Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On

[DQ12]

By the way. You cord cutters are the ones driving this.

Explain to me your reasoning here.

he's upset that cord cutters aren't subsidizing his internet by paying for cable

[IPA4Me]

Providers are losing revenue. Now, they recapture that revenue with "internet" bundles. In the long run, we all lose. Providers will get back their lost revenue and more.

[Gooch]

Providers are losing revenue. Now, they recapture that revenue with "internet" bundles. In the long run, we all lose. Providers will get back their lost revenue and more.

Correct

[sonofdaxjones]

Local governments with their hand in the cookie jar all over the place. 

Franchise fees, right away fees, pole attachment fees, IRU’s. 

[wetwillie]

The internet is a failed experiment, it's time to move on.

[The Big Train]

The paid VPN services industry is going to explode because of this.  I will never paid for “internet bundles” as a part of my internet.  That’s absolute bullshit and I will not do it.  Nobody “owns” the internet.

[DQ12]

is there not a way to keep "net neutrality" AND reduce the cost of entry for small time ISPs?  i know very little about the actual underlying policy here.

[catastrophe]

I thought net neutrality was a check on ISPs and how they provide content. I don’t see why it would affect new ISP entrants. It affects how content is provided to consumers.

Trump is worried about AT&T buying Time Warner, but if net neutrality goes away, the potential impact to consumers is WAAAAY worse.

[DQ12]

I thought net neutrality was a check on ISPs and how they provide content. I don’t see why it would affect new ISP entrants. It affects how content is provided to consumers.

Trump is worried about AT&T buying Time Warner, but if net neutrality goes away, the potential impact to consumers is WAAAAY worse.

a lot of the supporting arguments i've read is that the current regulations make it next to impossible for new ISPs to enter the market.

[8manpick]

Enforcing Antitrust laws seems like a good way to make it easier for new/small ISPs, but I don't really know

[catastrophe]

I haven’t read much on it, but if so I guess that would be because you cannot have a provider who just offers Netflix for example. Still, I would think the infrastructure is what really keeps out new ISPs.

[chum1]

The impact on new ISPs was given exactly zero consideration in this decision.

[DQ12]

The impact on new ISPs was given exactly zero consideration in this decision.

By exploring ways to reduce needless red tape, the Commission hopes that these proposals will spur broadband deployment throughout the country, bringing better, faster Internet service to more Americans and boosting competition and choice in the broadband marketplace.

https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom
 

[cfbandyman]

Providers are losing revenue. Now, they recapture that revenue with "internet" bundles. In the long run, we all lose. Providers will get back their lost revenue and more.

Fleece the people even more, not like they already don't everything else.

I hate everything about it.

[catastrophe]

Cost is just a minor concern for net neutrality proponents. The bigger concern is ISPs being able to either throttle or completely remove content that customers have access to. You think people live in bubbles now? Just wait until they’re subscribing to TrumpNet.

[chum1]

The impact on new ISPs was given exactly zero consideration in this decision.

By exploring ways to reduce needless red tape, the Commission hopes that these proposals will spur broadband deployment throughout the country, bringing better, faster Internet service to more Americans and boosting competition and choice in the broadband marketplace.

https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom
 

 Yep, that's what they say!

[The Big Train]

Cost is just a minor concern for net neutrality proponents. The bigger concern is ISPs being able to either throttle or completely remove content that customers have access to. You think people live in bubbles now? Just wait until they’re subscribing to TrumpNet.

This.

I’m not really concerned with people being in their own bubbles, we have that now.  The censoring of content is what countries like China and North Korea do.  Granted that’s at government level but censoring for capital gain would eliminate any new internet company entrants.  It would create monopolies like we haven’t seen since Microsoft.

[cfbandyman]

Cost is just a minor concern for net neutrality proponents. The bigger concern is ISPs being able to either throttle or completely remove content that customers have access to. You think people live in bubbles now? Just wait until they’re subscribing to TrumpNet.

Costs will be though a more upfront and writ large in your face thing that everyone will bear.

You can bubble yourself pretty well regardless of paying for access to something.

[DQ12]

Is there a reason these doomsday scenarios didn't happen prior to the current regs?

[Dugout DickStone]

I like my internet completely unregulated and more than slightly scary.

[wetwillie]

Is there a reason these doomsday scenarios didn't happen prior to the current regs?

the internet is only like 20 years old bruh

[cfbandyman]

Is there a reason these doomsday scenarios didn't happen prior to the current regs?

I am going to venture that if we only hopped back 10-15 years ago the internet wasn't as ubiquitous of an item compared to the sales and money and traffic it has now. I am just guessing that a provider like Time Warner sat there and was like "yeah, we make all our $$ on cable, internet is a nice bump" and when people didn't want cable anymore and you could stream shows, movies, etc over the internet, the ball game changed. I mean, you have to remember something like Netflix was a mailing DVD service at first, and it was that not because they loved DVDs but because it was incapable of providing streaming service with 2007 internet for most people.

Basically, you couldn't do on the internet then what you can now, so tiering it would've been more of a why bother, rather than a why not. I hope you get that 125kB email 0.5 seconds faster.

[The Big Train]

Is there a reason these doomsday scenarios didn't happen prior to the current regs?

the internet is only like 20 years old bruh

Actually the public internet is about 28 and a half years old.  The internet itself is about 48 years old.

[DQ12]

was the internet really that different in 2015 when Title II was enacted?  i'm more than willing to join in the outrage here, i'm just not sure what we're outraged about.

[The Big Train]

Is there a reason these doomsday scenarios didn't happen prior to the current regs?

I am going to venture that if we only hopped back 10-15 years ago the internet wasn't as ubiquitous of an item compared to the sales and money and traffic it has now. I am just guessing that a provider like Time Warner sat there and was like "yeah, we make all our $$ on cable, internet is a nice bump" and when people didn't want cable anymore and you could stream shows, movies, etc over the internet, the ball game changed. I mean, you have to remember something like Netflix was a mailing DVD service at first, and it was that not because they loved DVDs but because it was incapable of providing streaming service with 2007 internet for most people.

Basically, you couldn't do on the internet then what you can now, so tiering it would've been more of a why bother, rather than a why not. I hope you get that 125kB email 0.5 seconds faster.

Here are some hard statistics that support this point.  The amount of data and potential market if they undo net neutrality is staggering.

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/vni-hyperconnectivity-wp.html