Probably but if you use Cloudflare you’d be pretty pissed if half the country can’t get to your website.
Sadly, I’m sure you are correct.
I’ll summarize it for everyone so that we don’t give it more views (I clicked before thinking, sorry.)
- Comcast is not currently shooting people in the streets, so laws to prevent them from doing so is government interference.
- leftist college professors everywhere
- Title II means treating the internet like telephones, when it’s clearly made of magic.
- Obamacare!
Narrator: They tried to engage him in good faith but the troll scurried back under his rock screeching ‘libtards!’
P.S. How’s that wall coming?
That is basically the best the anti-net-neutrality camp can come up with, without simply saying outright that they want to rake consumers over the coals. It’s pretty sad.
Aww the Trumpist piece of shit is attempting to communicate how sweet.
It’ll be funny when he has to pay an extra $20 a month to get access to his conspiracy theory websites.
Lol you all think QT3 will be in the upcoming “internet essentials” package which costs as much as your service now but only includes Facebook, Yahoo, and Fox News?
A bet a lot of the conspiracy people will fade back into obscurity, though, when 90% of the country is too broke-- er, cheap to upgrade their internet package to include the “World Wide Web”.
I, for one, welcome Klaatu participating in the forum again. I say that with no sarcasm at all.
But in respect to net neutrality, I have the following question.
Have you considered the impact of two things:
-
An ISP deciding that they don’t like some particular political view. For instance, if Time Warner were to decide that they wanted to block a site like, say, Redstate. Without Net Neutrality, they could absolutely do this. And depending on your market, you may have no other option for internet providers.
-
Even without such overt political censorship, what happens if ISP’s start offering a really cheap deal, like, “For only $10 a month, you can get Facebook… but only facebook.” Or some other restricted subset of the net. This is, in many ways, not nefarious at all. It’s just offering people what they want, right? But what would the impact on the internet be. How could the internet ever give rise to the NEXT facebook? Or Amazon? Or Netflix? If someone makes some brilliant new website, but no one can see it because most users only have access to a walled garden of internet content. Wouldn’t that harm the development of the industry?
The whole competition part of the argument for ending net neutrality is as bogus as nearly all arguments for competition are, because businesses generally don’t want real competition. They want to be seen wanting competition, but what they all really want is monopoly. It’s the nature of the beast.
You can’t have real competition in the ISP space because of the infrastructure costs, multiplied by the entrenched privilege of existing telecommunications empires. It’s physically, literally impossible with existing technology for any entity other than a nation state level economy to create a from-scratch competitor to an existing ISP with comparable speed and capacity and convenience. Ergo, ain’t gonna happen, and there will be no competition, period, except in those rare areas where people for whatever legacy reasons are actually offered actual competing infrastructures. Which for most Americans, is not the case by a mile.
Do most Americans really only have one choice? I thought in most urban areas there are two competing companies, a cable operator and another company offering internet over phone lines. Here in St. Louis, for example, we have Charter and AT&T. Charter offers 100 megabits and AT&T offers anything from 12 up to a full gig, depending on location.
Once you get outside of urban areas it does seem to get difficult. Maybe there’s one high-speed option and sometimes there’s nothing besides satellite, which is usually expensive and limiting.
We need a new way of delivering internet service. It would behoove some cities to explore the idea of city-wide fast wifi availability at a nominal cost. It would make it attractive to live there.
Municipal broadband is a thing , and it scares the ISPs so much they push legislation to ban it.
In places like Chattanooga and Salisbury NC it destroys the Charters and Comcasts of the world.
The FCC tried to overturn state bans on municipal broadband in 2016, but the Supreme Court said no.
I have one choice. The entire southern Oregon area has one cable provider, and the few local municipals were driven out by Charter years ago. Charter raised their prices in those cities around 75% as soon as they folded and kept it low to drive them out. It was ridiculous. We also have several areas here where you cannot get traditional cable… they won’t run the cable on the other side of the free way.
DSL here is barely a choice. It tops somewhere around 10-12/mps. Charter is 60 down and 4 or 5 up. They just keep raising their rates. We’re considered a metro area.
What do you pay for Charter internet? Just curious.
just went up to 64.99, internet only so that is the standard no promo price. It was 59.99 last year.
That’s not too far out of line to what it costs here. It starts out, internet only, at $40, and goes to $50 after one year and $60 after the second year. That’s if you supply your own router. If you rent the router it’s another $5 or $6.
So that’s pricing in St. Louis, where we can get AT&T internet that is often comparable or better. I don’t think you are getting gouged anymore than other Americans.
Charter doesn’t allow customer owned modems anymore. They can pry my router from me from my cold dead fingers. Seriously though, places that have competition. they can actually jump from promo to promo so they may never pay over 40, like in your situation, if they have two good choices. A lot of Americans don’t have those choices, and it’s not just rural. Rural here… they have zero choices.
My sister and her family, they change ISPs every couple of years… never pay even close to what I pay, If Charter ever puts a digital cap on me, it will be more. I stream my TV, all of it.
I’ve seen the same deal from Charter, for the same price for almost… going on 8 years now. they just give it a new name. They are not competing at all.
I just replaced my old crap Charter modem with my own and it was not an issue. I just made sure it was in their dumb approved list first.
Not that I particularly like Charter, they are literally the only option here.