What exactly is wrong/broken with internet in the US? (Net Neutrality)

[Jroc]

The solution to no competition is to legalize competition, not to get the government further involved.

And that's exactly what this proposal does, is LEGALIZE competition that the State governments were trying to limit. Look it up... I think Tennessee was one of the States involved that was trying to limit the competition....a suit is involved....

Wrong. It doesn't repeal any of the local monopolies.

It does by opening up the market place for other providers to come in to the areas. There's an electricity provider who decided to add internet service, the State government only allowed him to offer internet in the counties it provided electricity and no other areas....keeping it a Monopoly or duopoly for those BIG guy providers...

This net neutrality measure, would PREVENT States from not allowing new providers in to new areas.

The document hasn't even been published yet, so how do you know what it does?

They published a tidbit about it on their site and I read an article about the suit and the states involved and private businesses involved and what the issue was and how net neutrality would affect the case.

Oh so you know it's just so great then right? Your religion tells you so.

 

[Jroc]

Net Neutrality to Face Lawsuits, Congressional Investigations
Fight over Internet regulation not over

The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday in favor of a proposal that will expand its influence over the Internet, but lawsuits from major Internet service providers (ISPs) as well as several congressional investigations mean the fight over Internet regulation is far from over.

In a 3-2 vote on Thursday, the FCC passed a proposal, the details of which have not been disclosed, to regulate Internet providers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, which was developed for telephone networks during the Great Depression.

“The regulation and litigation uncertainty caused by the FCC’s action will inhibit investment in new networks but also end up harming many of the companies pushing for Title II,” said Robert McDowell senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think thank, in a phone interview on Wednesday.

Net Neutrality to Face Lawsuits Congressional Investigations Washington Free Beacon

 

[Misty]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Seriously, why is there even a giant FCC ruling and political debate going on about the "freedom of the internet." There is nothing wrong with the ******* internet in the United States. Why on earth do we suddenly need a major government intervention where there is no problem?

I believe they are heading toward restricting content. Just like TV and radio.

 

[Misty]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Seriously, why is there even a giant FCC ruling and political debate going on about the "freedom of the internet." There is nothing wrong with the ******* internet in the United States. Why on earth do we suddenly need a major government intervention where there is no problem?

The Internet in the US is bullshit. Overpriced, corporate, slow, and often unavailable at any decent speed or at all. Time to grow up, as usual, America.

I have great internet. I don't want the government ******* that up like they did healthcare.

 

[bripat9643]

each local government granted a monopoly to an ISP. But you wanted to blame private enterprise rather than the true culprit, government.

Bullshit!

Bullshit nothing. Where I live we have Comcast. That's all you can get here because other companies are not allowed to provide service. When I lived in St Petersburg they had competing cable companies, and you could get your service hooked up in a day. It was also quite cheap. However, most cities have granted monopolies to one ISP or another.

 

[bripat9643]

The solution to no competition is to legalize competition, not to get the government further involved.

And that's exactly what this proposal does, is LEGALIZE competition that the State governments were trying to limit. Look it up... I think Tennessee was one of the States involved that was trying to limit the competition....a suit is involved....

Wrong. It doesn't repeal any of the local monopolies.

It does by opening up the market place for other providers to come in to the areas. There's an electricity provider who decided to add internet service, the State government only allowed him to offer internet in the counties it provided electricity and no other areas....keeping it a Monopoly or duopoly for those BIG guy providers...

This net neutrality measure, would PREVENT States from not allowing new providers in to new areas.

The document hasn't even been published yet, so how do you know what it does?

They published a tidbit about it on their site and I read an article about the suit and the states involved and private businesses involved and what the issue was and how net neutrality would affect the case.

Link?

 

[edthecynic]

each local government granted a monopoly to an ISP. But you wanted to blame private enterprise rather than the true culprit, government.

Bullshit!

Bullshit nothing. Where I live we have Comcast. That's all you can get here because other companies are not allowed to provide service. When I lived in St Petersburg they had competing cable companies, and you could get your service hooked up in a day. It was also quite cheap. However, most cities have granted monopolies to one ISP or another.

Again, that's bullshit. the companies are free to compete, they CHOOSE not to. Where I live, in the same town on one side of the street you have Comcast and on the other you have Optimum. The cable monopolies have divided up their territory. In the testimony on the merger between Comcast and TWC, the CEO of Comcast said there will be no reduction in competition because the two companies to not compete in the same territory.

 

[JFK_USA]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Seriously, why is there even a giant FCC ruling and political debate going on about the "freedom of the internet." There is nothing wrong with the ******* internet in the United States. Why on earth do we suddenly need a major government intervention where there is no problem?

Boy if I didn't have a conscious, I would be a great Republican because to convince their sheep that net neutrality is a bad thing is quite impressive.

Republicans love to muddy the waters so here is the facts.

Republicans want paid prioritization. Paid prioritization means that an ISP can charge certain websites arbitrarily for the same speeds as everyone else. So let's look at an example

Comcast and Netflix are two companies that offer paid TV and movie entertainment. Netflix is only $8/month while Comcast is $50/month on top of your internet. So naturally the market decides to go the $8/month route and not the $50/month route.

But that's a problem for telecommunications companies. Why? They pay the TV providers (Disney, Discovery Channel, etc.) for their content. They pay a certain amount per month. These telecommunications companies don't make money on selling cable only. They make it by bundling internet and phone services. Most people don't get landland phones so Internet is the huge draw.

Cable and Internet bundles were huge for Telecommunication companies. Internet services has huge profit margin. You don't have to pay for the content like you do for cable.

So here is Netflix, an affordable service that many people are getting for really cheap that puts out original content (Hey! House of Cards is back!!). So smart people decide to not spend an extra $40/month.

This is a problem for Comcast, they are losing money. So how do they compete? Oh they don't, they just arbitrarily slow down Netflix to make it look unappealing or price out Netflix to the point where it's $50/month. Instead of actually competing, they are trying to get Netflix out of the business.

But the Right is bought and paid for by these massive corporation and they have a base that is so fervent in their beliefs, that they will go in favor of monopolies and against their own interests to benefit corporations who want to make it impossible to use the internet.

So no, the FCC ruling does not in any way "destroy the internet", it keeps the internet open and fair to ALL websites.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Obama the Usurper has obliterated the First and Second Amendments in a single day. He must be impeached. He is an Oathbreaker and a dangerous threat to the Republic and the Constitution thereto.

 

[Care4all]

Here is just a part of what was broken and why net neutrality is good for all of us and good for entrepreneurs and innovators.....



Go to the article and read the whole thing, to understand more about this.... it's important, and we all should support it, every darn one of us...truly, we ALL should.

The Case for Rebooting the Network-Neutrality Debate - The Atlantic

here's just a tidbit

The FCC’s commitment to and enforcement of this basic principle—that ISPs don’t get to pick winners and losers on the Internet—means Internet users in the U.S. haven’t had to worry about whether ISPs might block or discriminate against certain kinds of content or applications. Innovators who have an idea for a new application have not needed permission from Internet service providers in order to innovate and have been able to realize their ideas at low cost. This is a well-oiled free market at work.

But entrepreneurs and investors have experienced a very different world in mobile, and they don’t want to live in that kind of world again.

They remember with horror what the mobile Internet in the U.S. was like before the advent of the app stores—back when only a select few were able to get the carriers’ blessing that allowed them to realize their idea for an application. And they got a taste of things to come in December 2011 when AT&T Wireless, Verizon Wireless, and T-Mobile all prevented Google Wallet—a mobile payment application that was first to market in what was predicted to be a $56.7 billion market by 2015—from getting to its subscribers.

Those carriers’ actions not only deprived 75 percent of mobile users in the U.S. of the ability to use an innovative new payment technology; they also prevented Google from realizing its first-mover advantage. While the carriers were mostly silent about their motivations, analysts were quick to point out that AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile had partnered to develop a competing mobile payment service called ISIS, which was not ready to launch. For many, this was a wake-up call. Innovators and investors were already concerned about the lack of strong network neutrality rules for the mobile Internet in the United States. If even Google, one of the nation’s largest corporations, could be blocked by wireless carriers, every mobile innovator and investor in the country was at the mercy of the carriers.

Entrepreneurs and startups know that the threat of blocking and discrimination undermines their ability to get funding. As legendary venture capitalist Fred Wilson—whose firm Union Square Ventures was an early investor in Twitter, Foursquare, Zynga, and other Web 2.0 household names—pointed out:

“Many VCs such as our firm would not invest in the mobile Internet when it was controlled by carriers who set the rules, picked winners, and used predatory tactics to control their networks. Once Apple opened up competition with the iPhone and the app store, many firms changed their approach, including our firm.”

In 2007, while the FCC was investigating Comcast’s blocking of peer-to-peer file-sharing applications like BitTorrent, many entrepreneurs told me that they couldn’t get funding because investors were concerned their application would be singled out for discriminatory bandwidth management. And when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 struck down the FCC’s Order that had required Comcast to stop interfering with BitTorrent and adopt application-agnostic methods for managing congestion, entrepreneurs heard the same investor concerns again. The bottom line: uncertainty about how new applications and services will be treated on the network does not create a climate conducive to investment.

Some policy makers, including FCC Chairman Wheeler, seem to be attracted to the idea that allowing ISPs to charge services fees for access to users (“access fees”) may allow carriers to develop new and innovative business models. But entrepreneurs and investors say that allowing these fees will irrevocably harm the environment for application innovation on the Internet.

On the Internet as we know it, the costs of developing an application have been incredibly low—so low that a student can start a social network in his dorm room for the $50 monthly fee of running a server and become the CEO of the dominant global social network. In turn, the Internet has become a gigantic petri dish for hundreds of thousands of innovators in the United States.

Allowing access fees would change all that.

If large, established companies can pay ISPs so that their application loads faster or doesn’t count against users’ monthly bandwidth caps, entrepreneurs and start-ups that can’t pay will be unable to compete. This increases the level of investment needed to start a new application, killing the Internet version of the American dream. It also breaks our petri dish model: without the many low-cost innovators, our Internet innovation ecosystem will be significantly less vibrant and will produce fewer, less diverse, and lower-quality applications.

Allowing access fees will also make it more difficult for entrepreneurs to get outside funding. The current investment model for Internet applications is simple: Because the costs of innovation are so low, entrepreneurs don’t need outside funding before they can make their apps available to users. Only after an application has proven that it can attract users will venture capitalists invest the millions of dollars needed to turn the product into a viable business. This approach significantly reduces the likelihood that an investment will fail.

In a world with access fees, this investment model breaks down. Suddenly, start-ups with new apps need significant up-front capital just to be able to compete with established companies that can pay to play. We’ve seen how badly this dynamic plays out for start-ups in the music space, where new companies must pay huge up-front licensing fees to rights holders before they can get their service in front of users. As a result, investors can’t rely on the market to identify those startups that are likely to succeed before they invest larger sums. The result is clear: there are relatively few innovative start-ups providing music services.

 

[Care4all]

each local government granted a monopoly to an ISP. But you wanted to blame private enterprise rather than the true culprit, government.

Bullshit!

Bullshit nothing. Where I live we have Comcast. That's all you can get here because other companies are not allowed to provide service. When I lived in St Petersburg they had competing cable companies, and you could get your service hooked up in a day. It was also quite cheap. However, most cities have granted monopolies to one ISP or another.

Again, that's bullshit. the companies are free to compete, they CHOOSE not to. Where I live, in the same town on one side of the street you have Comcast and on the other you have Optimum. The cable monopolies have divided up their territory. In the testimony on the merger between Comcast and TWC, the CEO of Comcast said there will be no reduction in competition because the two companies to not compete in the same territory.

They choose not to, AND IN SOME cases they have gotten the State governments to PROTECT them from any competition, but with this ruling, the States will no longer be able to protect the big ass ISP's monopoly.

Also at the Thursday meeting, the F.C.C. approved an order to pre-empt state laws that limit the build-out of municipal broadband Internet services. The order focuses on laws in two states, North Carolina and Tennessee, but it would create a policy framework for other states. About 20 states, by the F.C.C.’s count, have laws that restrict the activities of community broadband services.

The state laws unfairly restrict municipal competition with cable and telecommunications broadband providers, the F.C.C. said. This order, too, will surely be challenged in court. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html

 

[JFK_USA]

Obama the Usurper has obliterated the First and Second Amendments in a single day. He must be impeached. He is an Oathbreaker and a dangerous threat to the Republic and the Constitution thereto.

How did Obama violate the 2nd amendment by passing Net Neutrality? You're a special kind of stupid.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Obama the Usurper has obliterated the First and Second Amendments in a single day. He must be impeached. He is an Oathbreaker and a dangerous threat to the Republic and the Constitution thereto.

How did Obama violate the 2nd amendment by passing Net Neutrality? You're a special kind of stupid.

The AR-15's most common type of ammo has been banned. For someone who frequents USMB and doesn't know this, you're a special kind of stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

each local government granted a monopoly to an ISP. But you wanted to blame private enterprise rather than the true culprit, government.

Bullshit!

Bullshit nothing. Where I live we have Comcast. That's all you can get here because other companies are not allowed to provide service. When I lived in St Petersburg they had competing cable companies, and you could get your service hooked up in a day. It was also quite cheap. However, most cities have granted monopolies to one ISP or another.

Again, that's bullshit. the companies are free to compete, they CHOOSE not to. Where I live, in the same town on one side of the street you have Comcast and on the other you have Optimum. The cable monopolies have divided up their territory. In the testimony on the merger between Comcast and TWC, the CEO of Comcast said there will be no reduction in competition because the two companies to not compete in the same territory.

Bullshit. There are a few cities where the local government hasn't granted one provider a monopoly, but most cities have. That's why cable service is such a rip-off. there's a reason they call it "CommunistCast."

 

[bripat9643]

Here is just a part of what was broken and why net neutrality is good for all of us and good for entrepreneurs and innovators.....



Go to the article and read the whole thing, to understand more about this.... it's important, and we all should support it, every darn one of us...truly, we ALL should.

The Case for Rebooting the Network-Neutrality Debate - The Atlantic

here's just a tidbit

The FCC’s commitment to and enforcement of this basic principle—that ISPs don’t get to pick winners and losers on the Internet—means Internet users in the U.S. haven’t had to worry about whether ISPs might block or discriminate against certain kinds of content or applications. Innovators who have an idea for a new application have not needed permission from Internet service providers in order to innovate and have been able to realize their ideas at low cost. This is a well-oiled free market at work.

But entrepreneurs and investors have experienced a very different world in mobile, and they don’t want to live in that kind of world again.

They remember with horror what the mobile Internet in the U.S. was like before the advent of the app stores—back when only a select few were able to get the carriers’ blessing that allowed them to realize their idea for an application. And they got a taste of things to come in December 2011 when AT&T Wireless, Verizon Wireless, and T-Mobile all prevented Google Wallet—a mobile payment application that was first to market in what was predicted to be a $56.7 billion market by 2015—from getting to its subscribers.

Those carriers’ actions not only deprived 75 percent of mobile users in the U.S. of the ability to use an innovative new payment technology; they also prevented Google from realizing its first-mover advantage. While the carriers were mostly silent about their motivations, analysts were quick to point out that AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile had partnered to develop a competing mobile payment service called ISIS, which was not ready to launch. For many, this was a wake-up call. Innovators and investors were already concerned about the lack of strong network neutrality rules for the mobile Internet in the United States. If even Google, one of the nation’s largest corporations, could be blocked by wireless carriers, every mobile innovator and investor in the country was at the mercy of the carriers.

Entrepreneurs and startups know that the threat of blocking and discrimination undermines their ability to get funding. As legendary venture capitalist Fred Wilson—whose firm Union Square Ventures was an early investor in Twitter, Foursquare, Zynga, and other Web 2.0 household names—pointed out:

“Many VCs such as our firm would not invest in the mobile Internet when it was controlled by carriers who set the rules, picked winners, and used predatory tactics to control their networks. Once Apple opened up competition with the iPhone and the app store, many firms changed their approach, including our firm.”

In 2007, while the FCC was investigating Comcast’s blocking of peer-to-peer file-sharing applications like BitTorrent, many entrepreneurs told me that they couldn’t get funding because investors were concerned their application would be singled out for discriminatory bandwidth management. And when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 struck down the FCC’s Order that had required Comcast to stop interfering with BitTorrent and adopt application-agnostic methods for managing congestion, entrepreneurs heard the same investor concerns again. The bottom line: uncertainty about how new applications and services will be treated on the network does not create a climate conducive to investment.

Some policy makers, including FCC Chairman Wheeler, seem to be attracted to the idea that allowing ISPs to charge services fees for access to users (“access fees”) may allow carriers to develop new and innovative business models. But entrepreneurs and investors say that allowing these fees will irrevocably harm the environment for application innovation on the Internet.

On the Internet as we know it, the costs of developing an application have been incredibly low—so low that a student can start a social network in his dorm room for the $50 monthly fee of running a server and become the CEO of the dominant global social network. In turn, the Internet has become a gigantic petri dish for hundreds of thousands of innovators in the United States.

Allowing access fees would change all that.

If large, established companies can pay ISPs so that their application loads faster or doesn’t count against users’ monthly bandwidth caps, entrepreneurs and start-ups that can’t pay will be unable to compete. This increases the level of investment needed to start a new application, killing the Internet version of the American dream. It also breaks our petri dish model: without the many low-cost innovators, our Internet innovation ecosystem will be significantly less vibrant and will produce fewer, less diverse, and lower-quality applications.

Allowing access fees will also make it more difficult for entrepreneurs to get outside funding. The current investment model for Internet applications is simple: Because the costs of innovation are so low, entrepreneurs don’t need outside funding before they can make their apps available to users. Only after an application has proven that it can attract users will venture capitalists invest the millions of dollars needed to turn the product into a viable business. This approach significantly reduces the likelihood that an investment will fail.

In a world with access fees, this investment model breaks down. Suddenly, start-ups with new apps need significant up-front capital just to be able to compete with established companies that can pay to play. We’ve seen how badly this dynamic plays out for start-ups in the music space, where new companies must pay huge up-front licensing fees to rights holders before they can get their service in front of users. As a result, investors can’t rely on the market to identify those startups that are likely to succeed before they invest larger sums. The result is clear: there are relatively few innovative start-ups providing music services.

Nothing there about repealing local cable monopolies.

 

[Care4all]

Here is just a part of what was broken and why net neutrality is good for all of us and good for entrepreneurs and innovators.....



Go to the article and read the whole thing, to understand more about this.... it's important, and we all should support it, every darn one of us...truly, we ALL should.

The Case for Rebooting the Network-Neutrality Debate - The Atlantic

here's just a tidbit

The FCC’s commitment to and enforcement of this basic principle—that ISPs don’t get to pick winners and losers on the Internet—means Internet users in the U.S. haven’t had to worry about whether ISPs might block or discriminate against certain kinds of content or applications. Innovators who have an idea for a new application have not needed permission from Internet service providers in order to innovate and have been able to realize their ideas at low cost. This is a well-oiled free market at work.

But entrepreneurs and investors have experienced a very different world in mobile, and they don’t want to live in that kind of world again.

They remember with horror what the mobile Internet in the U.S. was like before the advent of the app stores—back when only a select few were able to get the carriers’ blessing that allowed them to realize their idea for an application. And they got a taste of things to come in December 2011 when AT&T Wireless, Verizon Wireless, and T-Mobile all prevented Google Wallet—a mobile payment application that was first to market in what was predicted to be a $56.7 billion market by 2015—from getting to its subscribers.

Those carriers’ actions not only deprived 75 percent of mobile users in the U.S. of the ability to use an innovative new payment technology; they also prevented Google from realizing its first-mover advantage. While the carriers were mostly silent about their motivations, analysts were quick to point out that AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile had partnered to develop a competing mobile payment service called ISIS, which was not ready to launch. For many, this was a wake-up call. Innovators and investors were already concerned about the lack of strong network neutrality rules for the mobile Internet in the United States. If even Google, one of the nation’s largest corporations, could be blocked by wireless carriers, every mobile innovator and investor in the country was at the mercy of the carriers.

Entrepreneurs and startups know that the threat of blocking and discrimination undermines their ability to get funding. As legendary venture capitalist Fred Wilson—whose firm Union Square Ventures was an early investor in Twitter, Foursquare, Zynga, and other Web 2.0 household names—pointed out:

“Many VCs such as our firm would not invest in the mobile Internet when it was controlled by carriers who set the rules, picked winners, and used predatory tactics to control their networks. Once Apple opened up competition with the iPhone and the app store, many firms changed their approach, including our firm.”

In 2007, while the FCC was investigating Comcast’s blocking of peer-to-peer file-sharing applications like BitTorrent, many entrepreneurs told me that they couldn’t get funding because investors were concerned their application would be singled out for discriminatory bandwidth management. And when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 struck down the FCC’s Order that had required Comcast to stop interfering with BitTorrent and adopt application-agnostic methods for managing congestion, entrepreneurs heard the same investor concerns again. The bottom line: uncertainty about how new applications and services will be treated on the network does not create a climate conducive to investment.

Some policy makers, including FCC Chairman Wheeler, seem to be attracted to the idea that allowing ISPs to charge services fees for access to users (“access fees”) may allow carriers to develop new and innovative business models. But entrepreneurs and investors say that allowing these fees will irrevocably harm the environment for application innovation on the Internet.

On the Internet as we know it, the costs of developing an application have been incredibly low—so low that a student can start a social network in his dorm room for the $50 monthly fee of running a server and become the CEO of the dominant global social network. In turn, the Internet has become a gigantic petri dish for hundreds of thousands of innovators in the United States.

Allowing access fees would change all that.

If large, established companies can pay ISPs so that their application loads faster or doesn’t count against users’ monthly bandwidth caps, entrepreneurs and start-ups that can’t pay will be unable to compete. This increases the level of investment needed to start a new application, killing the Internet version of the American dream. It also breaks our petri dish model: without the many low-cost innovators, our Internet innovation ecosystem will be significantly less vibrant and will produce fewer, less diverse, and lower-quality applications.

Allowing access fees will also make it more difficult for entrepreneurs to get outside funding. The current investment model for Internet applications is simple: Because the costs of innovation are so low, entrepreneurs don’t need outside funding before they can make their apps available to users. Only after an application has proven that it can attract users will venture capitalists invest the millions of dollars needed to turn the product into a viable business. This approach significantly reduces the likelihood that an investment will fail.

In a world with access fees, this investment model breaks down. Suddenly, start-ups with new apps need significant up-front capital just to be able to compete with established companies that can pay to play. We’ve seen how badly this dynamic plays out for start-ups in the music space, where new companies must pay huge up-front licensing fees to rights holders before they can get their service in front of users. As a result, investors can’t rely on the market to identify those startups that are likely to succeed before they invest larger sums. The result is clear: there are relatively few innovative start-ups providing music services.

Nothing there about repealing local cable monopolies.

there is here Bripat....this NYTimes article has a little bit on it:

Also at the Thursday meeting, the F.C.C. approved an order to pre-empt state laws that limit the build-out of municipal broadband Internet services. The order focuses on laws in two states, North Carolina and Tennessee, but it would create a policy framework for other states. About 20 states, by the F.C.C.’s count, have laws that restrict the activities of community broadband services.

The state laws unfairly restrict municipal competition with cable and telecommunications broadband providers, the F.C.C. said. This order, too, will surely be challenged in court. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html

 

[Siete]

why hasn't this thread been moved to current events ?

since the mods are so intent on doing their jobs and moving threads to proper forums ..

 

[Jroc]

each local government granted a monopoly to an ISP. But you wanted to blame private enterprise rather than the true culprit, government.

Bullshit!

Bullshit nothing. Where I live we have Comcast. That's all you can get here because other companies are not allowed to provide service. When I lived in St Petersburg they had competing cable companies, and you could get your service hooked up in a day. It was also quite cheap. However, most cities have granted monopolies to one ISP or another.

Again, that's bullshit. the companies are free to compete, they CHOOSE not to. Where I live, in the same town on one side of the street you have Comcast and on the other you have Optimum. The cable monopolies have divided up their territory. In the testimony on the merger between Comcast and TWC, the CEO of Comcast said there will be no reduction in competition because the two companies to not compete in the same territory.

They choose not to, AND IN SOME cases they have gotten the State governments to PROTECT them from any competition, but with this ruling, the States will no longer be able to protect the big ass ISP's monopoly.

Also at the Thursday meeting, the F.C.C. approved an order to pre-empt state laws that limit the build-out of municipal broadband Internet services. The order focuses on laws in two states, North Carolina and Tennessee, but it would create a policy framework for other states. About 20 states, by the F.C.C.’s count, have laws that restrict the activities of community broadband services.

The state laws unfairly restrict municipal competition with cable and telecommunications broadband providers, the F.C.C. said. This order, too, will surely be challenged in court. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html

You're so full of shit. What's it like in your world? What did you ever do before the savor Obama came along? You should dedicate your life to his service for what he's done for you

 

[bripat9643]

each local government granted a monopoly to an ISP. But you wanted to blame private enterprise rather than the true culprit, government.

Bullshit!

Bullshit nothing. Where I live we have Comcast. That's all you can get here because other companies are not allowed to provide service. When I lived in St Petersburg they had competing cable companies, and you could get your service hooked up in a day. It was also quite cheap. However, most cities have granted monopolies to one ISP or another.

Again, that's bullshit. the companies are free to compete, they CHOOSE not to. Where I live, in the same town on one side of the street you have Comcast and on the other you have Optimum. The cable monopolies have divided up their territory. In the testimony on the merger between Comcast and TWC, the CEO of Comcast said there will be no reduction in competition because the two companies to not compete in the same territory.

They choose not to, AND IN SOME cases they have gotten the State governments to PROTECT them from any competition, but with this ruling, the States will no longer be able to protect the big ass ISP's monopoly.

Also at the Thursday meeting, the F.C.C. approved an order to pre-empt state laws that limit the build-out of municipal broadband Internet services. The order focuses on laws in two states, North Carolina and Tennessee, but it would create a policy framework for other states. About 20 states, by the F.C.C.’s count, have laws that restrict the activities of community broadband services.

The state laws unfairly restrict municipal competition with cable and telecommunications broadband providers, the F.C.C. said. This order, too, will surely be challenged in court. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html

In other words, it would abolish laws that prevent local government from competing with private companies. However, you still haven't posted anything that would abolish laws granting local monopolies to cable companies.

 

[Contumacious]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Seriously, why is there even a giant FCC ruling and political debate going on about the "freedom of the internet." There is nothing wrong with the ******* internet in the United States. Why on earth do we suddenly need a major government intervention where there is no problem?

The Internet in the US is bullshit. Overpriced, corporate, slow, and often unavailable at any decent speed or at all. Time to grow up, as usual, America.

I am certain that freedom lovers will create either a parallel internet or some mechanism for by-passing the federal government controlled internet.


.


.