Care about net neutrality?

[Sinus211]

I understood previously. I was just yanking your chains.

Why? Because it is fun watching people who get 100mb or greater downloads as cheap as 30 dollars a month, complaining that they might be slowed down to 50mb, or have to pay an extra ten bucks... while I am getting an average 3mb download, for 75 dollars a month.

When I have the same as you do, then, I will be as concerned about what you have, as you are. Until then, I'll poke fun.

This is not a socialist rant. We don't share the same highway.

The speed on my highway is not going to improve. (Internet highway, in case that has become a foggy point.) That has been made clear to us already. (But if it slows down any worse than it already has, TPTB will, and have already find/found that they may still have their bread, but it doesn't taste quite as good without our butter. They have figured out already just how little they can offer us, before they lose us completely. And that is what we are getting. People out here tend to 'get a life', when urban 'necessities' become scarce, or too expensive.)

And no one on any other highway cares about our highway.

You don't care about the traffic on my highway, don't expect me to care that the traffic on yours might slow down to some multiple of mine. While still costing some fraction of mine.

Freakin communist!

[Selador]

I understood previously. I was just yanking your chains.

Why? Because it is fun watching people who get 100mb or greater downloads as cheap as 30 dollars a month, complaining that they might be slowed down to 50mb, or have to pay an extra ten bucks... while I am getting an average 3mb download, for 75 dollars a month.

When I have the same as you do, then, I will be as concerned about what you have, as you are. Until then, I'll poke fun.

This is not a socialist rant. We don't share the same highway.

The speed on my highway is not going to improve. (Internet highway, in case that has become a foggy point.) That has been made clear to us already. (But if it slows down any worse than it already has, TPTB will, and have already find/found that they may still have their bread, but it doesn't taste quite as good without our butter. They have figured out already just how little they can offer us, before they lose us completely. And that is what we are getting. People out here tend to 'get a life', when urban 'necessities' become scarce, or too expensive.)

And no one on any other highway cares about our highway.

You don't care about the traffic on my highway, don't expect me to care that the traffic on yours might slow down to some multiple of mine. While still costing some fraction of mine.

Freakin communist!

[BadKarma]

Sorry, you don't get to drive a lambo just because someone else can afford that car. You pay for what you get. You should not be forcing ISPs to give away free infrastructure.

What are you talking about? Nobody is forcing anybody to give away anything for free.

Look at this from our admins perspective. They pay for web server, web hosting, bandwidth, both speed and total capacity. Without Net Neutrality, they will get throttled to the 10% speed lane. So then they can pay a 2nd time to get what they were paying for already. Only this time, they'll have to pay your ISP, and my ISP, and everybody else's ISP. Or maybe you and I will have to pay our ISP to get it to load the WaGuns website at 100% speed, instead of 10% speed. Maybe our ISP will charge both of us. So the admins pay their ISP, and our ISP, they pay twice, for the same data. Then you and I pay our own ISP twice, once for our internet, and a 2nd time to have it run at 100%.

From your car perspective, you do get what you pay for. You pay for your internet, you expect it to work. You don't buy a car, and then pay extra each month based upon where they set the governor.

Nope. It will drive competition. You have what you have now. If they decide to change it then change carriers. The market drives the rates. Just because you can afford a T-1 to your house doesn't mean I should pay less and get the same bandwidth/speed...

[delliottg]

Sorry, you don't get to drive a lambo just because someone else can afford that car. You pay for what you get. You should not be forcing ISPs to give away free infrastructure.

What are you talking about? Nobody is forcing anybody to give away anything for free.

Look at this from our admins perspective. They pay for web server, web hosting, bandwidth, both speed and total capacity. Without Net Neutrality, they will get throttled to the 10% speed lane. So then they can pay a 2nd time to get what they were paying for already. Only this time, they'll have to pay your ISP, and my ISP, and everybody else's ISP. Or maybe you and I will have to pay our ISP to get it to load the WaGuns website at 100% speed, instead of 10% speed. Maybe our ISP will charge both of us. So the admins pay their ISP, and our ISP, they pay twice, for the same data. Then you and I pay our own ISP twice, once for our internet, and a 2nd time to have it run at 100%.

From your car perspective, you do get what you pay for. You pay for your internet, you expect it to work. You don't buy a car, and then pay extra each month based upon where they set the governor.

Nope. It will drive competition. You have what you have now. If they decide to change it then change carriers. The market drives the rates. Just because you can afford a T-1 to your house doesn't mean I should pay less and get the same bandwidth/speed...

The problem with this is well highlighted in the Duvall area, there are really only about 3 choices for an ISP, Wave, where you can get very fast speeds up and down, Frontier, which is DSL and has nowhere near the speed of Wave, and Hughes which is even slower than Frontier (and probably more expensive, although I don't know).

If Wave decides to throttle/block/whatever, but you still want fast speeds and unrestricted access, there's nowhere else to go, you're basically locked into Wave because there's zero competition (in our area) and stuck paying the extra fees for what you want, and no options if they decide to block, say porn, or WaGuns because they don't agree with the content on those sites.

[snozzberries]

Sorry, you don't get to drive a lambo just because someone else can afford that car. You pay for what you get. You should not be forcing ISPs to give away free infrastructure.

What are you talking about? Nobody is forcing anybody to give away anything for free.

Look at this from our admins perspective. They pay for web server, web hosting, bandwidth, both speed and total capacity. Without Net Neutrality, they will get throttled to the 10% speed lane. So then they can pay a 2nd time to get what they were paying for already. Only this time, they'll have to pay your ISP, and my ISP, and everybody else's ISP. Or maybe you and I will have to pay our ISP to get it to load the WaGuns website at 100% speed, instead of 10% speed. Maybe our ISP will charge both of us. So the admins pay their ISP, and our ISP, they pay twice, for the same data. Then you and I pay our own ISP twice, once for our internet, and a 2nd time to have it run at 100%.

From your car perspective, you do get what you pay for. You pay for your internet, you expect it to work. You don't buy a car, and then pay extra each month based upon where they set the governor.

Nope. It will drive competition. You have what you have now. If they decide to change it then change carriers. The market drives the rates. Just because you can afford a T-1 to your house doesn't mean I should pay less and get the same bandwidth/speed...

Dude, you aren't making any sense. T-1? Pay less and get the same bandwidth?

What will drive competition? There is no competition in the Internet space. 48% of Americans only have 1 provider of 25mbps internet. 30% have 0 providers of 25mbps internet. That's 78%. Pretty much everybody. Only 22% of Americans have internet competition. https://arstechnica.com/information-tec ... er-speeds/

Selador get's 3mbps, and that's all!

I can't just "Change carriers" if my ISP decides to be a douchebag. Comcast is the only internet provider at my place. The alternatives are DSL, for 3mbps, which isn't viable. Or Satellite, which has a 3 second response time, which isn't viable. Or 4g Cell phone, with a 4gb cap, which isn't viable.

I WISH there was competition. I wish I could choose between Fiber, and Cable. I wish I could choose between Comcast, or Cox, or Time Warner, or Charter for cable internet. That would be AWESOME! But the fact is, there is only 1 provider of internet at my place, that's Comcast. I'm stuck with them. These internet providers are actually colluding with each other, to not spread into each others territory, because they LIKE Monopolies.

Right now I just tried to go to the CenturyLink website to check how fast of speeds they offer. All their mailings says 3mbps. But I can't get to their website. I'm not sure why, but without NetNeutrality, Comcast would be perfectly legal to block access to their website.

[BadKarma]

Sorry, you don't get to drive a lambo just because someone else can afford that car. You pay for what you get. You should not be forcing ISPs to give away free infrastructure.

What are you talking about? Nobody is forcing anybody to give away anything for free.

Look at this from our admins perspective. They pay for web server, web hosting, bandwidth, both speed and total capacity. Without Net Neutrality, they will get throttled to the 10% speed lane. So then they can pay a 2nd time to get what they were paying for already. Only this time, they'll have to pay your ISP, and my ISP, and everybody else's ISP. Or maybe you and I will have to pay our ISP to get it to load the WaGuns website at 100% speed, instead of 10% speed. Maybe our ISP will charge both of us. So the admins pay their ISP, and our ISP, they pay twice, for the same data. Then you and I pay our own ISP twice, once for our internet, and a 2nd time to have it run at 100%.

From your car perspective, you do get what you pay for. You pay for your internet, you expect it to work. You don't buy a car, and then pay extra each month based upon where they set the governor.

Nope. It will drive competition. You have what you have now. If they decide to change it then change carriers. The market drives the rates. Just because you can afford a T-1 to your house doesn't mean I should pay less and get the same bandwidth/speed...

The problem with this is well highlighted in the Duvall area, there are really only about 3 choices for an ISP, Wave, where you can get very fast speeds up and down, Frontier, which is DSL and has nowhere near the speed of Wave, and Hughes which is even slower than Frontier (and probably more expensive, although I don't know).

If Wave decides to throttle/block/whatever, but you still want fast speeds and unrestricted access, there's nowhere else to go, you're basically locked into Wave because there's zero competition (in our area) and stuck paying the extra fees for what you want, and no options if they decide to block, say porn, or WaGuns because they don't agree with the content on those sites.

We have more choices. ATT, Verizon and TMO are all carriers for cellular service which you can purchase PUCKs from. We happen to have a carrier(WAVE) that is decided by the city council. Same with areas in Tacoma, Seattle etc... So, you have carriers decided by the city. My point is we have choices and if one choice limits access to the point that it makes it financially not viable to purchase, then change carriers.

[RENCORP]

Yeah, that's the ticket - PUCK it up, buttercup.

[Selador]

We have more choices. ATT, Verizon and TMO are all carriers for cellular service which you can purchase PUCKs from. We happen to have a carrier(WAVE) that is decided by the city council. Same with areas in Tacoma, Seattle etc... So, you have carriers decided by the city. My point is we have choices and if one choice limits access to the point that it makes it financially not viable to purchase, then change carriers.

There is no choice where I live.

Unless you consider dialup, or expensive, throttled cell-based, a choice.

I don't consider dialup to be any kind of choice at all.

Nor do I consider a cell-based connection that costs as much as a car payment, but is throttled both in speed, and gigabytes per month, to be an option.

We take what they give us, and we pay what they demand, or we have nothing...

Point is, without net neutrality, eventually the rest of you will be in the same boat.

As I said in jest earlier, I don't really care. We have been tossed to the wayside, long ago, and no one ever cared to bring any sort of competition to OUR 'market'.

But in seriousness, you guys should care. You do not want to end up like us.

[BadKarma]

We have more choices. ATT, Verizon and TMO are all carriers for cellular service which you can purchase PUCKs from. We happen to have a carrier(WAVE) that is decided by the city council. Same with areas in Tacoma, Seattle etc... So, you have carriers decided by the city. My point is we have choices and if one choice limits access to the point that it makes it financially not viable to purchase, then change carriers.

There is no choice where I live.

Unless you consider dialup, or expensive, throttled cell-based, a choice.

I don't consider dialup to be any kind of choice at all.

Nor do I consider a cell-based connection that costs as much as a car payment, but is throttled both in speed, and gigabytes per month, to be an option.

We take what they give us, and we pay what they demand, or we have nothing...

Point is, without net neutrality, eventually the rest of you will be in the same boat.

As I said in jest earlier, I don't really care. We have been tossed to the wayside, long ago, and no one ever cared to bring any sort of competition to OUR 'market'.

But in seriousness, you guys should care. You do not want to end up like us.

A PUCK costs ~$60 a month and it is not throttled. It is cellular.

[snozzberries]

We have more choices. ATT, Verizon and TMO are all carriers for cellular service which you can purchase PUCKs from. We happen to have a carrier(WAVE) that is decided by the city council. Same with areas in Tacoma, Seattle etc... So, you have carriers decided by the city. My point is we have choices and if one choice limits access to the point that it makes it financially not viable to purchase, then change carriers.

There is no choice where I live.

Unless you consider dialup, or expensive, throttled cell-based, a choice.

I don't consider dialup to be any kind of choice at all.

Nor do I consider a cell-based connection that costs as much as a car payment, but is throttled both in speed, and gigabytes per month, to be an option.

We take what they give us, and we pay what they demand, or we have nothing...

Point is, without net neutrality, eventually the rest of you will be in the same boat.

As I said in jest earlier, I don't really care. We have been tossed to the wayside, long ago, and no one ever cared to bring any sort of competition to OUR 'market'.

But in seriousness, you guys should care. You do not want to end up like us.

A PUCK costs ~$60 a month and it is not throttled. It is cellular.

Please provide a link to this amazing service.
https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402900,00.asp

You can get 5GB per month for $50 or 10GB per month for $80, plus $10 per additional GB. This means you can't use the 4620L to replace your current home Internet connection, since you can easily watch 5GB worth of streaming video on Netflix in a single day.

Cellular based internet is NOT competition for Cable/DSL/Fiber. If you think it is, then go stream 1tb of Netflix over your cellular connection and tell me how much you like your $10,000 a month bill.

Last edited by snozzberries on Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Selador]

We have more choices. ATT, Verizon and TMO are all carriers for cellular service which you can purchase PUCKs from. We happen to have a carrier(WAVE) that is decided by the city council. Same with areas in Tacoma, Seattle etc... So, you have carriers decided by the city. My point is we have choices and if one choice limits access to the point that it makes it financially not viable to purchase, then change carriers.

There is no choice where I live.

Unless you consider dialup, or expensive, throttled cell-based, a choice.

I don't consider dialup to be any kind of choice at all.

Nor do I consider a cell-based connection that costs as much as a car payment, but is throttled both in speed, and gigabytes per month, to be an option.

We take what they give us, and we pay what they demand, or we have nothing...

Point is, without net neutrality, eventually the rest of you will be in the same boat.

As I said in jest earlier, I don't really care. We have been tossed to the wayside, long ago, and no one ever cared to bring any sort of competition to OUR 'market'.

But in seriousness, you guys should care. You do not want to end up like us.

A PUCK costs ~$60 a month and it is not throttled. It is cellular.

In the end, add the cost of keeping my landline, and my cost will remain about the same. Were I to get a better connection and up/download rates, that would be a pretty good deal!

That is assuming I can just plug it in and use it.

The other problem with anything cell based out here, is actually getting a signal, without spending many thousands of dollars for a tower to get the 'puck' to where it would catch a signal, then to boost that signal back down to the ground. Add the cost of maintenance of all that. Repairs because of our fall and spring storms... Yer getting close to car payment territory again.

For a signal, that, in spite of all the cost, and the supposed non-throttled signal, is still 'iffy', depending on the weather. (Not to mention all the times the signal is gone because the only cell tower close enough to me, to get a signal off of, is remote, and goes down often for lack of power.)

And last, there is so much demand on the tower, that even if the company doesn't throttle it, the end result is the same.

Not really that much of a 'choice' for anyone who does not live in an area with full, overlapping cell phone coverage.

[BadKarma]

We have more choices. ATT, Verizon and TMO are all carriers for cellular service which you can purchase PUCKs from. We happen to have a carrier(WAVE) that is decided by the city council. Same with areas in Tacoma, Seattle etc... So, you have carriers decided by the city. My point is we have choices and if one choice limits access to the point that it makes it financially not viable to purchase, then change carriers.

There is no choice where I live.

Unless you consider dialup, or expensive, throttled cell-based, a choice.

I don't consider dialup to be any kind of choice at all.

Nor do I consider a cell-based connection that costs as much as a car payment, but is throttled both in speed, and gigabytes per month, to be an option.

We take what they give us, and we pay what they demand, or we have nothing...

Point is, without net neutrality, eventually the rest of you will be in the same boat.

As I said in jest earlier, I don't really care. We have been tossed to the wayside, long ago, and no one ever cared to bring any sort of competition to OUR 'market'.

But in seriousness, you guys should care. You do not want to end up like us.

A PUCK costs ~$60 a month and it is not throttled. It is cellular.

Please provide a link to this amazing service.
https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402900,00.asp

You can get 5GB per month for $50 or 10GB per month for $80, plus $10 per additional GB. This means you can't use the 4620L to replace your current home Internet connection, since you can easily watch 5GB worth of streaming video on Netflix in a single day.

Cellular based internet is NOT competition for Cable/DSL/Fiber. If you think it is, then go stream 1tb of Netflix over your cellular connection and tell me how much you like your $10,000 a month bill.

You are completely wrong. Cellular is in direct competition for areas that do not have high speed broadband service. It is way faster than DSL and is a competing price structure from prepaid to a 2 year plan. It is not throttled and you can take it with you.

[snozzberries]

Cellular is in direct competition for areas that do not have high speed broadband service.

Thank you!

You are 100% right, there is lots of competition for low-speed internet. DSL, Dialup, Cellular, Satellite.
There is 0% competition for High-speed broadband.

As such, you can't just "switch providers" if you are unhappy with your High-speed broadband provider. Because there aren't any others. That means we can't depend on competition. This is a monopoly we are dealing with. Which is why it requires regulation to ensure they don't fuck us over.

Personally, I'd prefer competition. I'd love to see the cable companies required to allow other cable companies to use the coax. Get fiber to every house. That way I can drop Comcast and get fiber instead.

[BadKarma]

LTE beats DSL and 5G will be on par with broadband.

[snozzberries]

LTE beats DSL and 5G will be on par with broadband.

For instantaneous speed? Maybe. Broadband includes Google Fiber which is 1gbit/sec. Comcast has a 1TB bandwidth limit, I pay an extra $50 for unlimited data.

I want competition for 100mbit/s down, 5mbit/s up, Unlimited data, no throttlling/blocking, $110 a month.

EDIT: 5g is 100mbit/sec for metro areas, 1gbit/s if you are on the same floor as the radio. That means it's much slower for large areas, far away from the tower.
5g runs at 28ghz, 37ghz, 39ghz.
4g runs at 700mhz, 800mhz, 1.7-2.1ghz, 2.5-2.7ghz.

This means 5g won't go very far. It's meant for very close, in urban areas, dense, fast speeds. Not good for long-range. Not competition for home fast broadband.

The only thing that might work is what Microsoft is pushing, using the TV Whitespace: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... adband-gap

Even then, wired is always better than wireless. So I'm not sure if it can compete with fiber or coax.

The fact is, there is no competition in the home fast broadband market.