Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
MY city apartment main cable was used by at least 5 different providers. I guess they all chiped in or one put a cable in place and was selling rights to use it, but I could choose from at least 5 different providers the service that suited me the most.
That is not the case in big cities where private companies do that.
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
... and the internet wasn't being government run; it was being government protected.
Furthermore, isp's were free to offer the end consumer the choice of data speeds and caps to fit an individual budget. If all a person needs the internet for is to troll message boards isp's could offer a bargain basement 10mb/s service for a deep discount compared to users that want to stream movies.
1) You can continue to have a shitty connection.
2) The ISP can upgrade all of their infrastructure at a massive cost and raise everyone's rates accordingly.
3) They could charge the service that requires the larger amount of bandwidth (and in turn the service charges their customers extra) which in turn generates the revenue to upgrade to large enough pipes to be able to guarantee the load of said service to that services customers.
Now the ISPs said they weren't planning on doing option 3, but even if they did I would have absolutely no problem with that, especially not being a subscriber to said service. Even if I was I would be fine with that. Instead of my Netflix bill being $15/month it's $16/month.
Let's say you have a moving company with 1000 trucks (the cable company) and they move peoples furniture across the country (data packets) they figure out they can move 10 peoples furniture per trip, they charge each customer $2000, and it costs them $2000 to get the truck across the country. But there is an extra 20ft free in the trailer (capacity in the trunk cable) and along comes a company that wants to move boxes and gets the same rate as the other customers.
But this company is Ikea (netflix) that packages their stuff so perfect that it weighs more than 5 times the rest of the load.
The government comes along and says you can't charge them more (net neutrality). Hmmm
Now the truck gets to NY and Ikea unloads and they have 20 homes worth of furniture. They sell their furniture for less than you can ship your original furniture so people stop shipping their furniture (paying for cable TV) and just buy new (netfilx) when they get there. Now the trucks(cables) are only full of Ikea (netflix) furniture and there is no more profit because the density is just too much.
So now the truck is packed so dense so cheap there is no reason to run the service anymore.
Who ends up being the loser?
The idea that total data use will go up in the future and infrastructure will need to be established or improved to handle it is not up for debate, that is guaranteed. Maybe the original rule was written too broadly that it really was giving a few parties unfair advantages. But the message that the FCC sent by throwing out the rule completely and not even hinting at a "repeal and replace" option is that in the future it will not get in the way of the large isp companies and their associated companies from influencing what they provide their customers. Its not a stretch to see bundled access to web services similar to what they are doing right now with cable tv. Want BeIntv so you can watch MOTOGP? Well you gotta buy a package with 25 other channels you will never watch. Currently in that scenario we have a streaming package you can buy directly from Dorna, this rule opens up the possibility of cutting off those stream packages to direct you back to cable tv. That might be a stretch but repealing the rules opens the door.
Oh pick me. Pick me. Pick me!!!
(The consumer becomes the big loser) kinda like how vurb moto died. Great quality. Nobody wanted to pay for it. Now we don’t gots vurb.
That some companies data will be at different rates/speed?
Your previous example would work better if you just limited to volume, not density. Netflix is sending a larger volume of information but the density is the same.
Pit Row
Where as before we had the possibility of slower connection speeds but did not give the companies power to charge more for whatever services they felt like.
Without it, the ISP has a couple of options:
1) They could just throttle the CrapFlix traffic so it does't effect the other 95% of their user's user experience
or
2) Add more Internet connections between the ISP and the rest of the Internet (or more likely connections directly to CrapFlix network/servers) so that all user experience is restored to a good level, and pass that cost along to all 100% of their users
or
3) Add more Internet connections between the ISP and the rest of the Internet (or more likely connections directly to CrapFlix network/servers) so that all user experience is restored to a good level, and pass that cost along to CrapFlix, who passes that along to their CrapFlix customers so they pay $16/mo instead of $15/mo and the other 95% of the customers don't get charged extra for what they don't use.
I can't imagine CrapFlix customers having a cow over that. If I were a CrapFlix customer I would be happy knowing my 8k streaming connection wouldn't be buffering all the time. That would be worth the extra buck a month.
OK, It is their equipment right?
Why should they give the same price to data that is less
desirable to their business? Next you'll say Amazon delivery
needs to deliver Target online orders.
I suspect there will be some sort of regulation in the future
that will be better than "net neutrality" which was rubbish.
Net Neutrality gave the illusion of protections but really didn't.
It gave a monopoly to the content providers to do exactly
what you don't like. I have been using google and face book
in examples but they are not the lone ranger here.
TM
So it's my understanding that there is more internet from phones
now than PCs. How do you explain that the costs have been dropping
the last 10 years for all you can eat packages from the cell providers?
Is that because Uncle Sam told them to?
Me "Ha, so the government should pick the winners? They have a great track record."
Are we getting better service at a cheaper price with our cell phones because of regulation?
Or is it because companies are competing against other companies to be our provider?
Also there is inherently more competition in the cellphine arena because the companies havent colluded among themselves to only service select areas.
that would not count against their data usage. Under "net neutrality"
But wait, NN has only been around 2-3 years, prices have been dropping for 20
How does that work? Used to pay over $1 per minute to talk on a cell.
Actually I hate the cable company. But I use them. I haven't used them for 20 years so I can't go back that far. I had an antenna and or dish network prior to them. My cable bill starts out at $120ish per month for 2 years then goes up $50,
then I cancel their services. After 1-2 months they call me and ask if they can bring me back at $120 for 2 years
and I resign. Presently I'm at the point where I need to cancel. Before them I had AT&T over the phone line internet.
I think they called it DSL. Prior to that you had to pay someone like AOL or compuserv in addition to your phone line.
So in effect today I'm getting more for less.
The only thing I know for sure is that things evolve. The internet as you know it today will be delivered very different
in just 10 years. Do I know what it will be? No, I just know that with all the evolution I've seen in the last 20 years I know this is not something that will be stagnant. So I think you making mountains out of mouse turds.
TM
Post a reply to: Net Neutrality Repeal