FCC Scuttles 2015 Net Neutrality Rules - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 358Likes
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 277 Old 11-22-2017, 03:08 PM
Writer & Reviewer
 
JimWilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Somewhere in New Joisey
Posts: 8,116
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2155 Post(s)
Liked: 3234
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocOrange88 View Post
Yes they could block or limit or restrain bandwidth, this is not going to get passed to the consumer. The rules applied prevent free market development of the internet. In almost all situations this should end of being good.
You don't really think a publicly traded company is going to eat any costs, do you? Everything gets passed down to the consumer/user. No part of losing net neutrality will end well. Perhaps the single most identifiable reason for the internet's meteoric rise is the fact it was free and open. Take that away and a cast system will almost certainly be the outcome. I pay to access the internet already - and far more then I should have to, because the part of the industry that needs to be regulated isn't - so the companies providing the service already have a steady, guaranteed revenue stream. What eliminating neutrality will do is allow them to get paid twice, from both ends of the pipe. That's exactly what a corporate shill (puppet?) like Pai would hope to achieve. There's not a single benefit to be had.

 
If you take yourself too seriously expect me to do the exact opposite...
JimWilson is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 277 Old 11-22-2017, 03:28 PM
Senior Member
 
andygiddings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Coppell, Texas
Posts: 258
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxreactance View Post
Apple does have a lot of money, but they also have been borrowing a tremendous amount of money over the last few years to fund their US operations. Why? Because it is cheaper to borrow money than pay the US taxes to repatriate their profits from overseas.

Why are Apple's profits locked in overseas? Because Apple pays virtually no taxes overseas. How did they do that? They got a tax rate of close to zero on their sales in each country for exchange for setting up "R&D facilities" in the country that supplied a few thousand jobs to the country.

If the US reduces or eliminates the tax to repatriate their overseas funds, Apple would achieve corporate perfection: they will have effectively paid no taxes on hundreds of $billions of profits for years.

In other words: you think Apple product prices are high, go ahead and factor in the cost to you as a taxpayer for their tax avoidance strategies...

--
max
The idea that Apple is going to switch a sizable portion of their manufacturing to the US where there is almost full employment and a lack of workers that could immediately pick up the manufacturing is laughable. Even if the tax advantages are there, moving an entire manufacturing process is not trivial. As for Apple using the rules to maximize their profits - isn't that capitalism in action regardless of whether it seems fair or not?
andygiddings is offline  
post #63 of 277 Old 11-22-2017, 03:38 PM
Senior Member
 
andygiddings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Coppell, Texas
Posts: 258
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 79
This whole Net Neutrality debate reminds me of the time when the wireless operators were doing their best to not be merely a pipe for the consumer, coming up with all sorts of "services" that were essential. They've failed.

The fundamental difference is a lot of internet service is consumed in the home and not at the end of a mobile device. To make this truly competitive, we're going to need to be able to switch to any ISP which means they'll all have to provide services everywhere - as usual the small and rural markets are going to be screwed unless they can come up with a different delivery model

Room 1 system: Paradigm Reference Active 7.2 system, Anthem AVM50, Oppo BDP-103. Pioneer Elite 610HD. Room 2: Samsung 65HU8550 with SEK3500, Paradigm Monitor 5.1 system, Denon AVR-X2400H, Oppo BDP-203, Nvidia Shield, Apple TV 4k
andygiddings is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #64 of 277 Old 11-22-2017, 04:25 PM
Senior Member
 
maxreactance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by andygiddings View Post
The idea that Apple is going to switch a sizable portion of their manufacturing to the US where there is almost full employment and a lack of workers that could immediately pick up the manufacturing is laughable. Even if the tax advantages are there, moving an entire manufacturing process is not trivial. As for Apple using the rules to maximize their profits - isn't that capitalism in action regardless of whether it seems fair or not?
Well, they already said something about a Mac factory, and Foxxcon, the Chinese "slave labor" factory that manufactures about half of the consumer electronics sold in the US (iPhones, Rokus, et. al.) claimed they were going to open a US plant. We'll see...

As far as following the "rules", you must have missed the EU suing Apple for $40billion in unpaid taxes just in Ireland alone. The most delicious part of that story was the economic minister of Ireland (the guy who almost certainly got the kickback for not collecting Apple taxes) defending Apple despite being in clear violation of EU tax laws, and the fact that Ireland is friggin' bankrupt and an economic basket case. But that's OK, because the US is headed in the same direction, so might as well mimic Ireland's no-tax policy...

So we'll have to see exactly how the "rules" (or lack of them) affect the recently burgeoning streaming media market. If you thought the cable companies were going to give up their head-end paywall monopoly on pay TV without going to Uncle Sugar just like Apple (bribes in hand), you're just easily misled...

--
max
maxreactance is offline  
post #65 of 277 Old 11-22-2017, 04:39 PM
Senior Member
 
andygiddings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Coppell, Texas
Posts: 258
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxreactance View Post
Well, they already said something about a Mac factory, and Foxxcon, the Chinese "slave labor" factory that manufactures about half of the consumer electronics sold in the US (iPhones, Rokus, et. al.) claimed they were going to open a US plant. We'll see...

As far as following the "rules", you must have missed the EU suing Apple for $40billion in unpaid taxes just in Ireland alone. The most delicious part of that story was the economic minister of Ireland (the guy who almost certainly got the kickback for not collecting Apple taxes) defending Apple despite being in clear violation of EU tax laws, and the fact that Ireland is friggin' bankrupt and an economic basket case. But that's OK, because the US is headed in the same direction, so might as well mimic Ireland's no-tax policy...

So we'll have to see exactly how the "rules" (or lack of them) affect the recently burgeoning streaming media market. If you thought the cable companies were going to give up their head-end paywall monopoly on pay TV without going to Uncle Sugar just like Apple (bribes in hand), you're just easily misled...

--
max
No. didn't miss any of the tax arguments going on in Euro land - will be interesting to see just how much they finally pay out of that 40b. I'm not arguing its right or fair, just the way the market works. Corps and the rich are always one step ahead of government regs concerning tax. And many in government are also in tax avoidance mode (as per the Irish case, the Paradise Papers and other leaks out of the Caribbean tax havens)
andygiddings is offline  
post #66 of 277 Old 11-22-2017, 06:00 PM
Member
 
Timobkg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn View Post
Pai himself said the current rules limit consumer choice because Telecom companies cannot offer different tiers of service .. which flies in the face of the fact that there is limited to no choice in many if not most areas .. This one single statement in and of itself, tells us where things will be headed ..
What is he even talking about? Different tiers of service has been there for years. You could always get your internet service slow, medium, fast, or extra crispy. They never had stated speeds, at least for Comcast, but they've always had tiers.

What there hasn't been is any competition in service providers. One region is purely Comcast, another is purely Time Warner, and if you're very lucky you may have Verizon Fios as an option.

But I'm sure without the regulations consumers will have many more choices. Rather than just buying internet service and being done with it, you'll get to choose if you want to add Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Google, Youtube, Skype, Facebook, etc to your basic package. So many choices!
danielrg and TuteTibiImperes like this.
Timobkg is offline  
post #67 of 277 Old 11-22-2017, 06:05 PM
Member
 
Timobkg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by andygiddings View Post
This whole Net Neutrality debate reminds me of the time when the wireless operators were doing their best to not be merely a pipe for the consumer, coming up with all sorts of "services" that were essential. They've failed.

The fundamental difference is a lot of internet service is consumed in the home and not at the end of a mobile device.
Not only that, but there's a complete lack of competition in internet service providers. It's not like cell service, where one can chose from Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, and smaller local carriers, and they all work pretty well. Where I live there's no alternative to Comcast. Where my mother lives, there's no alternative to Time Warner. Cable internet providers enjoy an effective monopoly over much of the country.
Timobkg is offline  
post #68 of 277 Old 11-22-2017, 06:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
danielrg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azlen View Post
One of the problems right now is that everything is speculation as to what happens if Net Neutrality goes away. We don't know what the ISPs will do but we do know what they will be allowed to do. We also know that corporations are legally obligated to maximize value for their shareholders. If there was a real choice right now with broadband ISPs, this wouldn't really be an issue but most people don't have a choice.
So really what it all comes down to is who you trust. Do you trust the ISPs to not try to maximize their shareholder value in a monopolistic market or do you trust the government to make sure the Internet stays the same for everyone?
I don't agree that everything is speculation as to what happens if Net Neutrality goes away. Although everything the above poster implies I do agree with. There are models people have shared of how it may work, likely models that are in operation, such as the Portugal instance cited above. I suppose anything that happens in the future is speculation, but based on the past, the nature of monopolistic entities demonstrated for decades, and what was going on with my ISP before net neutrality make it seem a very good bet that letting ISPs do what they want will result in more restrictions, more complexity, and higher costs to consumers.

And how can I trust the government will make sure the Internet stays the same for everyone? They are talking of repealing the regulation doing exactly that! The reason for the thread is the reason not to trust the government to step in for us.

For example, Comcast as my ISP... Netflix was skipping, having trouble loading, hiccupping, giving me horrible bitrates, all sorts of problems. Netflix when I called them often had no idea why things weren't working well. Then with net neutrality, those problems just sort of went away and my streaming has been working wonderfully the last couple years.

Key principles for capitalism to work to everyone's benefit is: 1) That monopoly is avoided, and 2) that in general the populous - including companies - have a strong ethical code. In today's world, especially with ISPs, I fear neither of those key principles can be relied upon.

I too want to minimize unnecessary government regulation, or regulation that favors wealthy minorities. But is it unnecessary? - in this case I must agree with precedent about how utility company history has gone for decades. The FCC is likely being coerced by people or entities with big money.

In this article, it discusses how it is easy to debunk the FCC chairman's reasoning for repealing Net Neutrality: FCC's Reasons for Repealing Net-Neutrality Make No Sense for Consumers

And if an action isn't logical, it's political - and political means money (or power). I can only imagine how easy it would be to be corrupted in a position like that.

And lastly, let's say that investment is reduced in broadband networks (which article above says isn't true anyway). Investment isn't necessarily a benefit to us as consumers. If additional investment means putting in smart routers that restrict and govern our choices, or building network improvements that don't benefit the end user but make it easier to watch us, sell to us, and extract more money from us, then the additional benefit is not of interest to me!

I see nothing wrong with hoping for the best out of our ISPs and companies in an unregulated market. But we need also be careful to prepare ourselves for the worst, and in this case regulation to keep the internet free makes sense to me. How does net neutrality regulation hurt consumers? I'd honestly like to hear some cons to net neutrality regulations from a comsumer standpoint, because I can't really think of any.
darrellh44 likes this.

Hardware and System engineer. Enjoy theaters, automation, media and the outdoors.
Love the hobby, but always have to remember to keep family first!
"The Escape Pod" - First Theater Build
danielrg is offline  
post #69 of 277 Old 11-22-2017, 07:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
danielrg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocOrange88 View Post
"Satellite Internet is a joke." Satellite is the future...it will change everything then these cables and everything that's been built maters very little.
The statement above is the easiest to disprove. Satellites have significant issues in two way data transfer. First, they sit about 22200 miles above the earth (if geosynchronous). It takes light about 120 ms to make the trip.

Total trip to and from the satellite is 240 ms. That would be for one side of a link. The return trip is another 240 ms. So, assuming no other delays in the system at all, a "ping" over satellite link will take 480 ms just due to the speed of light. And that is to get data between two points that both can be seen by the one satellite. Satellite to satellite hops would add significant delays as well, adding tens of thousands of miles of light path satellite to satellite to get to a satellite that can see the other side of the earth.

Delays of 480 ms minimum wreak havoc on the TCP/IP stack due to buffering and ACK issues for any complex computer to computer interactions unless special provisions are made at higher layers - and for gaming, this kind of delay simply makes multiplayer games unplayable. Simple web browsing could probably be accomplished over these delays just fine.

The circumference of the earth is about 25000 miles. So from any point to another on the earth, taking the shortest path, will be less than 12500 miles. With a sufficiently built out global optical network, maybe 15000 would be the max optical distance between two points. That's about 165 ms round trip worst case (light path only) using a global optical network. And the closer together two endpoints, the faster the round trip. Data within the United states even from coast to coast has a round trip light path delay of less than 40 ms. But if we all did satellite, it would still be 480 ms light path delay alone just to the next city over.

And then imagine ruggedizing high speed network switch gear for use in space so the gamma radiation doesn't render it inoperable. And fitting enough switch gear and transceivers for millions of users on each satellite (even with high speed DSP antenna arrays). Then imagine the tens of millions of dollars to put each satellite into orbit.

It quickly becomes clear why the Internet isn't and never will be a satellite network. Satellite is cost effective for broadcasting, for sending the same content to many consumers where light path delays are not of consequence. The uplink is minimal compared the ability to reach millions on the broadcast side. But make it bi-directional, equal bandwidth on both sides of a link, and a satellite network becomes a poor solution. Even streaming would be a challenge with a satellite network with most data being download because each stream is not synchronized with any other, making it not a broadcast but a session-based streaming approach.

No - the Internet of the future will not be a satellite network. And to state it unequivocally is to discredit yourself.
Thunder18 likes this.

Hardware and System engineer. Enjoy theaters, automation, media and the outdoors.
Love the hobby, but always have to remember to keep family first!
"The Escape Pod" - First Theater Build

Last edited by DrDon; 11-24-2017 at 07:54 AM. Reason: Insulting content removed
danielrg is offline  
post #70 of 277 Old 11-22-2017, 09:24 PM
Member
 
Azlen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Peoria, AZ
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielrg View Post
I don't agree that everything is speculation as to what happens if Net Neutrality goes away. Although everything the above poster implies I do agree with. There are models people have shared of how it may work, likely models that are in operation, such as the Portugal instance cited above. I suppose anything that happens in the future is speculation, but based on the past, the nature of monopolistic entities demonstrated for decades, and what was going on with my ISP before net neutrality make it seem a very good bet that letting ISPs do what they want will result in more restrictions, more complexity, and higher costs to consumers.

And how can I trust the government will make sure the Internet stays the same for everyone? They are talking of repealing the regulation doing exactly that! The reason for the thread is the reason not to trust the government to step in for us.

For example, Comcast as my ISP... Netflix was skipping, having trouble loading, hiccupping, giving me horrible bitrates, all sorts of problems. Netflix when I called them often had no idea why things weren't working well. Then with net neutrality, those problems just sort of went away and my streaming has been working wonderfully the last couple years.

Key principles for capitalism to work to everyone's benefit is: 1) That monopoly is avoided, and 2) that in general the populous - including companies - have a strong ethical code. In today's world, especially with ISPs, I fear neither of those key principles can be relied upon.

I too want to minimize unnecessary government regulation, or regulation that favors wealthy minorities. But is it unnecessary? - in this case I must agree with precedent about how utility company history has gone for decades. The FCC is likely being coerced by people or entities with big money.

In this article, it discusses how it is easy to debunk the FCC chairman's reasoning for repealing Net Neutrality: FCC's Reasons for Repealing Net-Neutrality Make No Sense for Consumers

And if an action isn't logical, it's political - and political means money (or power). I can only imagine how easy it would be to be corrupted in a position like that.

And lastly, let's say that investment is reduced in broadband networks (which article above says isn't true anyway). Investment isn't necessarily a benefit to us as consumers. If additional investment means putting in smart routers that restrict and govern our choices, or building network improvements that don't benefit the end user but make it easier to watch us, sell to us, and extract more money from us, then the additional benefit is not of interest to me!

I see nothing wrong with hoping for the best out of our ISPs and companies in an unregulated market. But we need also be careful to prepare ourselves for the worst, and in this case regulation to keep the internet free makes sense to me. How does net neutrality regulation hurt consumers? I'd honestly like to hear some cons to net neutrality regulations from a comsumer standpoint, because I can't really think of any.

It may be knowledgeable speculation but it is still speculation none the less. I think it's safe though to assume that since the ISPs spent a lot of money trying to get rid of Title 2 and Net Neutrality that they are most certainly going to do something to earn that investment back plus some. Look for that to come out of the pocket of American consumers. I don't foresee anything pro-consumer coming out of the ISPs. That sort of thing doesn't happen as much in a monopolistic market. I do foresee an explosion of VPN usage happening though but of course, we're going to have to pay for it.
Azlen is offline  
post #71 of 277 Old 11-22-2017, 10:22 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by twan69666 View Post
Are you Ajit Pai posting from a fake account? Your arguments seem to be just as weak as his are...

Unfortunately there are not choices for most in the US with internet. An overwhelmingly large amount of the population has access to one real choice for internet. The other choice is to not have it at all. In 2017, thats not really a choice

I only have one choice for electricity, one choice for water, one choice for Natural gas, fix that oversight first before you screw up the internet.
AlanAbby is offline  
post #72 of 277 Old 11-22-2017, 11:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Worf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,141
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 795 Post(s)
Liked: 514
Actually, we already know what happens when net neutrality is removed, because wireless providers were never covered under the rules.

You had T-Mobile offering "zero rating" of some providers where you could watch as much Netflix as you wanted without running up your phone bill. But if you wanted to watch YouTube, it counted against your bill. So you might pay for say, a 1 GB plan and stream netflix 24/7, while someone who watches YouTube, or vimeo, or hulu, has to pay for a 20GB plan. This was eventually outlawed because the wireless carriers were threatened to be covered - obviously they don't need to "network manage" if you can freely stream all day without impacting the network. It's why t-mobile recanted, and throttled all video services to 480p equally - but of you wanted, you could stream a higher quality stream - as a consumer, you had that choice.

Heck, comcast did the same thing - that 250GB limit didn't apply if you streamed comcast services. But if you wanted netflix, hulu, etc, too bad.

The biggest impact will be cord cutters - you can bet all the tv services are smacking their lips at trying to stem the flood of people cancelling service by jacking up rates and forcing people to pay for streaming services, of course, sign up for cable and they'll generously toss in streaming service for free.
thehun, wxman, JMGNYC and 1 others like this.
Worf is offline  
post #73 of 277 Old 11-23-2017, 06:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
LexInVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,560
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 797 Post(s)
Liked: 374
The US Foxconn plant is for the manufacturing of display panels, with additional space available for future production of whatever. Foxconn is shutting down their Apple product lines in Brazil, because the business plan and the local economics in the country were not working in the slightest. It was a bad idea from the get-go and was too reliant on wishful thinking and hopeful thoughts.
LexInVA is offline  
post #74 of 277 Old 11-23-2017, 10:29 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Cal1981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 3,774
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 663 Post(s)
Liked: 1021
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMcLain View Post
Why are "net neutrality" rules needed anyway? The internet did just fine for many years without such rules and it me "net neutrality" seems like more of a way for the government to regulate/control the internet, what content is considered legal and safe etc why would anybody want to put the government in charge? Pretty soon you might need to get a license just to be on the internet with these current rules.
The government has pretty much been hands off in regard to internet content and speed. There's far more danger in leaving these decisions in the hands of private Mega-comm companies whose sole concern is profit. If you think that Comcast, Time-Warner won't introduce multiple tiers with those who subscribe to Netflix, Amazon, Vudu, Hulu etc. paying not only for those services but additional surcharges for the speed required to use them, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Then there's the standalone services from HBO, Showtime, Starz, Cinemax among others that Comcast would prefer you to buy from it. I would suspect that they would be ripe for additional charges as well. Of course there's also the possibility of the comm companies "shaping" content to suit their points of view on certain subjects. Maybe none of this will happen but completely unfettered capitalism has always led to abuses that don't benefit the public. We shall see.
Cal1981 is offline  
post #75 of 277 Old 11-24-2017, 04:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MrGrey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,895
Mentioned: 142 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1690 Post(s)
Liked: 6121
Before Net Neutrality, Internet Providers Consistently Abused Their Powers (Brief Timeline)


https://wccftech.com/net-neutrality-abuses-timeline/


2005 – North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked VoIP service Vonage.

2005 – Comcast blocked or severely delayed traffic using the Bit Torrent file-sharing protocol. (The company even had the guts to deny this for months until evidence was presented by the Associated Press.)

2007 – AT&T censored Pearl Jam because lead singer criticized President Bush.

2007 to 2009 – AT&T forced Apple to block Skype because it didn’t like the competition. At the time, the carrier had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and even then the net neutrality advocates were pushing the government to protect online consumers, over 5 years before these rules were actually passed.

2009 – Google Voice app faced similar issues from ISPs, including AT&T on iPhone.

2010 – Windstream Communications, a DSL provider, started hijacking search results made using Google toolbar. It consistently redirected users to Windstream’s own search engine and results.

2011 – MetroPCS, one of the top-five wireless carriers at the time, announced plans to block streaming services over its 4G network from everyone except YouTube.

2011 to 2013 – AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon blockedGoogle Wallet in favor of Isis, a mobile payment system in which all three had shares. Verizon even asked Google to not include its payment app in its Nexus devices.

2012 – AT&T blocked FaceTime; again because the company didn’t like the competition.

2012 – Verizon started blocking people from using tethering apps on their phones that enabled consumers to avoid the company’s $20 tethering fee.

2014 – AT&T announced a new “sponsored data” scheme, offering content creators a way to buy their way around the data caps that AT&T imposes on its subscribers.

2014 – Netflix started paying Verizon and Comcast to “improve streaming service for consumers.”

2014 – T-Mobile was accused of using data caps to manipulate online competition.

In the absence of the current net neutrality rules, internet providers routinely used their powers to violate open internet principles,

manipulate competition and even engage in censorship. As the American Civil Liberties Union has said the reversal

“would be a devastating blow to the free and open internet we rely on for streaming videos,

communicating with our networks – and yes, reading critical news stories about the state of our democracy”.
MrGrey is offline  
post #76 of 277 Old 11-24-2017, 06:49 AM
Member
 
Uber Archetype's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 84
cal1981 and mrgrey list alot of vulnerable services and bad things that did and hypothetically could happen again. Dozens if not hundreds of services might be affected. The possibility that ISP's will block and censor things they don't like is out there. And the bottom line is the free market is assumed to be unwilling or unable to mollify this state of affairs. Oh the horror!

Hogwash. It's the Internet! You know - that thing we're on right now talking about it, where times are changing in realtime and the whole freakin' world is literally connected with now. It's not so easy to get away with stuff like collusion, lying and cheating these days. Has anybody read the headlines lately?

Look forward, not back. Vote with your wallets and purses. The sky is not falling.

Last edited by DrDon; 11-24-2017 at 07:44 AM.
Uber Archetype is offline  
post #77 of 277 Old 11-24-2017, 06:55 AM
Member
 
Uber Archetype's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 84
And before anybody brings up those poor unfortunates with only one choice of ISP - full stop. The time of spoiling things for 99% of the people to address the 1% is over.

System: Multiple
Brands: Too many to mention
Great Sound: Everywhere, all the time!
Uber Archetype is offline  
post #78 of 277 Old 11-24-2017, 07:27 AM
Advanced Member
 
JMGNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 705
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 126
28% of Americans have only 1 choice for ISPs.

I live in Manhattan and am lucky enough to live in a building that has 2 choices. Spectrum or Fios. However a Fios installation would be exceedingly disruptive and expensive as I'd have to rewire my condo for it. Most of my friends have a single choice in their buildings.

When the day comes that Spectrum throttles Netflix or HBO or iTunes or Hulu or whatever on me and then implements data caps I will be royally pissed. More likely though is that NYS or NYC will fill in where the federal regulations have failed and hold the ISPs to reasonable standards, you know like they do the electric company, phone companies, water supply, transportation infrastructure, local hospitals, schools, etc.
JMGNYC is offline  
post #79 of 277 Old 11-24-2017, 07:32 AM
Member
 
Uber Archetype's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMGNYC View Post
28% of Americans have only 1 choice for ISPs.
So are you saying the other 72% should suffer for their predicament? I believe they should either move or lobby for better service if Internet access is that important to them. We have 4 options where I live and they ALL suck. My approach has been going back and forth between the 2 least sucky with a new introductory package every year. You wouldn't believe the tricks they play to prevent people from getting the intro packages.

Last edited by Uber Archetype; 11-24-2017 at 07:36 AM.
Uber Archetype is offline  
post #80 of 277 Old 11-24-2017, 07:34 AM
Advanced Member
 
JMGNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 705
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uber Archetype View Post
So are you saying the other 72% should suffer for their predicament? I believe they should either move or lobby for better service if Internet access is that important to them.
Why and how would the other 72% suffer? You're jumping to conclusions.
JMGNYC is offline  
post #81 of 277 Old 11-24-2017, 07:37 AM
Member
 
Uber Archetype's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMGNYC View Post
Why and how would the other 72% suffer? You're jumping to conclusions.
It was a rhetorical comment directed more at the political aspect.
Uber Archetype is offline  
post #82 of 277 Old 11-24-2017, 08:04 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 16,777
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2175 Post(s)
Liked: 4083
Political comments removed, though happily, there weren't many of them. Makes me proud.

Insulting comments removed.

Links to petitions removed.

Posts quoting any of the above also removed.

I might have missed some. If so, PM me.
gomo657 and tenthplanet like this.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is online now  
post #83 of 277 Old 11-24-2017, 12:42 PM
Writer & Reviewer
 
JimWilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Somewhere in New Joisey
Posts: 8,116
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2155 Post(s)
Liked: 3234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uber Archetype View Post
So are you saying the other 72% should suffer for their predicament? I believe they should either move or lobby for better service if Internet access is that important to them.
You can't possibly be serious, right? You think someone should move because they're stuck with only one choice of ISP? It's hard to even know how to respond to something like that. The internet has reshaped almost everything, so yea it's that important for everyone to have unfettered access.

20 years ago deregulation went through that was suppose to force competition in multiple areas - phones, internet, even electricity delivery - but about the only place where anything appreciable happened was long distance and cell phones. Somehow the ISP's were able to buy their way out from under those laws, so they deserve no quarter. Eliminating net neutrality is like designating certain lanes on the highway strictly for people who can afford a Porsche/Ferrari/McLaren/Lamborghini/whatever. It's an indefensible proposition.
Dave Vaughn and Saturn94 like this.

 
If you take yourself too seriously expect me to do the exact opposite...
JimWilson is online now  
post #84 of 277 Old 11-24-2017, 12:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ryan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,206
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanAbby View Post
I only have one choice for electricity, one choice for water, one choice for Natural gas, fix that oversight first before you screw up the internet.
What exactly are you trying to argue here?
Ryan1 is offline  
post #85 of 277 Old 11-24-2017, 01:09 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
audioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not far from Atlanta - but far enough!
Posts: 9,061
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4563 Post(s)
Liked: 3327
Too many unknowns at the moment to KNOW how this will all work out. But once it is determined how the key players will make the most money, that is exactly what will happen. It is ALWAYS "follow the money", and if that means totally screwing the consumer, that is exactly what will happen. Greed most always wins. The greedy executives and THEN the shareholder get the first slices of the pie. Consumers at the bottom. Most always.
audioguy is online now  
post #86 of 277 Old 11-24-2017, 01:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ryan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,206
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 252
FCC STONEWALLING PROBE OF 'MASSIVE SCHEME' INVOLVING FAKE NET NEUTRALITY COMMENTS, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS

""The process the FCC has employed to consider potentially sweeping alterations to current net neutrality rules has been corrupted by the fraudulent use of Americans’ identities, and the FCC has been unwilling to assist my office in our efforts to investigate this unlawful activity," Schneiderman wrote to Pai, a Republican designated to head the agency by President Donald Trump."



ISP LOBBYISTS GUSH OVER RE-APPOINTMENT OF FCC BOSS AJIT PAI

"Not too surprisingly, major ISPs are positively ecstatic about this week's re-appointment of FCC boss Ajit Pai. It's not hard to understand why: in just his first few months in office, Pai has begun dismantling net neutrality, helped kill consumer privacy protections, killed an FCC attempt to bring competition to the cable box, eliminated media consolidation rules largely to benefit Sinclair Broadcasting, began dismantling a program that brings broadband to the poor, and began weaking the definition of broadband to help minimize a lack of competition."

In oligarchies like Russia, these kind of policies are expected. We are inching closer to them.
mailiang, JMGNYC, Saturn94 and 1 others like this.

Last edited by Ryan1; 11-24-2017 at 01:18 PM.
Ryan1 is offline  
post #87 of 277 Old 11-24-2017, 01:14 PM
Member
 
Uber Archetype's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimWilson View Post
You can't possibly be serious, right? You think someone should move because they're stuck with only one choice of ISP?
No, that's entirely up to them. Some people seem to believe everybody should have the same level of ISP access/service(s) no matter what. Is that what you believe?
Uber Archetype is offline  
post #88 of 277 Old 11-24-2017, 01:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ryan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,206
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uber Archetype View Post
No, that's entirely up to them. Some people seem to believe everybody should have the same level of ISP access/service(s) no matter what. Is that what you believe?
Nope. We believe in free markets and preventing market abuses by monopolies....
Ryan1 is offline  
post #89 of 277 Old 11-24-2017, 01:19 PM
Member
 
Uber Archetype's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post
Nope. We believe in free markets and preventing market abuses by monopolies....
Sounds like we're in agreement, then.

So is this more of an FCC or SEC issue?

I imagine we'll get to the SEC part around the time market consolidation nears the end of running it's course. I expect to be enjoying steady or lower prices in the meantime, thank you very much.

Last edited by Uber Archetype; 11-24-2017 at 01:23 PM.
Uber Archetype is offline  
post #90 of 277 Old 11-24-2017, 01:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ryan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,206
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uber Archetype View Post
Sounds like we're in agreement, then.

So is this more of an FCC or SEC issue?

I imagine we'll get to the SEC part around the time market consolidation nears the end of running it's course. I expect to be enjoying steady or lower prices in the meantime, thank you very much.
Can you please elaborate why are rules preventing an ISP monopoly from being a content gatekeeper an SEC issue?

I also find it rather peculiar that you just signed up to this forum and the vast majority of your posts are on this issue.
JMGNYC and JimWilson like this.

Last edited by Ryan1; 11-24-2017 at 01:35 PM.
Ryan1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming

Tags
net neutrality

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off