I’m sure it’s been covered already. I haven’t been following this whole thing. What’s happened and what does it mean to us?

Well I am waiting on the internet to just not be there any day now....

What I hope happens is that some time soon I will have more than one internet provider in my area, the only one I have access to is Century link and it sucks 10 megs is the fastest they offer at my house..

http://www.aldeer.com/forum/ubbthreads.p...rue#Post2331886

not gonna happen, what will happen is. Prices will probably go up based on how much data you use. What will also happen is, things likenetflix and hulu will go up in price because of the increased rate they will be charged by the isp or they will be throttled down to a speed were the consumer cant use them, this fee will be passed to the consumer. Also what will happen is smaller file sharing pages that are free will be throttled down and you will be left with only the paid sites.

Just like cell phone data?

yes, coupled with the fact they're gonna start charging netflix, youtube, hulu and anyone else they can extort by throttling down data.

Haha - Leftist scare tactics. What about taking away facetimegram from granny, and stealing her SS check from her mail box, and he false teeth. Don't forget her false teeth.

if thats what you wanna think, its pretty common knowledge thats whats gonna happen. They openely admit there gonna charge them companies to operate on the web. You might wanna do some research.

BB
in this fairy tale world your talking about, You think verizion and the other isp's were pushing this so they can offer lower prices and make less money?

Last time I checked, internet and streaming tv shows weren't needed for one to live. If Verizon, Charter etc want to charge a gazillion dollars a month to use their service, then that is what they should be able to do IMO.

I've already gotten an email from Netflix increasing my rate. Probably isn't even related, but the timing is ironic.

I had seen where Netflix was raising their rates at the first of the year a couple months ago which was certainly before the net neutrality decision.

If DTV goes up any more I'm going back to the antenna.
I'm already paying for 300 channels I don't watch.

As someone who has 10 years of experience in the wireless industry, you really think these companies are gaining huge amounts of revenue off of wireless services? Wireless is allowing them to stay afloat, but they're all scrambling to find new revenue streams. That's the only industry that has year over year growth, but decreases in revenue.

Look at at&t for an example. They've aquired direct TV, time Warner, and FirstNet by spending Billions of dollars to try and find another path yo make money out of wireless.

the writing was already on the wall. Everybody that needed to be paid, was. The vote was more of a formality than anything.

Already did, saving $120 a month.

100%

Also, if they begin going up on rates too much the market will correct. You can bet another ISP will pop up offering lower rates to steal the customer base.

I think I see why Goodman hunter is so upset....

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/12/19/n...xperts-say.html

My understanding is that net neutrality was an obummer thing that went into effect in 2015. If it goes away, won't everything go back to the way it was before 2015? I honestly can't remember expensive fees for services from my ISP, and Netflix was even less than it is now. I also don't remember any huge changes when it went into effect in 2015. If things go back the way they were, is that really a bad thing???

With normal businesses yes. But an ISP cannot just "pop up" due to network infrastructure requirements and your competition will sure as hell not allow you to use their already existing one.

Most rural areas have one ISP if they are lucky. I am not sure how "just go without internet" is an acceptable response.

Net neutrality is garbage and just another federal power grab. I don’t like 5 unelected government regulators between me and internet service. As I said on a thread the other day, the same arguments used for ACA were used for net neutrality. It’s just more regulation where fewer participants will get offered service because they have to offer the same exact service based on what the government wants.

could you explain that a little further please

Dammit man!

Netflix and all of these other "providers" you are saying are going to be hurt or get more expensive - they all pretty much already have tiered packages with a range of costs. Shouldn't they just be neutral and give everybody everything for the same price? I can promise you they are all going to get more expensive regardless of net neutrality, that's their whole business model.

As far as the internet providers charging for certain types of bandwidth or content, I just don't see it happening. They already have packages that charge based on speed and total bandwidth usage and that's all any of that boils down to.

for the first paragraph, that is true. But there's also free sites that have same material. They will now be throttled down. You'll still be able to PAY for netflix and watch it.

for 2nd paragraph, If nothings gonna change or get cheaper and better as some believe. Then why all the fuss from verizion and at&t.

Those "Free" sites you speak of are most likely illegal if I had to guess.

Barriers to entry. Telecoms have too much power (I think we can all agree there). I also think we can all agree monopolies are bad and competition is good. However, if monopolies are bad, isn’t it even worse to trust the government which is a gigantic monopoly? I mean, they spent an amount that rivals nearly the first decade of Facebook’s operating costs to build a healthcare website that doesn’t work. I don’t like the power the telecoms have but the reason they have that power isn’t because of a lack of regulations like net neutrality.

aint it funny how folks fall back on government rugulations when it suits them, But i wasnt aware file sharing was illegal

I will also answer your question with a question, why was this not a big deal before Obama's FCC ever implemented "Net Neutrality"? All that was was a way for the federal government to get it's hands into controlling the internet.

My guess is we will see more partnerships and/or acquisitions between the major ISP's(verizon, at&t, comcast, etc) and the major content providers(Netflix, Facebook, etc). With the changing ways of how folks are receiving their content now - not just thru cable TV - then all of these big players will have to adapt to that and this is the start of it.

answering with a question aint an answer. It was a problem with them throttling folks down so they(isp) were regulating the internet. They continued to do it after oboma even though they were illegal in doing so. Hard to stop big money though.

I had my first customer to be affected by the repeal of net neutrality last week. This customer is in Raywood, TX and connects to their company in Jackson, MS through the internet. The VPN (Virtual Private Network) connection was down and I tried everything I knew to do get it back up. I finally called the customer and told them it was time to call their internet provider to see if they were having issues with their internet service. She was informed that due to the repeal that they were throttling the bandwidth and it wouldn't be back up to normal levels until the weekend. They were also checking to see if they were taking online payments in case they needed to raise their rates. A load BS if you ask me!

Ahh, so the government wanted to control how the bandwidth providers used their own product? Got it. The government nor the content providers own the "internet"(except in some rare cases). Corporations have laid or leased long haul fiber that connects you to Netflix, Netflix did not put that fiber in. The only part of that that Netflix is paying for, is what they use at their corporate offices or data centers. Otherwise, all of the subscribers pay for the bandwidth thru their ISP. Without those subscribers, there ain't much bandwidth use there. Now say that Netflix wanted to pay your ISP to give their data priority in order to provide a better user experience(and therefore maybe get a higher price point). Netflix could go ahead and include this in their already tiered offers, put it in the highest tier.

I don't really see how this is bad for the end user. It's not like something is going to happen that causes the base package of Netflix to cost $80 a month, b/c then there would be a lot less cable subscription for the ISP and a lot less Netflix subscribers. Yes, these companies are greedy and want to maximize their profits, but they ain't stupid enough to price themselves out of business.

I don’t see how anyone who believes themselves to be a free market, limited government conservative/libertarian could agree with net neutrality. It’s socialism for the internet.

I keep seeing dems on Facebook say that the net neutrality regs made it a free market. Face meets palm every time.

It'll go back to pre obama

I know. They think unless the government does it that it isn’t right. Unbelievable

It can be health care in a mask for you or anti government regulations or free market or any label you wanna put on it to make it easier to swallow. But the government was keeping it from being regulated and taxed. The big Corp is now allowed to regulate it and tax it. Now it ain't gonna hurt Goodman one way or another. Probably come out to the good actually. I work for a large computer company. If you wanna let the media tell you what to think then kudos to you.

Oboma only passed them laws so the money got spread out right. It ain't like he cared otherwise. The government is gonna get there cut first anyways.

So you let the media tell you what to think? Cause the media definitely thinks it's the worst thing since terrorism.

This is a simple concept. If the government touches it, it ain't a true free market. A free market with proper competition will right itself.

By definition, when the government tells someone what they can/can't do, that is regulation.

Which one of the 2 is trying to restrict access?

If an ISP is a privately owned company, they have the right to restrict whatever the hell they want. That's what you don't get. The Internet is not a right. Yeah, we all use it, but it's not a given right at a fair price.

I don’t understand this either. No different than cell phone data or BBQ sandwiches. Use more, pay more. It’s so easy.

Sbs
Why keep chiming in when grown folks is talking. You feel like them guys ain't capable of answering it themselves. You only started buying internet in the last year or so. Not only are you gonna give them folks more money, they made you like it, you sound happy as hell about it.

My point to him was. He's talking about big government regulations and chearleading for the people that's fixing to regulate him and charge him more,lol.

Wow just wow.

Things get worse/more expensive the more government gets involved. The problem is, government is too big to be responsive to changes in tech. Plain and simple. I don’t know why any free market thinking person would want to create more barriers to entry. Look, Google was a fan of net neutrality. They were a fan of it because they know without those barriers to entry some geek in a garage can create something better.

Either that or Google is smart enough to play both sides.

Happy birthday, Jared. Well, they actually did play both sides. They were for net neutrality but then were against it when it came to Google Fiber…something the government conveniently left out of the regs. Any time you have something like this where unelected bureaucrats are writing regs you ALWAYS have companies with the most on the table in collusion with those bureaucrats. It’s crony capitalism which is really no different than socialism.

If you want a good example of what can happen when government cements these monopolies, look at Uber. There is no telling what they have spent tied up in court because they are busting up a government protected industry: taxis. They do 2 things:

They knock down the artificial barriers to entry created by government/taxi business and adjust prices to increase the supply of drivers so they can just meet demand. I mean, they are the pinnacle of what free markets look like. They do this without having to pay the astronomical prices for an artificially limited number of taxi medallions.

That’s not what we want with the internet. That’s what we got with taxi services and their artificial markets and that’s what we got with Obamacare. At some point, we have to learn our lesson, right?

Let me ask all of you free market guys one question. Why isn't it OK for a station to charge 5 times the normal rate for gasoline if they are the only ones who happen to have any available at the time?

No one would buy it and it would be considered gouging. Laws are already in place to keep gouging at bay.

Now what I really want to know is how that cat became my avatar.

It is OK with me. It may be against local price gouging laws and there may even be some federal regulations but if left alone the market would sort it out. Taking advantage of people is not good business and the market sorts that out in most cases.

It is ok for them to do that. It’s unappealing to most everybody but it serves a purpose and does benefit everybody in the long run. When gas station xyz sets prices as high as the market will bear they’re sending a message to market actors that a product is scarce and profits are available to producers of that product. Setting prices as high as the market will bear is something that happens every day in a capitalistic economy and most of the time we don’t even think about it. Without those price “messages,” our economy would look like Venezuela or Cuba.

People might buy it if that was all that was available and they needed it bad enough. Yes,there are laws in place to keep gouging at bay for those very reasons.

I'm not so sure that removing the Net Neutrality law isn't exactly like removing all gouging rules.

Under title II the internet was subject to regulations like ISPs having to submit proposals for new tech to the FCC. So basically, to innovate, company xyz has to get permission to use their new tech from the government. Once determinations are made, they can’t be appealed and can only be reversed by them. They can also partially regulate capital investments of existing companies and decide which of those companies can enter the ISP market. Basically, they took almost a trillion $ of GDP and put it under new regulations and entrenched monopolies.

I hope the decision will wind up to be a good thing. I would not mind some limited pricing protection in cases where ISP's have monopolies.Something to the effect that pricing must not be greater than a certain percentage where a monopoly doesn't exist would serve to protect consumers without restricting ISP's. As always government seeks to control much more than is ever necessary and complicate things beyond comprehension.

But if internet was $1000/ month, me or someone like me would invest in a startup to deliver services at a fraction of that cost, and there would be plenty of money to be made. Capitalism really is great.

I think it will be. Regulations almost always do the opposite of what they say they will do. I know the existing “monopolies” aren’t ideal and the way things are done can be improved but they are better than the alternative. I would like to see more de-regulation. If you want to see innovation like the early days of the internet, you need less. With regulations demanding permission, you don’t get Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. There was an economist (I can’t remember his name) that said “the economy flourishes with permissionless innovation.” The problem is, you get a country where the media and politicians have their once a week immoral dragon we all need to kill and they all without a doubt want government to kill it. They prop up the problem as something only government can solve and do a pretty good job of convincing the masses. I’m not all out against government. I’m just against government always being the arbiter of all that is moral. They aren’t and a vast majority of the time make the problem worse.

It is indeed. Especially when the government doesn't make regulations making it nearly impossible for that startup to be created.

But but but it's not free market without net neutrality!!

I think the net neutrality regulation was like 323 pages long.

people tend to not mention, its still not free market when a monopoly is still involved. Y'all always leave that part out.

And about the first part. Most people believed there would be at least some protection for the consumer. But the verizion lawyer who now works for the FCC got it just the way they wanted it.

Answer me this. these start up companies thats now gonna come out of the wood works. How they gonna afford the extortion fee thats gonna be put on them. They all feel like they aint gonna be able to compete against the larger existing companies that can afford it. Cause, these new business's feel like they wont be able too. What do you know that they don't?

Yea,I understand that,but it won't be quite so blatant.It will just be a lot higher than somewhere a monopoly doesn't exist. Eventually the monopoly will go away but consumers may get gouged years before another company develops to compete.