Net Neutrality, US Vote in May, Repeal Article 2

[crzyces]

So here it is. Way back in 2015 article 2 was introduced which was both good and bad for isp's and users. Now this did not affect me too much, as old contracts on a local level were grandfathered in, so for a wired high speed isp I have to use Cox in RI, and Comcast in MA. They set the rules, no other wired isp can sell their product to us (ei. we can't get Fios in either town until the former contract expires, though we can get any satellite provider. Still, there were no blocked sites based on bandwidth, so slightly higher prices and less upgrades, but the no blocked sites based on bandwidth is good.)

 

Now if the FCC revokes article 2, it will take away the choice of options for providers in areas where the town/city does not have a contract existing under the previous law. Worse, they can control prices on where you go. Will they outright block sites? I doubt it, but, will they gouge for higher packages for access to high bandwidth sites? My guess is heck yes. Think Cable, Fios, other satellite Television providers, we have unlimited use of the amount of TV we watch, but we pay for extras like ESPN 2, Disney XD, HBO, Fusion, BBC, etc (Varies by area obviously).

 

What I think we will see is extra "packages" that don't include higher speeds, but certain sites as instead. What sites? Like cable, some of you probably already pay for. Netflix and Hulu for example. If article 2 is repealed, I bet they are in a premium package, along with YouTube, Twitch, Facebook, and various other streaming/high traffic sites that use large amounts of bandwidth that you would now have to pay extra for. To me, this is bad, and if Ajit Pai gets his way as the new head of the FCC, well, expect to lose access to many sites, or be paying very high prices for access to them.

 

Remember, it always starts small so as to not cause outrage, then goes crazy to scare the crap out of you, then settles in the middle so people are "Happy it finally went to something reasonable". Think gas in early 2k in the US. The US artificially inflated the price to $200 per barrel of oil. More than half of this went back to the government, but on the books, that was the *cost*. The result, $4.50 per gallon at the pump. The increase was slow, from $1.35 per gallon, to $2.01, then a month later, over $4, for roughly a year. Then it would fluctuate between $2.95 and 3.95 for another year, then settled in at the $2.35-$2.70 we pay now (for self serve). Oil and gas companies still have record profits every year, the people who need to drive (Like me. When I am in RI the closest public transportation is 17 miles away). I have no problem with biking, buses, trains, whatever, but telling my son "OK, let's Bike 37 miles to mom's house in 25 degree f temps, with snow and wind. I'll be back on my pedal bike Thursday afternoon". Well that is not feasible.

 

Or going back to cable, there were initially packages where you could get HBO, Showtime, Starz, and Cinemax for an extra $19 per month. ESPN 2, G4TV (I loved G4 ), Disney XD, the Cartoon Network, the NFL Network, USA, MTV 2, TnT, TBS, The History Channel etc were all either part of the lowest end service or what they called "extended basic" for another $5-$10 per month. This jumped dramatically, with the packages split up, and individual prices being about $25-$35 per premium channel, or $60 if you got them in a 3 premium package deal, and exxtended basic channels being broken up into numerous packages (ei. sports package, kid's package, science and tech package) which made getting all the channels with one premium channel about $190 per month. Now that's settled in at about 90 per month for an extended basic package with some expanded children channels, science tech and history, along with some extra sports channels (Which all contained the same amount of commercials the entire time) but no premium channels (commercial free) which are between $15-$25 per month, or you can contract for a year or 2 at a lower price for the first half, then the price raises above the normal price the 2nd year to even it out.

 

Now can this be done right? No Net Neutrality? Yes. Do we rtust the FCC to regulate it? Do we trust the private companies to regulate it? It could be great, providing more competition, keeping prices stable, and improving quality! This is possible if it is revoked. But we have to believe that companies like Comcast, Cox, Charter, Verizon, and other huge telecommunication companies. How do you feel?

 

Here is one take on it http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/fcc-chair-ajit-pai-explains-wants-scrap-net-neutrality/

 

I honestly think this man (Ajit Pai) believes the Telecoms of the world will not take advantage of title 2 being repealed, which I am very skeptical of.

 

Anyway, as I said, there are pros and cons. Which way do you think the scales will tip, and what will be the ramifications? I'm currently doing more research, but I am a bit worried. A perfect situation? Prices drop, choices improve, and we get more for our money. The worst? Less options, higher costs, and more government regulations. I feel Mr. Pai's view is very naive'.

[PlayStation 2]

As it stands, a whole lot of the United States is fucked on ISP choices. As far as I'm concerned, repealing net neutrality for the sake of competition would barely matter.

As for charging extra for a better experience on certain websites, we'll see how that plays out. I'm pretty sure Comcast was caught on fucking with certain websites and how they stream data a while back.

[AlTech]

That is one of the reasons I don't want to ever live in the US. if the ISP problems don't go away then i'm not gonna live there.

[Speaker1264]

Net neutrality isn't the problem, it sounds good on paper, but will be negative in the long run.  All the government regulations are why we are in this shitty situation with ISPs in the first place, we don't need more regulations like net neutrality.  All it does is stifle innovation, competition, and increase costs.  What the government needs to do is break up the monopolies, ie. separate the physical infrastructure owners from the isps themselves.  That way anyone could come in and lease the lines, creating more competition.  More competition means more innovation and more choice and that means lower prices.

[BuckGup]

Wanna here a secret? Net Neutrality did and won't change anything. ISPs still throttle after it was passed, before, and will continue to no matter what. Even if they are breaking the law who's going to sue them? Not you, unless you have a couple mill lying around, proof that is undeniable, and a couple months. 

[crzyces]

9 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

As for charging extra for a better experience on certain websites, we'll see how that plays out. I'm pretty sure Comcast was caught on fucking with certain websites and how they stream data a while back.

Yes, I forget what the fine was. Without Title 22 this would be legal (limiting bandwidth per site, or an isp charging extra to access a site. So you pay your Netflix fee, then pay your normal isp bill, but you need package *2.1* which is $15 more (just an example) to access Netflix, so you essentially pay 3x to access one site? I assume it will spill into things like STEAM, Origin, Microsoft (All those Windows Updates)...Still, Ajit ensures the government can control this abuse of freedom.

[Speaker1264]

5 minutes ago, crzyces said:

Yes, I forget what the fine was. Without Title 22 this would be legal (limiting bandwidth per site, or an isp charging extra to access a site. So you pay your Netflix fee, then pay your normal isp bill, but you need package *2.1* which is $15 more (just an example) to access Netflix, so you essentially pay 3x to access one site? I assume it will spill into things like STEAM, Origin, Microsoft (All those Windows Updates)...Still, Ajit ensures the government can control this abuse of freedom.

Rather than add more regulations why don't we instead foster competition?  The ISP you have is doing something that will impact you negatively?  Then switch to the other guy instead.  This is the same thing with wireless providers.  Each wireless provider is slightly different, and depending on your habits you will find one that does everything you need for less than the other guys.  Just because you may need 1000 GBs of data doesn't mean the government should force all the wireless companies to provide everyone with 1000 GBs of data, at the detriment of cost for everyone else.

[Ithanul]

9 minutes ago, Speaker1264 said:

Rather than add more regulations why don't we instead foster competition?  The ISP you have is doing something that will impact you negatively?  Then switch to the other guy instead.  This is the same thing with wireless providers.  Each wireless provider is slightly different, and depending on your habits you will find one that does everything you need for less than the other guys.  Just because you may need 1000 GBs of data doesn't mean the government should force all the wireless companies to provide everyone with 1000 GBs of data, at the detriment of cost for everyone else.

What other provider?

 

This is the major problem here.  No choice, no competition to speak of.

If you are lucky, you have two or three choices.  Most of the time, it only one good choice.

 

And, I would be thrilled with 100GB cap.  I have to deal with a 20GB cap and that cost me 80 bucks month.  And no, I don't have choice.  It is that or dail-up out here.

[Speaker1264]

5 minutes ago, Ithanul said:

What other provider?

 

This is the major problem here.  No choice, no competition to speak of.

If you are lucky, you have two or three choices.  Most of the time, it only one good choice.

Read what I said above.  The real problem is that no is able to lay more land lines because it is ludicrously expensive, and you would end up with a spiders web of wires on all the telephone poles if every ISP did have their own lines.  What the government needs to do is separate the ISPs from the owners of the physical infrastructure who would then lease the infrastructure to anyone.  This would drastically lower the barrier to entry for new ISPs.  Pretty soon you would find that you have a lot more choices than you did before.

[crzyces]

2 minutes ago, Ithanul said:

What other provider?

 

This is the major problem here.  No choice, no competition to speak of.

If you are lucky, you have two or three choices.  Most of the time, it only one good choice.

 

And, I would be thrilled with 100GB cap.  I have to deal with a 20GB cap and that cost me 80 bucks month.  And no, I don't have choice.  It is that or dail-up out here.

I don't suffer the limits bandwidth wise, but the choices are High Speed with Cox, or a very slow 2/2 satellite line for over $100 per month.