraft videos on youtube, I watch a ton of car videos on youtube, and my girlfriend does alot of music streaming on her tablet.
