So long Net Neutrality!

[Grover]

Federal court strikes down FCC net neutrality rules | The Verge

This is bad for the consumer. Very bad.

[cartman]

After reading the judge's ruling, it appears that all the FCC has to do is reclassify broadband providers as "common carriers" to get around it.

[kcchief19]

The FCC can't just deem ISPs a common carrier; Congress would have to modify the Telecommunications Act. Under the current definition, I'm not sure ISPs can't be defined as common carriers, even though the FCC has treated them as such.

I've had a hard time getting my arms around net neutrality from the beginning. In most respects it seems like a noble goal. In other respects, it seems unrealistic and counterproductive.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I've had a hard time getting my arms around net neutrality from the beginning. In most respects it seems like a noble goal. In other respects, it seems unrealistic and counterproductive.

You're kidding, right? How is ensuring that you have access to content you want "unrealistic and counterproductive"?

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

You're kidding, right? How is ensuring that you have access to content you want "unrealistic and counterproductive"?

Maybe he trusts his ISP to decide what content he can get and the speeds he can access that content?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by dubb93

Maybe he trusts his ISP to decide what content he can get and the speeds he can access that content?

And if the ISP breaks that trust, he can just select another broadband provider.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by cartman

And if the ISP breaks that trust, he can just select another broadband provider.

Which is easier said than done in many cases (and locations).

[cartman]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Which is easier said than done in many cases (and locations).

Exactly

[ISiddiqui]

Seems to me that the issue is that the FCC did net neutrality under legally dubious means. We need to get Congress to actually vote on this.

[sterlingice]

Is there a realistic answer to the local cable/ISP monopolies in most areas where you have, at most, one cable company (Time Warner, Comcast, etc), one phone company (AT&T or Verizon), and satellite providers (basically tv only, tho)?

SI

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Which is easier said than done in many cases (and locations).

Someone's sarcasm meter broke for a second.

[PilotMan]

Shitty news. The internet is so ingrained in the daily life of people worldwide, handing over control of it to your ISP would be akin to car dealerships selling cars with wooden wheels then marking up the costs of rubber tires to balance the P&L.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Is there a realistic answer to the local cable/ISP monopolies in most areas where you have, at most, one cable company (Time Warner, Comcast, etc), one phone company (AT&T or Verizon), and satellite providers (basically tv only, tho)?

SI

Which is exactly why broadband should be designated as a common carrier.

[chinaski]

uuuuuuugggggh.

[DaddyTorgo]

Just wait till politicians realize that killing net neutrality means their ISPs will be able to throttle/block off their porn - we'll see a net neutrality bill soon enough after that.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Is there a realistic answer to the local cable/ISP monopolies in most areas where you have, at most, one cable company (Time Warner, Comcast, etc), one phone company (AT&T or Verizon), and satellite providers (basically tv only, tho)?

SI

I'd say municipal broadband, but it isn't realistic in a lot of places where telecom lobbyists have had it killed.

[Solecismic]

I'm wondering what happens when cable companies (many of which control our high-speed internet) start seeing greatly declining revenue from channel packages due to NetFlix/etc.

Unless there's a fix here, there's considerable potential for a war that can only be solved by the path of 1,000 lawsuits.

I think this will end up getting solved by higher prices for bandwidth usage. But without net neutrality, it will get ugly out there fast.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by mckerney

I'd say municipal broadband, but it isn't realistic in a lot of places where telecom lobbyists have had it killed.

I wish there was a public option. After all, business should be able to do it quicker and cheaper with their profit motive and all.

SI

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'm wondering what happens when cable companies (many of which control our high-speed internet) start seeing greatly declining revenue from channel packages due to NetFlix/etc.

Unless there's a fix here, there's considerable potential for a war that can only be solved by the path of 1,000 lawsuits.

I think this will end up getting solved by higher prices for bandwidth usage. But without net neutrality, it will get ugly out there fast.

Probably bandwidth capping with on demand services from the cable providers that don't count towards the cap, along with throttling Netflix and Amazon with no merry neurality rules. And it wouldn't surprise me if in the case of throttling customer service reps would be telling people it is a problem with Netflix's end because they're just not at as fast as Comcast on demand.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Someone's sarcasm meter broke for a second.

Indeed, but in my defense there are multiple options where I live. Not many, but at least three (Comcast, CenturyLink, Dish).

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Indeed, but in my defense there are multiple options where I live. Not many, but at least three (Comcast, CenturyLink, Dish).

I have two options for "high speed" internet. Comcast, and a regional company who advertises blazing fast 250kbps download speeds. In-laws have the latter, it caused them to cancel Netflix. Can't wait for Comcast to start throttling video on demand services.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by dubb93

Can't wait for Comcast to start throttling video on demand services.

Well Xfinity On-Demand will be there to save you from slow loading movies! And instead wasting your money by having to pay for everything in the Netflix library with Xfinity you're in control and can chose what you want to pay for! Movies start at just $4.99* ($5.99 for HD)!

*Requires subscription to Xfinity TV service, plans start at just $69.99

[RainMaker]

Bad news for consumers here. Just the country falling farther and farther back in this area. It's already embarrassing to not be able to compete with the rest of the first world.

ISPs wouldn't be fighting so hard for this if they didn't plan on throttling traffic or charging companies for preferred access. Will be a few years down the road but we can all expect services like Netflix to get much more expensive in the near future.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Bad news for consumers here. Just the country falling farther and farther back in this area. It's already embarrassing to not be able to compete with the rest of the first world.

ISPs wouldn't be fighting so hard for this if they didn't plan on throttling traffic or charging companies for preferred access. Will be a few years down the road but we can all expect services like Netflix to get much more expensive in the near future.

Yup

[RainMaker]

It's also ironic that Verizon wants government to not intervene in their business. They have not paid taxes in over 5 years despite making billions in profits. This is due to the ridiculous amount of tax breaks ISPs receive. The taxes that consumers have to pay for services that are supposed to go into building infrastructure that is not.

So lets make a deal. Government gets out of their way and that includes all the special tax breaks.

[Buccaneer]

My home ISP is Comcast. I do not trust them.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's also ironic that Verizon wants government to not intervene in their business.

Verizon also has no problem with government intervention of ISPs when it comes to the government stopping municipalities from creating broadband networks, like the law they lobbied for and helped pass in Pennsylvania.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

ISPs wouldn't be fighting so hard for this if they didn't plan on throttling traffic or charging companies for preferred access.

I can't wait until FOFC, OOTP, FOBL, Solecismic have to pay protection money to broadband providers just to keep sites accessible.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I can't wait until FOFC, OOTP, FOBL, Solecismic have to pay protection money to broadband providers just to keep sites accessible.

Don't worry, if your favorite websites doesn't offer you premium service on Xfinity you can give it an Xfinity Powerboost by adding it on in a bonus tier subscription plan!



And just wait to download a game on your XBox when your ISP has already made an exclusive digital content deal with Sony.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

One more reason I'm glad I get to sign up for Google Fiber in March.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

One more reason I'm glad I get to sign up for Google Fiber in March.

Won't help if a site you visit a lot throttles Google in favor of giving preferential traffic to another ISP.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

One more reason I'm glad I get to sign up for Google Fiber in March.

Can't they just do the same thing? Just slow down the App store for Apple or something?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Won't help if a site you visit a lot throttles Google in favor of giving preferential traffic to another ISP.

It's a problem I'm willing to deal with compared with the other options out there. They can go ahead and throttle some sites back to 100MB from 1GB. Beats less than 5 MB I'm getting from most providers right now.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's a problem I'm willing to deal with compared with the other options out there. They can go ahead and throttle some sites back to 100MB from 1GB. Beats less than 5 MB I'm getting from most providers right now.

That's one of the big misconceptions with having a big internet pipe. One of my customers has a 100MB fiber connection. That doesn't mean they can access sites at 100MB. Most of them top out at 10MB, because that is the speed of the site's colo cross-connect. Even DL'ing from Microsoft tops out around 45MB. That Google Fiber connection is just 1GB from you to the Google local site. After that it quickly gets bottlenecked by carrier connections and then bandwidth limitations of sites. It will just get even worse when side deals start to get worked out if Net Neutrality doesn't get approved.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

That's one of the big misconceptions with having a big internet pipe. One of my customers has a 100MB fiber connection. That doesn't mean they can access sites at 100MB. Most of them top out at 10MB, because that is the speed of the site's colo cross-connect. Even DL'ing from Microsoft tops out around 45MB. That Google Fiber connection is just 1GB from you to the Google local site. After that it quickly gets bottlenecked by carrier connections and then bandwidth limitations of sites. It will just get even worse when side deals start to get worked out if Net Neutrality doesn't get approved.

I have three friends with Google Fiber already. Worst speed I've seen at the three houses is around 300MB. It slows to that speed if you have TV on while perusing the internet. That's a problem I'm willing to have.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The FCC can't just deem ISPs a common carrier; Congress would have to modify the Telecommunications Act. Under the current definition, I'm not sure ISPs can't be defined as common carriers, even though the FCC has treated them as such.

I've had a hard time getting my arms around net neutrality from the beginning. In most respects it seems like a noble goal. In other respects, it seems unrealistic and counterproductive.

Of course you do... you are one of them...

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I have three friends with Google Fiber already. Worst speed I've seen at the three houses is around 300MB. It slows to that speed if you have TV on while perusing the internet. That's a problem I'm willing to have.

That's pretty impressive that they're getting speeds nearly 2.5x faster than Google Fiber provides.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by mckerney

That's pretty impressive that they're getting speeds nearly 2.5x faster than Google Fiber provides.

At up to 1,000 Mbps, Google Fiber is 100 times faster than today's basic broadband, allowing you to get what you want instantaneously.

They said 'up to' because obviously they provide more than one service. But if you want it and have the proper routers, high speeds are definitely available. One of my friends was frustrated initially because he couldn't get any more than 100MB/s. Figured out that his routing gear was causing a bottle neck. Once he resolved that, he was getting much higher speeds even with the TV on.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

They said 'up to' because obviously they provide more than one service. But if you want it and have the proper routers, high speeds are definitely available. One of my friends was frustrated initially because he couldn't get any more than 100MB/s. Figured out that his routing gear was causing a bottle neck. Once he resolved that, he was getting much higher speeds even with the TV on.

1000 Mbps is about 128 MBps, so 100MBps is already coming close to maxing that out.

[IlliniCub]

Is the issue dead? Is there an appeal process to the decision? Can it be taken to a higher court?

[RainMaker]

I can barely get to 10 even if I pay for 20.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by mckerney

1000 Mbps is about 128 MBps, so 100MBps is already coming close to maxing that out.

You win the computer speed capitalization correction contest.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You win the computer speed capitalization correction contest.

And you win for confusing people with inaccurate numbers.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by IlliniCub

Is the issue dead? Is there an appeal process to the decision? Can it be taken to a higher court?

It could still be appealed to the Supreme Court, but based on the written decision, I don't think they would take the case and if they did, overturn it. It is probably going to fall back on Congress to handle it legislatively.

[ISiddiqui]

I have been thinking about this and I am on the fence about net neutrality. On first brush, it seems like a really great idea - why should those ISPs be allowed to discriminate and destroy companies that they are competing with? On the other hand, streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, etc, don't really have to pay the true cost of the bandwidth they use. They get to pay equal amounts as what a website with all text on it pays and the ISP is left footing the bill.

It tends to make the ISPs into de facto utilities and perhaps that's the goal, but that doesn't mean the price is going to go down anytime soon (or service go up) if that's the direction we want to go. In the end, we have to make a decision what we'd rather want.

And of course, if net neutrality is upheld, I have a feeling data caps will finally come to ISPs.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And of course, if net neutrality is upheld, I have a feeling data caps will finally come to ISPs.

And once that happens you can pretty much stick a fork in the internet as we know it. As a pervasive influence it'll be a dead duck, as will any sort of creative programming that requires heavy loads.

[ISiddiqui]

Indeed. So the issue may not be as cut and dried as some would like.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Indeed. So the issue may not be as cut and dried as some would like.

Among the things that seem likely to die an unintended death from this would be the trend toward government operations (like filings, registrations, renewals, etc) online.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Among the things that seem likely to die an unintended death from this would be the trend toward government operations (like filings, registrations, renewals, etc) online.

ISPs will offer it up for free just like payphones and stuff let you call 9-1-1. Pretty easy to just whitelist all .gov sites.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

ISPs will offer it up for free just like payphones and stuff let you call 9-1-1. Pretty easy to just whitelist all .gov sites.

Except where is their motivation (currently) to do so?