FCC votes down net neutrality 3-2

[KCfromNC]

Which ones of them are going to choose to keep operating as if NN were still in effect? That's the choice I'd like to take - which company should I sign up with?



I'd choose to take the provider which gives unthrottled service with no data cap. Which one should I choose?

Still wondering about these. Can't wait for the golden age of competition now that NN is dead.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

Recently, the speed was running about 30 Mbps until I replaced the modem again, then it shot up to about 70 Mbps.

You probably got a modem with a higher rate than the old one, that's why they had to replace mine so I could go from 60 up to 100Mbps...

 

[szechuan]

Still wondering about these. Can't wait for the golden age of competition now that NN is dead.

that's why you shouldn't vote in Manchilds everybody.

 

[camille70]

Internal FCC Report Shows Republican Net Neutrality Narrative Is False

 

[Maren]

Another argument I hear a lot is "Net Neutrality is only about 3 years old now. Why are you so concerned? Were things so bad before 2015?"

That argument doesn't resonate with me for a few reasons.

Primarily - the market landscape has changed pretty significantly over the past few years. Just a few years ago - I would argue that most ISPs (cable companies) viewed data as a nice little side business...but their primary business was cable TV packages. They'd charge you $80+ per month for varying types of TV packages - pay per view - etc. That was their primary business. Internet service was a nice little side business for them. They benefited from providing the best kind of broadband circumstantially - because they had a nice big coax pipe going into your house. But the $40-$50 per month they charged you was a nice little addon to the tidy profits they were making from their PRIMARY business - TV.

But that's really started to change over the past few years. More and more people are becoming cable cutters...and as luck would have it for the ISPs...they're now getting their TV through what the cable companies used to view as the side business. They're not getting the $80+ per month for TV. The customer is getting their TV through Hulu/NetFlix/YouTube live/DirectTV's streaming service, etc...all for $25-$40ish per month which the cable company gets NONE of.

...and the cable company is providing the pipe to do it. I think it galls them. After all - they no longer get the cable tv subscription fee, they don't get the rental fee for the TV box, etc. The customer still gets TV and the cable company is still providing the pipe by which the TV is delivered.

That's what's changed - and I think that removing net neutrality is their attempt to "remedy" that situation.

The real issue with the "Net Neutrality is only about 3 years old now" argument is that it is false. Net Neutrality is 15 years old now. The issue is, the ISPs (in particularly Comcast and Verizon) kept challenging the Net Neutrality regulations in court and winning. So, in 2015, to keep Net Neutrality alive, they changed ISPs to Title 2, so they could keep Net Neutrality regulations in place.

The entire line of arguing "the Internet developed just fine without Net Neutrality" is false, the Internet developed to what it is today because of Net Neutrality regulations.