Federal Court Nixes FCC Net Neutrality Ruling
Take that FCC!!!!!
I think it sucks that comcast limits the speed of some of its users, but I think it is far worse that the FCC thinks it has authority over the practices of PRIVATE companies.
FREE MARKET!!!!!
FREE MARKET!!!!!
...
But here's the deal...the FCC can't tell the company what they can and can't do with their company. What stops them from limiting how much data you can transfer? What if you start paying in tiers, not by the speed of the net, but how MUCH data you can transfer. People think aircards having a 5GB cap is too much...just wait until you have a 20GB cap on your home internet service. It only takes one company for them all to follow suit. And then what happens when they limit you to what websites you can go to? They can just argue that some sites are too data intensive for their network so you have to pay more for that. Oh well...I think in this case, the FCC was working for the consumers.
Personally, I think this is the first step towards a l...
(continues)
Personally, I think this is the first step towards a l...
(continues)
...
the thing is if you're transfering a crap ton of data all the time it is probably a safe assumption you might be downloading and streaming illegal movies and programs you havent paid for and your data consumption excedes the amout of revinue you are providing that company is losing money. albeit not a lot but if everyone took advantage it could put a company out of business.
so do what g.i.joe psa's say and "stop all the downloadin!"
so do what g.i.joe psa's say and "stop all the downloadin!"
...
flagrantmisuse said:
the thing is if you're transfering a crap ton of data all the time it is probably a safe assumption you might be downloading and streaming illegal movies and programs you havent paid for and your data consumption excedes the amout of revinue you are providing that company is losing money. albeit not a lot but if everyone took advantage it could put a company out of business.
so do what g.i.joe psa's say and "stop all the downloadin!"
So, it's a safe bet huh? Because no one watches alot of videos on Hulu or Youtube. No one ever buys music through services like iTunes etc...No one EVER does any of this stuff that takes alot of bandwidth without doing ANYTHING illegal. It's a pretty sa...
(continues)
...
That's exactly what I was thinking. I have a very legal membership to Netflix and it lets me stream over my PS3 and my computer. Capping data will limit me on watching those videos. Also, as websites get more data intensive, they will use a lot more bandwidth. So what do we do in that case? Guess we will just have to buy a larger tier of data...
...
The thing is that high usage users are doing it at the expense of low usage ones. Because there's no tiered pricing, many people overpay for "unlimited" plans they have little or no need for. Wouldn't it be fair to give them the option to pay less for what they actually use instead of subsidizing a few heavy users?
...
i use netflix thru my xbox live account and play online. plus my room mate is a full time web developer that works from home. our usage on a monthly basis pales in comparison to a lot of friends of mine who participate in questionable activities like my aforementioned post. so please dont lecture me with your sarcasm.
...
When 10% of their users are using 60%+ of their bandwidth, it IS safe to assume that they are using it for illegal purposes.
You guys are missing the raw data they are talking about here.
When you download a movie using itunes it's what? 1.4gb?
When you download the SAME movie using Bit Torrent it's 9+gb because while you are downloading, others are uploading what you already have on your system. and then with this system, a lot of people leave the torrent up for a time to allow others to download from them (since the system is dependent on others having the file available.
On top of that, these heavy users are downloading MULTIPLE movies at a time, almost every day of the week.
But let's say that you have 2 customers. one ...
(continues)
You guys are missing the raw data they are talking about here.
When you download a movie using itunes it's what? 1.4gb?
When you download the SAME movie using Bit Torrent it's 9+gb because while you are downloading, others are uploading what you already have on your system. and then with this system, a lot of people leave the torrent up for a time to allow others to download from them (since the system is dependent on others having the file available.
On top of that, these heavy users are downloading MULTIPLE movies at a time, almost every day of the week.
But let's say that you have 2 customers. one ...
(continues)
...
Thank you! Most people have no idea of Bit Torrent use/abuse. It is always a small group that will screw it up for the rest.
...
Explain this "dangerous" thing to me. Is it like saying everyone who does not agree with you is ignorant or hateful?
Whether you agree with flagrantmisuse or not is not the point. There are many people I disagree with. I would not say their point is dangerous.
What the court ruling is all about is that the FCC may not overstep its boundaries and decide how Comcast delivers its product or how it charges for it. As a cabinet position the FCC is exerting executive authority in a manner that the court says is not legal. This also has implications with the FCC objections about how Verizon charges for data and their tiered ETF. What is dangerous is government's intrusion into business without constitutionally passed laws. (through the legislati...
(continues)
Whether you agree with flagrantmisuse or not is not the point. There are many people I disagree with. I would not say their point is dangerous.
What the court ruling is all about is that the FCC may not overstep its boundaries and decide how Comcast delivers its product or how it charges for it. As a cabinet position the FCC is exerting executive authority in a manner that the court says is not legal. This also has implications with the FCC objections about how Verizon charges for data and their tiered ETF. What is dangerous is government's intrusion into business without constitutionally passed laws. (through the legislati...
(continues)
...
Funny thing, if a person or company owns something, they get to decide how it is used. It is up to them to decide how to bill you for using their service. It is up to them to decide how much of their service you get to use.
It is no different that telling a hotel manager that they have to give everyone a presidential sweet for the cost of a room at the seediest hotel in town. Nobody would agree that should be done. The internet is no different- the company owns their service- they aren't required to give or sell it to anyone on any terms other than their own. Property laws really aren't that hard to understand- this shouldnt' come as a surprise to anyone.
It is no different that telling a hotel manager that they have to give everyone a presidential sweet for the cost of a room at the seediest hotel in town. Nobody would agree that should be done. The internet is no different- the company owns their service- they aren't required to give or sell it to anyone on any terms other than their own. Property laws really aren't that hard to understand- this shouldnt' come as a surprise to anyone.
...
Why not charge per usage. Like any other utility? They check what you use and that is your bill. Possible "overage" fee. If you go over a set amount then you have to pay extra. That way you use large amount you pay for it.
I wish the electric company would charge like my internet company, one flat rate for what ever you use!
I wish the electric company would charge like my internet company, one flat rate for what ever you use!
...
flagrantmisuse said:
the thing is if you're transfering a crap ton of data all the time it is probably a safe assumption you might be downloading and streaming illegal movies and programs you havent paid for and your data consumption excedes the amout of revinue you are providing that company is losing money. albeit not a lot but if everyone took advantage it could put a company out of business.
so do what g.i.joe psa's say and "stop all the downloadin!"
How is it safe to assume?? So are you telling me that if someone likes to stream HD content from sites such as Netflicks or Youtube, does Voip, download music from itunes/amazon, does alot of online gaming and video blogging.... So are you telling me th...
(continues)
...
That usage is NOWHERE near what torrent users consume.
10% of comcasts users consume 60% of their bandwidth. Think about it
10% of comcasts users consume 60% of their bandwidth. Think about it
...
You do realize the heart and soul of Net Neutrality isn't trying to force companies to offer unlimited bandwidth, but to treat all packet data equally....
That is, 5 GB of data from hulu.com should be treated the same as 5 GB of data from using Vonage. In both scenarios 5 GB of data is transferred... but, without Net Neutrality companies such as Comcast can inspect packets of data and determine if they get to be sent via the express lane or the slow lane. So, if Comcast wants to push it's own VoIP service, then it just has to throttle the packet data being transmitted over it's network from services such as Skype, Vonage, MagicJack, etc.
What if AOL Timewarner all of a sudden signs a contract with Yahoo! to be its exclusive search engi...
(continues)
That is, 5 GB of data from hulu.com should be treated the same as 5 GB of data from using Vonage. In both scenarios 5 GB of data is transferred... but, without Net Neutrality companies such as Comcast can inspect packets of data and determine if they get to be sent via the express lane or the slow lane. So, if Comcast wants to push it's own VoIP service, then it just has to throttle the packet data being transmitted over it's network from services such as Skype, Vonage, MagicJack, etc.
What if AOL Timewarner all of a sudden signs a contract with Yahoo! to be its exclusive search engi...
(continues)
...
Jeff... Then another company will come in, offer better service for a better price (that is called Value), and competition will continue. This is not a step toward China's Sensorship or Internet Nazi-Like control.
I'm glad the Court gave the middle finger to the FCC. Stop their damn regulation.
I'm glad the Court gave the middle finger to the FCC. Stop their damn regulation.
...
You think that, but it's not always the case. Look at the cellular market...when those aircards came out, I remember Sprint had unlimited use on them. Then Verizon and AT&T started putting a cap on usage. No biggie because Sprint still offered unlimited and it was actually a selling point...then a few months passed and Sprint caved in and put the cap on. Now, no one offers unlimited use on aircards.
No ISP wants to give you unlimited use. They may make their tied prices cheaper than the competition, but I think the unlimited web is about to be a thing of the past...
No ISP wants to give you unlimited use. They may make their tied prices cheaper than the competition, but I think the unlimited web is about to be a thing of the past...
...
If companies need to meter web usage, then that is what they need to do. If someone figures out a way to offer unlimited and make a profit, they will. the unlimited air card made a comeback in WiMax areas. The same would happen in any other market.
The companies aren't out to screw customers- they are there to make money. Since there is compeition, they will always try to offer the most service for the least money. That doesn't mean we'll get everything we may want, but we're not going to get totally screwed either.
The companies aren't out to screw customers- they are there to make money. Since there is compeition, they will always try to offer the most service for the least money. That doesn't mean we'll get everything we may want, but we're not going to get totally screwed either.
...
that users regularly get kicked off of, that has rotten coverage, drops to 1x frequently and has extreme bandwidth limitations. But other than that it's great!
...
You do realize that companies put the bandwidth cap because it was causing a huge strain on their networks right?
Sprint said that with current 3g technology, if a user consumed 4gigs or more, they were costing the company money (their 60 a month didn't cover it)
The term unlimited is not beneficial to consumers or companies. it was great before the era of youtube, torrents and the like because you never had to worry about a different bill, and companies could charge a premium for the "unlimited" tag because people wouldn't come close to spending that much in bandwidth.
And then things changed. People still offered unlimited, but what it means now is that the majority (90%+) of consumers are paying FAR too much for their usage to ...
(continues)
Sprint said that with current 3g technology, if a user consumed 4gigs or more, they were costing the company money (their 60 a month didn't cover it)
The term unlimited is not beneficial to consumers or companies. it was great before the era of youtube, torrents and the like because you never had to worry about a different bill, and companies could charge a premium for the "unlimited" tag because people wouldn't come close to spending that much in bandwidth.
And then things changed. People still offered unlimited, but what it means now is that the majority (90%+) of consumers are paying FAR too much for their usage to ...
(continues)
...
There is no such thing as the free market when you are dealing with monopolies and oligopolies.
I suspect that doesn't matter, and you just wanted to cheer on the "free market".
So, while cheering, remember that the "free market" has enabled us to be 28th in the word in connection speed and 20th in broadband coverage . Go USA?
Let's also not forget the billions of dollars in taxes and subsidies that have been given to these telecommunication companies, yet their promises still go unrealized.
All the while they try to charge for content, as well as connection access.
So... you were saying?
I suspect that doesn't matter, and you just wanted to cheer on the "free market".
So, while cheering, remember that the "free market" has enabled us to be 28th in the word in connection speed and 20th in broadband coverage . Go USA?
Let's also not forget the billions of dollars in taxes and subsidies that have been given to these telecommunication companies, yet their promises still go unrealized.
All the while they try to charge for content, as well as connection access.
So... you were saying?
...
And see, that's exactly what I said about the Wallstreet bailout. People love capitalism until it negatively effects them...then they want the government to step in.
Wallstreet got bailed out and we say, that's not capitalism. But if we didn't bail out Wallstreet and folks lost their jobs, you wouldn't hear those same cheers for capitalism...you'd hear people screaming at the government as to why they didn't protect their jobs. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
This won't be such a huge uprising because most folks don't care. But if we ever see tiered internet data caps then I bet the same folks who say, Yeah FCC...you have no right to govern business! will be the same folks who complain they have to pay for the amount of data the...
(continues)
Wallstreet got bailed out and we say, that's not capitalism. But if we didn't bail out Wallstreet and folks lost their jobs, you wouldn't hear those same cheers for capitalism...you'd hear people screaming at the government as to why they didn't protect their jobs. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
This won't be such a huge uprising because most folks don't care. But if we ever see tiered internet data caps then I bet the same folks who say, Yeah FCC...you have no right to govern business! will be the same folks who complain they have to pay for the amount of data the...
(continues)
...
Wallstreet also partially failed because the government promised to underwrite risky loans should they fail.
So an investor was given 2 choices:
1: buying loans with moderate risk, where you accepted both the rewards and costs.
2: buy loans with HIGH risk, but you only reap the rewards because the companies are "too big to fail" so the government will bail you out (you'll still get investment back) if people default. This is like buying a lottery ticket and getting your money back if you don't win.
Which would you choose?
People are quick to blame capitalism whenever something goes wrong with the market without looking at what government influences existed, and yet they largely ignore it when it benefits the consumer (consumer...
(continues)
So an investor was given 2 choices:
1: buying loans with moderate risk, where you accepted both the rewards and costs.
2: buy loans with HIGH risk, but you only reap the rewards because the companies are "too big to fail" so the government will bail you out (you'll still get investment back) if people default. This is like buying a lottery ticket and getting your money back if you don't win.
Which would you choose?
People are quick to blame capitalism whenever something goes wrong with the market without looking at what government influences existed, and yet they largely ignore it when it benefits the consumer (consumer...
(continues)
...
Well said Capt.
This is just going to open the door for a whole lot more court rulings. If it doesn't go the Net Neutrality way then consumers are going to suffer.
This is just going to open the door for a whole lot more court rulings. If it doesn't go the Net Neutrality way then consumers are going to suffer.
...
The court merely stated that it is not up to the FCC or any other cabinet agency to legislate. That is the role of Congress. Let a bill go through Congress, get signed into law by the President and then let the FCC enforce it.
...
I'll just start out by saying the GOVERNMENT is the only monopoly in the United States.
It is the interference of the government, the billions of dollars in subsidies they have been tying in with red tape and legislation. It is the limits imposed by the government that are restricting the development of higher speeds and newer technologies that absolutely would benefit the average consumer.
And ask yourself this, what gives one company an advantage over others when it comes to those subsidies? Why should bobs internet company be granted millions and jims internet company get nothing? Isn't that the same as a government imposed monopoly? no?
You sound like you are a lot smarter than your post lets on.
It is the interference of the government, the billions of dollars in subsidies they have been tying in with red tape and legislation. It is the limits imposed by the government that are restricting the development of higher speeds and newer technologies that absolutely would benefit the average consumer.
And ask yourself this, what gives one company an advantage over others when it comes to those subsidies? Why should bobs internet company be granted millions and jims internet company get nothing? Isn't that the same as a government imposed monopoly? no?
You sound like you are a lot smarter than your post lets on.
...
the Capt is a well known fan of complete government intervention. He might be smart, but when it comes to law and politics he's not
...
Menno said:
the Capt is a well known fan of complete government intervention.
Say what now?
Care to source anything I've said that would substantiate your claim, or are you, as I suspect, just making baseless accusations?
...
On almost every one of your posts you have taken a point of view that consumers should never take responsibility for their actions.
You have also implied that the government should step in and protect consumers from themselves. Your rants about how contracts should be illegal and companies should not require them in order to do business.
You have also implied that the government should step in and protect consumers from themselves. Your rants about how contracts should be illegal and companies should not require them in order to do business.
...
justfinethanku said:
I'll just start out by saying the GOVERNMENT is the only monopoly in the United States.
Yet, this is demonstrably false.
The rest of your post is as invalid as the opening as corporations themselves are actively inhibiting deployment of techs or services that may interfere with their profit margins.
The problem for consumers grows in magnitude when their is only one or two viable options between such corporations.
Of course, that would require the understanding of what a monopoly and oligopoly are...
...
"Yet, this is demonstrably false"
dude, saying something is demonstrably false does not make it false, if you can show me that it is false, SHOW ME.
The government is a monopoly by even the strictest definitions.
Definition of a monopoly:
"A situation in wich a single company owns all or nearly all of the market..."
"that would require the understanding of what a monopoly and oligopoly are..."
Wait, are you lecturing yourself? dude, you don't have to write that kind of stuff, you simply need to think it. haha
"corporations themselves are actively inhibiting deployment of techs or services that may interfere with their profit margins."
Yeah, corporations
dude, saying something is demonstrably false does not make it false, if you can show me that it is false, SHOW ME.
The government is a monopoly by even the strictest definitions.
Definition of a monopoly:
"A situation in wich a single company owns all or nearly all of the market..."
"that would require the understanding of what a monopoly and oligopoly are..."
Wait, are you lecturing yourself? dude, you don't have to write that kind of stuff, you simply need to think it. haha
"corporations themselves are actively inhibiting deployment of techs or services that may interfere with their profit margins."
Yeah, corporations
...
Government must by definition be a monopoly. It should have little influence or control of individuals and that would extend to business as well. The government that governs best governs least.
...
This isn't about corporate control, this is about the FCC doing something they don't have legal authority to do yet.
There needs to be a public debate (and some laws passed) to protect net neutrality. If you're allowing a government to shoot from the hip about it, then what they'll do can change DRASTICALLY depending on who is in power.
Net Neutrality is a good thing. but it needs to be written law, not "we're going to do this because we feel like it"
There needs to be a public debate (and some laws passed) to protect net neutrality. If you're allowing a government to shoot from the hip about it, then what they'll do can change DRASTICALLY depending on who is in power.
Net Neutrality is a good thing. but it needs to be written law, not "we're going to do this because we feel like it"
...
I agree, there needs to be a framework in place that offers the Government the ability to regulate properly. Its one thing for the FCC to tell the providers not to limit access to the internet its customers but its a completely different thing if the FCC tells Phonescoop what to post and not post on their website.
...
And, I'm so glad the Courts have ruled to allow corporations to spend as much as they want to elect friendly politicians and finance voter initiatives. I feel safe and warm now.
...
This forum is closed.
