FCC Done With ISPs Making Excuses

[FakezZ]

I laugh

welcome to the 21th Century, USA  :lol:

 

Romania:

14$ /  month - 1 Gbps fiber optic for home use

Greece:

50 euros for 50/5...

But I expect prices to change real soon. Who knows what the conversion rate will be for drachma ahhahahahahahah  

[MrDynamicMan]

In Soviet Russia you don't pay for internet internet pay for you!

[ivan134]

I'm late, is there anyone here saying this is government overreach and that they want to control content on the internet? It's always amusing listening to people who have been brainwashed by right wingers and don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

[ved]

That feel when 4G lte is faster than land lines for the average american 

http://www.netindex.com/download/2,1/United-States/

Sprint is so shite

[stconquest]

I'm late, is there anyone here saying this is government overreach and that they want to control content on the internet? It's always amusing listening to people who have been brainwashed by right wingers and don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

 

Nah, members here would not let that happen.

[ivan134]

There is nothing wrong with capitalism. As it stands by definition.

Capitalism was started as part of a way to keep government out of our lives (mostly the economy) Capitalism is is put in place to encourage competition within an economy, ISP dont follow that model they are in essence a monopoly (I know somebody will correct me here But this is essentially what it is) which by chance the FCC has finally chose to stop ignoring.

Unfortunately we Americans take on Capitalism all wrong these days because of the incessant growth of big government (which by the way is why the independence from Great Britain happened) but also there are a whole slew of reason why is it currently broken. Capitalism is not broke the system that pretend to be capitalism today is. I don't know a better way to explain this at the moment with out turning my brain back on for a few moments to put real thought into it.

I honestly don't need a government to tell me how to live my life, what to buy, what to eat, etc, etc......

The worst of it is most US citizens have become so stupefied, under educated and so on that we let big government and big corporations walk around and do what they want. So ya keep telling us our ways don't work, it makes feel good about myself all over.

I could go on and on and on about this subject but unfortunately explaining capitalism to another countryman is like trying to explain the difference between feminism and liberalism . . . you cant. Now please don't get me wrong here I am not saying other countrymen are dumb it just Americans are exposed to capitalism from the day of birth and other countries are not. You know what you are used too, that's just all there is to it.

 

Oh and Americans don't sit on a high horse, I don't see any evidence that a socialist economy is outstandingly better.

ALL economic systems work great on paper, including communism. The problem is that, on paper, people forget these are social sciences and don't factor the human element into their equations. It's not because it's the United States, it would happen anywhere no matter what the country is, if you keep it unchecked. Nigeria, my home country, is the most extreme example of this. Can you believe that there is a fuel crisis in the 5th largest oil exporter in the world? It's an extremely wealthy country, but all that money is in the hands of the 0.000001%. The fiscal policies that got the country into it's current mess are the same fiscal policies of Republicans. Do you remember the crash of 08? How did trickle down economy work out? Look at the worst performing state economies on average and look at who controls their executive and legislative.

[spartaman64]

This isn't a free market, it's something created as a result of corporate and political shenanigans, compounded by no one paying attention to what their "representatives" are doing.

you know what happened last time we had a free market when the government didnt regulate. monopolies. monopolies everywhere because of robber barons like carnage and Rockefeller  

[Doobeedoo]

Haha, ISPs are opposing, funny those bastards they'd be nowhere without people... 

[Trik'Stari]

you know what happened last time we had a free market when the government didnt regulate. monopolies. monopolies everywhere because of robber barons like carnage and Rockefeller  

That's true. Which is why some regulation is necessary. We have monopolies now, the only difference is that our "representatives" are in on it, and no one seems to notice or care.

[stconquest]

That's true. Which is why some regulation is necessary. We have monopolies now, the only difference is that our "representatives" are in on it, and no one seems to notice or care.

 

Don't make me post the "Learned Helplessness" video by Veritasium again.  Shit... I would watch it again, and it depresses me slightly.

[Trik'Stari]

Don't make me post the "Learned Helplessness" video by Veritasium again.  Shit... I would watch it again, and it depresses me slightly.

Please don't. I'm already depressed enough with having to read this bullshit text book about customer service practices.

[Yoinkerman]

Well you guys tried fewer regulations and look how that turned out. Time for the government stick.

[Th3 Mans1ay3r]

FCC be like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoAAXT3NUWc&ab_channel=zhangtaofang

[Lethal Seraph]

You are correct, and usually I am not in favor of heavy regulation, but in this instance it is warranted. I blame congress for pushing us to this point. If congress would do their job, and force these major ISP's to break up (which congress could do, these ISP's have been violating anti-trust laws for years. Not to mention not fulfilling their obligations to the tax payers made during the 1996 telecommunications act). Not to mention outlawing "exclusive provider" deals, and forcing the companies to overbuild into each others areas.

 

But congress is bought by these companies. 

[Techhog]

ALL economic systems work great on paper, including communism. The problem is that, on paper, people forget these are social sciences and don't factor the human element into their equations. It's not because it's the United States, it would happen anywhere no matter what the country is, if you keep it unchecked. Nigeria, my home country, is the most extreme example of this. Can you believe that there is a fuel crisis in the 5th largest oil exporter in the world? It's an extremely wealthy country, but all that money is in the hands of the 0.000001%. The fiscal policies that got the country into it's current mess are the same fiscal policies of Republicans. Do you remember the crash of 08? How did trickle down economy work out? Look at the worst performing state economies on average and look at who controls their executive and legislative.

If your country is so wealthy, why did I need to send my life's savings to your prince?

[rockking1379]

I actually don't agree with this too much. The FCC having that much power over service providers isn't a good thing, my concern with the original ruling over Net Neutrality. It's one thing requiring service providers to play fair for businesses and consumers, but another to force them into what isn't fully required.

 

 

This is both good news and bad.

The good news being that ISPs no longer e.g. TWC, Comcast to name a few, can hide behind shitty excuses to ignore their customers demands. Also its good for where I live as there have been rumors of either TWC or Comcast looking to buy out MediaCom in the Midwest (USA) which would be very very bad.

Iowa has the country's longest and fastest fiber network, the INS (http://iowanetworkservices.com/maps/network_maps) it was mostly put in place some time ago and is mostly used by hospital, government and other isp connections here and it is increasing in size all the time. Unfortunately it doesn't have any direct use for consumers but will be changing in the future though.

The bad news, though its been said already, is the direct oversight of government forcing companies (ISPs) to upgrade or else which goes against fundamental capitalistic views here in the US. I am not saying that this is not needed which I am happy for in this one partcular instance but it could be done differently.

ISPs have been monopolizing internet here for way to long. I mean TWC and Comcast customer paying $150 US for the same thing or slower than what I have to which I pay $30 US for . . INSANE. And sometimes getting throttled or having caps in place seriously?!? capping internet usage? how stupid can you be? there is not a shortage on data and it doesn't cost anything to have or make data and once the network is in place its not like its a physical thing that can run out so they are going to ration it like water in a drought.... <_< (sorry Californians no pun intended there).

Like I said this is both good and bad.

okay so i just wanted to comment on both of you guys since you both seem to think this is so terrible that our government is finally standing up for what we the citizens have already paid for. we have given these large ISPs massive tax breaks for decades, had these companies sign contracts to get the tax breaks saying that they would provide faster service, and higher bandwidth with better infrastructure. but it hasnt happened. so why shouldnt our government finally put down the hammer and tell them either upgrade or start paying back?

[Trik'Stari]

But congress is bought by these companies. 

That's kind of why congress isn't doing its job.

[Dabombinable]

That's kind of why congress isn't doing its job.

Well democracies do normally end up becoming corrupt and in extreme cases dictatorships. Most 'western' countries have the same problem (Australia and the US are prime examples).

[Trik'Stari]

Well democracies do normally end up becoming corrupt and in extreme cases dictatorships. Most 'western' countries have the same problem (Australia and the US are prime examples).

Yep. Headed straight down that path. Been saying it since high school, "we're going to end up like rome did".

[ivan134]

If your country is so wealthy, why did I need to send my life's savings to your prince?

LOL. I keep telling my uncle to cut it out 

[SansVarnic]

okay so i just wanted to comment on both of you guys since you both seem to think this is so terrible that our government is finally standing up for what we the citizens have already paid for. we have given these large ISPs massive tax breaks for decades, had these companies sign contracts to get the tax breaks saying that they would provide faster service, and higher bandwidth with better infrastructure. but it hasn't happened. so why shouldn't our government finally put down the hammer and tell them either upgrade or start paying back?

 

OK, without going into a very boring, lengthy explanation of how a Republic and a Federalist system works and how The US Is Not a Democracy, I will give the short answer.

 

First I did not say this was a bad thing (I said bad news). This type of situation is exactly what government is for, to stand up for the ethical treatment of its citizens.

The ISPs have become overreaching for sometime and the government should have stepped in a long time ago. An Oligopoly is a Monopoly that the government chooses to ignore.

The FCC having been given the power it has now is whats wrong/bad. The FCC ALREADY had the power to walk in tell the ISPs to desist in their current practices with their customers, the lobbyists in this country have To Much Influence on political direction and should be disbanded. The fact that this 'ruling' is just a ruse to increase its ability and to control more, just wait until Internet restrictions are put into place and you will see what I mean.

A free internet has no restrictions, besides no one entity can 'own' the internet or control it, especially ISPs, Government, etc. the list goes on. If anyone has a real claim to the internet it would be the original designers that laid out the process for the US Army back in the 40's.

 

Pay attention to what I wrote. Read the parts in RED, the smaller font was intentional.

 

"This is both good news and bad.

The good news being that ISPs no longer e.g. TWC, Comcast to name a few, can hide behind shitty excuses to ignore their customers demands. Also its good for where I live as there have been rumors of either TWC or Comcast looking to buy out MediaCom in the Midwest (USA) which would be very very bad.

Iowa has the country's longest and fastest fiber network, the INS (http://iowanetworkse...ps/network_maps) it was mostly put in place some time ago and is mostly used by hospital, government and other isp connections here and it is increasing in size all the time. Unfortunately it doesn't have any direct use for consumers but will be changing in the future though.

The bad news, though its been said already, is the direct oversight of government forcing companies (ISPs) to upgrade or else which goes against fundamental capitalistic views here in the US. I am not saying that this is not needed which I am happy for in this one particular instance but it could have be done differently.

ISPs have been monopolizing internet here for way to long. I mean TWC and Comcast customer paying $150 US for the same thing or slower than what I have to which I pay $30 US for . . INSANE. And sometimes getting throttled or having caps in place seriously?!? capping internet usage? how stupid can you be? there is not a shortage on data and it doesn't cost anything to have or make data and once the network is in place its not like its a physical thing that can run out so they are going to ration it like water in a drought....  <_< (sorry Californians no pun intended there).

Like I said this is both good and bad."

 

**edited to fix some typo's"

Edited June 28, 2015 by SansVarnic

[Techhog]

OK, without going into a very boring, lengthy explanation of how a Republic and a Federalist system works and how The US Is Not a Democracy, I will give the short answer.

 

First I did not say this was a bad thing (I said bad news). This type of situation is exactly what government is for, to stand up for the ethical treatment of its citizens.

The ISPs have become overreaching for sometime and the government should have stepped in a long time ago. An Oligopoly is a Monopoly that the government chooses to ignore.

The FCC having been given the power it has now is whats wrong/bad. The FCC ALREADY had the power to walk in tell the ISPs to desist in their current practices with their customers, the lobbyists in this country have To Much Influence on political direction and should be disbanded. The fact that this 'ruling' is just a ruse to increase its ability and to control more, just wait until Internet restrictions are put into place and you will see what I mean.

A free internet has no restrictions, besides no one entity can 'own' the internet or control it, especially ISPs, Government, etc. the list goes on. If anyone has a real claim to the internet it would be the original designers that laid out the process for the US Army back in the 40's.

 

Pay attention to what I wrote. Read the parts in RED, the smaller font was intentional.

 

"This is both good news and bad.

The good news being that ISPs no longer e.g. TWC, Comcast to name a few, can hide behind shitty excuses to ignore their customers demands. Also its good for where I live as there have been rumors of either TWC or Comcast looking to buy out MediaCom in the Midwest (USA) which would be very very bad.

Iowa has the country's longest and fastest fiber network, the INS (http://iowanetworkse...ps/network_maps) it was mostly put in place some time ago and is mostly used by hospital, government and other isp connections here and it is increasing in size all the time. Unfortunately it doesn't have any direct use for consumers but will be changing in the future though.

The bad news, though its been said already, is the direct oversight of government forcing companies (ISPs) to upgrade or else which goes against fundamental capitalistic views here in the US. I am not saying that this is not needed which I am happy for in this one particular instance but it could have be done differently.

ISPs have been monopolizing internet here for way to long. I mean TWC and Comcast customer paying $150 US for the same thing or slower than what I have to which I pay $30 US for . . INSANE. And sometimes getting throttled or having caps in place seriously?!? capping internet usage? how stupid can you be? there is not a shortage on data and it doesn't cost anything to have or make data and once the network is in place its not like its a physical thing that can run out so they are going to ration it like water in a drought....  <_< (sorry Californians no pun intended there).

Like I said this is both good and bad."

 

**edited to fix some typo's"

Uhhhhh

[SansVarnic]

Uhhhhh

That link is not relative to what I said.

 

The FCC in this case, the US Government in which ever capacity that is deemed legitimate within the Law allows them to put an end to Monopolies. Need I refer to what they attempted to do to Microsoft years back when they claimed that Microsoft was creating a monopoly when they weren't they were just out selling every one else.

This instance the opposite, here ISPs are creating Monopolies by restricting the rise of other ISPs and buying up or merging with other creating a Monopoly which puts the government in the right position to take action. A first year law student can see this.

The FCC ruling of Net Neutrality has absolutely nothing to to do with this.

The fact they (US Government) are finally willing to do something, in this case utilizing the FCC instead of the courts, is something to say for at the least.

 

*edit*

I am not here to debate the finite things that make up government involvement.

My initial point that the FCC or Government on general could have taken a better approach to this whole situation. The Courts have the power to walk in do what has been needed to be done this whole time, The FCC was tasked with the job to oversee any thing that has to do do with communications. The FCC could have came in and filed against the ISPs Monopolization of the customer base utilizing the court system to do so. The fact that the Net Neutrality is in the mix is what I am against, you can not take away the power of the court and hand it off to just any government entity.

The link you posted is in fact the courts telling the FCC just that. Net Neutrality is the FCC taking a knife to Courts back for doing so.

[Dabombinable]

That link is not relative to what I said.

 

The FCC in this case, the US Government in which ever capacity that is deemed legitimate within the Law allows them to put an end to Monopolies. Need I refer to what they attempted to do to Microsoft years back when they claimed that Microsoft was creating a monopoly when they weren't they were just out selling every one else.

This instance the opposite, here ISPs are creating Monopolies by restricting the rise of other ISPs and buying up or merging with other creating a Monopoly which puts the government in the right position to take action. A first year law student can see this.

The FCC ruling of Net Neutrality has absolutely nothing to to do with this.

The fact they (US Government) are finally willing to do something, in this case utilizing the FCC instead of the courts, is something to say for at the least.

 

*edit*

I am not here to debate the finite things that make up government involvement.

My initial point that the FCC or Government on general could have taken a better approach to this whole situation. The Courts have the power to walk in do what has been needed to be done this whole time, The FCC was tasked with the job to oversee any thing that has to do do with communications. The FCC could have came in and filed against the ISPs Monopolization of the customer base utilizing the court system to do so. The fact that the Net Neutrality is in the mix is what I am against, you can not take away the power of the court and hand it off to just any government entity.

The link you posted is in fact the courts telling the FCC just that. Net Neutrality is the FCC taking a knife to Courts back for doing so.

Microsoft kind of was trying to create a monopoly, for example they completely screwed IBM when they were working on OS/2, which resulted in Windows 3.1 (which was in a lot of ways inferior to OS/2-stability is a good example and the fact that OS/2 could run multiple copies of DOS and windows 3.1 within itself with no problems at all-plus it had a far better GUI). Though IBM never really marketed its OS that well (marketing is why they've had so many problems-they just aren't that good at it)

[SansVarnic]

Microsoft kind of was trying to create a monopoly, for example they completely screwed IBM when they were working on OS/2, which resulted in Windows 3.1 (which was in a lot of ways inferior to OS/2-stability is a good example and the fact that OS/2 could run multiple copies of DOS and windows 3.1 within itself with no problems at all-plus it had a far better GUI). Though IBM never really marketed its OS that well (marketing is why they've had so many problems-they just aren't that good at it)

Unfortunately i didn't get to see all what happening on that one so I might a bit off. I knew IBM an MS were having an all out war with each other there for a while. But thing was there were still other OS's coming out of the frame work so technically speaking within the law MS wasn't Monopolizing intentionally. But its all technicalities tho.

But I see your point, Thanks for the info.