didn't Wheeler used to be a lobbyist for Comcast or something before becoming FCC chair?

5/1/2014 10:08:49 AM

^ yeah

oh, you developed an app? Cool beans, bro! Now pay us some $, or the internet connectivity that your app relies on will be placed on our "basic tier"

[Edited on May 1, 2014 at 10:12 AM. Reason : fd]

5/1/2014 10:11:09 AM

Would you like to access Google services today for only $19.95 $15.95 until 11:59 PM on 05/01/14! That's a savings of 20%!

5/1/2014 10:11:23 AM

FCC moving forward with proposal allowing fast and slow lanes of internet traffic


Faaaaaack

5/15/2014 1:04:29 PM

this is surely going to end well.

5/15/2014 1:09:12 PM

I just don't understand how the FCC thinks they will be successful in keeping the ISPs honest, in their promises to not abuse this proposed lack of net neutrality. Why does the FCC think that they will be able to ensure an ISP is delivering "commercially reasonable" speeds, when that is a nebulous and evolving concept to begin with? Why does the FCC think they would even have the bandwidth to police this issue, when they quite obviously will need to rely on hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of complaints in order to investigate?

Why put so much faith in ISPs when they have historically shown themselves to be the most diabolical, consumer-unfriendly, price hiking, poor service delivering types of companies in existence?

[Edited on May 15, 2014 at 7:05 PM. Reason : Ss]

5/15/2014 7:03:36 PM

hopefully things like Google Fiber and all these smaller regional ISPs popping up will play fair and start to eat away at the bigger players

5/16/2014 9:30:58 PM

I guess that's the funny thing. These huge companies scream foul about market fairness up until it comes time to squash their competitors. Then they want the government to step in. Once the competition is gone, then it becomes "let the consumer pay whatever they're willing to let us charge them" again.

5/16/2014 9:38:34 PM

not that they ever actually act on these things, but:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-tom-wheeler-his-position-fcc-chairman/58HFrZ7t

Quote :

"I think that Wheeler is eyeing his job opportunities with Comcast or Verizon, after he leaves his current job as the FCC head. And given what he is doing today by way of fucking the consumer over in favor of the telcoms, honestly, his future is looking promising."

just like so many of the current US Attorneys who came from the financial sector who are sure to go back!

EMCE, i think what you said is correct... PLUS i think Wheeler is making money hand over fist right now under the table.

5/17/2014 11:45:08 AM

This is horrible -- this idea.

5/17/2014 7:55:45 PM

who would have thought making a telecom lobbyist the head of the FCC would backfire?

5/17/2014 9:12:53 PM

There's too much junk on the Internet. It happened so slowly, but it got took over by social networking and idiots. I want more hilarious nerds and weirdos.

5/17/2014 9:28:00 PM

the internet really died (as far as coolness goes) when n00bs got on IRC 20+ years ago. it's all been downhill from there.

[Edited on May 18, 2014 at 11:20 AM. Reason : cool]

5/18/2014 11:20:13 AM

How do the Obama supporters feel about this? Betrayed again?

5/18/2014 11:35:21 AM

I think its the betrayal was felt when a telcom lobbyist was appointed to head the FCC in the first place. This is merely the "told you so...".

iirc, the only white house position put out on this all is along the lines of '...the administration still believes in net neutrality, and hopes the FCC's decision keeps with the intent of a free and open internet'.

5/18/2014 4:18:32 PM

WHY CAN'T WE PUT SHIT LIKE THIS TO A VOTE?!

Other than that the majority of sheep WOULD WANT f, T, and espn to run faster... Motherfucker.

[Edited on May 18, 2014 at 4:24 PM. Reason : they might not even vote though. so why not a vote? really though.]

5/18/2014 4:23:26 PM

I thank Obama made it crystal clear how he felt about 'change' when lobbyists were allowed in, almost immediately after he started. I think that was his biggest betrayal, and the first.

5/18/2014 4:42:09 PM

think, thank, thunk

5/18/2014 4:43:21 PM

i wish teddy roosevelt was here

5/18/2014 5:07:48 PM

Change we can believe in.

5/18/2014 5:30:18 PM

To be clear, it was the DC court of appeals that overturned the already shaky legal grounds that the FCC previously stood on while asserting their net neutrality rules on the telcoms. I am an Obama supporter and I think, just as anyone who is true to themselves should think, that the blame for this predicament can be spread around.


The FCC board is to blame for voting on this bullshit, even though they had issues with how this was done.

The FCC is also to blame for not classifying the telcoms as common carriers, or broadband as a utility when they had the chance.

Obama, and the senate for confirming, a lobbyist as the FCC chair.


Hell, the only ones in this whole matter that are doing what they are supposed to be doing are the telcoms. They're supposed to be greedy, soulless corporations lobbying for laws and regulations that help them make as much money as possible. And they're doing just that.

5/18/2014 5:46:08 PM

so, real question here: why isn't there more than one internet? or is there? I heard ramblings about something getting shut down and people getting labeled as terrorists or something like that. /drunken nonsense

5/18/2014 6:01:33 PM

The internet is, by definition, a bunch of different networks that are connected together. All the private networks in the world which are not connected to the internet are basically what you are describing, but their scope is limited and they're of no interest to most people.

Google, Facebook, Youtube, Netflix, etc. are all companies that do their business on "the internet." If you want access to those services, you get it through the internet. The infrastructure we use to connect (cable lines to every door, phone lines to every door, satellites, cell networks, etc.) is extremely expensive and acts as a barrier to entry to creating "Internet Part II" so to speak. Quite frankly, nobody can afford to run a new wire (or fiber cable) to every home in America just because a handful of companies are using their monopolistic power to crush the competition and put a stranglehold on the current internet. If anybody can afford it, it's the handful of companies who are working so hard to tighten their stranglehold on the current internet. This is why it is so imperative to find a way to maintain net neutrality. These companies aren't working to improve the internet in any way; they are only working to add profit to their bottom line. That profit eventually comes out of the pockets of people like you and I. We already pay way too much for poor internet service. This will only make it worse.

[Edited on May 18, 2014 at 7:50 PM. Reason : l]

5/18/2014 7:43:59 PM

An interesting view of Net Neutrality by a guy who used to run an ISP back in the 90s:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229021

Basically he's saying there are two main problems: the monopoly problem (which he agrees is a problem), and the cost-shifting issue of streaming services trying to dump their transport costs onto ISPs. He's advocating investigations and prosecution under antitrust law for the monopoly issue, where necessary. But the cost-shifting issue is a whole other separate issue.

He also points out the fallacy of people complaining about how their "rated" internet speeds aren't at that top speed all the time. You don't demand or make use of 100% of your water line, your electric line, and your natural gas line all the time, or even when you use them...and if you and your neighbors did the same at the same time, there'd be a huge issue. Yet some people demand the ability to use their internet connection at top-speed practically 24/7, sucking up everyone else's available bandwidth.


It is a decently long read, but makes sense.

If you want more expensive internet, it'll happen under Net Neutrality. The transport costs the ISPs would charge to streaming companies like Netflix would instead get passed on to the consumer in the form of higher internet bills, and everyone (even if you don't watch streaming videos) would pay for it...aka you would be subsidizing your neighbor's binge-watching of HIMYM). Without net neutrality, those costs would get paid by companies like Netflix, who their raise costs to their subscriber base...meaning only the people who actually watch the streaming video actually pay for it. You'd think that's what happens now, but the ISPs are eating the transport costs of Netflix and other companies who charge a small monthly fee for their service, while the ISP is actually the one paying for the data transport. This is a growing problem as streaming video gets more popular -- a huge portion of the traffic online is now streaming video, but only going to a small percentage of internet subscribers. Right now, most internet customers are already subsidizing their neighbor's Netflix habit, and it will get worse in the future as these services get more popular, and be a disaster if net neutrality goes through.

Commercial transport of data over the internet isn't cheap. The home user is relatively insulated from the true costs due to the overselling of bandwidth from their ISP. This is usually OK since most home users aren't hammering their internet line 24/7, so "their" bandwidth can be used by someone else. But the dedicated lines that ISPs lease are not cheap. A guy I know just priced out a dedicated 100mbps line (meaning: not oversold like household internet) from CenturyLink and it was $21,000/month. Per gig pricing came to ~$12-$13/gig. Pricing varies widely depending on supply, demand, location, etc.

Aside from the price of leasing commercial internet lines, there's also the equipment costs (routers, switches, etc), continual cost of electricity, maintenance, and repair, the cost of fiber/coax/DSL lines and their installation, R&D, and network admins. Cell towers and cell tower leases aren't cheap. Technology is expensive.

[Edited on June 9, 2014 at 2:19 PM. Reason : ]

6/9/2014 2:04:58 PM

^Counter-point:

For the gas line, the water line, etc comparison, we also aren't paying for a specific tier of "bandwidth" or the appropriate counterpart for each service.

The city isn't providing a service tier that lets us flush more shit at faster speeds if we pay twice as much per month. I realize that the wording used by the ISP is "up to 50 mbps", but for what they charge for it that better mean it's up there pretty consistently.

For the argument that it's no different than those other utilities to fly, they'd have to charge everyone the same (lower) rate and let the speed fluctuate as the regional usage spikes. Instead, they charge a premium and then provide premium service when it's convenient.

This might be getting to the point of derailing the thread a bit, but here's something I've been curious about. I'm currently paying for the "...up to 50mbps" tier with Time Warner. There is also an "...up 30mbps" tier that is cheaper. I have run speed tests and have occasionally seen numbers that get up to around 45mbps, but most of the time it stays around the 25-27mbps range. Now, does that mean that if I had the 30mbps service instead that I would still be seeing those same speeds? Or would I be experiencing the same proportionate slowdown and only get 15-16mbps during those times? Anyone have any knowledge of that?

6/9/2014 3:07:25 PM

I just have to believe the customer would be/feel less taken advantage of if these telcoms were a bit less monopolistic in nature.

If there were actual competition in the majority of markets, then the telcom would be left with a choice. Is the cost of moving data increasing?....fine....raise your prices if you must, but know that if your customer can find a better deal, then they will be gone and you will get $0 from them.

6/9/2014 3:18:05 PM

I will counterpoint your counterpoint.

Quote :

"For the gas line, the water line, etc comparison, we also aren't paying for a specific tier of "bandwidth" or the appropriate counterpart for each service."

Yes, you are. Have you ever looked at the rates for your utilities? They are billed based off of connection size, usage, type of connection (residential vs commercial vs industrial), time of season, and in some areas, supply & demand.


Example here: http://www.raleighnc.gov/home/content/FinUtilityBilling/Articles/UtilityBillingDepositFees.html
You pay a monthly base connection fee for your water based on the size of the pipe (literally the "normal analogy" for bandwidth if I've ever heard one), plus the actual consumption charge.

Quote :

"For the argument that it's no different than those other utilities to fly, they'd have to charge everyone the same (lower) rate and let the speed fluctuate as the regional usage spikes."

That's how Duke Energy sets up their "Residential Service - Time of Use" pricing.
Example 2, here: http://www.duke-energy.com/rates/north-carolina.asp
Duke Energy has different prices for residential use, residential use based on how much you use at certain times of the day, business pricing, etc.

Example 3, here: http://www.piedmontng.com/files/pdfs/rates/nc_rates_2014-06.pdf
Piedmont Natural Gas has different pricing based on how you use their product, residential vs. business lines, CNG cars, etc.



For your last question about your speeds: it could be any number of things. I pay for 80mbps internet right now but unless I'm directly connected to my router with an ethernet cable, I usually don't get more than 50-60mbps over a speedtest and usually see closer to 30-40mbps. This is limited, right now, by the wireless technology I'm using in my house. This might be the case with you as well. If not, call TWC and complain. Maybe they oversold their bandwidth a bit too much in your area. Maybe a squirrel is chewing on the cables. Maybe the token ring fell out of the line. I'm paying $10/month extra right now to bump up my speed from 30mbps to 80mbps and I occasionally take full advantage of the speed if needed. Otherwise, my current speeds that are limited by my wireless work fine; there's nothing so important in my life that I can't wait the few extra seconds a download would take between 40mbps and the full 80mbps.


EMCE: agreed. That's why the monopolies should be investigated and potentially broken up and/or prosecuted.

[Edited on June 9, 2014 at 3:31 PM. Reason : ]

6/9/2014 3:26:41 PM

do you actually think the ISPs would lower what they charge their customers if the could pass along the cost of transport to the various streaming providers?

6/9/2014 3:44:32 PM

I get that those other utilities do those things, but IMO that is still different from giving me the option to pay more to place myself in a higher tier.

And for my other question, I know it can be any number of things that leads to the slowdowns. I was mostly just curious if I am wasting money on the 50mbps tier since I'm most often in the 25-27mbps range. Would I still get those speeds (and miss out on the occasional 45-50mbps I do see in non-peak times) if I downgraded to the 30mbps, or would the speed I most often see drop from 25-27mbps to somethings that's roughly half as fast as what I'm paying for. Does that make sense?

6/9/2014 3:56:42 PM

Even before people were bandwidth hogs, what was the justification for charging grandma $40 a month for broadband when she only checked her email a few times a week? Under a tiered system, I somehow doubt this same person using internet infrequently would really catch a break either.


There's also this issue that's been raised about emerging businesses who might be at a disadvantage now because they might not be able to afford to deliver faster internet to their customers.

Also has anyone heard of any other development in regards to what might be considered fast or slow speeds? I've heard the FCC might be looking at raising the bar on what might be considered broadband speed (> 10mbps or 25mbps), meaning that some of the crap passed off as broadband these days by the telecoms wouldn't qualify any longer. This raises another concern about technology evolution. What might be considered fast today, or a reasonable data cap might be considered garbage in 2 months. A 200GB/mo data cap today might let most people never run into the upper limit... But what about when people are streaming videos to 4K TVs, and data usage just goes up? Am i to trust the FCC to stay on top of this? The telecoms?

[Edited on June 9, 2014 at 4:14 PM. Reason : Jj]

6/9/2014 4:12:25 PM

Quote :

"do you actually think the ISPs would lower what they charge their customers if the could pass along the cost of transport to the various streaming providers?"

Yes, and no. I'm hopeful but I'm also a cynic.
The real question isn't about lowering prices, it's about whether or not prices are going to raise. If Net Neutrality passes, prices will raise for everyone due to cost-shifting, as streaming services and other large-file-size downloads become more popular.

ncWOLFsu: First I would call TWC and bitch because you're not getting your rated speed. Give them a chance to fix it. If that doesn't work, call to reduce your speed and reduce your monthly payment. They might even give you a credit for future service since you aren't getting what you're paying for, or other goodies like gift cards to keep you happy. When I called TWC to totally cancel my service (which I did end up doing), they offered to drop my monthly rate from ~$135 to ~$90 and then offered a Visa gift card ($150 or $250, I can't remember) to try and keep me. I turned them down and went with a local ISP that I'm quite happy with.

6/9/2014 4:12:37 PM

Quote :

"Even before people were bandwidth hogs, what was the justification for charging grandma $40 a month for broadband when she only checked her email a few times a week? Under a tiered system, I somehow doubt this same person using internet infrequently would really catch a break either."

There's always been a small contingent of the population who have been bandwidth hogs. You know, those 3% of customers who use 75% of the bandwidth. Charging grandma $40/month covered the cost of transporting the hogs' data, and allowed the business to make a profit. Also, these companies are in business to make money. Price, supply, demand, and all that. If the transaction isn't mutually beneficial, the customer can always go somewhere else...wait... ...that's why looking into the monopolies and lack of competition is a good thing.

6/9/2014 4:17:20 PM

^ then it sounds like they need to charge those 3% more instead of soaking the rest of us because they can't deliver on the promises they made. If they had invested their monopoly's profits on infrastructure as opposed to lobbying to double-dip on Netflix, maybe they could have installed better routers and lines by now. If Netflix wants to pay extra to connect directly to a given ISP's network, that's fine, and it makes sense, but degrading their service because they won't pay your bribe is absolute bullshit and not be allowed.

6/10/2014 12:44:21 AM

I bet Verizon is pretty fucking sorry right now, that they challenged the existing "loose" regulations (that most ISPs could live with) in court and had then stricken down.

2/4/2015 1:42:19 PM

I bet Verizon is pretty fucking sorry right now, that they challenged the existing "loose" regulations (that most ISPs could live with) in court and had then stricken down.

2/4/2015 1:42:19 PM

http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/4/7977569/its-official-the-fcc-will-seek-to-reclassify-the-internet-as-a-utility

2/4/2015 1:43:42 PM

Scalia used to be a lawyer for the FCC.

He is a friend of Tdub with his core philosophies and deep understanding the internet, "[Scalia] wrote that the FCC’s interpretation of the law around “information services” was “implausible.” With its decision to regard cable broadband as an information service, the agency had “[established] a whole new regime of non-regulation, which will make for more or less free-market competition, depending upon whose experts are believed.” In ruling that broadband was an information service, the FCC “had exceeded the authority given it by Congress.” http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/net-neutralitys-little-known-hero-antonin-scalia/361315/


So Wheeler was faced with a dilemma:

Fuck around and get overturned by the SCOTUS in efforts to implement internet "fastlanes" proposals that his Private Backers put money in his pockets to propose and enforce

OR

Go with the smart decision to make it a utility like power, cable, water, cell phone use, and end the wild west bullshit of PRIVATE CORPS who are trying to restrict information access in the name of profit. Day one of their agenda would have been to crush Netflix.

I bet you Netflix stock rallies today.

2/4/2015 2:47:35 PM

Quote :

"Moreover, even if you ignore the record and prior FCC and DOJ precedent, Comcast’s share of any "national" broadband market is not dangerously high and does not increase materially as a result of the transaction. Critics’ assessment of Comcast’s broadband "share" ignores the realities of DSL and wireless competition, and the actual speeds that consumers can and do use today. Even when applying the speed threshold of 25 Mbps that some parties have insisted is the only relevant broadband speed, the transaction has no material impact on competition: even at this high threshold, the combined company’s broadband share would increase by only one percent."

http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-twc-fcc-comment-cycle-closes


(the above text roughly translates to....)

Quote :

"hi my name is comcast and I am completely full of shit"

2/6/2015 2:05:35 AM

if you like your internet, you can keep your internet

2/6/2015 6:45:08 AM

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/02/09/republican-fcc-member-warns-net-neutrality-is-not-neutral/


Thanks Obama

2/9/2015 7:35:17 PM

i see "republican" in the link and realize that anything said will be ignorant asshattery

2/10/2015 8:10:52 AM

ttt, B

2/28/2017 10:11:14 PM

ttt, b

http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-fcc-neutrality-idUSL2N1IK26U

5/18/2017 4:14:06 PM

net neutrality is a scam

5/18/2017 7:23:25 PM

Telluce more

5/18/2017 8:05:01 PM

internet service is a rivalrous good. it is not immune from the effects of scarcity. those who use more, like Netflix, should pay more. it's no different than paying more to ship a heavy or large package than you pay to mail a letter.

https://mises.org/blog/ditch-net-neutrality-now

5/18/2017 10:01:28 PM

^
if that's how you feel, charge the consumer per gigabyte, flat out. do you really want comcast to be able to block parts of the internet because they didn't pay up?

https://www.aclu.org/other/net-neutrality-myths-and-facts

[Edited on May 18, 2017 at 10:44 PM. Reason : .]

5/18/2017 10:40:44 PM

I think the market can figure it out better than the government

5/19/2017 6:40:00 AM

Yes, the market will figure something out. The biggest players will control everything and consumer choice and cost will suffer.

Or, the alternative is not the government figuring anything out at all. It's ensuring equal access to what really amounts to a public / societal asset.

5/19/2017 7:59:20 AM

The "market" for consumers in this case is extremely thin. Most people only have a few choices for internet access.

5/19/2017 9:07:57 AM