Net neutrality lawsuits from ISPs arrive earlier than expected

[cmbjive]

Let him be. He likes having all of his videos load for ages, game servers to always lag and to take 100 hours to upload something small.
You have 100Mbps? How many HD videos can open simultaneously? Can you do it and also play something that is latency dependent? If you can then you are one of the few lucky cases.

The entire world agrees that US internet is really bad. I really don't know why he thinks it's good.

He also has no idea what the FCC is trying to accomplish with the new laws. Not every regulation is bad, but he fails to understand this simple fact and only talks about conspiracy theories that cannot be proven or are already disproved by just reading the laws.

In the end it just boils down to this: "I don't trust the government so I am opposed any kind of regulation."

Here is what the US needs:
1. to break the monopolies that are created by the current laws
2. to remove the state laws that restrict the rights of cities and towns to build their own broadband networks
3. to start improving the nationwide latency and connection problems by creating new networks that aren't ISP limited and that have good interconnections between different ISPs
4. to stop the current bad ISP practices: throttling, data caps, false advertising, hidden fees, hidden restrictions, artificially restricting speeds/latency (or any other kind of "blackmail") to get better deals from other companies, etc

FCC report: "At speeds of 4 Mbps or less, 75 percent of consumers have a choice between two or more fixed providers, and 15 percent can select among three or more ISPs. However, in the market for Internet service that can deliver 25 Mbps downstream—the speed increasingly recognized as a baseline to get the full benefits of Internet access—three out of four Americans do not have a choice between providers."

Oh, more of your silly passive aggressiveness. I guess you don't want to get dirty or something. Anyways:

As I have mentioned on several occasions (including in this own post if you bothered to stop your foolish passive aggressiveness), I only can get 12 Mbps in my area. I only stream as I do not have cable or satellite and where I live broadcast signals are too weak for my antenna. At any one time in my home I am streaming shows from all four of my tvs, or I am gaming and three other tvs are watching television. My streaming is hardly interrupted by any latency issues: If there are latency issues, I simply get up off my butt and reset my modem. 99% of the time my issue is resolved. That 1% of the time my issue doesn't resolve my ISP Centurylink gets the issue resolved in less than a day. There was only one time I had outage for more than a few days and that was because there was an issue at the switch.

I have used broadband elsewhere, both on cable and DSL. In each instance the internet is just fine and operates fine. You guys have yet to provide any example of the internet in the United States NOT being fine other than your personal anecdotes of poor service from the ISP and not being able to do stuff that most normal broadband consumers can't do.

And it's funny that you accuse me of not knowing what the FCC is going to do and then don't state what you think the FCC is going to do. I never said I'm against regulation, but I am against regulation that addresses a problem where there is none. So you tell me: What exactly does the 400 page report do? Because the FCC has yet to define much of the stuff they put in the report, and communications lawyers who have thousands of years of experience don't know what it does, but the little they are able to glean what the report does they thought they needed to sue over it before it got published officially to the Federal Register.

Finally, each of your "solutions" are either unworkable or utopian:

1) This is ironic because the reason there are "monopolies" is because the original "monopoly" AT&T was trivested in the early 70s so that the Ma Bells came to be dominant in their respective regions. And the cable companies also operate by region. So what do you propose your law do? Say that cable companies and phone companies can operate wherever they want in the United States? What if the telcos say no? Then what? You're going to force them to compete against their will?

2) It's funny that you say this because one such company - Cedar Falls Utilities - does exactly this. Guess what? They're against the FCC's definition of "net neutrality". And simply getting rid of laws won't do much. What if the city you live in has already contracted with a provider to provide service in your city for the next five decades? Or how about the apartment complex that signs a contract with the cable provider to provide long term cable and internet service? How is a law going to prevent this?

And then there's this issue called Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution. What power does the federal government have to prevent states for passing laws for their states as they see fit?

3) This is all fine and dandy, but there are currently twenty well known ISPs. How many more do you think we need? And the internet is operating fine as is (I don't give a damn about your guys' personal problems with your internet. For the majority of Americans it's working just fine). Why do you think we need more ISPs to make interconnectivity and latency issues more smooth? What if having more ISPs is precisely the problem?

4) This right here requires you to READ YOUR CONTRACT and READ YOUR BILL. The FCC is not going to stop any of this from occurring.

And your last paragraph is utter foolishness. Not because you posted it, but because the FCC recently declared that broadband is anything with a download speed of 25Mbps or higher. According to their newfound logic, I don't have broadband because I have only 12Mbps. Also, many people live in areas where they can't even get that high a speed due to physical limitations of infrastructure and where it can be placed. It's absolutely pointless to even mention that fact, but since the FCC said it must be sacrosanct!

I wish you guys did leave me be. I liked my internet the way it is without FCC or governmental interference. Now, the internet has just become another thing that is part of the growing political divide in this country. Thanks for having my interests at heart. /sarc

 

[Guest]

Oh, more of your silly passive aggressiveness. I guess you don't want to get dirty or something. Anyways:

As I have mentioned on several occasions (including in this own post if you bothered to stop your foolish passive aggressiveness), I only can get 12 Mbps in my area. I only stream as I do not have cable or satellite and where I live broadcast signals are too weak for my antenna. At any one time in my home I am streaming shows from all four of my tvs, or I am gaming and three other tvs are watching television. My streaming is hardly interrupted by any latency issues: If there are latency issues, I simply get up off my butt and reset my modem. 99% of the time my issue is resolved. That 1% of the time my issue doesn't resolve my ISP Centurylink gets the issue resolved in less than a day. There was only one time I had outage for more than a few days and that was because there was an issue at the switch.

I have used broadband elsewhere, both on cable and DSL. In each instance the internet is just fine and operates fine. You guys have yet to provide any example of the internet in the United States NOT being fine other than your personal anecdotes of poor service from the ISP and not being able to do stuff that most normal broadband consumers can't do.

And it's funny that you accuse me of not knowing what the FCC is going to do and then don't state what you think the FCC is going to do. I never said I'm against regulation, but I am against regulation that addresses a problem where there is none. So you tell me: What exactly does the 400 page report do? Because the FCC has yet to define much of the stuff they put in the report, and communications lawyers who have thousands of years of experience don't know what it does, but the little they are able to glean what the report does they thought they needed to sue over it before it got published officially to the Federal Register.

Finally, each of your "solutions" are either unworkable or utopian:

1) This is ironic because the reason there are "monopolies" is because the original "monopoly" AT&T was trivested in the early 70s so that the Ma Bells came to be dominant in their respective regions. And the cable companies also operate by region. So what do you propose your law do? Say that cable companies and phone companies can operate wherever they want in the United States? What if the telcos say no? Then what? You're going to force them to compete against their will?

2) It's funny that you say this because one such company - Cedar Falls Utilities - does exactly this. Guess what? They're against the FCC's definition of "net neutrality". And simply getting rid of laws won't do much. What if the city you live in has already contracted with a provider to provide service in your city for the next five decades? Or how about the apartment complex that signs a contract with the cable provider to provide long term cable and internet service? How is a law going to prevent this?

And then there's this issue called Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution. What power does the federal government have to prevent states for passing laws for their states as they see fit?

3) This is all fine and dandy, but there are currently twenty well known ISPs. How many more do you think we need? And the internet is operating fine as is (I don't give a damn about your guys' personal problems with your internet. For the majority of Americans it's working just fine). Why do you think we need more ISPs to make interconnectivity and latency issues more smooth? What if having more ISPs is precisely the problem?

4) This right here requires you to READ YOUR CONTRACT and READ YOUR BILL. The FCC is not going to stop any of this from occurring.

And your last paragraph is utter foolishness. Not because you posted it, but because the FCC recently declared that broadband is anything with a download speed of 25Mbps or higher. According to their newfound logic, I don't have broadband because I have only 12Mbps. Also, many people live in areas where they can't even get that high a speed due to physical limitations of infrastructure and where it can be placed. It's absolutely pointless to even mention that fact, but since the FCC said it must be sacrosanct!

I wish you guys did leave me be. I liked my internet the way it is without FCC or governmental interference. Now, the internet has just become another thing that is part of the growing political divide in this country. Thanks for having my interests at heart. /sarc

You are totally selfish. There are so many small towns where people have no choice but to pay exhorbitant prices to have very slow download speeds. but we need to leave you be? Well, who should care about you with your, "I'm so happy with the status quo" attitude. Why should we leave you be? Everyone in the US has the right to have decent internet not just selfish You!