This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

FTC gives OK for ISP's to screw everyone long and hard.

All in this article, basically bad news for everyone, unless, of course, Google does something awesome with all that fiber they bought.

The internets die.

Comments

  • I guess we just gotta wait and see what comes of this. I'll hop right on that Google train if it rolls around, though.
  • This boads bad for what may come for us up north, as I know some ISPs have been rather, unscrupolis on things like pro-union websites... *sigh*
  • This ruined my day.
  • Why is everyone so nervous about this? ISPs are not going to block/degrade website access. All that would do is piss off their customers.
  • edited June 2007
    If I'm a corporation that owns telecom fiber, and I'm evil and greedy and don't care about a good ol' consumer rectum stretchin', and I have a monolopy on an area, than there is NOTHING stopping me from slashing speeds for everyone, making a 'faster path' that costs more to use, and laughing my ass all the way to the bank. Companies will happily piss off customers if they know that the customers can't do anything about it (see 'gasoline').
    Post edited by GreatTeacherMacRoss on
  • Why is everyone so nervous about this? ISPs are not going to block/degrade website access. All that would do is piss off their customers.
    I have two options for broadband internet in my city. This doesn't seem to be competitive enough because they both cost exactly the same and have exactly the same "rectum stretchin'" policies. I can't see that this will get better without regulated Net Neutrality but I will happily eat my hat when they give me 60mbs to match Japan . . .
  • I've said it before and I'll say it again. Telecoms want to be able to offer video over the Internet in a manner that works and does not look like crap. With Net Neutrality they can not do this because they would have to offer this "better" Internet to everyone at no extra cost. Which means everyone would be forced to pay for it whether they wanted it or not.

    ISPs that block/degrade their customers web access will lose customers. If this were to happen some smart startup would appear offering broadband with no blocking/degradation of service and they would kick ass in the market.
  • edited June 2007
    ISPs that block/degrade their customers web access will lose customers.
    Only the intelligent customers. Most customers wouldn't know or care. As long as it isn't uselessly slow all the time, people will suffer. Think about all the people with dial-up who don't care. Think about all the people with zombied spywared machines who don't know or care. These people will not know or care if you drop them all to 512kbps.

    If a startup was able to enter the market, they would be able to get all the tech people as customers. However, this is almost impossible because the telcos own all the infrastructure. You would need a shit-ton of starting capital to even try something like that.

    Imagine if the roads were owned by Ford. Now imagine that the speed limit for Ford cars is set to 100mph and the speed limit for all other cars is set 50mph. Net neutrality means that if you own the road, you have to let all vehicles travel on that road under the same terms. Telcos are trying to utilize their control of the networks to artificially give their services a competitive advantage. This is the same as when Microsoft bundled IE. This is the same as how mobile phone service providers lock phones to only allow their software. It is unfair competition that hinders progress.

    As long as there still exists an oligopoly in the US telco market, the telcos must not be trusted and heavily regulated to insure they do not do great evils. When we live in a world where you can choose absolutely any service provider no matter where you live, then we will no longer need to regulate these people.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • With Net Neutrality they can not do this because they would have to offer this "better" Internet to everyone at no extra cost. Which means everyone would be forced to pay for it whether they wanted it or not.
    Sweet . . . offer a tiered pricing structure . . . I still don't see my 60 mbs. I don't want those poor people on my better internet anyway! :oP
  • edited June 2007
    You all know I work for at&t right? Looking around the office I see several other companies offering DSL services right now. They include Covad, Choice One, and a few with 'encrypted' names that I can't decipher anymore. One of them has DSL in the name.

    Choice One is one of the great companies that got into the game after the Telecom act of 1996. I say great because they actually invested in infrastructure and purchased switches and other equipment. Unlike the many companies that just resold existing at&t lines.

    Covad also bought a shit-ton of hardware and uses it to offer DSL services.

    The Telecoms may own the backbone of the Internet but they do not own the majority of the Internet. Your home computer is (technically) part of the Internet.

    In regards to QOS. All the companies rooting for NN also wanted QOS, they just did not want to pay for it.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • That's great! Why aren't any of them in my area? I have Quest or Cable in my city . . . and only one cable company. Every other company that offers internet either has to lay line to your house (or business) or they just use the Quest network so it's more expensive for the same thing (maybe better customer service). There is not competition nationally. Last time I went to NYC I was amazed at the prices of internet access and the variety of company's that offered it . . . almost enough incentive to move.

    The problem is that the FTC is right . . . our country is too big and too rural to encourage the kind of legislation they're trying to get through. It'll all work itself out i think. There's no stopping the internet now. [If there is then I'll be moving to Japan]
  • Random thought . . . HMTKSteve: what ISP do you use at home?
  • Random thought . . .HMTKSteve: what ISP do you use at home?
    I use at&t; because I get it at a huge discount! I use Sprint for my cell phone though because it has better coverage. I use DirectTV for my TV.

    at&t; offers all of the services I use but I only use them if it makes sense to me. I could get dish Network through them (and pay less) but I prefer DirecTV. I could use Cingular/at&t; wireless for my cell phone but their coverage sucks where I live.

    Would I reccomend using at&t; for DSL? Not automaticaly, I'd tell you to do your research and pick what works best for you. If all you do is check email then you can get by with just dial-up. I only have the 1.5 service even though I can get up to 6MB. I just don't need that much bandwidth so why pay extra for it?
  • Only the intelligent customers. Most customers wouldn't know or care.
    Yeah, like the retards who believe the NetZero commercials.
  • Only the intelligent customers. Most customers wouldn't know or care.
    Yeah, like the retards who believe the NetZero commercials.
    I think I still have a NetZero account. Yeah, it was free, if you could log on!
  • It's $9.99 now, but their slogan is something like "All ISPs take you to the same Internet, so why pay more?" And then there is a flashy logo showing how easy it is to choose your local dial-up numbers. I want to rip my hair out... or THEIR hairs out... every time I see the damned ad.
  • I remember their old comercials. They looked like the set of a bad spy movie where they are interogating a man who tells them that in his country the Internet is FREE!
  • I remember back when NetZero first came out, they were amazing because all the other places in my area were dial-up and charged $25+ per month. The idea of free dial-up was awesome. Then broadband came.
Sign In or Register to comment.