Tech giants including Intel, IBM and Qualcomm come out strongly against Title II net neutrality

  1. A month after US President Barack Obama publicly came out in support of net neutrality, asking the FCC to reclassify broadband as a public utility, several of the country's biggest names in technology have come out against the proposal, saying...

    Read more
  2. stewi0001

    stewi0001 TS Evangelist Posts: 1,136   +480

    Anyone else can't wait for Obama to get out of office?
    rpjkw11 likes this.
  3. NOT a ''political party" issue IMHO,,, they ALL or almost all want to figure out how to get their money from the control of the internet play, so we the people support their worthlessnesses even more than now
    rpjkw11 likes this.
  4. yRaz

    yRaz TS Evangelist Posts: 1,823   +873

    I'm calling bullshit on what the tech giants are saying. We are far behind in broadband infrastructure compared to other countries. The end of net neutrality means the start of tiered access plans to the internet. Small start ups can't pay fees to ISP's to have their sites hosted evenly with the giants. It's all data and it really shouldn't matter what that data is. I can understand data caps, but as long as I'm paying for 500GB of data a month it doesn't matter what that data is, I should have equal access to all of it. This is anti competitive behavior and those already established in the tech industry are the only ones who have anything to gain by this. The consumer loses and the small business loses. I like how the only people in politics against this are the ones receiving millions in campaign contributions by the companies who benefit from this. It seems like the US is built to bleed money from it's citizens
  5. insect

    insect TS Evangelist Posts: 315   +114

    As soon as they start saying dooms-day things like this, I know net neutrality is the right thing.

    Like yRaz said, we are already behind. Other countries still have net neutrality and are on better networks, granted their investment is less (smaller countries), but America has a larger customer base.

    The anti-competitive "regional" ISP thing is bullshit and the only way to break that is open the lines to every. Sorry Comcast/Verizon for being early to the game and making BILLIONS, but time to start providing reasonable cost internet to everyone at equal rates.

    As far as the argument for predictable service for research, medical facilities, etc. from the other side - build your own network that is not for public websites/use. Then ISPs can charge those facilities for this "predictable service" (as if the internet isn't already 99.99999% reliable and predictable), much like a fast lane on the interstates around here.
    UncleNine likes this.
  6. risc32

    risc32 TS Booster Posts: 186   +75

    The reason some can say that we, the U.S., are behind some other countries is because basically, these other countries are nuts. the are either heavily gov subsidizing(that is tax payers money) things like broadband or solar panels, or they are diluted into thinking that these things really are "investments". When socialists talk about "investments", hide your wallet. They don't mean what you think they mean. there is no "return".
  7. 1/4 (or more) of these companies monies come from the US Taxpayer
    through the various US Government Research projects,,,don't kid yourself...
    wiyosaya likes this.
  8. yRaz

    yRaz TS Evangelist Posts: 1,823   +873

    Those dumb socialists and their high quality of life, who the hell do they think they are. Who wants gbps internet for $20, I like paying comcast $80/m for the same 50mbps I've been getting since 2008. How dare we feel entitled to good service at a reasonable price.

    From a purely serious standpoint, the return comes from the fact that consumers have more disposable income to spend on other things. When the system isn't rigged to bleed you dry people tend to have money for things like a nicer car, a bigger house, a vacation or maybe you just feel like spending some extra cash on that special lady.

    As someone who owns a business that provides luxury services to the middle class, I and my employees would benefit greatly from a larger portion of the population having more disposable income and one way to do that is with government funded improvement of the infrastructure. Ask comcast when you'll get faster internet and they might tell you "your internet is fast enough" and then raise your bill. What the hell happened to the US being the country that the world looked at for inspiration? Now we're being passed up by countries we use to make fun of. I bet 90% of the people who throw the word socialism around don't even know what it means.
    insect and JakeT like this.
  9. Apparently Verizon's CFO never got the memo since he just said at the UBS 42nd Annual Global Media and Communications Conference Call that title ii classification would have no influence on how they invest in FiOS and wireless infrastructure. If you want a load of BS, then listen to the inflammatory lies these companies put out there to manipulate the public. If you want to find out what is really going on, then find out what they say at investor's meetings.
  10. AndyP

    AndyP TS Rookie

    So essentially you're saying they're ahead of us because of socialism, right? Well, Karl Marx himself couldn't make a better case.
  11. Sniped_Ash

    Sniped_Ash TS Maniac Posts: 247   +103

    Haha yeah, those socialists want to raid your wallet to make amazing broadband networks. What a bunch of crooks! *pays four times as much for worse broadband in glorious capitalist utopia*
  12. MilwaukeeMike

    MilwaukeeMike TS Evangelist Posts: 2,729   +1,093

    You do realize the US is literally 50 times bigger than those 'other countries' who have great broadband.
    You think it's anti-competitive, but it's exactly the opposite. What makes something competitive is the ability to make money in it. If you can't make money doing it, there won't be any competition.
    If companies don't handle broadband who will? The govt? As if the internet doesn't have enough privacy concerns. And with what money? We're already like 18 TRILLION in debt, and there's no way the govt would do a better job keeping up the internet than companies who are making money doing it.

    You're right about the US being built to bleed money from it's citizens, it's called taxes, and unless you want a whole lot more of it, you have to let people make money providing services for you.

    There actually are two socialist countries who are as large as the US and would have equal challenges in providing everyone broadband. They are China and Russia. Which one of those offers gpbs service for $20 to 98% of it's citizens. Wikipedia says 33% of Americans have a choice between THREE or more providers, while 67% are two or fewer. There's 2% with 0.
    Which large socialist country has coverage and choices like that?
  13. wiyosaya

    wiyosaya TS Maniac Posts: 932   +238

    Yes, and we in the US are fostering a culture of elitism where there is no income inequality just like Rick Perry says. God bless Rick Perry!
    And always have as the taxpayer supported US National Laboratories started the internet. Too bad those on one side of the issue subscribe to the myth that the internet was started by Al Gore.
    An honest CEO!! My God, what is the world coming to.
    I like it when people call it like it is.

    I am extremely surprised IBM is on this list...
  14. wiyosaya

    wiyosaya TS Maniac Posts: 932   +238

    It is a time-proven concept where pi$$ing on the little people is not expressly forbidden that those at the top will do everything possible to pi$$ on the little people. History repeats itself, but some require first-hand experience before realizing this. The "precious" ISPs are comfortably making money I am willing to bet.

    Yes, Wikipedia is a total fountainhead of completely factual knowledge even if it does not express the concept of viability. Wow! 33% such a whopping amount!!!! Lets see, that leaves only 67% where there is no choice? Spouting statistics looks like what the spout wants it to look like.

    Even so, I am willing to bet that for those 33%, there is only one (if even that) ISP that offers non-throttled unlimited data such that any subscriber would have little trouble streaming.
  15. Skidmarksdeluxe

    Skidmarksdeluxe TS Evangelist Posts: 6,335   +1,936

    We'll take him, you can have our president in return.
  16. stewi0001

    stewi0001 TS Evangelist Posts: 1,136   +480

    na, you can have both :p
    Skidmarksdeluxe likes this.
  17. davislane1

    davislane1 TS Evangelist Posts: 3,370   +2,161

    No, no. You can have him for free. Consider it punishment a gift. (y)
    stewi0001 and Skidmarksdeluxe like this.
  18. Cycloid Torus

    Cycloid Torus TS Evangelist Posts: 1,524   +288

    I can do without Title II as long as there is real competition. I have only one broadband (>10 mbps) ISP available. Service is good and I like how they operate. Price, which is bundled with stuff I do not want or use, is a bit high. I can live with it if I have to do so, but I would rather have some competition.

    It will take something like Title II to make this happen. The media services and bundled gobbledigook needs to be separated from the pure internet connection. We can then see a larger number competing services. The conduit has to be unbundled.
  19. SirGCal

    SirGCal TS Maniac Posts: 365   +136

    On that note I have to say BS... There might be other 'options' but they aren't even going to be in the same ballpark. I.E. I can have Verizon DSL (1M max in this area) or TWC (100M). That's not a competitive option. And in the last 5 large cities I've lived in, the most choices I've ever had is two. Companies can't come into the current town cause TWC holds the key and the non-competition act prevents other options from coming into this area.. So on that note, BS. Those need to be turned off and voided out years ago and are the biggest part of this whole problem. These companies are the richest in the world today and complaining they are broke when they can't even keep up with performance without milking someone else's wallet. They already get paid significantly more in the US then any other country including Japan, China, Etc.

    If I purchase X speed, I should have full access to X speed all the time without having to pay some other company's fast lane access (who do you think ends up paying that extra money, it's NOT coming out of Netflix's pocket... The customers will be the ones paying for it in the end!!! It will NOT come out of their bottom line, guarantee that!)
  20. SirGCal

    SirGCal TS Maniac Posts: 365   +136

    I can't stand the guy myself however he was all FOR net neutrality... The FCC is the ones folding to the corporate $$$...
    stewi0001 likes this.
  21. MilwaukeeMike

    MilwaukeeMike TS Evangelist Posts: 2,729   +1,093

    You're right... in my city, I have two options, but ATT Uverse it too slow to be legit, even if it is cheaper. The point I should have made clearer is that the US is a huge country and we're entirely covered in broadband. It's pretty impressive, not perfect, but pretty darn good.
    Anyone who thinks we'd be better off with the govt providing us with internet hasn't been reading about how well they've been doing handling healthcare for our vets.
  22. Evernessince

    Evernessince TS Evangelist Posts: 1,099   +523

    Good job skewing the numbers. That's great that most americans have 2 different providers, so long as you don't consider the fact that one is 102 kb DSL and the other is 2 Mb cable. I'm sure it's fun for those people, knowing their webpages will load once they are done eating dinner.

    The comment on the US size is funny too. Not only does the american taxpayer already pay these companies to expand their networks but a good chuck of the infrastructure is already there. The only high cost is the initial build-out.
    UncleNine likes this.
  23. yRaz

    yRaz TS Evangelist Posts: 1,823   +873

    I believe you are confusing the world "socialist" with "communist". And if you knew anything about either of those then you would know China and Russia are not true communist nations. They are corporatist nations and the US is headed in the same direction.

    But you forget something, the GDP of the US is greater than that of most continents. The problem with that is all the people with the money, IE these billion dollar corporations, want to keep the money all to themselves. We gave them tax incentives to improve nation wide broadband, they didn't. Now they want to pass a bill allowing them to charge more so they can "upgrade our infrastructure". If they didn't do with the first few billion we gave them what makes you think they'll do it with a second round of billions of dollars?

    Hell, ending net neutrality will allow telecom companies to throttle things like streaming so we won't be able to watch things online unless we pay up. A free an open internet has been good for the economy and in a time when our economy is still recovering the last thing we need is something that takes money out of the consumers pockets and stagnates innovation by small business.
    UncleNine likes this.
  24. MilwaukeeMike

    MilwaukeeMike TS Evangelist Posts: 2,729   +1,093

    I'm confused, yRaz, you started this out by saying 'I'm calling BS on the tech giants" and now you state that the free and open internet has been good for the economy. This is exactly what Obama is trying to stop by regulating them as a utility. Read the argument from the tech companies again...

    I completely agree with you.
  25. Bobs Yer Uncle

    Bobs Yer Uncle TS Rookie

    Data caps are nothing more than an arbitrary constraint that ISPs use to "justify" what is simply another method of opportunistic price gouging. The critical variable at issue is network throughput.

    ISPs declare that "a few excessively heavy users (Data Hogs) swamp networks at peak usage hours" driving congestion, slowing throughout & degrading user experience for all consumers. They go on to (falsely) claim that data caps provide a necessary means of reigning in "data hogs" so that comprehensive user experience can remain high.

    However, any & every data capped user will be billed over-limit charges regardless of WHEN their allotment is used. If you are a user that sleeps days & consumes your data allotment between midnight & 10:00AM (for example), you are doing nothing to contribute to network congestion, as your total usage is off-peak. Yet you will surely be billed just as much for overages as a user consuming allotments during peak hours.

    In the verifiably rare instances of consumer driven network overload, the proper response for ISPs is to manage universal network throughput by traffic shaping. This proper approach to network management, however, doesn't provide the same opportunity for predatory pricing windfalls that manufactured scarcity does.

    Manufactured scarcity as expressed through arbitrarily set data caps is an artificial construct. IRL, individual user data caps (even in the aggregate) are statistically meaningless wrt most network congestion. All throughput constraints are due to ISP practices & can be resolved through proper network maintenance.

    Such ISP created "artificial scarcity" was proven through the "Netflix as hostage" scenarios that have played out over the past year. "Scarcity" was eliminated through interconnect upgrades (at extremely modest costs) & "Data Hogs" had nothing to do with it. Data caps are as artificial & opportunistic as the intentional network degradation imposed by Comcast

Similar Topics

Add New Comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...