If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post) NewsFlash FCC: You know how we said we'd reconsider this net neutrality paid priority thing? We lied   (m.washingtonpost.com) divider line 886
    More: NewsFlash, Federal Communications Commission, net neutrality, internet, new economy  
•       •       •

19136 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 May 2014 at 11:42 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

886 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-15 01:09:06 PM  

skozlaw: Cpl.D: Benghazi is a fabricated issue.  Obamacare, in at least so far, appears to be working.  So far, Obama's not really given me a reason to be pissed off.  But this shiat is beyond the pale.

Sooo.... you didn't really care about the fact that he unapologetically continued and expanded domestic spying and sabotage programs against Internet traffic and the datacenters that carry it... but now you're mad that it might get a little slower?


Domestic spying pisses me off.  Sabotaging datacenters?  That's a new one to me.  You got a source?
 
2014-05-15 01:09:24 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: Deftoons: I am fine with this.  Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more.  I don't feel entitled to it.

Poe's law?  You're already paying for it.  Would you pay more for gasoline that was more expensive based on how popular the place you wanted to drive to was?  And with said gasoline charging the place you were going on top of charging you, leading to the destination also charging you more to make up for it?


Hmmm. Like if BP owned the Illinois Tollway System...
 
2014-05-15 01:09:49 PM  

delciotto: If external data does get slowed, I can see a lot of other countries getting really pissed off at the states real fast.


I'm pretty sure that horse has left the stable.

images.politico.com
 
2014-05-15 01:10:02 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.


3. Hahahahaha
 
2014-05-15 01:10:14 PM  

Cpl.D: Benghazi is a fabricated issue.  Obamacare, in at least so far, appears to be working.  So far, Obama's not really given me a reason to be pissed off.  But this shiat is beyond the pale.


You'd rather there be no regulation at all? Because that's what the Republicans support. This isn't finalized, it's just moved to public comment. But by voting yes to consider the rules, the Democrats have ensured that the FCC has the authority to regulate the ISP's.

Now we see if they use that authority for the good of the public...
 
2014-05-15 01:10:43 PM  

neenerist: Waiting for UPS to make the same argument based on the unfair load Amazon puts on their trucks.


...which is exactly what will happen the day after FedEx and USPS are gone.
 
2014-05-15 01:11:49 PM  

papatex: Surprisingly all 3 democrats voted for it, both republicans against it.

It's a mad mad world.


Why should you be surprised?  The CEO of Comcast has played golf with the President on Martha's Vineyard, and donated almost 3X as much to Democrat candidates than to Republicans, and practically has a sub office in the West Wing.

Comcast lobbyist David Cohen bundled close to 1.5 million in contributions for the President's re election campaign.

Follow the smell of money.  Every time.

A Richard in the rectum from a red elephant or a blue donkey is still a Richard in the rectum.  There's very little difference between the two in the end.  You really shouldn't be surprised about it ever again.
 
2014-05-15 01:12:06 PM  

Biff_Steel: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: This country in no way resembles the nation of my youth.

[img.fark.net image 600x865]


That's funny (I "FUNNY"ed it), but misguided. Ms. Coulter is part of the problem, and is in no way attempting to find a solution. Also, she's getting a little haggard, wouldn't you say?
 
2014-05-15 01:12:26 PM  

OnlyM3: sdd2000
>>> sprawl15: thanks obama

From the article: "The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, ..." I will let you guess who appointed the three.

Ehem... You of course are ignoring the line a bit lower that states...
Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes

And fark it. Why "guess" at all? Lets put the cards on the table.

--- A 3 to two vote huh? ---
The agency's two Republican commissioners have opposed from the beginning any attempt to regulate the Internet



You're also ignoring:
* Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler appointed by President Obama (D) and confirmed by the U.S. Senate which is held by a Democratic party majority .


* During Barack Obama's presidential campaign Wheeler spent six weeks in Iowa aiding his campaign efforts and went on to raise over $500,000 USD for both of Obama's campaigns


* Tom Wheeler, a Democratic Obama appointee, is pressing new rules at the Federal Communications Commission that would allow an Internet service provider such as Verizon to charge YouTube, for instance, for higher-quality streaming of videos.
You hoped for change... you got it.


When they "oppose any attempt to regulate the Internet" you realize that means giving ISPs the authority to do whatever they want with no restrictions, right? Their problem isn't that the regulations are infringing on net neutrality, it's that there are regulations on companies at all.
 
2014-05-15 01:12:39 PM  

ox45tallboy: If Republicans were in charge, there wouldn't even be a vote - the ISP's would have been tiering network access for content providers for the past several years already.


You mean like the 8 years when Bush II controlled the FCC?

/ I hated the guy for other reasons, but at least he didn't fark with the internet
 
2014-05-15 01:13:04 PM  

snocone: gweilo8888: ikanreed: Digging up cables of companies that do this?

Will just cause cable companies to raise costs, and you to spend even more on Internet access and web services than you already will.

Boycotts?

Don't work and never have.

Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?

Will buy the lawyers a nice Ferrari or three, while you'll get three dollars off your next month's bill if you agree that the cable company did no wrong and can repeat the behavior. (And you'll also have to rub your tummy and pat your head at the same time to get them to send the check, which you'll have to wait six months for. And its costs will be covered with a five-dollar-a-month-in-perpetuity hike in the cost of your cable bill.)

The only answer here is to vote out the morons who put these morons in office, and any morons who think even slightly like they do, and continue to do so for decades, and pray that the people you vote in are less dishonest.

In these trying times, we certainly need a much faster way of ejecting morons(sociopaths that sell their soul for chump change in order to funnel more middle class money to the 1%).
You have absolutely no way of determining honesty before election, so one must use the ejection seat that we do not currently have, but need.
And there is the issue of elections being just so much theatre in the first place.
Face it, You, Me, Him are just farked.


This is the greatest idea I've ever seen on fark. Both sides should support this
 
2014-05-15 01:13:21 PM  

ox45tallboy: Cpl.D: Benghazi is a fabricated issue.  Obamacare, in at least so far, appears to be working.  So far, Obama's not really given me a reason to be pissed off.  But this shiat is beyond the pale.

You'd rather there be no regulation at all? Because that's what the Republicans support. This isn't finalized, it's just moved to public comment. But by voting yes to consider the rules, the Democrats have ensured that the FCC has the authority to regulate the ISP's.

Now we see if they use that authority for the good of the public...


Personally, I'd rather see internet access be regulated like a utility.
 
2014-05-15 01:13:31 PM  

You want to do something it about? Contact your Senator or Reps through EFF. Or send an email to the FCC...https://www.dearfcc.org/


Or donate to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/

 
2014-05-15 01:13:46 PM  

OnlyM3: The three dims supported killing Net-Neutrality. It's right there in subby's link.


The Republicans do not support the FCC having this authority at all. In other words, under Republican control there would be no public comment period or regulatory oversight, there would be the ISP's doing whatever they want with absolutely no regulation at all.

Would you prefer that?
 
2014-05-15 01:14:06 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Thank FSM that I have enough porn downloaded to last two lifetimes.

You can have enough porn?


Simple math, really. Divide hours of porn (180000) by how many hours in the day (24). I have enough to watch 24 hours a day for about 20 years.

I kind of got a hoarding thing going and, next thing I know....
 
2014-05-15 01:14:08 PM  

ardubz: Is this strictly a 'murican problem or will I be trickle-down shafted in Canada as well? What about Europeans?


i'll be curious about what happens internationally as well
 
2014-05-15 01:14:13 PM  

wyltoknow: ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?

Digging up cables...pretty sure thats a federal offense.


Usually it's just a backhoe "accident"
 
2014-05-15 01:14:18 PM  

mr lawson: citation needed


Well, leading House republicans wrote a letter yesterday saying as much.

The current status of net neutrality, thanks to the FCC's fark-up in not classifying ISPs as common carriers, is that there is none. There is NOTHING stopping providers right now from throttling connections and demanding protection money from large content providers. People have this whole thing ass-backwards. Right now it's as bad as it can possibly get without being explicitly codified.

In theory, the FCC's changes will bring structure to it, but not fix the problem, which is still bad, but this is not about allowing the providers to throttle and shakedown. They're already allowed to do that.
 
2014-05-15 01:14:22 PM  
The other thing is, correct me if I am wrong, but, Comcast could decide that, well, geez, while they probably can't completely block access to a website legally, but, well, oops if trying to get to "comcastsucks.com" is reduced to the speed of an old 2400 baud C-64 modem.... or anything else they have some objection to.
 
2014-05-15 01:14:33 PM  

Sticky Hands: TheNewJesus: USA Inc. Your freedom has been purchased.


We have Google Fiber. It has not changed our lives. However, it has revealed the variety of bottlenecks that already exist. Some sites are simple ALWAYS slower to load. This is only going to create more of those bottlenecks...

In the short term.
In the longer term, many of the businesses will relocate their servers to the cities with the fiber connections.
I seem to remember one of the Google fiber cities had this happening: Business purchasing residential houses to place their servers and host their sites.


shiat still will go through the same filters and traffic management when it goes through a ComCast switch.

Everything in North America will go through a ComCast switch at some point.
 
2014-05-15 01:14:48 PM  
How did we not see this coming?
 
2014-05-15 01:15:34 PM  

dr_blasto: sendtodave: RickN99: 3 Democrats vote to pass theses rules and the first 150 comments are full of how evil the Republicans are for allowing this to happen.

I love Fark.

Also, the Internet should be free.  As in beer.

And Netflix and google are scrappy underdogs.

Netflix and Google were scrappy underdogs. The previously wide-open internet allowed a couple clowns in their garage to become the powerhouse Google is today.

Get rid of neutrality and there'll be no more of that. Nothing but white-bread, gluten-free sandwiches for everyone.


You mean, companies like Netflix, or Google.
 
2014-05-15 01:15:40 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: No one's really surprised by this, are they?

It's amusing (well, OK, it's not amusing, it's appalling) that nitwits in Congress are still going on with their Benghazi bullshiat, but no effort whatsoever to do anything about the direct pipeline between corporations and regulatory agencies. Whereby people who used to work in certain industries are then put in charge of the government agencies that are supposed to regulate them. Then, when they leave, they go right back to the companies they used to "regulate," often as board members.

A normal person would think that constitutes an obvious conflict of interest. But people who work for the govt. at the higher levels aren't normal people. They're mostly rich people who work on behalf of other rich people.


While I'm worried I might contract space herpes for doing so, +1.
 
2014-05-15 01:17:06 PM  

mr lawson: ox45tallboy: The Republicans voted against it because they don't think the FCC, or anyone for that matter, should have the ability to regulate ISP's and enforce any kind of net neutrality rules.

citation needed


http://thehill.com/policy/technology/195435-republicans-claim-victor y- in-net-neutrality-ruling

In a statement, Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.) - chairmen of the House Commerce Committee and Subcommittee on Communications, respectively - applauded the court's ruling, calling the decision "a victory for jobs and innovation."

"Just as before the commission adopted its net neutrality order, with today's decision American consumers will continue to have access to the Internet and to the content of their choosing without the government playing the role of traffic cop," they said.

House Commerce Committee Vice-Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) called the agency's "egregious" net neutrality rules "socialist regulations."
"This ruling is a historic victory for America's innovators and the free market," she said in a statement.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the court's decision to strike down the rules was "a win for consumers and broadband innovation."
"I have long opposed efforts that would allow the government to regulate the Internet,"
 
2014-05-15 01:17:57 PM  

Mike_LowELL: IF TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES ARE NOT FREE TO DESTROY THE INTERNET

THEN THE INTERNET IS NOT FREE

WHEN WILL YOU STUPID LIBS REALIZE THIS

NOW YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE TO READ THE THINGS I HAVE TO SAY

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH

U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A.


No price is too high for you, Mike. :)
 
2014-05-15 01:17:59 PM  

SDRR: sprawl15: thanks obama


media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com
 
2014-05-15 01:18:04 PM  

kidgenius: sdd2000: sprawl15: thanks obama

From the article: "The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, ..." I will let you guess who appointed the three.

There was a Democratic appointee that said "yes".

So i'm assuming that the pubs said "No" because they wanted to keep the status quo, which was the FCC not saying anything. The dems said "yes" because this forces providers to ahve a "minimum" level of "commercially reasonable" level of service.

The issue is that the it doesn't say "you can't make a fast lane" and it doesn't force the ISPs to be Title II compliant. In this whole debate there is what "net neutrality" actually means, and what the dems and pubs twist "net neutrality" to mean. They based on the twisted version, not on the actual version, otherwise the Dems would've said "fark no" and the pubs saying "hell yes!"


Great spin job.
 
2014-05-15 01:18:49 PM  

MadHatter500: A 1Gig local loop (business grade) is now $50k install, $5k/month recurring charges, and dropping.


As consumer speeds increase, and they demand reliability, the residential prices should reflect that.

I mean, I was just going for $1000 per month for residential service, but $5000 is OK, too.

Want guaranteed service and speeds?  Pay for it.
 
2014-05-15 01:19:42 PM  

Bin_jammin: Currently BREAKING NEWS on at least 5 local channels to me? Aaron Hernandez indicted on two more murder charges. Mention of something that actually impacts people watching said news? Zero.

Sad day.


Big media has been subservient to this administrations agenda, why stop now?
 
2014-05-15 01:20:05 PM  
And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers.

oh good, a government agency made a promise.  i guess we don't have to worry about it now.  we all know that huge corporations always follow all the rules government agencies impose on them.

let's pretend that some huge internet service provider decided to screw over their consumers thanks to relaxed net neutrality rules.  how long would it go on before the government told them to stop?  a year?  two years?  we all know there would be court hearings and lawsuits that might last years, and all the while, the internet companies could keep screwing over their customers.  and if they actually got found guilty, what happens then?  a fine of a couple million dollars?  wow, that would sure teach those companies a lesson.  rake in billions in profit by screwing over the customers you have a monopoly over, and maybe after a couple years the government will tell you to stop and give you a slap on the wrist penalty.  i feel safer already.
 
2014-05-15 01:20:12 PM  

OnlyM3: DarkSoulNoHope


Do you really think the Republican led Congress is going to
So much stupid, you need a sign
1) The congress is two houses. The Senate is controlled by Democrats.
2) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) is a big time democrat fund raiser.
3) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) was appointed by Democrat BHO
4) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) was confirmed by Senate Democrats who control the Senate.
5) This vote was 3 to 2 along party lines (There are 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans).


For the record: are you suggesting that people who support net neutrality vote for Republicans?
 
2014-05-15 01:20:20 PM  
ox45tallboy [TotalFark]


>>> OnlyM3: You hoped for change... you got it.

Republicans oppose this because they don't want any regulation of the ISP's at all. If Republicans were in charge, there wouldn't even be a vote - the ISP's would have been tiering network access for content providers for the past several years already.

The idea that Republicans support regulations which would prevent the ISP's from doing this is simply not true.


Sorry, your hero Goebbels is dead. No matter how often or loudly you tell your lies, the fact is the Democrat fundraiser appointed by obama(D) and confirmed by the Democrat controlled senate pushed to kill Net Neutrality and the two other democrats on the committee voted with him.

They were opposed by the only 2 Republicans on the committee.


//Net neutrality survived bush, but won't survive obama.
 
2014-05-15 01:20:22 PM  

Cpl.D: delciotto: skozlaw: delciotto: So this wont effect data that passes through your guy's ass backwards country from other countries, right?

I guess in theory it could, but I have a hard time imagining what path it would have to take for that to happen, barring misconfiguration. Data LEAVING the country but starting here could still be affected, though, if a content provider's network provider decided to make them pay for preferential upstream shaping, but since upstream costs are already mostly associated with speed that doesn't seem real likely either.

If external data does get slowed, I can see a lot of other countries getting really pissed off at the states real fast.

My understanding is all the TLD servers are here in the 'States.  We have total DNS control.  So, yeah.  If the pricks get vindictive, they can cause trouble.  I could be wrong, haven't thought about it in a long time.


so what's the end result of all of this, countries start trying to build their own internet infrastructure? more walled-off networks like China?
 
2014-05-15 01:21:05 PM  
Not a law-talking person, but would the effect of a non-neutral net on interstate commerce give any basis for fighting this in a court?
 
2014-05-15 01:21:26 PM  

meat0918: We got 110W and 220W to peoples homes during the Great Depression, why aren't we getting 30Mbps to them now?


edge2.politicususa.netdna-cdn.com
 
2014-05-15 01:21:51 PM  

jshine: ox45tallboy: If Republicans were in charge, there wouldn't even be a vote - the ISP's would have been tiering network access for content providers for the past several years already.

You mean like the 8 years when Bush II controlled the FCC?

/ I hated the guy for other reasons, but at least he didn't fark with the internet


Powell was the one that opted out of assigning common carrier status for ISPs and set the stage to even have this fight in the first place.
 
2014-05-15 01:21:54 PM  
Is it a violation of the FARK tos to post twitter handles. Because all three of the unelected appointees who voted for this have them. I for one plan to tweet mention them daily. So that they can't continue to use the tool to pretend they support open internet.
 
2014-05-15 01:21:56 PM  
American "free market" capitalism where the playing field is tilted in the direction of those who paid the most.
Suck it small business.
 
2014-05-15 01:22:01 PM  
Well it seems the the presidential preacher really meant it when he said "Goddamn America" , thanks Obama and Liberal Democrats!
 
2014-05-15 01:22:03 PM  

mr lawson: ox45tallboy: The Republicans voted against it because they don't think the FCC, or anyone for that matter, should have the ability to regulate ISP's and enforce any kind of net neutrality rules.

citation needed


Citation provided. Direct quote from Ted Cruz:

"I will be introducing legislation that would remove the claimed authority for the FCC to take such actions, specifically the Commission's nebulous Sec. 706 authority. More than $1 trillion has already been invested in broadband infrastructure, which has led to an explosion of new content, applications, and Internet accessibility. Congress, not an unelected commission, should take the lead on modernizing our telecommunications laws. The FCC should not endanger future investments by stifling growth in the online sector, which remains a much-needed bright spot in our struggling economy."

If you don't believe that Ted Cruz speaks for the Republican party position, here's the FCC commissioners themselves:

Republican appointees Ajit Pai and Michael O'Reilly voted against moving forward with the new regulations, saying the proposal reaches beyond the scope of the FCC's responsibilities. Pai said if new regulations are needed, Congress should legislate them.
 
2014-05-15 01:22:16 PM  

TheNewJesus: Sticky Hands: TheNewJesus: USA Inc. Your freedom has been purchased.


We have Google Fiber. It has not changed our lives. However, it has revealed the variety of bottlenecks that already exist. Some sites are simple ALWAYS slower to load. This is only going to create more of those bottlenecks...

In the short term.
In the longer term, many of the businesses will relocate their servers to the cities with the fiber connections.
I seem to remember one of the Google fiber cities had this happening: Business purchasing residential houses to place their servers and host their sites.

That would be against the terms of service here. Google hasn't move into the commercial market yet in KC as far as I know...


Well, here is hoping this spells the end of the Comcast/AT&T rule.

Facebook, Google, Netflix, etc. will hopefully start seriously building their own infrastructure.
 
2014-05-15 01:22:17 PM  

Cpl.D: Domestic spying pisses me off. Sabotaging datacenters? That's a new one to me. You got a source?


Bruce Schneier ran down a couple examples a few days ago.

And Cisco's stock took a nasty hit a while back over it as foreign countries abandoned contracts with them.
 
2014-05-15 01:22:38 PM  

sendtodave: Want guaranteed service and speeds?


Guaranteed doesn't exist. You get "up to" and like it.
 
2014-05-15 01:23:08 PM  
The Homer Tax:

For the record: are you suggesting that people who support net neutrality vote for Republicans?

All the ones that I know do.
 
2014-05-15 01:23:15 PM  

OnlyM3: Sorry, your hero Goebbels is dead. No matter how often or loudly you tell your lies, the fact is the Democrat fundraiser appointed by obama(D) and confirmed by the Democrat controlled senate pushed to kill Net Neutrality and the two other democrats on the committee voted with him.

They were opposed by the only 2 Republicans on the committee.


//Net neutrality survived bush, but won't survive obama.


This is true and instead of farking apologizing for them and blaming republicans the real solution is to shiat on democrats in this case as they so rightly deserve. The democrats deserve as much shiat as they can get for this, it's an embarrassment.
 
2014-05-15 01:23:41 PM  

sendtodave: MadHatter500: A 1Gig local loop (business grade) is now $50k install, $5k/month recurring charges, and dropping.

As consumer speeds increase, and they demand reliability, the residential prices should reflect that.

I mean, I was just going for $1000 per month for residential service, but $5000 is OK, too.

Want guaranteed service and speeds?  Pay for it.


nah, i can do without the internet

it didn't really make people smarter, or more communicative... really it just provided an insular bubble for people to stick their heads in and avoid the pressures of reality, all while companies tracked and preyed in hopes of making a quick buck

if everybody stopped typing and went outside and read a book, the world would be a better place

i'll start
 
2014-05-15 01:23:50 PM  

Nadie_AZ: dr_blasto: Nadie_AZ: Deftoons: I am fine with this.  Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more.  I don't feel entitled to it.

The thing is you will pay more keep your current speeds. Or slower.

No.

Your existing service is likely to remain unchanged. You will just end up paying a lot more for some content or that content will become unbearably slow so as to devalue it entirely. Strangely, whatever terribly boring stuff NBC produces will alway be of very high quality with little delay.

Ah yes. Sorry.
So Netflix will be tiered for speed and NBCflix will be cheaper and faster?


Yes?  NBC holds tons of contracts with the cable companies.  Did you notice that for the last olympics you needed a cable account to stream the olympics for example?

Not sure where you were going with your post exactly......  But yeah Netflix gets bent over while HULU doesn't (NBC is a major owner of that).  NBC frequently protects the cable companies.

Thats the real problem with all of this shiat, is the massive collusion.  We need to bust up the monopolies and it would sort itself out.

Say for example you take Comcast and make it three companies.

1.  A last mile infrastructure company that can lease out that connectivity.
2.  A cable company
3.  An internet service provider.

Most the shiat we are biatching about instantly goes away since the the last mile company can have any number of ISP's run through it so we get competition, the networks no longer have a reason to kiss the cable companies ass, and the isp company has no reason to protect the cable company, they just want to compete with the other isp's.
 
2014-05-15 01:23:56 PM  

AdamK: Cpl.D: delciotto: skozlaw: delciotto: So this wont effect data that passes through your guy's ass backwards country from other countries, right?

I guess in theory it could, but I have a hard time imagining what path it would have to take for that to happen, barring misconfiguration. Data LEAVING the country but starting here could still be affected, though, if a content provider's network provider decided to make them pay for preferential upstream shaping, but since upstream costs are already mostly associated with speed that doesn't seem real likely either.

If external data does get slowed, I can see a lot of other countries getting really pissed off at the states real fast.

My understanding is all the TLD servers are here in the 'States.  We have total DNS control.  So, yeah.  If the pricks get vindictive, they can cause trouble.  I could be wrong, haven't thought about it in a long time.

so what's the end result of all of this, countries start trying to build their own internet infrastructure? more walled-off networks like China?


As a shiatty an alternative that might be, it could be preferable to what may happen, with the way things are heading.
 
2014-05-15 01:24:05 PM  

CJHardin: JUST FARKING GREAT!!!!!   I'm sure the ISPs and streaming services won't raise their prices on us too much..........


They actually won't.  What will happen though is every 3rd party app that needs higher speeds for streaming or whatever, and might have a monthly cost, like Netflix for instance, will end up charging you MORE because an ISP, say Comcast, is artificially lowering the bandwidth for their service.  So Comcast says... "Netflix, we want you to pay us to deliver your content to our customers over our network." and so netflix has no choice but to pay, and that will turn into increased subscription prices from Netflix - not Comcast.

It's beautiful for the ISPs - they don't get targeted and they can charge anyone whatever they want, without increasing rates for their own customers. Business greed strikes again - always out for 100% control so they can monetize it.
 
2014-05-15 01:24:17 PM  

sendtodave: MadHatter500: A 1Gig local loop (business grade) is now $50k install, $5k/month recurring charges, and dropping.

As consumer speeds increase, and they demand reliability, the residential prices should reflect that.

I mean, I was just going for $1000 per month for residential service, but $5000 is OK, too.

Want guaranteed service and speeds?  Pay for it.


that makes sense.
I mean why would we possibly want to keep up with other countries that are charging a fraction of that.
it's not like vastly lower costs have ever attracted business before.
 
Displayed 50 of 886 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report