Net Neutrality, the FCC, and you wake up

  • News
  • Thread starter rhody
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Fcc Net
In summary, the FCC's net neutrality rules will prevent ISPs from blocking or discriminating against content, slowing down service for "heavy" users, or charging extra fees for delivering certain types of content. The rules also allow providers to ration access to their networks, but prevent them from blocking or discriminating against content that competes with their own services.
  • #1
rhody
Gold Member
681
3
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2011/0923/Net-neutrality-rules-are-coming.-Here-s-why-they-matter" [Broken].
The guidelines, written by the US Federal Communications Commission, say essentially this: Internet providers can’t deliberately block or slow speeds for “heavy” Internet users, such as people who stream movies or play online games, nor throttle traffic from a certain source, such as from competitors or peer-to-peer downloads.
and
The net neutrality rules set to take effect in November strike a balance between these two arguments. They generally allow providers to ration access to their networks, but prevent them from blocking or discriminating against content that competes with their own services. The FCC would be able to fine Internet companies that slow down service for “heavy use” customers.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2393442,00.asp" [Broken]
The Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules will go into effect on November 20, almost one year after the commission approved them.
and
The FCC approved net neutrality rules along party lines. The order provides three high-level rules: transparency; no blocking; and no unreasonable discrimination. The order received support from Chairman Julius Genachowski and Democratic commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn, but was not approved by GOP commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith Baker, who's now at Comcast.
and
Congressional Republicans are also not too pleased by the rules. Back in April, the House voted to overturn the FCC's net neutrality rules, but the measure was largely a symbolic gesture. It's unlikely to get through the Democrat-controlled Senate, and President Obama has pledged to veto the bill if it ever makes it to his desk.

If you are alseep under a rock, this is a wake up call...

Rhody... :frown:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You didn't say much beyond just posting quotes, so I'm actually not clear on what your concern is... some of the rules I'm in favor of, some not.
 
  • #3
russ_watters said:
You didn't say much beyond just posting quotes, so I'm actually not clear on what your concern is... some of the rules I'm in favor of, some not.

My point is that that stuff like this creeps in on people, then boom, they are at the mercy of the FCC. I believe people need to debate the pro's and con's before it does then decide for themselves. I would prefer to not see it pass, I have this nagging feeling this is one of those, "foot in the door", types of legislation, that could lead to even more restrictive use of the internet.

This is an aside by Rhode Island is collecting seven percent sales tax on all software purchased on the internet as of October 1st, except by not for profit organizations. I bought software online last week before the tax law went into effect.

Rhody...
 
  • #4
Which rules are you and russ opposed to?
 
  • #5
rhody said:
My point is that that stuff like this creeps in on people, then boom, they are at the mercy of the FCC. I believe people need to debate the pro's and con's before it does then decide for themselves. I would prefer to not see it pass, I have this nagging feeling this is one of those, "foot in the door", types of legislation, that could lead to even more restrictive use of the internet.

Unfortunately, we only notice regulations of this type when they are important to us personally.
 
  • #6
skeptic2 said:
Which rules are you and russ opposed to?

WhoWee said:
Unfortunately, we only notice regulations of this type when they are important to us personally.
WhoWee,

Bingo...

skeptic,

I don't believe the FCC has better insight as to how control bandwidth issues than the ISP Provider's themselves. I don't on-line game for hours or use bit torrent. It has no impact on how I spend my free time or benefit from it. If the providers want to limit bandwidth after quota, or charge extra fees for "internet bandwidth hogs" I have no problem with that either, let the consumer decide which ISP's to reward or punish based on the laws of supply and demand and fee for service. The FCC acting as watchdog and intermediary offers no bang for my buck IMHO.

Rhody...
 
  • #7
If an IP such as a cable company, were to have a financial interest in a VOIP company or a streaming video company, should it be legal for them to block a competitor's product or limit usage or charge excess fees for delivering that content?

With a limited number of IPs, the laws of supply and demand don't always apply. Rural users may have only one IP to choose from. If the majority of IPs or at least the large ones adopt the policy of blocking competitor's content, is that not the purview of the FCC?
 
  • #8
skeptic2 said:
If an IP such as a cable company, were to have a financial interest in a VOIP company or a streaming video company, should it be legal for them to block a competitor's product or limit usage or charge excess fees for delivering that content?

With a limited number of IPs, the laws of supply and demand don't always apply. Rural users may have only one IP to choose from. If the majority of IPs or at least the large ones adopt the policy of blocking competitor's content, is that not the purview of the FCC?
skeptic,

Agreed, your post illustrates there are a tangle of legal issues that muddy the waters, unfair competition, etc... etc... I stated my beliefs "in principle". I don't care to discuss individual test cases on a case by case basis. I don't have the time or energy.

Rhody...
 
Last edited:
  • #9
rhody said:
WhoWee,

Bingo...

skeptic,

I don't believe the FCC has better insight as to how control bandwidth issues than the ISP Provider's themselves. I don't on-line game for hours or use bit torrent. It has no impact on how I spend my free time or benefit from it. If the providers want to limit bandwidth after quota, or charge extra fees for "internet bandwidth hogs" I have no problem with that either, let the consumer decide which ISP's to reward or punish based on the laws of supply and demand and fee for service. The FCC acting as watchdog and intermediary offers no bang for my buck IMHO.

Rhody...
What this law is going to do is throttle down all of the personal *consumer* users, because the law isn only to protect *competitors*. We've already seen the largest cell carriers replace their unlimited plans with metered ones.

I'm not a big bandwidth user, but people that download a lot of movies and play games are going to get hit.

The net neutrality rules set to take effect in November strike a balance between these two arguments. They generally allow providers to ration access to their networks, but prevent them from blocking or discriminating against content that competes with their own services.
 
  • #10
rhody said:
If the providers want to limit bandwidth after quota, or charge extra fees for "internet bandwidth hogs" I have no problem with that either, let the consumer decide which ISP's to reward or punish based on the laws of supply and demand and fee for service.
Unfortunately, that is not a viable option for many lightly-populated areas. We can't use the "free market" to choose which ISP to use when there are no options. For instance, there is only one phone carrier in this town, so that's where you get DSL if you want it. There is no cable in this part of town, so no options there, either. It's possible to subscribe to Hughesnet or some other satellite service, but even their most basic plan is $60/month+. Plus, I have read some very bad reviews about their support and service, and it appears that the company throttles users and caps your daily traffic. No thanks.

If somebody doesn't keep the ISPs honest (FCC) we're screwed.
 
  • #11
skeptic2 said:
Which rules are you and russ opposed to?
Actually, I'm a little confused as to why the net neutrality issue even exists, as I would have expected the laws already covering the phone companies to apply here. But regardless of that, the model already applied to the phone and power companies should be easily applicable here:

1. The ISP owns the connection and pipeline, but not necessarily the content. They are responsible for keeping the connection functioning, regardless of who'se content flows over it. This is similar to the local power company being responsible for fixing a local power outage regardless of if the customer has a 3rd party providing the generation.

2. Non-discrimination over source of content. This is already required of both phone and power companies. It is related to #1, but goes a step further for telecom: AT&T can't block calls to/from a Verizon cell phone, for example. Where it can get sticky, though, is different rates for different companies. We're all used to this for phone service though, aren't we? It would be perfectly reasonable for a company to charge more to download content from a 3rd party than from their own server. The one thing they would have to avoid, though, is discrimination against specific content providers. The rate structure would just need to be the same as "local" and "long distance" phone service.

3. Bandwidth games? There isn't even a little bit wrong with that. Actually, imo it has nothing whatsoever to do with "net neutrality" - it's just something consumers raise a stink over, so it makes it into the debate. Similar to the Netflix thing, consumers get upset over price increases, particularly if they aren't well explained, but in a still-evolving market, changing price structures to handle new realities is perfectly fine. Example: Verizon has a navigation program with a $10 a month subscriber fee that I used for a little while on my Blackberry Storm, before I got a Garmin for xmas two years ago. So I canceled it. Now I have a Droid X (8 months old) and Verizon still has that $10 a month Nav program, but Google has it's own Nav program that is free. Not only is it free, but it is linked to Google maps and downloads satellite photos as you drive (optional, but that's the view I choose). Not only that, but I've gotten into Pandora and other streaming radio options in the past year. So I have the same $30 a month unlimited data plan I had 2 years ago, but download vastly more data and if you include the Verizon GPS program I'm not using anymore, pay 25% less for data than I did two years ago. Is that fair? Of course not. So Verizon is joining other companies in eliminating unlimited data plans and charging tiered rates. Will I be happy if my rates go up because of this change in price structure? Of course not - but I'm a reasonable person and don't complain when an unfair (in my favor) deal goes away.
 
  • #12
rhody said:
WhoWee,

Bingo...

skeptic,

I don't believe the FCC has better insight as to how control bandwidth issues than the ISP Provider's themselves. I don't on-line game for hours or use bit torrent. It has no impact on how I spend my free time or benefit from it. If the providers want to limit bandwidth after quota, or charge extra fees for "internet bandwidth hogs" I have no problem with that either, let the consumer decide which ISP's to reward or punish based on the laws of supply and demand and fee for service. The FCC acting as watchdog and intermediary offers no bang for my buck IMHO.

Rhody...

The problem is that the ISPs themselves often have conflicts of interest. Consider that the largest (by far) ISP in the US is Comcast, which has an extremely strong vested interest in protecting their cable television and conventional telephone services. One of the things this regulation is intended to prevent is for Comcast to begin slowing down bandwidth for things like streaming video or VOIP, in order to protect their existing investments. This is especially important, since in many areas of the country there is only one choice for ISP.

Another issue is one of fairness. Some ISPs sold unlimited plans, offering certain speeds, but then began throttling speeds on the heaviest users. What the regulation basically does is make sure this doesn't happen. If an ISP offers unlimited data, they're not allowed to slow down your access once you use some amount, which effectively puts a limit on how much data you can download.
 
  • #13
The original article gets it a bit wrong. Read here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#FCC_broadband_policy_statement

The point of the rules is that Verizon or your cable company cannot selectively throttle netflix, or hulu, or any other website. The worry is that your cable or DSL company will use its last mile service to make netflix or hulu streaming basically unwatchable to avoid competition with their television service.

These rules have nothing much to say about bandwidth caps or bandwidth tiered fees for heavy users, which are still ok under FCC rules, as long as all websites are treated equally.

It does have something to say about bait-and-switch advertising/fairness. i.e. a signed a year long contract with AT&T for DSL service, but halfway through, AT&T introduced bandwidth caps. I wasn't getting the service I signed up for, and had no recourse.
 
  • #14
ParticleGrl said:
The original article gets it a bit wrong. Read here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#FCC_broadband_policy_statement

The point of the rules is that Verizon or your cable company cannot selectively throttle netflix, or hulu, or any other website. The worry is that your cable or DSL company will use its last mile service to make netflix or hulu streaming basically unwatchable to avoid competition with their television service.

These rules have nothing much to say about bandwidth caps or bandwidth tiered fees for heavy users, which are still ok under FCC rules, as long as all websites are treated equally.

It does have something to say about bait-and-switch advertising/fairness. i.e. a signed a year long contract with AT&T for DSL service, but halfway through, AT&T introduced bandwidth caps. I wasn't getting the service I signed up for, and had no recourse.
You got it right. What kills me over the past couple of years is that some of the people and politicians had no idea what they were talking about.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
I'm pretty sure it specifically stated that the ISP cannot block "lawful" content. It sounds innocent enough, I mean, who "doesn't" want to be lawful right? Who decides what is lawful though? Anyone have any idea?
 
  • #17
I'm pretty sure it specifically stated that the ISP cannot block "lawful" content. It sounds innocent enough, I mean, who "doesn't" want to be lawful right? Who decides what is lawful though? Anyone have any idea?

For unlawful content, think child porn, copyrighted material in torrent, etc. And obviously, what is and is not lawful is decided by the US legal system, as these are FCC (US) guidelines.
 
  • #18
turbo said:
Unfortunately, that is not a viable option for many lightly-populated areas. We can't use the "free market" to choose which ISP to use when there are no options. For instance, there is only one phone carrier in this town, so that's where you get DSL if you want it. There is no cable in this part of town, so no options there, either. It's possible to subscribe to Hughesnet or some other satellite service, but even their most basic plan is $60/month+. Plus, I have read some very bad reviews about their support and service, and it appears that the company throttles users and caps your daily traffic. No thanks.

If somebody doesn't keep the ISPs honest (FCC) we're screwed.

So then everyone has to suffer? What is going to happen isn't 'max bandwidth for everyone!', instead it's going to be 'really poor internet' for everyone over time under the Net neutrality regulations. There becomes no incentive for the telecomm companies to provide any palpable service, they can now do the minimum and get away with it for everyone.

There's also lots of other services that may not be directly available at the best quality when living in the country - I don't think that's a justification for the net neutrality rules. 'Keeping them honest' isn't really in the text of the bill.



Also, I think something that is missing from the conversation: Why do the wireless/ISP companies want to throttle service? This is a concept that I think is missing from most discussion is the rationale behind WHY ISP/Wireless providers are starting to change their policies.

Lastly, has there been any examples of a large scale ISP totally cutting off a competing service? So, why is this such a worry other than someone spouting random anti-corporatist conspiracies? In fact, I can think of some examples of the opposite - when Comcast started offering TV-over-web for their cable customers, you could only access it from Comcast's internet service (this was an internal-Comcast restriction, not a banning by other providers).


This all just feels like another FCC power grab: well intentioned, but not well thought through.
 
  • #19
ParticleGrl said:
For unlawful content, think child porn, copyrighted material in torrent, etc. And obviously, what is and is not lawful is decided by the US legal system, as these are FCC (US) guidelines.

Well that's not quite what I was referring to, but that definitely goes without saying. Suppose we were in a situation like Egypt earlier this year. Would it then be lawful to block content deemed inappropriate for the "good of the nation"?
 
  • #20
QuarkCharmer said:
I'm pretty sure it specifically stated that the ISP cannot block "lawful" content. It sounds innocent enough, I mean, who "doesn't" want to be lawful right? Who decides what is lawful though? Anyone have any idea?

Where is it stated? Employers can block lawful content to their employees. Schools can block lawful content to their students. My daughter's school was so restrictive there was a short list of sites they were permitted to access. What is the legal difference between an ISP and an employer or a school?
 
Last edited:
  • #21
BTW, folks, Sprint has committed to buying 30 million iPhones over the next 4 years. If Sprint is your ISP, better start looking around for an alternative. A $20 billion outlay for a company that it in Sprint's shape is WAY risky, especially if some other cell phone/PDA manufacturer leapfrogs Apple. Technology can change very quickly, so this 4-year commitment looks very risky to me. Glad I'm not in Sprint stocks!

http://news.yahoo.com/report-sprint-buy-more-30m-iphones-200935673.html

I don't know if net neutrality can be amended and implemented in such a way as to actually favor consumers and expand choices. Given the deep pockets of big telecom companies, I doubt it. ATT and Verizon may be your only choice in a few years, IF you even have that choice.
 
  • #22
Actually, I'm a little confused as to why the net neutrality issue even exists, as I would have expected the laws already covering the phone companies to apply here. But regardless of that, the model already applied to the phone and power companies should be easily applicable here

I absolutely agree. Internet companies should be regulated like utilities- after all, its the same sort of regional monopolies.

So then everyone has to suffer? What is going to happen isn't 'max bandwidth for everyone!', instead it's going to be 'really poor internet' for everyone over time under the Net neutrality regulations. There becomes no incentive for the telecomm companies to provide any palpable service, they can now do the minimum and get away with it for everyone.

What stops them from doing the minimum for everyone WITHOUT these rules? Keep in mind that these rules DO NOT stop the ISPs from throttling or charging heavy users more. They only require that they don't throttle certain websites preferentially, and that they provide the service they sold you (if they sold you an unlimited plan, it needs to be unlimited).

There is already next-to-no competition among service providers, because of the regional monopolies, especially when you get outside of cities.

Also, I think something that is missing from the conversation: Why do the wireless/ISP companies want to throttle service?

For cable companies, netflix and hulu directly compete with their on-demand services. They are also responsible for a fair amount of bandwidth. If you look at US infrastructure (as compared to say, Europe, Japan,etc) it becomes clear that our cable companies would prefer to accumulate profits instead of reinvest in infrastructure. Capping bandwidth means they do not have to invest in more capacity. Throttling netflix means they don't have to invest in more capacity.

Lastly, has there been any examples of a large scale ISP totally cutting off a competing service? So, why is this such a worry other than someone spouting random anti-corporatist conspiracies?

Comcast tried to charge netflix a fee to provide, on penalty of blocking the service to Comcast customers.

Also, its hardly a "anti-corporatist conspiracy"- the profit maximizing move for a cable company is to limit streaming and push people into their own on-demand services.
 
  • #23
ParticleGrl said:
What stops them from doing the minimum for everyone WITHOUT these rules? Keep in mind that these rules DO NOT stop the ISPs from throttling or charging heavy users more. They only require that they don't throttle certain websites preferentially, and that they provide the service they sold you (if they sold you an unlimited plan, it needs to be unlimited).
You can't buy an unlimited plan around here. If you get ADSL from TDS (the only option in this area) you get it on their terms. They advertise their top package as "5Mbps", for instance, but never disclose openly that the 5Mbps is the maximum speed that you "might" get. (Right! In your dreams!) I live a mile from the switch, with a perfectly clean copper pair, and only once have I gotten more than 4Mbps. Standard is about 3Mbps. So you pay for phantom bandwidth that is never delivered, and the population density out here is so low that TDS will never willingly upgrade their equipment.
 
  • #24
turbo said:
You can't buy an unlimited plan around here. If you get ADSL from TDS (the only option in this area) you get it on their terms. They advertise their top package as "5Mbps", for instance, but never disclose openly that the 5Mbps is the maximum speed that you "might" get. (Right! In your dreams!) I live a mile from the switch, with a perfectly clean copper pair, and only once have I gotten more than 4Mbps. Standard is about 3Mbps. So you pay for phantom bandwidth that is never delivered, and the population density out here is so low that TDS will never willingly upgrade their equipment.
Turbo, ParticleGrl,

For comparison, I use Cox, and get about 19 Mbps download and about 5 Mbps upload speed, I measure using http://www.speakeasy.com/" [Broken]. I feel your frustration Turbo, DSL bang for your buck pales in comparision to FIOS speeds, at least to the poles where it is converted. My Tech Cox friend says there is so much unused bandwidth under the main FIOS backbone, it is not even funny. Cox is only going to spend serious investment dollars where they can reach as many customers as cheaply as possible, that is business, like it or not, and if I were you Turbo, I would not, but understand it nonetheless. They (Big Time Cable companies) have long term business plans that try to position themselves to take maxiumum advantage of what other companies are doing, and as cheaply and smartly as possible.

Rhody...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
ParticleGrl said:
For unlawful content, think child porn, copyrighted material in torrent, etc. And obviously, what is and is not lawful is decided by the US legal system, as these are FCC (US) guidelines.

Both private communication and the right to unreasonable search are protected by the United States constitution. The internet is not a broadcast service, it is a communication network.

mege said:
So then everyone has to suffer? What is going to happen isn't 'max bandwidth for everyone!', instead it's going to be 'really poor internet' for everyone over time under the Net neutrality regulations. There becomes no incentive for the telecomm companies to provide any palpable service, they can now do the minimum and get away with it for everyone.
Have telecom providers historically offered good services? I think not. Would you rather choose the services you want or have telecom’s subsidize at your expence the services which they have an interest in?
Also, I think something that is missing from the conversation: Why do the wireless/ISP companies want to throttle service? This is a concept that I think is missing from most discussion is the rationale behind WHY ISP/Wireless providers are starting to change their policies.
Wireless is a limited resource and as a consequence they wish to maximize as much revenue as possible from this resource. The solution to counter this is to create a public network of hotspots.
This all just feels like another FCC power grab: well intentioned, but not well thought through.
It is only a power grab if they choose to regulate the type of content allowed rather then madading content neutrality,.
QuarkCharmer said:
Well that's not quite what I was referring to, but that definitely goes without saying. Suppose we were in a situation like Egypt earlier this year. Would it then be lawful to block content deemed inappropriate for the "good of the nation"?
This is why the consitution protects both private comunication and the right to unreasonable search. Unfortuantly the privacy laws of most countries have not been updated with respect to the interent. For instance in the United States the law notes special protection for a persons home and papers. Canada tried to avoid this failure by not specify a place but in the end this has resulted in weaker privacy protection in Canada.
ParticleGrl said:
I absolutely agree. Internet companies should be regulated like utilities- after all, its the same sort of regional monopolies.



What stops them from doing the minimum for everyone WITHOUT these rules? Keep in mind that these rules DO NOT stop the ISPs from throttling or charging heavy users more. They only require that they don't throttle certain websites preferentially, and that they provide the service they sold you (if they sold you an unlimited plan, it needs to be unlimited).
Exactly. If the ISP throttles the service then it isn't an unlimited plan. Additionaly an ISP can ration bandwidth without discrimating between types of trafics. In my opionion the monertering of trafic type is an invasion of privacy.
For cable companies, netflix and hulu directly compete with their on-demand services. They are also responsible for a fair amount of bandwidth. If you look at US infrastructure (as compared to say, Europe, Japan,etc) it becomes clear that our cable companies would prefer to accumulate profits instead of reinvest in infrastructure. Capping bandwidth means they do not have to invest in more capacity. Throttling netflix means they don't have to invest in more capacity.
IF they want to limit bandwidth (e.g throttling) then it needs to be specified in the contract. As to whether there should be a minimum quality of internet for a given price that needs to be a discussion which is held each country should have. I believe Sweden mandated a certain quality of internet to the home. (I’ll have to double check this).



Anyway, I strongly believe in net neutrality for the internet. I am not sure with regards to celluar service but the rules should be such to allow people to set up their own network of hotspots.
 
  • #26
rhody said:
Cox is only going to spend serious investment dollars where they can reach as many customers as cheaply as possible, that is business, like it or not, and if I were you Turbo, I would not, but understand it nonetheless. They (Big Time Cable companies) have long term business plans that try to position themselves to take maxiumum advantage of what other companies are doing, and as cheaply and smartly as possible.

Rhody...
I understand the "business model" perfectly, and it sucks. TDS gets to sell bandwidth that they know that they cannot deliver to their subscribers, and instead of upgrading their network so that they CAN provide the bandwidth that they promised, they just continue to rope in more DSL subscribers, so everybody gets throttled. This behavior is unethical and should be illegal, and the FCC should rein them in.
 
  • #27
John Creighto said:
If the ISP throttles the service then it isn't an unlimited plan.
This isn't correct. For hardwired service, you pay for the peak bandwidth that you select, then you can transmit as much as you want, not to exceed that speed.

For cell phones. you can have an unlimited plan of data (ususally charged by the kb)for a flat monthly rate, how fast you can upload/download is *hopefully* between certain parameters, but there are so many factors that effect cell phones, including if you even get a signal, that there really aren't written in stone guarantees. They say "our new fastest 4G network and you get 19k, yeah, I had the techs check. Answer - we're going to send an engineer out to the tower. After weekly calls for 6 months, I gave up and switched.

Net neutrality is not what a lot of people think it is. It's not about service plans, or the speed you get or how much data is in your plan, etc...
 
  • #28
Evo said:
This isn't correct. For hardwired service, you pay for the peak bandwidth that you select, then you can transmit as much as you want, not to exceed that speed.
Paying for peek bandwidth provides no guarantee of service. Shouldn't there be some minimum standard of service we should expect? I can accept throttling of people if they exceed some agreed upon quota of bandwidth which is clearly outlined in the contract and not buried in the fine print (You know the type of clause people have to put their initials by). However, the right to arbitrarily discriminate based on the type of service to me seems unjust.

For cell phones. you can have an unlimited plan of data (ususally charged by the kb)for a flat monthly rate, how fast you can upload/download is *hopefully* between certain parameters, but there are so many factors that effect cell phones, including if you even get a signal, that there really aren't written in stone guarantees. They say "our new fastest 4G network and you get 19k, yeah, I had the techs check. Answer - we're going to send an engineer out to the tower. After weekly calls for 6 months, I gave up and switched.

Net neutrality is not what a lot of people think it is. It's not about service plans, or the speed you get or how much data is in your plan, etc...

It would be difficult to sate any firm rules for cell phones at this time but in the future we should be able to improve our metrics and integrate cellar service with WI-fi hot spots to provide better reliability in urban areas.
 
  • #29
turbo said:
You can't buy an unlimited plan around here. If you get ADSL from TDS (the only option in this area) you get it on their terms. They advertise their top package as "5Mbps", for instance, but never disclose openly that the 5Mbps is the maximum speed that you "might" get. (Right! In your dreams!) I live a mile from the switch, with a perfectly clean copper pair, and only once have I gotten more than 4Mbps. Standard is about 3Mbps. So you pay for phantom bandwidth that is never delivered, and the population density out here is so low that TDS will never willingly upgrade their equipment.

Wow. I'm chillin' at 20 Mbps.
 
  • #30
DoggerDan said:
Wow. I'm chillin' at 20 Mbps.
Rubbing it in is only going to piss off the DSL folks like Turbo and company. Factoid.

Rhody...
 
  • #31
rhody said:
Rubbing it in is only going to piss off the DSL folks like Turbo and company. Factoid.

Rhody...

I just ran the AT&T speed test on this desktop - 4.7 Mbps for downloads and .41 Mbps for uploads.
 
  • #32
WhoWee said:
I just ran the AT&T speed test on this desktop - 4.7 Mbps for downloads and .41 Mbps for uploads.

I ran speak easy last night from San Fran 29.3 Mb download and 5.7 Mb upload.

Rhody...
 
  • #33
Turbo,

The only way your access to the speeds that some of us enjoy is if your sparsely populated area suddenly were to grow to "cable customer access threshold limit exceeded dimensions". Say Caterpillar or other major manufacturer were to set up shop in your area. The explosion in the local population may be enough to convince the Cable providers to upgrade their service and as a direct result, you would benefit.

BTW. Is your ISP limiting your access now via DSL, what I am asking is what upload/download speeds are they providing, versus what they could be providing if they choose to do so ?

Rhody... :confused:
 
  • #34
rhody said:
BTW. Is your ISP limiting your access now via DSL, what I am asking is what upload/download speeds are they providing, versus what they could be providing if they choose to do so ?

Rhody... :confused:
Yes. I pay for 5Mbps and generally get only 3Mbps. TDS sells bandwidth that they cannot deliver, and throttles the customers to keep its traffic down. It's a cynical, unethical way to do business, but then the telecom industry is not known to be really concerned with ethics.
 
  • #35
turbo said:
Yes. I pay for 5Mbps and generally get only 3Mbps. TDS sells bandwidth that they cannot deliver, and throttles the customers to keep its traffic down. It's a cynical, unethical way to do business, but then the telecom industry is not known to be really concerned with ethics.

As silly as this sounds, if they changed their offer to the 3Mbps would that satisfy you ? I doubt it. Second, based on their technology, what is the best speed that could be achieved to their customer base ? Do noisy ancient phone lines contribute to the problem ? I imagine that they would.

Rhody...
 
<h2>What is net neutrality?</h2><p>Net neutrality is the principle that all internet traffic should be treated equally, without any discrimination or preference given to certain types of content or websites. This means that internet service providers (ISPs) cannot block, slow down, or charge extra fees for accessing certain websites or content.</p><h2>What is the FCC and what role do they play in net neutrality?</h2><p>The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is a government agency in the United States that regulates communication technologies, including the internet. They are responsible for enforcing net neutrality rules and ensuring that ISPs do not engage in discriminatory practices.</p><h2>Why is net neutrality important?</h2><p>Net neutrality is important because it promotes a free and open internet, where all users have equal access to information and services. Without net neutrality, ISPs could potentially control what content users can access, favoring their own services or those of their partners, and limiting competition and innovation.</p><h2>What are the potential consequences of repealing net neutrality?</h2><p>If net neutrality is repealed, ISPs could potentially create "fast lanes" for certain websites or services, while slowing down or even blocking others. This could lead to a tiered internet, where only those who can afford to pay for faster speeds can have their content readily accessible. It could also stifle competition and innovation, as smaller companies may not be able to compete with larger corporations who can afford to pay for faster speeds.</p><h2>How does net neutrality affect me as a consumer?</h2><p>As a consumer, net neutrality ensures that you have equal access to all content and services on the internet, without any restrictions or discrimination. It also helps to promote competition and innovation, as smaller companies have a level playing field to compete with larger corporations. Without net neutrality, you may experience slower internet speeds or have limited access to certain websites or services, depending on what your ISP chooses to prioritize.</p>

What is net neutrality?

Net neutrality is the principle that all internet traffic should be treated equally, without any discrimination or preference given to certain types of content or websites. This means that internet service providers (ISPs) cannot block, slow down, or charge extra fees for accessing certain websites or content.

What is the FCC and what role do they play in net neutrality?

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is a government agency in the United States that regulates communication technologies, including the internet. They are responsible for enforcing net neutrality rules and ensuring that ISPs do not engage in discriminatory practices.

Why is net neutrality important?

Net neutrality is important because it promotes a free and open internet, where all users have equal access to information and services. Without net neutrality, ISPs could potentially control what content users can access, favoring their own services or those of their partners, and limiting competition and innovation.

What are the potential consequences of repealing net neutrality?

If net neutrality is repealed, ISPs could potentially create "fast lanes" for certain websites or services, while slowing down or even blocking others. This could lead to a tiered internet, where only those who can afford to pay for faster speeds can have their content readily accessible. It could also stifle competition and innovation, as smaller companies may not be able to compete with larger corporations who can afford to pay for faster speeds.

How does net neutrality affect me as a consumer?

As a consumer, net neutrality ensures that you have equal access to all content and services on the internet, without any restrictions or discrimination. It also helps to promote competition and innovation, as smaller companies have a level playing field to compete with larger corporations. Without net neutrality, you may experience slower internet speeds or have limited access to certain websites or services, depending on what your ISP chooses to prioritize.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
4
Replies
114
Views
12K
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
Back
Top