Repercussions of court ruling against F.C.C. and Net Neutrality

[Fadelight]

For example, without network neutrality your ISP could block all bit torrent traffic on their network or throttle it to a point that it's useless.

My ISP is already throttling my internet to the point where it is useless. We pay for a "Guaranteed" 10mbps connection, and from 6pm to 10pm they start throttling. It gets slower and slower. By 9pm, I am getting .40mbps.

 

[IOWA]

My ISP is already throttling my internet to the point where it is useless. We pay for a "Guaranteed" 10mbps connection, and from 6pm to 10pm they start throttling. It gets slower and slower. By 9pm, I am getting .40mbps.

Are you sure it's throttled and not just under heavy usage?

 

[kamk2k8]

Either way they should not be allowing you to have less than 10% of the speed you are supposedly paying for when you use the internet the most

Even with the jacked up numbers these ISPs provide the US pays $3.33 per megabyte per second while Japan pays $0.27 per that same increment, it is ludicrous really...

Costs Around The World: Internet Access

 

[Fadelight]

Are you sure it's throttled and not just under heavy usage?

100% positive. We live in a township... one of those "community within a community" type of places. There is only one other person within 5 miles of us that has cable internet. After I get home from work at night... anywhere from right now until I go to bed at 7-8am, I can easily get about 26mbps. We pay for a "Guaranteed" 10mbps, like I said earlier. I find it just plain impossible to believe that any kind of usage at all from only two houses in this area could drop my speed from 26mbps to .40mbps. a 25.60mbps loss?

We contacted the ISP about the issue about a month back, and we were told that they believe there is a virus in the system somewhere. (Seems odd to me.) They say it is affecting every customer they have everywhere between Portland, ME and Bangor, ME. We were told to contact them again in a week if the problem still existed, so we waited a week before calling again. We haven't been able to get in touch with anyone since, and no one will return our phone calls.

Unfortunately I live in the middle of friggin nowhere, so the only other ISP option that exists is Satellite, and they openly throttle. They are one of those companies that makes you pay per gb of usage, and you have to pay extra for higher speeds.


It is starting to sound like this whole net neutrality ordeal is something that, had it passed, would've prevented ISPs from doing this? Maybe it is time I stop grabbing the bits and pieces and start actively reading up on it.

Either way they should not be allowing you to have less than 10% of the speed you are supposedly paying for when you use the internet the most

Even with the jacked up numbers these ISPs provide the US pays $3.33 per megabyte per second while Japan pays $0.27 per that same increment, it is ludicrous really...

I did the math, and with my bill and the speeds I am seeing during the evening, I am currently paying $225.00/1mbps.

 

[mrqs]

finland's average speed of 22 seems kinda high - i wonder if that includes companies and undivided shared connections in rental buildings and such

 

[IOWA]

finland's average speed of 22 seems kinda high - i wonder if that includes companies and undivided shared connections in rental buildings and such

Why FiOs and Docsis 3.0 manage those speeds, or greater.

 

[mrqs]

i mean because of demand, not availability

they should have also mentioend if those figures include wireless internet plans or just landlines
also some commenter there raised the (quite good) point of some countries having usage caps

 

[Fadelight]

Or there are people like this that throw the "average" curve off pretty bad.

40Gb/s Internet: And I Thought My ISP Was Improving Quick! at CompuWorld

 

[big_z]

For example, without network neutrality your ISP could block all bit torrent traffic on their network or throttle it to a point that it's useless.

So? They own the network you use to connect to the Internet. They invested in the fiber and the copper and the workers who put it in and the other hardware (switches, etc) and software needed to run the network. Why should the government get to tell them what they can and cannot do on their network? If the government winds up being granted the power to do this, what happens when the government tries its next power grab?

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

So? They own the network you use to connect to the Internet. They invested in the fiber and the copper and the workers who put it in and the other hardware (switches, etc) and software needed to run the network. Why should the government get to tell them what they can and cannot do on their network? If the government winds up being granted the power to do this, what happens when the government tries its next power grab?

So you think the ISP should have the right to censor what you can and can't receive?

They signed on to be an internet gateway, not controllers of the internet. All they are supposed to be is the method by which you connect to the internet. What they are aiming for now is to control access and bandwidth for their purposes and gains.

 

[momoceio]

So? They own the network you use to connect to the Internet. They invested in the fiber and the copper and the workers who put it in and the other hardware (switches, etc) and software needed to run the network. Why should the government get to tell them what they can and cannot do on their network? If the government winds up being granted the power to do this, what happens when the government tries its next power grab?

What happens when your phone company starts doing this? "Umm, yeah no calls from New York to LA today, that should be fun." Oh yeah, they can't because they're regulated. You know, I really wouldn't care if the Internet wasn't such a vital service to our economy. Leaving it in the hands of the ISPs seems like a conflict of interest to me, like Ed said they should provide access ONLY. They should not be able to dictate the content that I access or sell off priority to the highest bidder. That's not to say that I'm against QoS to keep traffic flowing smoothly because I'm not going to notice a 200ms delay in a HTTP load but when video/gaming/other real-time traffic is bottle-necked that's where it becomes out of hand.

 

[IOWA]

What happens when your phone company starts doing this? "Umm, yeah no calls from New York to LA today, that should be fun." Oh yeah, they can't because they're regulated. You know, I really wouldn't care if the Internet wasn't such a vital service to our economy. Leaving it in the hands of the ISPs seems like a conflict of interest to me, like Ed said they should provide access ONLY. They should not be able to dictate the content that I access or sell of priority to the highest bidder. That's not to say that I'm against QoS to keep traffic flowing smoothly because I'm not going to notice a 200ms delay in a HTTP load but when video/gaming/other real-time traffic is bottle-necked that's where it becomes out of hand.

That's why we need competition. What made phones (landline) better was breaking up the monopoly. Wee need something to stir up competition in the marketplace.

 

[mrqs]

competition alone isn't going to magically cause everyone to play ball - when there's only a handful of major players (like there usually is with this sort of thing), they all tend to be competing with cost, coverage and speed, but keeping policies similar because the public has grown to accept those policies and those policies save the providers a lot of money

 

[big_z]

So you think the ISP should have the right to censor what you can and can't receive?

Yes. It's their network. Your employer has the right to block sites and applications on their network that you use at work. Why should your ISP be different? If you don't like it, nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you subscribe to their service.

Property rights are just as important as rights like free speech and due process. If I expend effort, capital, and time to make something, I expect to be able to use it, sell it, lease it, or rent it the way I see fit. 50.1% (or 10%, 75%, or 99.99%) of my neighbors should not be able to simply take away my right to use, sell, lease, or rent my property just because they don't like the way I am doing it. And that's what net neutrality does; it puts a fundamental right up for a vote. Putting rights up for a vote should be abhorrent to anybody that actually cares about rights.

They signed on to be an internet gateway, not controllers of the internet. All they are supposed to be is the method by which you connect to the internet. What they are aiming for now is to control access and bandwidth for their purposes and gains.

Where did they sign this? If they signed an agreement with their upstream provider saying "we won't restrict downstream clients in any way", then by all means hold their feet to the fire.

 

[momoceio]

Wow...that's about all I can say about the ignorance of the above post. lol

 

[IOWA]

Wow...that's about all I can say about the ignorance of the above post. lol

What is ignorant about that post? Its pretty spot on.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

1. Your employer has the right to block sites and applications on their network that you use at work. Why should your ISP be different?

2. Property rights are just as important as rights like free speech and due process.

3. If I expend effort, capital, and time to make something, I expect to be able to use it, sell it, lease it, or rent it the way I see fit. 50.1% (or 10%, 75%, or 99.99%) of my neighbors should not be able to simply take away my right to use, sell, lease, or rent my property just because they don't like the way I am doing it.

4. Putting rights up for a vote should be abhorrent to anybody that actually cares about rights.

5. Where did they sign this? If they signed an agreement with their upstream provider saying "we won't restrict downstream clients in any way", then by all means hold their feet to the fire.

1. Your employer pays for and mantains a network you use in the course of doing business for them, NOT a network that you pay for your private use of.

2. This goes back to the fact they are an internet portal, you pay for access, you don't pay them to censor or throttle your connection. How is preventing them from having unfair control of content/bandwidth infringing a property right? It isn't.

3. Nobody is trying to prevent them from making a profit, which they do quite well at. They are getting greedy and looking for ways to squeeze every penny they can out of the customer, which is unethical.

4. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the very core of how democracy works?

5 Once again, they are an internet portal, not content regulator. You pay them for connecting to the internet, not dictating what you can or can't view or which sites will get preferential bandwidth. This will completely eliminate fair competition from the internet marketplace, small businesses and individual websites will become a thing of the past. When any business has this kind of power then you can kiss your civil liberties goodbye.

 

[IOWA]

1. Your employer pays for and mantains a network you use in the course of doing business for them, NOT a network that you pay for your private use of.

2. This goes back to the fact they are an internet portal, you pay for access, you don't pay them to censor or throttle your connection. How is preventing them from having unfair control of content/bandwidth infringing a property right? It isn't.

3. Nobody is trying to prevent them from making a profit, which they do quite well at. They are getting greedy and looking for ways to squeeze every penny they can out of the customer, which is unethical.

4. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the very core of how democracy works?

5 Once again, they are an internet portal, not content regulator. You pay them for connecting to the internet, not dictating what you can or can't view or which sites will get preferential bandwidth. This will completely eliminate fair competition from the internet marketplace, small businesses and individual websites will become a thing of the past. When any business has this kind of power then you can kiss your civil liberties goodbye.

Actually, no that is the opposite of democracy.

Answer this question for me then. Why do you think internet access is a right? Its not. Otherwise it would be free.

And, another question: who are you(not really you, but a broad statement) or any government agency, to tell me, what to do with x(company's) network, they (once again company's) built with thier money, their time, their research, etc. What's needed is more competition, not regulation.

 

[mrqs]

If you don't like it, nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you subscribe to their service.

except if you want to connect to the internet, you probably won't have a choice because
1) there are plenty of areas where only one provider is available
2) if the isp's are allowed censorship, they're all going to utilize it; thinking they wouldn't is just naive

do you think the great firewall of china is a good thing? you'd want that? 'cause be it at government or isp level, it's effectively the same thing

 

[IOWA]

except if you want to connect to the internet, you probably won't have a choice because
1) there are plenty of areas where only one provider is available
2) if the isp's are allowed censorship, they're all going to utilize it; thinking they wouldn't is just naive

do you think the great firewall of china is a good thing? you'd want that? 'cause be it at government or isp level, it's effectively the same thing

Well, they can censor it right now, and haven't for the last oh 3 decades? So your niave argument is out.

And like I said, what makes internet access a right in the first place?

 

[mrqs]

Well, they can censor it right now

i doubt they could - i mean technically they could, but i imagine they'd get in to all sorts of trouble over it
what you're talking about is explicitly giving them permission to censor

And like I said, what makes internet access a right in the first place?

i'm not saying it is (tho' i'm pretty sure it won't be long before it is; and i think it already is in some countries), but the internet is an important media and isp's are distributors of that media - giving them the right to censor that media is undermining the freedom of press

 

[IOWA]

i doubt they could - i mean technically they could, but i imagine they'd get in to all sorts of trouble over it
what you're talking about is explicitly giving them permission to censor


i'm not saying it is (tho' i'm pretty sure it won't be long before it is; and i think it already is in some countries), but the internet is an important media and isp's are distributors of that media - giving them the right to censor that media is undermining the freedom of press

So do you think cable tv is a right as well? If you argue it that way, it won't be long before the fcc starts filtering the net anyway.

Anything that requires someone else money, manpower, or time is not and should not be a right.

 

[mrqs]

So do you think cable tv is a right as well?

what do you mean "as well"? i explicitly said i didn't regard internet as a right

If you argue it that way, it won't be long before the fcc starts filtering the net anyway.

you're not making any kind of sense here - the point of the fcc being involved is to enforce net neutrality; why would they do the exact opposite?

Anything that requires someone else money, manpower, or time is not and should not be a right.

that's the dumbest thing i ever heard

what about access to health care, clean water, basic education and that whole lot?

 

[momoceio]

Look, there definitely needs to be some form of regulation for ISPs to abide by. The Internet has involved a great deal since it's introduction to the public. It's no longer just used for shooting emails back and forth and playing checkers with Yakov over in Russia. I don't think ISPs should be hamstringed but at the same time there needs to be someone to keep them in line because in most areas there is only one or two ISPs who offer service and if they both adopt similar policies then the consumers are screwed and can't do a damn thing about it. I expect to pay X amount of dollars for X amount of bandwidth and be able to access any content that I please. If they can't sustain a 10mb connection then they should NOT sell it...period. They have no reason to watch what traffic is flowing across the lines other than basic performance monitoring. ISPs should not be in the business of policing traffic...it's a conflict of interest. Just because ISPs haven't starting doing certain business practices doesn't mean they won't as things evolve.

 

[IOWA]

what do you mean "as well"? i explicitly said i didn't regard internet as a right


you're not making any kind of sense here - the point of the fcc being involved is to enforce net neutrality; why would they do the exact opposite?


that's the dumbest thing i ever heard

what about access to health care, clean water, basic education and that whole lot?

Health care is still isn't a right. And it shouldn't be. People in freakin ethopia don't have it, so it is not a human right.

The rest, are still luxieries, but are also paid for by taxes and personal accounts. Some people just take things for granted, and lose sight of what real rights are.