Net neutrality, the vote...thoughts?

[Jersey mike]

To be honest I'm not really sure what to believe with this ending. It sounds like internet providers will not be able to slow down your internet speed and charge more to make it fast again and also charge to access different types of websites...YouTube, Netflix and stuff like that but I'm not really sure.

I know there are some people out here what are more up to date with this stuff and I was hoping someone would take a minute or two to give better understanding of this thing.

[Serk]

Obama implemented a rule in 2015 that is being called "Net Neutrality" but actually just heavily regulated the Internet (Under a law created to regulate telegraphs.)

This rule was implemented in 2015.

THAT is what was rolled back.

So things go back to the way they were before the Obama rule was enacted in 2015.

I'm in I.T.. I work from home and literally depend on stable high speed Internet for my livelihood, and I applaud the FCC for rolling back this innovation stifling bureaucratic regulation.

[Alpha Dog]

That is pretty much it Serk.  A whole lot of people up in arms about it over, of course the hoards of mis information about what it is.  Maybe 1 out a hundred people know much about it but it was imposed to control the internet.   I myself am hoping for Fake News Neutrality.

[Robert]

I have been reading on this topic a bit and wonder how you guys think it will be a good idea. Let me preface by saying that companies like Comcast have the worst customer approval rating and worst customer service rating there is. They are NOT in any way responsive to their customers and with that I worry that as they work in their own offerings and they come in conflict with the current ones. What will they do since now, its only a promise to keep things neutral.

An example is WiFi calling on cell phones, Att and Apple have WiFi calling but its being stifled a bit because Comcast doesn't want to play well with this technology since they have their own offering.

Netflix is another example, Comcast's premiums are very high and customer service stinks putting it mildly. I do have to give them one plus though, if their service is running properly its about the best.

I am hearing about billions of dollars in lost investment and lost programs that have not really worked. I only am curious since I believe they have not worked because the market and times dont fit well and the company is blaming others rather than taking things on themselves.

I know Serk you are in IT and just curious since I dont really see it as a win since it seems we are giving the keys to the wolf for the hen house door. If you could share some of the plus thoughts I would appreciate it since I may not have the information to see positives in this move.

[Serk]

I know Serk you are in IT and just curious since I dont really see it as a win since it seems we are giving the keys to the wolf for the hen house door. If you could share some of the plus thoughts I would appreciate it since I may not have the information to see positives in this move.

I will almost ALWAYS prefer to see the proverbial hen house door keys in the hands of the people instead of in the hands of some faceless government bureaucrat.

The Obama move to put the Internet under title 2 regulations stifled innovation and competition, it helped the bigger companies stomp out the smaller ones. (The big boys can afford hall ways full of lawyers to dig through the thousands of pages of regulations to stay compliant, but this chokes out smaller, innovative companies from getting in to the game, no way can they afford the massive cost to stay compliant with thousands of government rules and regulations.)

We're also quickly moving to where most people, and eventually everyone, will have multiple options for Internet connectivity. If you don't like the policies from one provider, switch to another one. The market will choke out any company that tried to over play it's hand.

Some other points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6txA3pI0xJI

[scooperhsd]

This is the stupidest thing the FCC has EVER done - and I work in IT also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------  ----------------------------------------------(who will probably go back to Verizon when his term is up and is the current FCC chairman).  There was absolutely NO REASON to have to overturn this.

Rolling it back means your ISP can screw with your internet connection all they want. You want to watch Youtube - pay up for a non -stuttering connection. Etc. , Etc.  

Who does this benefit ?  Look at all the Big ISPs (Verizon, AT&T, Spectrum, etc.) . It certainly WILL NOT benefit you and me. If you are lucky to have a real choice in broadband providers ( offering more than 25 Mbps) - at least you can play them off against each other.  Most of us do not have that luxery - there is ONE , and in some cases NO option.

All you trump supporters - welcome to "the best government money can buy / pay for play politics ". I hope you enjoy the rest of his term.

[Alpha Dog]

I know Serk you are in IT and just curious since I dont really see it as a win since it seems we are giving the keys to the wolf for the hen house door. If you could share some of the plus thoughts I would appreciate it since I may not have the information to see positives in this move.

I will almost ALWAYS prefer to see the proverbial hen house door keys in the hands of the people instead of in the hands of some faceless government bureaucrat.

The Obama move to put the Internet under title 2 regulations stifled innovation and competition, it helped the bigger companies stomp out the smaller ones. (The big boys can afford hall ways full of lawyers to dig through the thousands of pages of regulations to stay compliant, but this chokes out smaller, innovative companies from getting in to the game, no way can they afford the massive cost to stay compliant with thousands of government rules and regulations.)

We're also quickly moving to where most people, and eventually everyone, will have multiple options for Internet connectivity. If you don't like the policies from one provider, switch to another one. The market will choke out any company that tried to over play it's hand.

Some other points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6txA3pI0xJI

Yesterday I heard of a company seeking to provide service by using existing power lines.  Think what that would mean if they are successful in their application. Darn near everyone already is hooked up to power lines.  However under the 2015 rules this could well never happen as the existing big companies Serk mentions will exclude this out.  These same forces kept cell phones from coming in at least 20 to 30 years than would have happened under total freedom.  Let competition come in from anyone that has a good idea and the market will sort it out and better and cheaper service will prevail.

[Alpha Dog]

I know Serk you are in IT and just curious since I dont really see it as a win since it seems we are giving the keys to the wolf for the hen house door. If you could share some of the plus thoughts I would appreciate it since I may not have the information to see positives in this move.

I will almost ALWAYS prefer to see the proverbial hen house door keys in the hands of the people instead of in the hands of some faceless government bureaucrat.

The Obama move to put the Internet under title 2 regulations stifled innovation and competition, it helped the bigger companies stomp out the smaller ones. (The big boys can afford hall ways full of lawyers to dig through the thousands of pages of regulations to stay compliant, but this chokes out smaller, innovative companies from getting in to the game, no way can they afford the massive cost to stay compliant with thousands of government rules and regulations.)

We're also quickly moving to where most people, and eventually everyone, will have multiple options for Internet connectivity. If you don't like the policies from one provider, switch to another one. The market will choke out any company that tried to over play it's hand.

Some other points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6txA3pI0xJI

Yesterday I heard of a company seeking to provide service by using existing power lines.  Think what that would mean if they are successful in their application. Darn near everyone already is hooked up to power lines.  However under the 2015 rules this could well never happen as the existing big companies Serk mentions will exclude this out.  These same forces kept cell phones from coming in at least 20 to 30 years than would have happened under total freedom.  Let competition come in from anyone that has a good idea and the market will sort it out and better and cheaper service will prevail.

[Psychotic Bovine]

-------------------------------------------- (who will probably go back to Verizon when his term is up and is the current FCC chairman).  

Uh, wow.  just wow.

[Savago]

I'm also an engineer who works as a programmer doing... stuff. Let's just say that if you have a smartphone (android or iphone) you benefit from the stuff I do.
:-)

I have a story to tell that maybe help to clarify *why* this matters to anyone. You see, I lived for 8 years in a city in the middle of Amazon jungle (really, later look on google maps for 'Manaus - Amazon').

Due to the isolation (i.e. no roads connecting it to the 'continental' Brazil), everything there was insanely expensive because it had to arrive by plane or boat (through the Amazon river). That included the internet: the only fiber cable connecting the city to the country's backbone was tied in tiny wooden poles 3-7ms (9ft to 21ft) high in the middle of the jungle (I got a few photos if you don't believe me) through 700Km (400 miles).

Even with all these physical restrictions, back in 2012 I was able to watch Netflix just fine with a link of 8Mbits that I paid 50 dollars/month (in the rest of Brazil that would be 1/3 of the price for a much better link).

In January 2014, when I moved to California (Silicon Valley mind you!) I was excited that I would finally be able to stream Netflix videos in higher resolution. I contracted a 10-18Mbits link from Comcast by 60 dollars (!) and... it wouldn't stream smoothly at all (not even in lower res).

It would stutter and sometimes freeze and so on.

I called Comcast and run their tests and everything was normal.

I decided to ask my co-workers about the subject and then it became clear: the issue was that Comcast was throttling the network packets because they were trying to coerce Netflix to pay them money.

A few weeks latter Netflix magically started to work fine... and then came the news that they reached an 'agreement' with Comcast i.e. they decided to pay the mob.

It seems that after the net neutrality regulation this kind of extortion wouldn't be possible.

So mind you that without net neutrality, you could get better internet in the middle of freaking Amazonian jungle than in the heart of the Silicon Valley - USA.

Maybe you could consider that is not a problem at all to you i.e. ' _ Screw netflix and internet companies!', but *who* you think will pay for the extra 'mob' cost?

We all gonna pay for it.

[Serk]

Savago - Thank you for giving a reasoned response without the crazy hyperbole I keep seeing elsewhere about this being "Literally worse than how Nazis treated the Jews" (Yes, I saw someone seriously say that.)

IMHO if one company (Netflix) is utilizing a large portion of another company's resources (Verizon) they SHOULD be made to compensate for that usage. Verizon wasn't blocking Netflix, they just weren't paying for a dedicated peering into Netflix's network from their own without Netflix ponying up and helping pay for it.

That makes perfect sense to me.

[Atl-Jerry]

Serks response is bang on.  Govt regulation of ANY industry adds cost and delivery interval and impedes inovation.  A great example is POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service), a standard (regulated) residential line will cost in the neighborhood of $40 per month. VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) line will cost about $8 per month or less.  They both function the same to the end user but they are delivered with very different technology.

When I began my career in the Telecom industry almost 50 years ago, everyone budgeted and worked off a 5 year plan, we could always see what was coming.  When we turned out the lights at Nortel Networks about 10 years ago, we were lucky to get a descent 30 forecast from  our customers.  Point is, in that regulated world we could never meet customer demands and innovation would not drive us where we are today.

Net Neutrality, who WOULDN'T want net neutrality?  Sounds great but wordsmithing is a cornerstone of the radical, hateful, intolerant left.  In their world socialist/marxist means "progressive", immigration reform means "open borders" and abortion means "planned parenthood".  The devil is in the details, not the benign name they create just to fool you. 

[scooperhsd]

Savago - Thank you for giving a reasoned response without the crazy hyperbole I keep seeing elsewhere about this being "Literally worse than how Nazis treated the Jews" (Yes, I saw someone seriously say that.)

IMHO if one company (Netflix) is utilizing a large portion of another company's resources (Verizon) they SHOULD be made to compensate for that usage. Verizon wasn't blocking Netflix, they just weren't paying for a dedicated peering into Netflix's network from their own without Netflix ponying up and helping pay for it.

That makes perfect sense to me.

I submit that is EXACTLY what they were signing up for - only they didn't realize where it was going to go.  You pay for YOUR connection , Netflix pays for THEIR connection , and so on.  Taking away Net Neutrality (which by the way, is how the Internet has been all along.)  is allowing the ISPs to dictate who can and cannot access the internet unencumbered. Mark my words - if the inevitable lawsuits let the FCC / Big Telecom win - you haven't seen anything on how screwed we are. The Internet as we know it now will go away. Websites such as this may disappear because they won't / can't pay for "access" to the network.  I don't see Big Telecom losing money hand over fist - in fact I see the opposite !!

As far as government regulation - how many of you are served by only 1 electric company ? Water / sewer ? Gas ?  Why do we do only REGULATED monoplies on these services ? Well - in my view - Internet access has reached the same level of necessity in today's economy.  If anything - we should be having MORE government oversight on the Internet, not less. Given the whole sector's performance in "customer service" - it's LONG overdue. Even the Telecom companies admitted that Title 2 / Net Neutrality played no factor on their investment into their infrastructure.

Just like the song from Don Mclean's "American Pie" -

[scooperhsd]

I know Serk you are in IT and just curious since I dont really see it as a win since it seems we are giving the keys to the wolf for the hen house door. If you could share some of the plus thoughts I would appreciate it since I may not have the information to see positives in this move.

I will almost ALWAYS prefer to see the proverbial hen house door keys in the hands of the people instead of in the hands of some faceless government bureaucrat.

The Obama move to put the Internet under title 2 regulations stifled innovation and competition, it helped the bigger companies stomp out the smaller ones. (The big boys can afford hall ways full of lawyers to dig through the thousands of pages of regulations to stay compliant, but this chokes out smaller, innovative companies from getting in to the game, no way can they afford the massive cost to stay compliant with thousands of government rules and regulations.)

We're also quickly moving to where most people, and eventually everyone, will have multiple options for Internet connectivity. If you don't like the policies from one provider, switch to another one. The market will choke out any company that tried to over play it's hand.

Some other points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6txA3pI0xJI

Yesterday I heard of a company seeking to provide service by using existing power lines.  Think what that would mean if they are successful in their application. Darn near everyone already is hooked up to power lines.  However under the 2015 rules this could well never happen as the existing big companies Serk mentions will exclude this out.  These same forces kept cell phones from coming in at least 20 to 30 years than would have happened under total freedom.  Let competition come in from anyone that has a good idea and the market will sort it out and better and cheaper service will prevail.

I've heard of Internet over powerlines being talked about for the last 10-20 years - nothing has come of it. At best - I see the power company using something like this for power management of summer air conditioning ( mine is on this). Offering 100 Mbps over powerline is a pipedream at this time.

[¿spoom]

I would cheer if some nutjob would  kill Ajit Pai (who will probably go back to Verizon when his term is up and is the current FCC chairman). 

Uh, wow.  just wow.

Yup, I just blocked THAT hateful whack job from infecting my Valkyrie neighborhood.

[Pete]

Internet access over power connections has been around and operative for many years and is not new nor a pipe dream.

Since it is typical wired technology newer higher speed technology can easily out perform it. Think wired vs fiber optics.

Most power companies have resisted efforts to communicate over their power transmission lines. And many have even implemented fiber as a better preferred solution.

Keep in mind that wired transmission speeds at normal temperatures maxed out around 1990 and the only way found to improve them were to shorten the wire or reduce the resistance by dramatically lowering the temperature, like to absolutely zero (not really feasible for transmission lines).

[¿spoom]

Net Neutrality, who WOULDN'T want net neutrality?  Sounds great but wordsmithing is a cornerstone of the radical, hateful, intolerant left.  In their world socialist/marxist means "progressive", immigration reform means "open borders" and abortion means "planned parenthood".  The devil is in the details, not the benign name they create just to fool you.  

'zactly. Net neutrality sounds awesome, like Affordable Healthcare. Both sides do it, and the weakest brains line up to champion it. McDonald's will always be able to sell more "Giant 16oz" sodas than "Medium 17oz" ones if the pricing is the same. If there's ever a Bill proposed to drown kittens, you can bet it'll be titled something like the, "Warm Happy Fuzzy Puppy" Bill, no matter what party wrote/wants it.
Do I see the potential for problems? Of course, but I also see Congress being able to deal with it if needed. I don't recall the Internet being unusable in 2015, and doubt if it'll melt down now that we've rolled back to that time. People love to say the free market system doesn't work, but to be truthful we've never tried it. You pay different rates for cellphone bandwidth, and competition kept driving that price structure down. I have no problem with somebody who watches endless movies and tethers a 'puter from their phone paying more than somebody who only talks, texts and send gram-gram the occasional cat Utube. If we want to use public utilities as examples, why can't we all get unlimited KWH from the electric company? Why should I be punished for running a 10HP air compressor?  The old net neutrality sounds good in some ways, but unlimited Netflix isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

[scooperhsd]

Net Neutrality, who WOULDN'T want net neutrality?  Sounds great but wordsmithing is a cornerstone of the radical, hateful, intolerant left.  In their world socialist/marxist means "progressive", immigration reform means "open borders" and abortion means "planned parenthood".  The devil is in the details, not the benign name they create just to fool you.  

'zactly. Net neutrality sounds awesome, like Affordable Healthcare. Both sides do it, and the weakest brains line up to champion it. McDonald's will always be able to sell more "Giant 16oz" sodas than "Medium 17oz" ones if the pricing is the same. If there's ever a Bill proposed to drown kittens, you can bet it'll be titled something like the, "Warm Happy Fuzzy Puppy" Bill, no matter what party wrote/wants it.
Do I see the potential for problems? Of course, but I also see Congress being able to deal with it if needed. I don't recall the Internet being unusable in 2015, and doubt if it'll melt down now that we've rolled back to that time. People love to say the free market system doesn't work, but to be truthful we've never tried it. You pay different rates for cellphone bandwidth, and competition kept driving that price structure down. I have no problem with somebody who watches endless movies and tethers a 'puter from their phone paying more than somebody who only talks, texts and send gram-gram the occasional cat Utube. If we want to use public utilities as examples, why can't we all get unlimited KWH from the electric company? Why should I be punished for running a 10HP air compressor?  The old net neutrality sounds good in some ways, but unlimited Netflix isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

In simple terms -- you don't get it.

You have paid for your "unlimited" Internet access

Netflix has paid their ISP for "unlimited access"

Amazon has similarly paid their ISP for "unlimited access"

Dropping NN means your ISP can prevent you from accessing these other web resources without paying extra. This can be discriminatory for new web services to start up. The whole internet was built on the principle of free and open access fro everyone.

Several of the the people who actually did build the internet (as opposed to Al Gore) as we see and use it today are also against this repeal of NN.

The only thing about Congress I have any confidence in is that they will listen to Big Telecom to further screw us over. Comcast et al is probably already writing their own bill to codify this overturn.

What surprised me was that Serk (a fellow IT guy) is FOR this, while Robert (with whom I agree  with about very little) sees this the way I do.

[Serk]

It would seem our Polish friends might be on to to something in regards to this issue:

[Robert]

Well ATT had a monopoly on the phones for so long and were under government reg and didn't give a dam about their customers. It wasn't till some competition came along and they lowered their pricing to keep from loosing customers. They, a well regulated industry were only made competitive by other companies doing the same thing. I can see both sides of the net neutrality issue, I guess we will just have to see how things shake out. Thanks.

[Mr Whiskey]

It would seem our Polish friends might be on to to something in regards to this issue:

Priceless!
Thanks for postin'

[Alberta Patriot]

What Happened to Google Fiber?
https://gizmodo.com/what-happened-to-google-fiber-1792440779

The cost and complication of Google Fiber is a perfect example of good intentions gone sideways.  In my IMHO if ISP's were restricted from providing different levels of speed(bandwidth) at different pricing levels, then high profit video providers like Netflix,  Hulu...and...porn addicted individuals logged onto 4K level porn streams, would hog bandwidth expecting to ride "free" on the digital highway causing regular  "Traffic Jambs".  There are many people who access the internet for simple web mail and a bit of surfing who only reguire a few megabites a month, while others, whether for business or high volume personal streaming, use massive quantities of bandwidth. Why should the FCC restrict bandwith speed and innovation if individuals or High Tech Firms are willing to "Pay to Play" for  higher levels of Bandwidth Activity?? I look at it like socilaism...everybody should be "equal"...equally poor or equally miserable. Any country that restricts innovation to guarantee equal access to bandwidth will be left behind in the dust.
How has that ever worked out well for the masses...Venezuela or North Korea for example!!

[scooperhsd]

It would seem our Polish friends might be on to to something in regards to this issue:

great - now just try doing it without the incumbents trying to prevent you any way they can. Even Google Fiber has had issues with this in several cities - pole attachement is a big issue. incumbents stall / outright block / etc.

Until everyone has at least 2 high speed options - we need government oversight on the monoplies that exist.

Breaking up some of the larger ISPs  ala AT&T's breakup in the 80's  would also be a good idea.

[Alberta Patriot]

It would seem our Polish friends might be on to to something in regards to this issue:

great - now just try doing it without the incumbents trying to prevent you any way they can. Even Google Fiber has had issues with this in several cities - pole attachement is a big issue. incumbents stall / outright block / etc.

Until everyone has at least 2 high speed options - we need government oversight on the monoplies that exist.

Breaking up some of the larger ISPs  ala AT&T's breakup in the 80's  would also be a good idea.

The perfect attitude??...lets Nationalize the ISP's because Government has proven over and over how they are good at "leveling the playing field" for all.
Government Regulation and Red Tape which Stifles Innovation and Investment is the Classic Hallmark for Paving  the Road to Hell for the Innovators who make life a little easier for us all....West Germany...Mercedes and BMW....East Germany...Ladas, Volgas and Zils
Oh!! I forgot...the most famous innovator of all...Al Gore for inventing the internet.

[MP]

This is the stupidest thing the FCC has EVER done - and I work in IT also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------  ----------------------------------------------(who will probably go back to Verizon when his term is up and is the current FCC chairman).  There was absolutely NO REASON to have to overturn this.

Rolling it back means your ISP can screw with your internet connection all they want. You want to watch Youtube - pay up for a non -stuttering connection. Etc. , Etc.  

Who does this benefit ?  Look at all the Big ISPs (Verizon, AT&T, Spectrum, etc.) . It certainly WILL NOT benefit you and me. If you are lucky to have a real choice in broadband providers ( offering more than 25 Mbps) - at least you can play them off against each other.  Most of us do not have that luxery - there is ONE , and in some cases NO option.

All you trump supporters - welcome to "the best government money can buy / pay for play politics ". I hope you enjoy the rest of his term.

Follow the money. If ending net neutrality be edits the big players, just WHY did those same big players support neutrality, and spend well over 100 million to push it thru?

[¿spoom]

This is the stupidest thing the FCC has EVER done - and I work in IT also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------  ----------------------------------------------(who will probably go back to Verizon when his term is up and is the current FCC chairman).  There was absolutely NO REASON to have to overturn this.

Rolling it back means your ISP can screw with your internet connection all they want. You want to watch Youtube - pay up for a non -stuttering connection. Etc. , Etc.  

Who does this benefit ?  Look at all the Big ISPs (Verizon, AT&T, Spectrum, etc.) . It certainly WILL NOT benefit you and me. If you are lucky to have a real choice in broadband providers ( offering more than 25 Mbps) - at least you can play them off against each other.  Most of us do not have that luxery - there is ONE , and in some cases NO option.

All you trump supporters - welcome to "the best government money can buy / pay for play politics ". I hope you enjoy the rest of his term.

Follow the money. If ending net neutrality be edits the big players, just WHY did those same big players support neutrality, and spend well over 100 million to push it thru?

Yeah, that's where tagging the 2015 law as being, "Net Neutrality" instead of no name or at least one that's an accurate description, hurts one's head if you just go by the name.  

[G-Man]

All you trump supporters - welcome to "the best government money can buy / pay for play politics ". I hope you enjoy the rest of his term.

Your girl already cornered the market on that one.  How soon they forget.

[scooperhsd]

All you trump supporters - welcome to "the best government money can buy / pay for play politics ". I hope you enjoy the rest of his term.

Your girl already cornered the market on that one.  How soon they forget.

She wasn't  my girl either - I didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton. I think I voted Libertarian - so it's easier for them to get on the ballot next time.

[Alberta Patriot]

All you trump supporters - welcome to "the best government money can buy / pay for play politics ". I hope you enjoy the rest of his term.

Your girl already cornered the market on that one.  How soon they forget.

Some people just simply believe what they want to believe no matter how much opposing evidence is dumped on their laps. Some people are fine with illegal people flooding across borders. Some people are completely sucked in by the Left Wing MSM manufactured news no matter how much proof there is that they are sycophants that bare face lie and lie by the exclusion of events that don't fit their narrative. The Net Neutrality Narrative is no different. Had Trump put these same rules in these very same people would be protesting the changes.

[G-Man]

All you trump supporters - welcome to "the best government money can buy / pay for play politics ". I hope you enjoy the rest of his term.

Your girl already cornered the market on that one.  How soon they forget.

She wasn't  my girl either - I didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton. I think I voted Libertarian - so it's easier for them to get on the ballot next time.

As long as they don't run another, um, under-informed, candidate.

[Oss]

I am more concerned with internet censorship

My wife for instance distributes an organic non chemical product for certain women's issues such as post menopause or post hysterectomy and cancer  pain in a woman's sensitive nether regions *dont want to offend the adm here either.  She cant use any words that refer to what the product is supposed  to do to remove pain.   Cant do it on facebook or amazon.

That is totally Barbaric as there is nothing pornographic about a woman in pain looking for relief from that pain that is organic and not harmful to her body

And now we have people who are posting truthful stories about the left being banned from youtube and facebook

Pure censorship   Just waiting for the first billion dollar lawsuit against the big companies to be filed.

[Serk]

Pure censorship   Just waiting for the first billion dollar lawsuit against the big companies to be filed.

While I actually disagree, as private companies Youtube, Facebook, even the VRCC can allow or disallow anything on their own computers for any reason, but...

https://www.prageru.com/press-release-prager-university-prageru-takes-legal-action-against-google-and-youtube-discrimination

[CajunRider]

I'm a bit late getting in on this one... However, I do want to extend a big "Thank you" to Serk for giving a basic run-down on this. I haven't done any reseach, and was curious what it was all about.

Thank you!!

That is all. 

[Karen]

Probably irrelevant at this point, but in the 90's, we had signed up with Comcast for cable & internet. Bills got bigger and bigger. There was a local company, Ultranet, that offered the same access for much less, so we took it. A couple of days after the switchover, the new hookup stopped working. Ultranet came back, and said their newly installed lines had been cut; they fixed them and all was well. They also said that many previous Comcast customers had the same issue. Don't really want to do business with thugs... Ultranet was gobbled up by RCN, and we stayed with them until they were over $200 a month. Now I have Dish for TV, and earthlink DSL for internet. OK with the internet, but Dish sux. Verizon is switching to all fiber here in Boston, and I could get a good deal from them for now, but the cost keeps going up... expect to move in the spring, so I'll just stick it out for now... services may be regulated, but the price certainly isn't... just whining...

[Crackerborn]

Competition among ISP's can be wonderful. For many years the only ISP's available to me were dial-up or Time Warner. Dial up went the way of the Dodo and that left Time Warner or nothing. Needless to say, as the only game in town, the prices were whatever Time Warner wanted and customer service didn't exist. About 5 years ago AT&T moved in and offered a better price at similar speeds. The catch was AT&T was DSL and had limited bandwidth. I live less than 1 mile from a major fiber optic line between Chicago and Milwaukee that the industrial parks get to use (3 miles from the same fiber optic line, 2 beyond me) but because I am residential, "sorry Charlie". In the last 2 years Spectrum (formerly Time Warner) and AT&T have been in a price/speed war in my area and I just keep jumping to the ISP that gives me decent speed and service at a reasonable price. Now this house will soon be going on the market since the retirement () house is almost completed and I will be back to the problem of only one provider.   

[Rams]

Hmm, well  I didn't read all the responses but, I still have an opinion.

Turn off the damn TV and do something with the family, go out to the shop or barn and come back when it's time for the evening news.

Rams

[Alberta Patriot]

Hmm, well  I didn't read all the responses but, I still have an opinion.

Turn off the damn TV and do something with the family, go out to the shop or barn and come back when it's time for the evening news.

Rams

I Agree  
I cut the cable years ago...250 channels with nothing worth watching...including manufactured news! Anything of interest can be had on the web including live stream news.

[Serk]

[hubcapsc]

People sure do have a lot of opinions about this.

I think the Internet is a network that passes IP packets. I pay my ISP (ATT/DSL)
for connectivity. If there's ever a per-connection fee, or a tiering system (these
packets go faster than those packets) or anything else like that, then, to me,
the Internet is broken.

I don't pretend to know what is going on under the covers anymore, but I do
still have the perception that my packets flow (like molasses on my slow DSL)
as I wish, so it's all good to me.

-Mike

[¿spoom]

Hmm, well  I didn't read all the responses but, I still have an opinion.

Turn off the damn TV and do something with the family, go out to the shop or barn and come back when it's time for the evening news.

Rams

Possibly, but for folks like me who depend on the 'net for a living, I'd be out of business if I didn't have the internet available in my home.