The US Government now Controls the Internet

Post Reply New Topic

The government has controlled radio and t.v. since and has controlled first class mail since 1787. Somehow we survived.

Like it has already been pointed out, the government isn't controlling the internet; rather it is regulating the monopolies from having too much power. After doing sifting through all the arguments for some time on this issue, I came down on the side of preserving net neutrality because it seemed like the right fight to me.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that corporations are censoring the Internet? Or that they would have any reason to want to censor the Internet.

The notion that "They wanted ATT ( or whatever company) to have the right to prevent you from seeing an anti-ATT site, or only play chess at yahoo rather than chess.com" is complete nonsense with no basis in truth at all.

With the new regulations, it is less likely that they will be building out to smaller cities.

By the way, in my community of 70 people, there is a choice of two non-satellite Internet providers -- one with a maximum of up to 100 megabits per second and the other with a maximum of up to 50 megabits per second (for a little less than twice the cost of the first).

The new regulations means a couple of things:
1) no upgrades until the regulations are well understood
2) it is possible that the smaller provider, at 100 megabits per second, might find it so expensive to deal with regulation that they will have to shut down completely.

Monopoly? What monopoly?

I really doubt that there are very many places in the country where there is any monopoly on Internet service.

You do realize, don't you, that the ruling you are talking about has NOTHING to do with the new regulatory structure of the Internet? The vote was earlier than the one on the new regulatory framework and completely independent of it.

From what I've read of the new regulations, they could mean an increase in spam. Many ISPs will use various techniques to try to reduce the amount of spam sent over their networks. As it stands now, it appears to me like pretty much every such technique will now be illegal.

Soo, we should trust our Internet to the same government that paid for $600 toilet seats for its military, destroyed 40 percent of its fully operational space-shuttle fleet and still can't seem to perfect its postal service?

And, I thought dealing with Comcast was torture!

You do remember a few months ago when Comcast decided to stop their customers from getting to Netflix because Comcast didn't like how much data the Netflix users were using (they customers were within their data caps)?
Comcast told Netflix to pay up to restore traffic or they were going to block Netflix permanently from the Comcast network.
Comcast was also throttling YouTube traffic to creep, to discourage their users from using YouTube.
Comcast tried to get Google to pay up as well.

Consumer backlash happened and Comcast caved.

AT&T and Verizon regularly throttle their customers on unlimited plans for using too much data.
It literally rendered you connection to dial up speeds.

Apple claims ISPs are regularly throttling and blocking iTunes access for many users, in an attempt to get the iTunes users to switch to the ISPs digital stores.

Valve, Microsoft, Nintendo and Steam claim ISPs are purposely preventing many of their users from obtaining full download speeds and sometimes blocking their services from time to time.

The 6 big ISPs have been found guilty of blocking the competition sites and services on a regular basis.

We can literally make a huge list of all the evil stuff the 6 major ISPs due to their users and sites they constantly throttle and block.

ISPs regularly block sites for various reasons such as:
Too much data streaming
Bad mouthing the ISP
Too much data downloading
Too big of sites
Too much traffic
Other stupid non government reasons.

here's a site that tells you how to get around ISP blocks
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to- ... estricted/

ISPs do this in the UK, Australia, and other countries.

The current U.S. ISP market is highly monopolized by 6 major ISPs and 4 major mobile service companies.
The 6 major ISPs own most of the pipe lines, thus controlling the internet traffic and stopping smaller IPSs from gaining access to the pipe lines.
The 4 major mobile carriers are AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-mobile.
They control most of the mobile spectrum, squeezing out regional and local mobile carriers.


Now cities and counties can provide broadband at cost or at modest profit (instead of the massive mark up that Comcast and the like charge) as a utility (which is the internet is now).

As for the worry that 6 major ISPs won't build and upgrade the network due to this regulation, well I have surprise for you...

AT&T has admitted they halted all the building of new infrastructure 3 years ago due to "costs" and shareholder objects.
Verizon hasn't built any new infrastructure since they were forced too due to Hurricane Sandy, for the same reason as AT&T.
Comcast has outright refused to build new infrastructure for the past few years until the U.S. government pays the full cost of it.
Time Warner Cable is pulling a Comcast and awaiting for approval of the Comcast buy out.
Charter hasn't bothered to do any building for long while now.
Etc...

The 6 major ISPs have asked the U.S. Congress to pay for the full cost of building and upgrading the broadband and mobile networks. The ISPs said they cannot afford to build and upgrade the network due to "costs!"

Right now the existing network was subsidized by the U.S. government, the states, and possibly your city and county.

So until the U.S. government forces competition in the ISP and mobile markets or pays for the network building and upgrades nothing WILL CHANGE!

The 6 major ISPs have no incentive to play nice, lower prices (they've been raising them), and to build and upgrade the network.

---

Those of you who use the U.S. Postal Service as an example, you don't understand how it works.
The U.S. Postal Service cannot do any real changes without the approval of CONGRESS.
The U.S. Senate last year killed the Postal Reform bill, because the rural states fear the restructuring of the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service is listed in the constitution and will take a constitutional amendment to change how it operates.


I have never had any real problems with the U.S.P.S. and FedEx.
I have on the other hand had big issues with the UPS and DHL.

---
The U.S. Military on the other has a good amount of autonomy to spend it's money and structure itself.
Congress can order the military to do anything it wants by the passage of a bill.
The U.S. Military current has the biggest share federal budget and is grossly overfunded and constantly tells the Senate they don't need the money or gear.
The U.S. Senate forced them to take the money for "reasons"

I live in Boston. You have three choices basically and they all suck. Comcast and verizon are super expensive and you need to sign a contract. RCN you don't have to sign a contract but they kind of screw you in terms of service and are limited with speed. They also don't cover their equipment unless you pay extra- so if their equipment is defective, you have to pay them to send someone out, to try to repair it and then to replace it.

ETA: You would think that with comcast and verizon competing heavily in the same market the result would be that they would constantly try to underbid each other. the reality is that they try to out offer each other- they offer more and more and slightly raise the price of package deals. So you have to pay a crazy price for a package when you just want one thing- decent and fast internet. Signing a contract is crazy in boston because of the constant flux in housing.
Other choice is satellite. HELL NO.

That sounds awful.

I live in the northern part of the second richest county in Michigan (it also in top 50 richest counties in the U.S.).
The combined Northern area has 100,000+ people total and growing fast.
I live 1/4 mile from the major state highway (it is the biggest not freeway out here).

I literally my choices for internet are:
*Any dial up provider (not feasible anymore due to all the stuff I need to do)
*AT&T DSL (cheapest plan)
*Charter Broadband (if you can call it broadband without laughing at the speeds).
*Satellite (it sucks here in Michigan due to our weather)
*Internet through my cellphone data plan via a USB adapter and paying the tethering $10 monthly fee to AT&T on top of my cellphone bill.

AT&T DSL was the best option because I live with my grandmother who needs her AT&T landline.
My prices have gone up every 6 months for the past 2 years.
I think I pay $45 or $50 a month now for my 3MB connection.
This is the cheapest plan I have.

I don't think Comcast has bothered to come out this far, but they are the most expensive in Metro Detroit making everyone else seem cheap.

Largely thanks to the government's inflationary policies.

As I understand it, there was no such throttling. Rather, with increasing Netflix traffic, there were more and more congestions at links between networks. Netflix bought the cheapest services it could and expected other networks to adapt to them when there was no contract to do so.

Historically, they would add more links because both sides would benefit and it kind of worked out. It was very one-sided traffic with the enormous Netflix traffic coming across these links. There was no benefit for the other networks to adding the links because the links that were there were far more than enough to handle their other traffic.

As I understand it, there is absolutely nothing in the new regulations that will change this -- nothing that requires a network to add more links between networks.



There is nothing wrong with this. If you think that having a 6 megabit connection entitles you to have 6 megabits of traffic around the clock, you are wrong. Even under net neutrality. If you want such connections, you can buy them. Where I live, such a connection would run about $1,400 per month with a three year contract.

I have never seen a consumer grade network connection advertised that guaranteed you could run full speed around the clock. If someone is stupid enough to make such a guarantee, then feel free to file a lawsuit against them. From what I understand, the new regulations are not going to guarantee that your connection won't be throttled if you use enormous amounts of bandwidth.



I have never heard this claim. The only things I saw with a quick Google scan were some complaints from consumers who may or may not have known anything about the subject and something about an ISP in Canada doing such throttling. Of course, that ISP is not affected by the new regulations.



Once again, if you want to run full speed around the clock, then you should expect to pay for it.



How many of those do you think the new regulations covers? At best, maybe badmouthing the ISP. I have never heard of a problem with that, but I can imagine it might have happened.

Remember: If you want to download enormous amounts of data around the clock, then pay for it instead of being just another freeloader entitled to have everyone else pay his way.



Around here, they are only too happy to sell you all the bandwidth you want.



Where I live, there is a regional telephone company. I would much rather have to deal with AT&T than the regional company. Not only is AT&T much easier to deal with, their technical people in the field are enormously more capable.



That issue has nothing to do with the new regulations at all. It was a completely separate vote earlier in the day than the one at issue here.



Very funny. They are building new infrastructure and upgrading all the time. I would be amazed if the new regulations do anything to increase their building of new infrastructure. If anything, the higher costs of providing the service could slow them down.



More very funny. In fact, all I have to do is stop outside of my office and look down the street to see new infrastructure that they built after Hurricane Sandy.



Huh? How do they expect the government to pay for it?

Cites?



Our prices have gone up about 33% in the past year, but that is for 16 times as much bandwidth.

Technology generally become cheaper over time, except for internet connections and cell phone services.

I can get an iPhone 6 at the same price I bought an iPhone 4.
I can get a flagship Android device (not necessarily a phone) with better specs at a cheaper price than last year's model.
I can get a new laptop from the same company with at least 2x the specs than last year's model for cheaper (including Macs).
etc...

Technology is immune to inflation due to sheer economies of scale and rapid introduction of new models.

@Eric76
You do know the U.S. government grants the ISPs tax credits for providing a public service and for using a certain amount of technology.
Businesses regularly and easily gain tax credits, in many cases are able to get refunds from the U.S. government, essentially paying a negative tax rates.

Most states give the ISPs tax credits as well.

Many cities and counties give them monopoly to an ISP in exchange for something.
Or they limit the amount of competition to 2 or 3 ISPs, due to prevent market saturation and unnaturally low prices.

Comcast, AT&T, Verizon have been lobbying Congress to pass law forcing the federal government to pay the full amount for network infrastructure building and upgrading.
They have some support in Congress about it.

---

The Netflix connection issue was separate event from the Comcast feud.
Netflix dumped the company where piping through.
Netflix and Comcast deal is well not public yet.

---

As for your regional ISPs, The big 6 ISPs are forced to lease some of their lines to regional and local companies.
They charge the local companies a set amount of money for it.
They have been jacking up the prices to put those regional and local companies out of business.
They hate having to lease the lines.

AT&T is horrible to deal with as a company, but slightly better than Comcast (my uncle works for Comcast).
If you decide to go with AT&T, you will be forced to sign a 1 or 2 year contract with them.
You will end up paying the more expensive price for your DSL, because you don't have land service with them.

You are looking to at paying upwards of $55 for a 1.5MBs connection (you will rarely get 1.5MBs speed).
You are forced to pay an equipment rental fee (you must use their router), which is between $5 - $10 a month on top of your plan.
AT&T can drop you as a customer at any time, without warning charging you the early termination fee.
AT&T can throttle you at any time
AT&T can block any site you visit if they deem it necessary.

With AT&T DSL you get a 250GB cap with $10 overage for every 50GBs you go over.

If you need to call customer service, be prepared to deal with an Indian who cannot help you.
It's a sheer pain to fix the issue, if they attempt to fix it (or actually fix it) they will charge it to your bill, even when it's their fault for the problem.

---
The big 6 ISPs want to remove sites such as Netflix, iTunes/Apple App store, Google services, YouTube, Amazon & services, Gaming services, and other decent sized data services and sites from your plans.
They want to charge you a price to each of these sites.
They want to choose which sites get bandwidth and which get blocked from their networks.

The Net Neutrality key provision mandates that a user gets to visit any site they wish at the speed they paid for, without interference from the ISP, for the plan they paid for!

It means I get to visit any site I want on (law providing) and download as much as I want within the terms of my plan.
This means I get to use my 3MB connection with it's 250GB cap as I see fit.
Which is what I pay for.

What the big 6 ISPs are currently doing is this:
Promising and advertising you a 3MB connection when you sign up, only to find out you aren't getting the advertised price.
AT&T person who signed me up promised me a 3MB speed connection every time I used the internet (yes I know it wasn't true) but the bundled price of $15 for two years was too good to pass up.
I regular get mail from AT&T claiming I can get 10MBs speeds all the time for a set price.

Most of the time when I go to download something from the internet regardless of size, I normally only get ~300kbps in download speed. I don't download every often and haven't even used 100GBs out of 250GBs a month.

Or even my browsing speed is less than 1MB frequently.

Beware ISPs regularly engage in false advertising and you rarely get the advertised bandwidth.

ISPs also throttle both the service (Apple, Steam, Sony, etc...) and the consumer end.

---

Mobile carriers do not allow you to have full unlimited data, even though that is what your contract states.
They will throttle you, if you use more than 1GB per day.
They will cut you off from downloading if you get to a certain point (It been reported).

---

The ISPs have filed suit against Net Neutrality and the municipal network ruling.
ISPs claim that sites such as iTunes, Netflix, PSN, Steam, XLB, Amazon, Google, etc... are the problem and hurting their networks.
ISPs claim municipal networks such as those in TN and NC are bad for market and will hurt competition (not that there is any real competition).
Those municipal networks are supposed to be BAD for the consumer and will hurt them in the end.

---

Do you believe consumers should be forced to pay an extra to access Amazon, Google, Netflix, Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo etc... on top of their already expensive plan?
(Remember you'd have to pay separate a monthly fee to access each one, that is the plan the ISPs have wanted to implement)

Do you believe protecting consumer rights (including business consumers) will do huge damage to the ISPs?

Do you believe ISPs should be forced to honor the contracts they have the consumer sign?

Do you believe each website should be given equal access to the internet by the ISPs, without having to pay each ISP for it?
(Each Website would have to pay each ISP to ensure the ISPs costumers could access their site, this is what ISPs have been trying to do as well).

Do you believe users of unlimited data plans, should be allowed to use unlimited data, which their contracts stipulate?

There's so much nonsense there that I'm not even going to bother with it.