That will be changing as 5G wireless starts to spread.Rich Conway said:In urban areas, sure. In rural locations, there's no cutthroat at all.
I doubt it will change much. The issue in rural areas is less about speed and more about lack of competition.That will be changing as 5G wireless starts to spread.
I mean, of course, Montana will always have slower average internet than NYC, but the speeds that are soon to open up on the wireless spectrum are silly.
Fixed part of that for you.I don't think they're worried about ISPs charging their customers a whole lot for faster internet. You can always change to a different ISP, so competition will keep your bill down.
What they're worried about is that if ComCast is your ISP, they can charge companies like Google, MicroSoft, Netflix, etc. money for how much bandwidth their customers get. So maybe Hulu and Amazon pay ComCast extra to get more bandwidth than Netflix. For you, this means that when you watch something on Amazon or Hulu, you get it with better quality and less buffering than if you watch something from Netflix.
But if Hulu and Amazon have to pay more to get the better speed, then they pass that cost on to you in higher subscription fees. But you'll be willing to pay those higher fees to get the same service you're getting now.
And there are cases where ISPs have products or services that they offer that are accessed via the Internet and in competition with other companies, especially those that may be newly started. The ISPs won't have to charge themselves for the higher speed access that they can charge their competitors for, which can reduce the amount of competition that those other business can bring to the marketplace.
You can change to something, but there really isn't apples to apples competition, in most places DSL speeds are a lot slower than cable speeds.I don't think they're worried about ISPs charging their customers a whole lot for faster internet. You can always change to a different ISP, so competition will keep your bill down.
What they're worried about is that if ComCast is your ISP, they can charge companies like Google, MicroSoft, Netflix, etc. money for how much bandwidth their customers get. So maybe Hulu and Amazon pay ComCast extra to get more bandwidth than Netflix. For you, this means that when you watch something on Amazon or Hulu, you get it with better quality and less buffering than if you watch something from Netflix.
But if Hulu and Amazon have to pay more to get the better speed, then they pass that cost on to you in higher subscription fees. But you'll be willing to pay those higher fees to get the better video quality.
And there are cases where ISPs have products or services that they offer that are accessed via the Internet and in competition with other companies, especially those that may be newly started. The ISPs won't have to charge themselves for the higher speed access that they can charge their competitors for, which can reduce the amount of competition that those other business can bring to the marketplace.
Exactly. Even in suburban areas, there are often only one or two choices for broadband. I get two choices, and both charge exorbitant rates because there's no real competition.You can change to something, but there really isn't apples to apples competition, in most places DSL speeds are a lot slower than cable speeds.I don't think they're worried about ISPs charging their customers a whole lot for faster internet. You can always change to a different ISP, so competition will keep your bill down.
My Charter right now = 60 Mb downYou can change to something, but there really isn't apples to apples competition, in most places DSL speeds are a lot slower than cable speeds.
GB that man. Too bad we can't have a Brit as president.NCCommish said:John Oliver is on the case and for the second time his viewers crashed the FCC comments site on the proposal rule change. They also crashed it a few years ago last time this came up. He also got Reddit and 4chan involved apparently.
The wireless operators and cable companies stifle innovation time and time again in order to protect their backwards business models. It's why net neutrality is such an important issue.The argument against net neutrality is that it kills innovation. if an innovation comes along that improves speed or service greatly, it might have to be implemented for all customers right away under net neutrality rules. It might make more sense to do a partial rollout to test it and build the new infrastructure over time, but that might be ILLEGAL under nn rules. So they will just sit on the tech upgrade and never use it instead.
If companies are allowed to offer superfast service using the latest tech, it can help innovation as they have a testing base to work from.
It's like watching the music and movie industries with Napster. Instead of themselves innovating, they sue and sit idly by while Apple brings out iTunes. We now also have Netflix, Amazon Tv, Hulu, and others while music/movie are relativly using the backwards model. Google wifi or whatever needs to be in more cities. Is it any wonder why cable companies are always the most disliked companies?The wireless operators and cable companies stifle innovation time and time again in order to protect their backwards business models. It's why net neutrality is such an important issue.
This is where i wish some Starbucksy billionaire would step in and bankroll an attempt at balanced media reporting on the nation and the world. We all know there's a voice out there for most of us, and it aint the cartoonnazis of Fox and it aint the fey wokesters who ruined The Daily Show. It's as John Stewart warned in his final Daily Show, which will one day be viewed as as prescient as Eisenhower's M-IC statement, "Beware the bull####" because a lot of money which has forgotten about its customers is hiding behind that bull####.GB that man. Too bad we can't have a Brit as president.
At this point it's too bad we can't have an emu for a president.
Yes there are countless examples. One example is Verizon passing on the first iPhone because Apple wanted to control the user experience and distribution. People need to understand it's not just about accessing content, its about hardware and user experience controls too. It would be like Comcast forcing you to only use a TV that they certified.Mario Kart said:It's like watching the music and movie industries with Napster. Instead of themselves innovating, they sue and sit idly by while Apple brings out iTunes. We now also have Netflix, Amazon Tv, Hulu, and others while music/movie are relativly using the backwards model. Google wifi or whatever needs to be in more cities. Is it any wonder why cable companies are always the most disliked companies?
More than 7,000 Coloradans' names and addresses have been used to post the same fake comment on the Federal Communications Commission's decision on net neutrality.
The FCC is collecting public comment on its decision about whether or not to do away with net neutrality rules.
Net neutrality rules prevent internet providers from charging websites a fee to boost how fast their content gets to devices. The FCC could soon get rid of those rules.
A group or individual in favor of getting rid of the rules has created a bot that's posting the same comment thousands of times under different people's names and addresses.
According to a search of the FCC's website, the same comment was posted by more than 7,000 Coloradans.
"No, I did not post this comment. In fact, I disagree with this comment," Brad Emerick said.
"No, I did not. I have never seen this before in my life," Daniel Trujillo said.
Metro State University of Denver computer science professor Steve Beaty said it would be easy for an individual to make this kind of bot.
Beaty said the people most interested in the net neutrality debate are tech savvy.
"Fifteen minutes of time with someone who knows what they're doing and you're done," Beaty said.
Beaty said the information the bot is pulling -- names and addresses -- is likely coming from voter records on Colorado's Secretary of State's website or collected through data breaches over the years.
As for who is responsible for preventing this from happening, Beaty said it's up to the FCC. He said the FCC should have steps built into its website to block bots from posting fake comments.
So, the "fake news" advocates are using fake data to promote their agenda? Seems fake unless it wasn't. How can anyone be in favor of this crap?
If anything the internet freedom act is what would stifle innovation. That's one of the biggest problems with it.The argument against net neutrality is that it kills innovation. if an innovation comes along that improves speed or service greatly, it might have to be implemented for all customers right away under net neutrality rules. It might make more sense to do a partial rollout to test it and build the new infrastructure over time, but that might be ILLEGAL under nn rules. So they will just sit on the tech upgrade and never use it instead.
If companies are allowed to offer superfast service using the latest tech, it can help innovation as they have a testing base to work from.
This isn't an option for a majority of Americans. The way the ISP infrastructure was built there just aren't multiple choices in a lot of areas, and even in areas where there are there is often a massive difference between the two.I don't think they're worried about ISPs charging their customers a whole lot for faster internet. You can always change to a different ISP, so competition will keep your bill down.
What they're worried about is that if ComCast is your ISP, they can charge companies like Google, MicroSoft, Netflix, etc. money for how much bandwidth their customers get. So maybe Hulu and Amazon pay ComCast extra to get more bandwidth than Netflix. For you, this means that when you watch something on Amazon or Hulu, you get it with better quality and less buffering than if you watch something from Netflix.
But if Hulu and Amazon have to pay more to get the better speed, then they pass that cost on to you in higher subscription fees. But you'll be willing to pay those higher fees to get the better video quality.
And there are cases where ISPs have products or services that they offer that are accessed via the Internet and in competition with other companies, especially those that may be newly started. The ISPs won't have to charge themselves for the higher speed access that they can charge their competitors for, which can reduce the amount of competition that those other business can bring to the marketplace.
I think it is. You're only thinking of your cable company as an ISP. You can also use AT&T in most places. And that's only for cable or DSL internet access. You can get internet access from most wireless companies for your mobile devices.This isn't an option for a majority of Americans.
Your experience isn't the norm for most of rural and suburban America. I live in a very suburban area, not even rural, and have exactly one choice that meets the federal criteria for high-speed internet.I think it is. You're only thinking of your cable company as an ISP. You can also use AT&T in most places. And that's only for cable or DSL internet access. You can get internet access from most wireless companies for your mobile devices.
Like you said, there's often a big difference in the kind of service you can get, but you can still change to a different provider. And AT&T is always trying to get business away from the cable companies - in my area, every time the cable company bumps up their speed, AT&T comes out with something new to provide faster service. Near me they are even rolling out a fiber service to try and compete with Google Fiber coming into that area.
Or poorer urban areas. Verizon has deemed that the city of Baltimore is not worthy of vios while the surrounding, suburban counties with lower population density are worth the infrastructure cost.Your experience isn't the norm for most of rural and suburban America. I live in a very suburban area, not even rural, and have exactly one choice that meets the federal criteria for high-speed internet.
Yup.This isn't an option for a majority of Americans. The way the ISP infrastructure was built there just aren't multiple choices in a lot of areas, and even in areas where there are there is often a massive difference between the two.
We only have Comcast here, and that's true for just about everyone I know in town. I suppose we could probably dig up some terrible satellite option, but they aren't really in the same class of internet. And that's the problem. Most of these ISPs essentially have a monopoly on their users, and they're starting to get ideas about how to better take advantage of those monopolies.
Sure I have options as well, but that doesn't mean they are equal.I think it is. You're only thinking of your cable company as an ISP. You can also use AT&T in most places. And that's only for cable or DSL internet access. You can get internet access from most wireless companies for your mobile devices.
Like you said, there's often a big difference in the kind of service you can get, but you can still change to a different provider. And AT&T is always trying to get business away from the cable companies - in my area, every time the cable company bumps up their speed, AT&T comes out with something new to provide faster service. Near me they are even rolling out a fiber service to try and compete with Google Fiber coming into that area.
I have lived in 3 placed the last 6 years, none of them particularly small (Gainesville FL, Chattanooga TN, Ogden UT (basically a Salt Lake City suburb)). All of my houses have been in the burbs. You know the type, rows and rows of houses.I think it is. You're only thinking of your cable company as an ISP. You can also use AT&T in most places. And that's only for cable or DSL internet access. You can get internet access from most wireless companies for your mobile devices.
Like you said, there's often a big difference in the kind of service you can get, but you can still change to a different provider. And AT&T is always trying to get business away from the cable companies - in my area, every time the cable company bumps up their speed, AT&T comes out with something new to provide faster service. Near me they are even rolling out a fiber service to try and compete with Google Fiber coming into that area.
Sure but those options often don't play fair when it comes to offering people a product at a reasonable price given what we know about these companies in question. To think these companies will play fair or do what's right is insane if this is returned to the old ways. And, it might sound funny to say "the old way" but the internet was a lot different just 5 years ago. So much more happens on the net now.According to FCC data, just under 90% of homes in the country have access to 2 or more wired ISPs, and almost 100% have access to 2 or more wireless ISPs. Yes, the service offered will be different, but you still have options.
I don't think they're worried about ISPs charging their customers a whole lot for faster internet. You can always change to a different ISP, so competition will keep your bill down.
What they're worried about is that if ComCast is your ISP, they can charge companies like Google, MicroSoft, Netflix, etc. money for how much bandwidth their customers get. So maybe Hulu and Amazon pay ComCast extra to get more bandwidth than Netflix. For you, this means that when you watch something on Amazon or Hulu, you get it with better quality and less buffering than if you watch something from Netflix.
But if Hulu and Amazon have to pay more to get the better speed, then they pass that cost on to you in higher subscription fees. But you'll be willing to pay those higher fees to get the better video quality.
And there are cases where ISPs have products or services that they offer that are accessed via the Internet and in competition with other companies, especially those that may be newly started. The ISPs won't have to charge themselves for the higher speed access that they can charge their competitors for, which can reduce the amount of competition that those other business can bring to the marketplace.
Yeah, techically there are options. Realistically, there are not.According to FCC data, just under 90% of homes in the country have access to 2 or more wired ISPs, and almost 100% have access to 2 or more wireless ISPs. Yes, the service offered will be different, but you still have options.
But my "option" is to pay more, for less. There's not 1 person in the world who would say that is a good thing.According to FCC data, just under 90% of homes in the country have access to 2 or more wired ISPs, and almost 100% have access to 2 or more wireless ISPs. Yes, the service offered will be different, but you still have options.
Again, this is technically correct, which allows ISPs to dot the "I"s and cross the "T"s to avoid anti-trust laws (if those are still even a thing) but it doesn't work out to real competition in practice.According to FCC data, just under 90% of homes in the country have access to 2 or more wired ISPs, and almost 100% have access to 2 or more wireless ISPs. Yes, the service offered will be different, but you still have options.
You live in an alternate reality.According to FCC data, just under 90% of homes in the country have access to 2 or more wired ISPs, and almost 100% have access to 2 or more wireless ISPs. Yes, the service offered will be different, but you still have options.
It was the FCC, under the previous administration, who supported net neutrality under Title II in the first place.So lets review: thanks to the government, consumers will now pay more for the same content they already get.
#Winning!
It's still the ISPs fault that I'm paying more though. It's their gouging of the content providers that's going to make me spend more money for the same service level I have today.My point was that ISPs aren't going to be looking to charge their private consumers more for the same services they get now once net neutrality is gone. They could do it now if they wanted, but competition reins that in to some extent and that would not change. Also, having more people using their services means they will have more leverage when they start charging content providers more for more bandwidth to serve their content to the ISPs customers. Because while you would have the option to change which ISP you use to get your content, the content providers can only serve it to you on the ISP you've chosen.
You'll still have to pay more when the content providers increase their fees to pay for greater bandwidth, but it won't be an increase in the bill you get from your ISP. This also makes it more difficult for a new ISP to start up in your area as they will be less likely to get content providers to pay for more bandwidth when they have fewer customers to serve it to and they can't charge the customers more to make up for that loss of revenue.
That is inaccurate data. It is from 2014, and includes speeds that are not called "broadband" speeds today. The FCC changed the definition of broadband because those stats misled people about how much of the country had fast internet access.According to FCC data, just under 90% of homes in the country have access to 2 or more wired ISPs, and almost 100% have access to 2 or more wireless ISPs. Yes, the service offered will be different, but you still have options.
As part of its 2015 Broadband Progress Report, the Federal Communications Commission has voted to change the definition of broadband by raising the minimum download speeds needed from 4Mbps to 25Mbps, and the minimum upload speed from 1Mbps to 3Mbps, which effectively triples the number of US households without broadband access.
http://www.speedtest.net/awards/us/tulsa-okI want to know where all of this competition is located? I live in Tulsa, you can use COX internet or satellite. No other choice, in certain parts of the city they have a small company called Windstream that from what I hear absolutely sucks and is always down.
so like I said only 1 highspeed internet provider.http://www.speedtest.net/awards/us/tulsa-ok
Cox is fastest, but AT&T is available. There are also several wireless ISPs.
Do you work for a big cable company? You seem to be toting a lot of their talking points that are beyond ridiculous.http://www.speedtest.net/awards/us/tulsa-ok
Cox is fastest, but AT&T is available. There are also several wireless ISPs.
Thanks for being a cool head when everyone else is running around with their hair on fire.My point was that ISPs aren't going to be looking to charge their private consumers more for the same services they get now once net neutrality is gone. They could do it now if they wanted, but competition reins that in to some extent and that would not change. Also, having more people using their services means they will have more leverage when they start charging content providers more for more bandwidth to serve their content to the ISPs customers. Because while you would have the option to change which ISP you use to get your content, the content providers can only serve it to you on the ISP you've chosen.
You'll still have to pay more when the content providers increase their fees to pay for greater bandwidth, but it won't be an increase in the bill you get from your ISP. This also makes it more difficult for a new ISP to start up in your area as they will be less likely to get content providers to pay for more bandwidth when they have fewer customers to serve it to and they can't charge the customers more to make up for that loss of revenue.
No. Actually, I have an internet connection at my home in the 20-25 mps range. I could switch to cable internet and get much faster, but I'm getting all the speed I need now, so I see no reason to. I consider the two to be comparable options since the faster connection isn't going to give me any appreciable increase in satisfaction of service.Do you work for a big cable company? You seem to be toting a lot of their talking points that are beyond ridiculous.
Honest question - what is the benefit of this repeal to the public?No. Actually, I have an internet connection at my home in the 20-25 mps range. I could switch to cable internet and get much faster, but I'm getting all the speed I need now, so I see no reason to. I consider the two to be comparable options since the faster connection isn't going to give me any appreciable increase in satisfaction of service.
But, apparently, I'm in the minority. You guys don't think they're comparable, so be it.
Amused to Death said:Honest question - what is the benefit of this repeal to the public?
And that's why I think people are genuinely upset. All of the benefit (appears to) favor the big companies - again. The middle class at best remains status quo and most likely will end up paying more as a result of this.Amused to Death said:Honest question - what is the benefit of this repeal to the public?
How would you like your quality adult streaming content throttled while @Christo's preferred content remains at full speed?I don't understand any of this. What side should I be on?
I enjoy high speed internet (currently with Comcast). I enjoy...ummm...streaming adult oriented content. I enjoy my privacy.
I don't get it.