BREAKING: FCC votes in favor of Net Neutrality repeal

[omerome]

They are paying for the bandwidth. They have a right to decide what they wish to offer. Go look at the YouTube issue as a prime example. More bandwidth equals more money. Netflix and other streaming companies use alot of it. So who’s actually paying for it? The internet provider.

The customer is the one who is paying for it - twice and sometimes even three times. They pay for the access to use the bandwidth from their ISP and access to use apps like Netflix - and on the off chance, a third time if they go over their data cap. The ISPs have the capability to increase the "pipe" but would prefer to take it out on the customer by capping their usage or nickel and dime them to death.

We're coming into the age where 4K TVs are now mainstream. If these ISPs won't increase their capability, will we ever get stream 4K content? Other countries are offering superior services and options at better prices, why can't us? Seems to me that either the big name ISPs who blame their lack of bandwidth need to get off their butts and upgrade their infrastructure because HDMI is coming out with a new standard called 2.1 - which has can reach 48 Gbps. And if this keeps up, the customer is the one who will stay getting screwed.

All of the complaining on their end really sounds like they have a "kink in their hose" that they refuse to let go off so more water (bandwidth) can get through.

Agreed. However, when I see crap like this:

Watch on YouTube

My feelings become numb. Too much bull eating up bandwidth to begin with. Why should I as a company have to pay for that type of ****? I try to look at things from both perspectives. Yeah companies need more bandwidth capabilities but people need to stop being stupid with current bandwidth too.

Lol. As weird and stupid as that video is, the dude isn't doing anything illegal. Well, except for the guy who broke into his house. But the content creator paid his ISP for access and he's just getting what he paid for. Why should an ISP be allowed to tell him how he should use the internet? Again, as long as what he's doing is legal.

[Greenie]

The usual suspects sperg out over this stuff.

Monopolies are bad, though. People not having multiple choices in an area is what hurts the free market most. (If people around here even support a free market and capitalism)

I don’t know where everyone lives but most people that live in the US have more than one option.

[Greenie]

The customer is the one who is paying for it - twice and sometimes even three times. They pay for the access to use the bandwidth from their ISP and access to use apps like Netflix - and on the off chance, a third time if they go over their data cap. The ISPs have the capability to increase the "pipe" but would prefer to take it out on the customer by capping their usage or nickel and dime them to death.

We're coming into the age where 4K TVs are now mainstream. If these ISPs won't increase their capability, will we ever get stream 4K content? Other countries are offering superior services and options at better prices, why can't us? Seems to me that either the big name ISPs who blame their lack of bandwidth need to get off their butts and upgrade their infrastructure because HDMI is coming out with a new standard called 2.1 - which has can reach 48 Gbps. And if this keeps up, the customer is the one who will stay getting screwed.

All of the complaining on their end really sounds like they have a "kink in their hose" that they refuse to let go off so more water (bandwidth) can get through.

Agreed. However, when I see crap like this:

Watch on YouTube

My feelings become numb. Too much bull eating up bandwidth to begin with. Why should I as a company have to pay for that type of ****? I try to look at things from both perspectives. Yeah companies need more bandwidth capabilities but people need to stop being stupid with current bandwidth too.

Lol. As weird and stupid as that video is, the dude isn't doing anything illegal. Well, except for the guy who broke into his house. But the content creator paid his ISP for access and he's just getting what he paid for. Why should an ISP be allowed to tell him how he should use the internet? Again, as long as what he's doing is legal.

Why should a consumer be allowed to tell a provider how they should split bandwidth priority?

Get how that works.

That **** was posted to YouTube for free. YouTube then has to pay for the bandwidth to stream that ****. What do people that didn’t even have **** to do with that get? Advertisements. Why? To make money for said bandwidths.

Same principle for the actual provider.

All that’s going to happen is more what already happens. You will pay more for faster internet. I already pay Optimum extra for that crap.


Going back two years isn’t that damn drastic.

[Amsterdam]

The usual suspects sperg out over this stuff.

Monopolies are bad, though. People not having multiple choices in an area is what hurts the free market most. (If people around here even support a free market and capitalism)

I don’t know where everyone lives but most people that live in the US have more than one option.

But all fall under the FCC control who is now under the control of the POTUS. Which means that contrary view points are going to cease.

This is NOT just about paying more for bundles of Internet packages (i.e. Sports, video streaming, social media such as Facebook). It's about the first amendment and that we may be solely stuck reading the NY Post type views.

[Greenie]

The usual suspects sperg out over this stuff.

Monopolies are bad, though. People not having multiple choices in an area is what hurts the free market most. (If people around here even support a free market and capitalism)

I don’t know where everyone lives but most people that live in the US have more than one option.

But all fall under the FCC control who is now under the control of the POTUS. Which means that contrary view points are going to cease.

This is NOT just about paying more for bundles of Internet packages. It's about the first amendment and that we may be solely stuck reading the NY Post type views.

I don’t see that happening.
The FCC is actually stepping out of it.

[omerome]

Why should a consumer be allowed to tell a provider how they should split bandwidth priority?

Get how that works.

That **** was posted to YouTube for free. YouTube then has to pay for the bandwidth to stream that ****. What do people that didn’t even have **** to do with that get? Advertisements. Why? To make money for said bandwidths.

Same principle for the actual provider.

All that’s going to happen is more what already happens. You will pay more for faster internet. I already pay Optimum extra for that crap.


Going back two years isn’t that damn drastic.

YouTube also has to pay an ISP to have the internet access and then they have to pay a web host to store their data on a server so a content provider can use their service.

You're making it seem like sites like YouTube and Netflix are parasites. They have to foot the bill in ways like subscriptions and ads just to stay afloat. ISPs aren't doing anything but giving you access to the internet. They are not the thought police so they shouldn't tell you how you should use your service. As long as your motives are legal, that's all they should the say they should have. Giving them more control opens the door to censorship and then that starts impedes on the first amendment.

If I could completely use Comcast to ONLY give me access to the web, I would. But they purposely make it that it's more expensive to do so. And they will bundle their cable service to justify it.

And going back to the whole reason why I hate this repeal, Ajit mentioned that this will create more opportunities for competition and would help the economy. Which is a bold faced lie. I'm still waiting for Google Fiber to come to my area and it's companies like Comcast and Verizon who have essentially created road blocks to delay or keep it from happening. So now, if a huge company like Google can't even properly enter the marketplace, how does a start-up, mom and pop type shop have a chance?

These big ISP spent millions of dollars on this repeal. They definitely didn't do this to help their customer. They are only doing this to make money - at the expense of their customers. This is nothing but pure greed.

They essentially want to turn your internet access into something similar to Sling TV. Which by the way is a direct competitor to their aging cable service.

[omerome]

The usual suspects sperg out over this stuff.

Monopolies are bad, though. People not having multiple choices in an area is what hurts the free market most. (If people around here even support a free market and capitalism)

I don’t know where everyone lives but most people that live in the US have more than one option.

I love in Baltimore and the only viable option is Comcast as the other choices offer crappy service.

There is a reason why these companies are among the most hated in the country.

[thebuzzardman]

The usual suspects sperg out over this stuff.

Monopolies are bad, though. People not having multiple choices in an area is what hurts the free market most. (If people around here even support a free market and capitalism)

Sperg sperg.

Of course they do. And Capitalism for dummies is that the free market will eventually lead to market domination and monopoly.

I'd like to think then that a little government involvement on behalf of the people to help break up the monopolies and reset the market would be ok.

I mean, what sort of "free market" are we talking about? All this stuff is a matter of degree, really. One the one extreme, pretty sure no one wants a fascist or marxist state in terms of economic control (regardless or what the mouth breathing types of conservatives yell about) nor does anyone want a completely deregulated economy devoid of any oversight at all - and such a thing has never existed. Even in the good old, truly exceptional, never wrong, always the best USA.

[Amsterdam]

I don’t know where everyone lives but most people that live in the US have more than one option.

But all fall under the FCC control who is now under the control of the POTUS. Which means that contrary view points are going to cease.

This is NOT just about paying more for bundles of Internet packages. It's about the first amendment and that we may be solely stuck reading the NY Post type views.

I don’t see that happening.
The FCC is actually stepping out of it.

We are asleep on this. You'll remember me telling you this in 2 years. Another false flag attack here,then comes the blame on you know what group and the Internet will change forever. Just watch. It's all in the plan Greenie. No Wikileaks, none of that.

[Greenie]

Why should a consumer be allowed to tell a provider how they should split bandwidth priority?

Get how that works.

That **** was posted to YouTube for free. YouTube then has to pay for the bandwidth to stream that ****. What do people that didn’t even have **** to do with that get? Advertisements. Why? To make money for said bandwidths.

Same principle for the actual provider.

All that’s going to happen is more what already happens. You will pay more for faster internet. I already pay Optimum extra for that crap.


Going back two years isn’t that damn drastic.

YouTube also has to pay an ISP to have the internet access and then they have to pay a web host to store their data on a server so a content provider can use their service.

You're making it seem like sites like YouTube and Netflix are parasites. They have to foot the bill in ways like subscriptions and ads just to stay afloat. ISPs aren't doing anything but giving you access to the internet. They are not the thought police so they shouldn't tell you how you should use your service. As long as your motives are legal, that's all they should the say they should have. Giving them more control opens the door to censorship and then that starts impedes on the first amendment.

If I could completely use Comcast to ONLY give me access to the web, I would. But they purposely make it that it's more expensive to do so. And they will bundle their cable service to justify it.

And going back to the whole reason why I hate this repeal, Ajit mentioned that this will create more opportunities for competition and would help the economy. Which is a bold faced lie. I'm still waiting for Google Fiber to come to my area and it's companies like Comcast and Verizon who have essentially created road blocks to delay or keep it from happening. So now, if a huge company like Google can't even properly enter the marketplace, how does a start-up, mom and pop type shop have a chance?

These big ISP spent millions of dollars on this repeal. They definitely didn't do this to help their customer. They are only doing this to make money - at the expense of their customers. This is nothing but pure greed.

They essentially want to turn your internet access into something similar to Sling TV. Which by the way is a direct competitor to their aging cable service.

Sites like Netflix and YouTube become problematic when people abuse it.

Netflix already went up in price...again.
That’s how they combat it. Raise the price of use.

[omerome]

Why should a consumer be allowed to tell a provider how they should split bandwidth priority?

Get how that works.

That **** was posted to YouTube for free. YouTube then has to pay for the bandwidth to stream that ****. What do people that didn’t even have **** to do with that get? Advertisements. Why? To make money for said bandwidths.

Same principle for the actual provider.

All that’s going to happen is more what already happens. You will pay more for faster internet. I already pay Optimum extra for that crap.


Going back two years isn’t that damn drastic.

YouTube also has to pay an ISP to have the internet access and then they have to pay a web host to store their data on a server so a content provider can use their service.

You're making it seem like sites like YouTube and Netflix are parasites. They have to foot the bill in ways like subscriptions and ads just to stay afloat. ISPs aren't doing anything but giving you access to the internet. They are not the thought police so they shouldn't tell you how you should use your service. As long as your motives are legal, that's all they should the say they should have. Giving them more control opens the door to censorship and then that starts impedes on the first amendment.

If I could completely use Comcast to ONLY give me access to the web, I would. But they purposely make it that it's more expensive to do so. And they will bundle their cable service to justify it.

And going back to the whole reason why I hate this repeal, Ajit mentioned that this will create more opportunities for competition and would help the economy. Which is a bold faced lie. I'm still waiting for Google Fiber to come to my area and it's companies like Comcast and Verizon who have essentially created road blocks to delay or keep it from happening. So now, if a huge company like Google can't even properly enter the marketplace, how does a start-up, mom and pop type shop have a chance?

These big ISP spent millions of dollars on this repeal. They definitely didn't do this to help their customer. They are only doing this to make money - at the expense of their customers. This is nothing but pure greed.

They essentially want to turn your internet access into something similar to Sling TV. Which by the way is a direct competitor to their aging cable service.

Sites like Netflix and YouTube become problematic when people abuse it.

Netflix already went up in price...again.
That’s how they combat it. Raise the price of use.

Netflix is only going up in price because the ISP wants more money from them so sadly, they have to increase their fees. ISP have blocked them before and I won't be surprised if they try it again and with the repeal, it would be legal. And it's likely it's the same ISPs that Netflix are paying to even have their service in the first place. Because without internet access, Netflix can't host anything on their servers so their customers can access it.

Why is Verizon only offering at most 15Mbps in my area and why is our infrastructure so poor that in this day and age that's all I am offered as an option? I doubt watching a 4K video would even be possible without buffering issues and 4K is quickly gaining steam. Oh, wait, I know why. These companies have essentially colluded with each other to not compete in the same area. So it's really just an illusion of choice.

And as I said earlier, Comcast is the only viable option for me, but in some areas, they have data caps. So I pay to use a service and have to pay again if I am...using their service? Why does the customer have to suffer when a provider is doing a poor providing a service?

[rammagen]

The usual suspects sperg out over this stuff.

Monopolies are bad, though. People not having multiple choices in an area is what hurts the free market most. (If people around here even support a free market and capitalism)

I don’t know where everyone lives but most people that live in the US have more than one option.

unfortunately this is not true for instance in Atlanta you may have three options but 20 miles outside of the city and you have one option or dial up.
Bandwidth and size limits are not something that should be or can be enforced. As long as what you are doing is legal.
I will give an example . I had a 300 gig limit when i first moved from comcast. that was raised to 1 tb limit I am rarely close to that but lets say for work and streaming, gaming I hit 4 to 500 gigs per month. Now they can raise the rates they charge me when there is no measurable charge. They were making money when I was not near the limit so they can drop the limit and charge by usage which is wrong where is my right as a consumer for the rest of the bandwidth I was charged for?

Plus add in the fact they can limit my content. So xfinity does not want me to watch a competitor shows via Hulu they can block that?

There is no addition work needed to allow to view content, no applicable work either. No firewalls or rules to be made. As matter of fact for them to change my viewing they will be working harder to block content.

MY reply is simple I may be stuck with comcast but we should not be charged for a limit in service. I would understand if this service was like food or gas but it isn't. There is no revolving cost once the backbone is set up, they are not planting crops or drilling for bandwidth, the cost is realtivley fixed.

[ccvle]

My feelings become numb. Too much bull eating up bandwidth to begin with. Why should I as a company have to pay for that type of ****? I try to look at things from both perspectives. Yeah companies need more bandwidth capabilities but people need to stop being stupid with current bandwidth too.

This last part is just silly. Technology is always about pushing forward, coming up with the capability then thinking about how to use it. Do I really need 100gb to save my porn collection in my computer ? No, probably not. But it is because of this stupid need from the consumers that helped our technological advances. No body knew we needed smartphones 15 years ago, but after the smartphones came out we ended up coming up with so many ways to use it.

[Greenie]

YouTube also has to pay an ISP to have the internet access and then they have to pay a web host to store their data on a server so a content provider can use their service.

You're making it seem like sites like YouTube and Netflix are parasites. They have to foot the bill in ways like subscriptions and ads just to stay afloat. ISPs aren't doing anything but giving you access to the internet. They are not the thought police so they shouldn't tell you how you should use your service. As long as your motives are legal, that's all they should the say they should have. Giving them more control opens the door to censorship and then that starts impedes on the first amendment.

If I could completely use Comcast to ONLY give me access to the web, I would. But they purposely make it that it's more expensive to do so. And they will bundle their cable service to justify it.

And going back to the whole reason why I hate this repeal, Ajit mentioned that this will create more opportunities for competition and would help the economy. Which is a bold faced lie. I'm still waiting for Google Fiber to come to my area and it's companies like Comcast and Verizon who have essentially created road blocks to delay or keep it from happening. So now, if a huge company like Google can't even properly enter the marketplace, how does a start-up, mom and pop type shop have a chance?

These big ISP spent millions of dollars on this repeal. They definitely didn't do this to help their customer. They are only doing this to make money - at the expense of their customers. This is nothing but pure greed.

They essentially want to turn your internet access into something similar to Sling TV. Which by the way is a direct competitor to their aging cable service.

Sites like Netflix and YouTube become problematic when people abuse it.

Netflix already went up in price...again.
That’s how they combat it. Raise the price of use.

Netflix is only going up in price because the ISP wants more money from them so sadly, they have to increase their fees. ISP have blocked them before and I won't be surprised if they try it again and with the repeal, it would be legal. And it's likely it's the same ISPs that Netflix are paying to even have their service in the first place. Because without internet access, Netflix can't host anything on their servers so their customers can access it.

Why is Verizon only offering at most 15Mbps in my area and why is our infrastructure so poor that in this day and age that's all I am offered as an option? I doubt watching a 4K video would even be possible without buffering issues and 4K is quickly gaining steam. Oh, wait, I know why. These companies have essentially colluded with each other to not compete in the same area. So it's really just an illusion of choice.

And as I said earlier, Comcast is the only viable option for me, but in some areas, they have data caps. So I pay to use a service and have to pay again if I am...using their service? Why does the customer have to suffer when a provider is doing a poor providing a service?

And as I said earlier Netflix uses a crazy amount of bandwidth. Companies are supposed to charge them more. Of course it trickles down to us. Netflix damn sure is not paying them.

You also don’t have to suffer. Stop using the service. They lose money. That’s all you can do.

I hate Chase with a passion. I moved the fuq on. I hated Verizon. I moved the fuq on. I really don’t like TV. I moved the fuq on. Hated the NFL. I moved the fuq on.

I drop **** I don’t like.

[Greenie]

The usual suspects sperg out over this stuff.

Monopolies are bad, though. People not having multiple choices in an area is what hurts the free market most. (If people around here even support a free market and capitalism)

I don’t know where everyone lives but most people that live in the US have more than one option.

unfortunately this is not true for instance in Atlanta you may have three options but 20 miles outside of the city and you have one option or dial up.
Bandwidth and size limits are not something that should be or can be enforced. As long as what you are doing is legal.
I will give an example . I had a 300 gig limit when i first moved from comcast. that was raised to 1 tb limit I am rarely close to that but lets say for work and streaming, gaming I hit 4 to 500 gigs per month. Now they can raise the rates they charge me when there is no measurable charge. They were making money when I was not near the limit so they can drop the limit and charge by usage which is wrong where is my right as a consumer for the rest of the bandwidth I was charged for?

Plus add in the fact they can limit my content. So xfinity does not want me to watch a competitor shows via Hulu they can block that?

There is no addition work needed to allow to view content, no applicable work either. No firewalls or rules to be made. As matter of fact for them to change my viewing they will be working harder to block content.

MY reply is simple I may be stuck with comcast but we should not be charged for a limit in service. I would understand if this service was like food or gas but it isn't. There is no revolving cost once the backbone is set up, they are not planting crops or drilling for bandwidth, the cost is realtivley fixed.

No, they have to pay people to run those servers that provide more bandwidth.


Many companies have roll over plans as well. Look at many phone companies. I think we are headed there. Not the end of the world.

[Greenie]

My feelings become numb. Too much bull eating up bandwidth to begin with. Why should I as a company have to pay for that type of ****? I try to look at things from both perspectives. Yeah companies need more bandwidth capabilities but people need to stop being stupid with current bandwidth too.

This last part is just silly. Technology is always about pushing forward, coming up with the capability then thinking about how to use it. Do I really need 100gb to save my porn collection in my computer ? No, probably not. But it is because of this stupid need from the consumers that helped our technological advances. No body knew we needed smartphones 15 years ago, but after the smartphones came out we ended up coming up with so many ways to use it.

People are really becoming too technology dependent. Maybe it’s time to pick up a newspaper again or have the kids go outside amd play. Turn on your tv or listen to the radio again.

We will survive.

This actually is giving me plenty of business ideas...

[Greenie]

But all fall under the FCC control who is now under the control of the POTUS. Which means that contrary view points are going to cease.

This is NOT just about paying more for bundles of Internet packages. It's about the first amendment and that we may be solely stuck reading the NY Post type views.

I don’t see that happening.
The FCC is actually stepping out of it.

We are asleep on this. You'll remember me telling you this in 2 years. Another false flag attack here,then comes the blame on you know what group and the Internet will change forever. Just watch. It's all in the plan Greenie. No Wikileaks, none of that.

OK. You can come tell me “I told you so” when the world is about to implode from not having whatever the hell was just lost.

[IllmaticHandler]

My feelings become numb. Too much bull eating up bandwidth to begin with. Why should I as a company have to pay for that type of ****? I try to look at things from both perspectives. Yeah companies need more bandwidth capabilities but people need to stop being stupid with current bandwidth too.

This last part is just silly. Technology is always about pushing forward, coming up with the capability then thinking about how to use it. Do I really need 100gb to save my porn collection in my computer ? No, probably not. But it is because of this stupid need from the consumers that helped our technological advances. No body knew we needed smartphones 15 years ago, but after the smartphones came out we ended up coming up with so many ways to use it.

People are really becoming too technology dependent. Maybe it’s time to pick up a newspaper again or have the kids go outside amd play. Turn on your tv or listen to the radio again.

We will survive.

This actually is giving me plenty of business ideas...

Its funny that you said this cause, I while I am not in favor of it, I said people will have to go to the Library again etc and read books instead of having it easy thats a good thing.

I refuse to read E Books or stop reading physical papers. I just cant do it.

[Greenie]

This last part is just silly. Technology is always about pushing forward, coming up with the capability then thinking about how to use it. Do I really need 100gb to save my porn collection in my computer ? No, probably not. But it is because of this stupid need from the consumers that helped our technological advances. No body knew we needed smartphones 15 years ago, but after the smartphones came out we ended up coming up with so many ways to use it.

People are really becoming too technology dependent. Maybe it’s time to pick up a newspaper again or have the kids go outside amd play. Turn on your tv or listen to the radio again.

We will survive.

This actually is giving me plenty of business ideas...

Its funny that you said this cause, I while I am not in favor of it, I said people will have to go to the Library again etc and read books instead of having it easy thats a good thing.

I refuse to read E Books or stop reading physical papers. I just cant do it.

That’s how I feel. People don’t know how to do **** anymore. I bet they don’t even remember where the Library is located or how to go in there and look up what they need.

I’m a book reader too iLL. One of my hobbies is collecting Harlem Renaissance literature.

[omerome]

And as I said earlier Netflix uses a crazy amount of bandwidth. Companies are supposed to charge them more. Of course it trickles down to us. Netflix damn sure is not paying them.

You also don’t have to suffer. Stop using the service. They lose money. That’s all you can do.

I hate Chase with a passion. I moved the fuq on. I hated Verizon. I moved the fuq on. I really don’t like TV. I moved the fuq on. Hated the NFL. I moved the fuq on.

I drop **** I don’t like.

And again, this is just a company trying to bully another company at the expense of the customer. So ISPs have spent millions of dollars to make these bullying tactics legal by putting in place a guy who has ties to a cable company to remove these regulations.

And you know what would likely happen? Ajit would probably find himself a very well paying position back with Verizon once he is done with the FCC. If that's not corruption, I don't know what is.

And moving on to another provider is not an option. I literally need the internet to work and yet I am limited on my options. I can't just drop Comcast and move on to Verizon. Their service would affect my ability to do my job due to the terrible service they offer.