OT: Net Neutrality law passes
LeatherGryphon
Posts: 12,185
Not completely sure this is good or bad. I saw merit to both sides of the argument.
http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/fcc-passes-net-neutrality-rules-victory-open-internet-activists-n313301
However, I am glad that if my download service is going to be slowed by heavy traffic, then at least the commercials and porn are not getting better service.
Now if the FCC could just get the 911 service centers be able to tell where my cell phone is as I'm drowning in a lake.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2026 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Greetings,
As someone who's worked a good piece of their life for startups, pre- and post- internet, I'm happy to see the decision made this direction. There's always been this awareness that if you did something that Comcast (or AT&T, or...etc.) didn't like, they could stomp you to bits by...well, blocking or slowing your bits. :)
I get the fear that the FCC will use its authority to hamper the large companies that fall under the purview of this, but in the balance companies were doing real things that really harmed the consumer, restricted choice, and locked folks into subsets of the internet.
In the long run, the value of this will be in how the FCC implements it, and whether they stick to the rules they've professed to prefer.
Being from the technology startup community, I know a lot of people who are letting out a metaphorically long-held breath over this. It's not over, it'll be argued, debated, etc., and how it gets implemented is still the defining factor, but the expression of ideals will make a lot of folks relax a little.
-- Morgan
I think there was more fear than reality about blocking or slowing bits. I don't like the idea of a 'two-tiered' system (which was probably double-speak anyway) but I do expect bandwidth to be paid for. If Netflix uses more bandwidth then it has to pay more and thus the customers would too because supply demand. But IIRC Netflix wanted a connection closer to the heart of the 'net (meaning fewer hops to the 'mainline') like some larger companies have. Comcast wanted them to pay but they refused. Now I don't know what the deal is with Google, fer instance, and how close to the trunk their main connection is and if they had to pay to get it or what. So I have no idea what is considered 'fair' or not.
All that aside, I remember decades and decades of only having black telephones and long-distance calling cost a fortune. Innovation was totally stifled by the same century-old regulations being used to justify 'net neutrality'. The FCC can say it's not interested in more than it's doing right now, but all it has to do is snap its fingers.
...yeah it seems my Comcast/Xfinity bill keeps increasing every month. Supposed to be 54$ but this month was 76$ most likely because of hidden fees they don't tell anyone about. I'm also supposed to have a premium service called "Blast" but many times when I stream vids, a lot of the motion is very jerky and audio out of sync with the video and I get occasional "swirlies" in the midst of a long vid while it buffers.
Trouble is where I live, the other competitors are no better to actually worse. What we really need is to end the blocking by the big ISPs of municipalities wanting setting up their own networks.
I'm not exactly sure what I pay for just internet service. It's bundled together with my phone bill (Windstream.net) In total I pay about $97/month for unlimited phone, and 6Mb/sec internet. Thankfully I live only a few hundred yards from the local phone exchange box in our little town (about 500 people) so I get 6Mb/sec service almost every time I measure it, which is perfectly adequate for streaming Netflix or similar services.
However, many of my computer service customers are not so lucky. The further out of town you get the worse the service gets. But the city is worse. I have some customers in Jamestown (a city of about 30,000 people) that have terrible, terrible service from either Windstream(DSL) or TimeWarner(cable).
Just what are you getting for what you pay in the US?
I am paying CAD 46.27 a month (including tax) for 15 Mbps download, 10 Mbps upload, 300 GB per month, and a static IP address (so I can run a VPN). That's considered to be a good price, around here. How does that compare to your packages?
We realize that this discussion can all too easily get into political issues, but we are reminding everyone that these forums do not allow this. We do not discourage discussion, but it must stay within the parameters of the TOS. If you need a reminder of what is in the TOS, it's here.
Thank you.
I wish, I get 1 Mbps/.50 Mbps for $38.29 now. As far as I can tell I have no cap.
You are paying less than I am for 15 Mbps CAD 46.27 ($37.3354), Wow!
These are the new plans:
4Mbps/1Mbps $43.99
9Mbps/1Mbps $51.99
20Mbps/2Mbps $66.99
I don't qualify for faster speeds, I am guessing if I want 4Mbps I will need to upgrade to $43.99.
Ulcers. 8-(
But seriously. I'm paying about twice what you pay for half of what you claim. However, I have no long distance charges, and I have reliable steady adequate internet service. But it's a landline not mobile. I don't have, and don't want a smart phone or tablet. For mobile emergency service I pay $30 every 90 days for TracFone service and the minutes I don't use just keep piling up.
Is it expensive. You bet your sweet bippy it is! But if I cut all the taxes and surcharges out of the phone bill it would be three pages shorter and a hell of a lot cheaper. Could I find cheaper service? Well, maybe but for now I'm happy with what I've got and I can NOT do without internet service. I'd have withdrawal symptoms and curl up like a dead spider.
It's the TV service that I'd like to cut out completely. I get and am very happy with DISH-TV technology. I love the DVR they gave me that lets me skip right past the commercials, I love the beautiful HD signals and the numerous channels that I watch (amid all the junk channels), but since I've been retired I've about watched every old movie and TV show that I've ever been interested in, and I've gotten jaded, bored, or just plain sick of scripted "reality" shows, shows about stupid people, stupid shows about famous people, and stupid people making stupid shows. And now that National Geographic Channel, Discovery Channel and the Science Channel are airing conspiracy theory shows and pseudo-science shows I've decided that the world has finally fallen into the "Idiocracy"* path so I'm thinking about taking my $100/month TV bill and putting it into savings for a "bucket list" trip in a few years.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
I guess I shouldn't complain about my internet rates nearly doubling next month after an introductory rate...once it hits, I'll be paying about $59 a month for 60 Mbps/4 Mbps, no bandwidth limits plus local wi-fi. There's only one real alternative where I live but that's 20 Mbps and about $40 or so. Might as well stick with what works.
I am canceling my cable next month though, it is definitely NOT worth $70 a month when I watch two shows a week and both can be watched online.
We can complain all we want about what is going on, but we don't know what the new regulations actually are. These are not the same as the regulations that have been out for public comment. The chairman of the fcc stated that in front of congress yesterday. So what that means when we eventually find out I haven't a clue.
$45/m for unlimited 20/2 Mbit, including 24 hour repair service, free 500 GB NAS with online backup, free modem/router, free access to hundreds of thousands of music albums including most recent (DRM though). For a few $ more you can get higher speeds, up to 50/20 Mbit, if your line can handle it. Denmark.
DAZ does a good job of controlling obscenity in the gallery postings now with net neutrality open DAZ to FCC to their views on obscenity. Since the net neutrality gives FCC the right control was DAZ can or not sell or post, in time because of DAZ internet company have get a license because FCC require all radio and television stations to license. And most people knows the government view differently than common persons do, you may disagree with me with FCC can do DAZ will get a license knowing how things work it will happen.
Greetings,
I think you misunderstand the point of the FCC's actions. DAZ is an endpoint, not a carrier.
The primary targets are last-mile broadband providers like Comcast. Some of the tier 1 backbone providers have specifically pointed out that these last-mile companies were strong-arming content providers (Netflix being the most publicly known) into paying them to reduce congestion on their own networks, essentially making the internet experience suck for their own customers in order to get money out of sites which got successful.
At one point, it's entirely possible that Comcast, or some other consumer broadband provider, could have demanded payment from DAZ to get better download delivery to that provider's customers.
Don't worry about DAZ, they do not qualify as an organization that the FCC can exert regulatory control over.
-- Morgan
Unless somebody attempts to define content sources as broadcasters (in analogy to carriers being the broadcast medium) - let's hope that doesn't happen, or it's shot down if it's proposed.
Unless somebody attempts to define content sources as broadcasters (in analogy to carriers being the broadcast medium) - let's hope that doesn't happen, or it's shot down if it's proposed.
That's not what Net Neutrality was about. As somebody who runs a small business on the internet, I was watching this like a hawk. Had it been shot down we'd have faced a future where the ISPs could have potentially slowed me down because I can't afford to pay extra while also seeing things like Amazon and Netflix raising their prices to consumers because they had to pay extra for bandwidth.
Don't believe the ISPs when they say we have a bandwidth problem. We don't. We have an infrastructure problem because the ISPs haven't been investing in it. Countries like South Korea have amazing bandwidth because they invest in it.
Oh and Netflix's issues with Comcast happened where their intermediary company connected to Comcast. Comcast basically refused to let them hook up fully and claimed it wasn't their fault but if Netflix would pay extra Comcast would be happy to plug in the missing network cables.
I hate unnecessary legislation. If commercialization and greed mess up "the" internet, we could re-assign name services to "new" network and use alternate protocols to read traffic. The does not have to be a single global networrk. The internet is just an arbitrary assignment of addresses, and all inter-connected are called "the internet". However it does not need to be so. There could be multiple networks that have different levels of services multiplexed on the same hardware. If you have a computer with ether-net adapter and that adapter has a mac address, you have a node. All we need is another ICANN type organization to do something similar for a network governed by alternate ideals and policies. I think laws are best to govern human behavior, not implementation of technology however the best behavioral results can be accomplished through incentive aligned with values.
Exactly, I have to be careful about what I say as I have already been censored here. We don't have a bandwidth issue, as I hinted at before, it is an infrastructure issue. I just used the words crap network.
I just upped my account to the new lowest 4Mbps, I am getting half that. No surprise there.
And no one can do anything about it because it is a physical issue. The infrastructure sucks.
Yeah, however if the free market would actually be allowed to work, Comcast customers would complain and seek alternate ISP's. Oh - Comcast has a exclusive agreement to be a sole provider in your area? Ahhh some market manipulation going on that is the REAL source of the problem. Don't let the media news face you away from the real agenda.
Believe me, I know where you are going with this. I will say no more as we are going to be censored for threading into the political arena.
Believe me, I know where you are going with this. I will say no more as we are going to be censored for threading into the political arena.
Absolutely!
As I said before nobody actually knows what the rules are, we know what has been claimed by supporters but not what the FCC actually voted on after changes were made behind closed doors. It is not the same as what was put out for comment, that was stated before Congress by the chairman himself.
In case there's any confusion. Congress is not involved in this except in the long ago by creating the FCC and giving them regulatory power. It's the FCC, an independent agency, that wrote and voted on Net Neutrality.