![giphy[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/dk97jeR.gif "giphy[1].gif")
On one hand
>muh freedoms
On the other hand
>usage based billing
>t-mo can't make music streaming not count towards data caps anymore
Is this a good thing /g/?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-appeals-court-ruling.html
>>55092358
It'll probably be bad. (((They))) will find a to make it bad for us.
Ponder me this:
If Internet bandwidth is not a limited resource, why don't we get an ISP swooping in and BTFO-ing every other ISP by charging people who only send the occasional emails, and Netflix bingers, the same price? No other ISP would be able to compete unless they did the same.
Why doesn't that happen? And don't give me some shitty, simplistic non-answer like "greed", because you could argue that "greed" could drive someone to capture the market with insanely low rates, BTFO of everyone, and then move on after you've made your killing and the rest of the market has adapted to your precedent.
>>55092743
costs a lot of money to lay the cables to start an isp, if I had to guess
>>55092743
Because it is insanely expensive to put down your own fiber
>>55092743
cause greed
>usage based billing
Says fucking who? The only reason power and gas is usage based is because it takes money to make it useable data is in no way the same thing do you have aome sort of proof of this or are you just pulling this shit out of your ass?
>>55092358
On one hand
>muh freedoms
>broadband is as essential as the phone and power and should be available to all Americans
So basically they can charge you for downloading data internationally and the prices are going to go up? I can't wait to pay 90 bucks a month for shit speed while lazy faggots get Obamanet at taxpayers' expense.
>>55092358
Did everyone here actually read the article? Like all of it? It's about the government upholding net neutrality laws to protect consumers while promoting competition between businesses that often use internet as well for promotion. They didn't mention anything about the government controlling rates that companies can charge.
I guess I have a mixed opinion on the usefulness of the whole thing as well though.
>>55094353
This is what pisses me off about politics and legislation. Everyone talks about "protecting consumers' rights" and "promoting competition", which are the _perceived effects_, and not the actual actions that'll be taken.
Can anyone figure out what physical actions all this shit will result in, and what shit you're not allowd to do that'll get you fined or landed in jail? Because that's all gubmint legislation ever really means in the end, aside from deciding how to distribute their stolen and printed money.
>>55092358
>>usage based billing
You mean like there already is? The current system bills you ahead of time and then bills you if you go over a certain amount.
>>55092743
Because localities have strict limits on how many times you can tear up residential areas to lay down fiber optic lines. No one wants their neighborhood getting wrecked every other week because some small time ISP just moved into the area. I think the best option would be for the government to nationalize all of these lines and just sell access to larger ISPs who could then sell to smaller ISPs.
Bandwidth is finite but the way you deal with over-saturation is laying more fiber not just capping usage and then charging your customers extra.
>>55094472
There is a link to the PDF of the case report in the beginning of the article where it states and underlines in blue "has ruled." They explain within the first few pages of the report (start pg 8) that the FCC feels that ISP that make their own content as "edge providers"(google, espn.com, netflix, facebook etc.) like Comcast which has a movie streaming service could manipulate networking traffic to favor better connection to it's services and slow down connection to competing edge provider services like hulu or the like (Telecom association vs. FC, pg 9-10).
I'm not sure how grounded this is or how this greater enforcement of net neutrality and blockade of company control over user data content can prevent every single potential abuse, but that's what the FCC is asserting.
>>55094501
Like who? Dish network? ISP Verizon and Optimum don't do that. You use the internet alot? You want fast speeds while you do it to accommodate everyone in the house? Here, take this 100mb/100mb bandwidth package that is like $100 ( + FIXED taxes and surcharges) and have fun.
Don't use it that much? here take this 10mb/10mb bandwidth package for ($40 + tax and fees).
There is also things like peak hours ( usually in the afternoon) when internet data slows down because everyone is most likely using it at this time.
>>55094802
>>55094472
my bad i should have simply posted it.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3F95E49183E6F8AF85257FD200505A3A/%24file/15-1063-1619173.pdf
>>55094972
AT&T, Comcast, and Cox have bandwidth caps.
https://www.att.com/support/internet/usage.html
https://customer.xfinity.com/help-and-support/internet/data-usage-trials/
http://www.cox.com/residential/support/internet/article.cox?articleId=2fd6ccb0-b13a-11df-4be3-000000000000
Apparently Charter communications had them as well but they don't anymore?
>>55094972
>You want fast speeds while you do it to accommodate everyone in the house? Here, take this 100mb/100mb bandwidth package that is like $100 ( + FIXED taxes and surcharges) and have fun.
>Don't use it that much? here take this 10mb/10mb bandwidth package for ($40 + tax and fees).
Were either of those supposed to be good deals?
>>55095249
>AT&T, Comcast, and Cox have bandwidth caps.
>Comcast
Not in my area yet. :^)
>>55095249
>But those all suck. Everyone knows that. Also Xfinity has a data cap of say 1TB if you want that plan but also has an unlimited data option that means your monthly bill will be more expensive by like $50. Every company provided smaller packages like that if you want just a bundle of data at once.
>>55095318
Americans don't realize how hard they get fucked when it comes to internet speeds and prices. Russians pay like $10/month for 100/100mbps with no caps. They actually get 100/100 too instead of getting 20/5 with a .00001% chance of ever hitting 100/100.
>>55095426
Comcast is absolute shit; please don't even wish for it to come within 1mile of your town. They even have shitty customer service, so you pay all this money and there workers still treat you like shit.
>>55095490
I mean they don't have data caps in my area yet. I downloaded a 200GB torrent yesterday. I think the highest for a month was about 900GB.
>>55095468
We can't even get those "nice" plans without a bunch of worthless bullshit piled on in the form of "bundles" either.
Speaking of ISPs, Shaw is based. As much as they do shitty shit on you.
If you go over their monthly cap, they don't overcharge you at all, nor cut your shit off. And their bandwidth-babysitting team will only give you a call if they see you doing this for a few months in a row.
My quota is 500 GB per month, but I once torrented about 1 TB two months in a row, and nothing ever happened. No charges, no disconnections, no phone calls, nothing.
At least that's one thing I can say an ISP does.
>>55095468
>>55095528
I was pulling those rates out of my ass to make a general point.
Verizon doesn't even offer 10/10mb
50/50 is $50
100/100 is $60
150/150 is $ $70
and 300/300 is like $160 and 500/500 is $250
The point is they are all unlimited.
Optimum has lower packages( like 5mb/5mb) and is generally cheaper but don't have as much as 200/200mb
if you're paying $10 a month for internet it's likely not unlimited and there is a cap( like Dish network or some Time Warner cable packages.
I believe internet access should be considered almost a human right in any developed nation in 2016. Data caps should not exist, and prices should be low.
I think a government owes it to its citizens to break up complacent telecommunications, ensure fair competition between providers, and subsidize the construction of new infrastructure.
>>55095468
You have a smaller country btw. I hate when Europeans and liberals use arguments like that. If you have to supply energy, data, and education for about 300 million people, it is very difficult for it to be as cheap as it would for like 100 million.
A good thing.
Price discrimination is fucked up and shouldn't have ever been legal, but american ISP's price discriminate worse than any companies i've ever seen.
>>55095827
but you can get internet at the library or your school which are already government subsidized. Not to mention private companies and cafes that provide them to customers
>>55094501
no usage based billing would charge by the byte, not have a flat rate and an excessive usage fee.
My grandma who only uses internet twice a month to check email should rightfully have a minuscule internet bill, while her neighboor who torrents 1tb a day should have a bill much higher.
>>55095903
why doesn't your grandma just get a smaller package of 5/5mb for like $20 a month from optimum or just get capped internet with Dish network or something for $10? Just saying. I do agree with their emphasis on net neutrality and consistent connections.
>>55092358
> >muh freedoms
> Is this a good thing /g/?
No. Emigrate to China.
>>55092743
The same reason people have a hard time starting ANY small business. Getting the money to set everything up is hard.
All the major ISP's cant be touched because they already have lines, fiber and servers all over the place. They also get paid by the Feds to setup more fiber, which they accept then never do, while also trying to shut down the little guys.
>https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131012/02124724852/decades-failed-promises-verizon-it-promises-fiber-to-get-tax-breaks-then-never-delivers.shtml
>https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151022/09232532594/fcc-has-to-remind-isps-not-to-spend-taxpayer-subsidies-booze-trips-to-disney-world.shtml
thank fuck
i really figured the kikes would fuck this up
>>55092743
>why can't someone compete
A good example would be the Google Fiber fiasco in Austin, and how AT&T has done everything they can do delay it.
In this situation and in many like it, the legal system is a tool used by large corporations to extinguish competition. If you don't have enough money to play along, you don't get to compete.
>>55095859
>pay you depts first then care about internet
>>55095859
>russia is smaller than the united states
Found the American.
>>55092743
Economies of scale & natural monopolies.
>Hurr corporations are bad so instead of letting the evil corporations operate in a free market, lets have the government, which is owned and operated by the evil corporations run the internet with legal power
Good thinkin'
>>55092358
>t-mo can't make music streaming not count towards data caps anymore
not true.
>>55095859
>Russia is smaller than America
>>55096457
i don't think you know what you are talking about
>>55096497
Well, your opinion is worthless because you're just making a vague counter-assertion with nothing to back it up.
>>55093349
>it doesnt cost money to make bandwidth
>>55095827
Internet is already available for free to anyone who wants it.
>>55096744
Can confirm for germany. You can get HSDPA SIMs that offer 32 KBit/s after being over the 100 MB limit. It's slow, slower than other capped contracts which often offer 64 KBit/s, but it's literally free as in sponsored by sporadic adverstisements.
>>55095859
>If you have to supply energy, data, and education for about 300 million people, it is very difficult for it to be as cheap as it would for like 100 million.
Ignoring your "Russia is smaller than the US" gaffe, that doesn't follow. The entire rest of the world seems to be doing this better and cheaper than the US, which I will remind you mainly relies on local governments on the state level rather than the federal government for most of those issues. Oh, and several of your telecom companies operate outside the US in countries where there's actual competition and guess what, they don't gouge their customers as much!
>>55096482
Net neutrality means packets can't be discriminated based on their content or origin, meaning streaming services can't be prioritized or slowed down, for better or for worse
>>55097658
that has nothing to do with what he said
>>55097738
Yes it does.
T-Mobile wouldn't be allowed to treat packets from whatever music streaming services differently, so they can't flag some packets as not counting towards data yet not others.
>>55092358
>usage based billing
Nope. That was a line item removal. Try again retard. Besides, even if it was, it would still be cheaper than what you have now as the FCC would use GAO's report on what to base the usage billing on, and GAO determined that one gigabyte of traffic was a fraction of a cent in cost to the ISP.
>t-mo can't make music streaming not count towards data caps anymore
They've not ruled whether zero rating is anti net-neutrality. If I had to guess, what T-Mobile is doing - they don't charge anyone for zero rating - will probably stand as legal, while the other ISPs who force the content streamers to pay for zero rating will probably be considered illegal.
>>55097763
that would only apply if certain music streaming sites were affected, as long as all streamed music doesn't count for the data cap, its fine
>>55097860
By nature it can't automatically apply to all streamed music though, there isn't a reliable way to know "this packet is music", they would have to build a hard list of music streamers to check if the packet is from one of them, this is what violates net neutrality
>>55097872
And adding to this, opening up the packet to check if it is music also violates net neutrality, the concept of net neutrality is that all packets must be treated the same
good, get fucked
>>55092743
1. There are a limited number of v4 ips, and all v4 ips are allready bought up by everyone
2. The cabling for the internet is privately owned by the current internet companies, making it impossible for you to just connect to, without giving them a shit load of money
It would literally require you to rewire the entire planet, the whole country at the very least but with overseas servers, it would be impossible for your users to use 30% of the stuff they want too.
windows connects to servers in china.
xbox connects to servers in venezuala.
That alone means plebs would be unhappy with your service.
And the larges reason;
3. The larger money hungry companies would just swoop in and buy you out, or lower prices in JUST your area to the point that you cant stay in business. Look at all of the little awesome startup phone companies.. I just lost mine to fucking sprint.
My service was unlimited fucking everything for cheap.. the data speed went to absolute fucking shit one day and I shrugged it off because I don't browse on my phone anyway. I walked into the store to pay my bills a couple weeks later and everyone was wearing sprint shirts.
>>55094621
how much fiber has to get layed though?
Look at the highway system..
>hurr add more lanes
now we have bumper to bumper traffic on 16 lane mega highways
>>55095569
Having unlimited traffic is based :V)
