FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
And Verizon will be throttling video's to be lower quality on all plans going forward.
And the FCC thought / thinks Net Neutrality rules don't have a place and that suppliers won't abuse their customers.. .
This wouldn't be affected by the Net Neutrality rules. They are universally throttling video content. If they were throttling everyone but their own content then it would be an issue.
It's still an insane stance, and it's funny that the limit is inline with what the FCC thought would be sufficient internet bandwidth for rural areas. . .
10/1 speeds.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Could they have invested in their infrastructure to accommodate these new users? Why would they? People are going to buy their services regardless.
This part is what the FCC should be looking at and saying. . . well hell it's just good business sense. Also lets allow them to provide faster service for the things we provide in full 4K resolution!
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Could they have invested in their infrastructure to accommodate these new users? Why would they? People are going to buy their services regardless.
This part is what the FCC should be looking at and saying. . . well hell it's just good business sense. Also lets allow them to provide faster service for the things we provide in full 4K resolution!
I don't really see that as the FCC's role in this though. They shouldn't mandate investment or good business practices. They should be there specifically to protect the consumer and ensure that companies don't overstep competitive boundaries.
You could argue that not investing in infrastructure hurts the consumer, I would agree with that, but I think that goes outside the scope of the FCC's mandate.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Could they have invested in their infrastructure to accommodate these new users? Why would they? People are going to buy their services regardless.
Oh the power of the monopoly.
Yeah I know cellular carriers aren't full on monoplies, but in some places they really are. In my neighborhood, AT&T is the only carrier that works worth a darn, so to me, they are a monopoly for my house. -
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Could they have invested in their infrastructure to accommodate these new users? Why would they? People are going to buy their services regardless.
This part is what the FCC should be looking at and saying. . . well hell it's just good business sense. Also lets allow them to provide faster service for the things we provide in full 4K resolution!
I don't really see that as the FCC's role in this though. They shouldn't mandate investment or good business practices. They should be there specifically to protect the consumer and ensure that companies don't overstep competitive boundaries.
You could argue that not investing in infrastructure hurts the consumer, I would agree with that, but I think that goes outside the scope of the FCC's mandate.
The FCC is actively going out of their way in an attempt to hurt the consumer with this entire fiasco. I get your point, it's a business choice to do so.
However it does hurt consumers who own devices with higher resolution devices and are paying for subscriptions with 1080P or higher quality. Because they are forcibly denied access to the quality they are subscribed to, by Verizon..
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Could they have invested in their infrastructure to accommodate these new users? Why would they? People are going to buy their services regardless.
This part is what the FCC should be looking at and saying. . . well hell it's just good business sense. Also lets allow them to provide faster service for the things we provide in full 4K resolution!
I don't really see that as the FCC's role in this though. They shouldn't mandate investment or good business practices. They should be there specifically to protect the consumer and ensure that companies don't overstep competitive boundaries.
You could argue that not investing in infrastructure hurts the consumer, I would agree with that, but I think that goes outside the scope of the FCC's mandate.
To that end, why mandate service at all? Frankly I'm mostly dumbfounded that telephone service was/is a requirement to all people, even in remote rural areas. Ultimately I do understand the good for the world aspect.. but ....
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Could they have invested in their infrastructure to accommodate these new users? Why would they? People are going to buy their services regardless.
This part is what the FCC should be looking at and saying. . . well hell it's just good business sense. Also lets allow them to provide faster service for the things we provide in full 4K resolution!
I don't really see that as the FCC's role in this though. They shouldn't mandate investment or good business practices. They should be there specifically to protect the consumer and ensure that companies don't overstep competitive boundaries.
You could argue that not investing in infrastructure hurts the consumer, I would agree with that, but I think that goes outside the scope of the FCC's mandate.
The FCC is actively going out of their way in an attempt to hurt the consumer with this entire fiasco. I get your point, it's a business choice to do so.
However it does hurt consumers who own devices with higher resolution devices and are paying for subscriptions with 1080P or higher quality. Because they are forcibly denied access to the quality they are subscribed to, by Verizon..
I'm not sure how I really feel about this. Unlike terrestrial carriers, you don't typically pay for an amount of bandwidth from a cellular carrier. Before the unlimited plans, you paid for a data cap plan. You used to be able to burn through that cap as fast as their network would allow with no throttling. Eventually throttling started even on those cap plans. Now with "unlimited" data plans, they are doing what terrestrial carriers have been doing forever - bandwidth caps.
Cox cable used to give me unlimited data at a max rate of 50 Mb/s. Of course, they are now taking a page out of cellular carriers playbooks and capping data.
The Verizon plan is still unlimited data, but at the throughput they rate you at. But that's not even true, because they also have a cap rate 22 GB after which they can lower your throughput to near unusable levels.
I would love to just buy a pipe that is x throughput for an entire billing period, and I just pay y for it. Otherwise get your kids off my lawn.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Could they have invested in their infrastructure to accommodate these new users? Why would they? People are going to buy their services regardless.
This part is what the FCC should be looking at and saying. . . well hell it's just good business sense. Also lets allow them to provide faster service for the things we provide in full 4K resolution!
I don't really see that as the FCC's role in this though. They shouldn't mandate investment or good business practices. They should be there specifically to protect the consumer and ensure that companies don't overstep competitive boundaries.
You could argue that not investing in infrastructure hurts the consumer, I would agree with that, but I think that goes outside the scope of the FCC's mandate.
To that end, why mandate service at all? Frankly I'm mostly dumbfounded that telephone service was/is a requirement to all people, even in remote rural areas. Ultimately I do understand the good for the world aspect.. but ....
That's the original mandate of the FCC, enacted by congress.
make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Could they have invested in their infrastructure to accommodate these new users? Why would they? People are going to buy their services regardless.
This part is what the FCC should be looking at and saying. . . well hell it's just good business sense. Also lets allow them to provide faster service for the things we provide in full 4K resolution!
I don't really see that as the FCC's role in this though. They shouldn't mandate investment or good business practices. They should be there specifically to protect the consumer and ensure that companies don't overstep competitive boundaries.
You could argue that not investing in infrastructure hurts the consumer, I would agree with that, but I think that goes outside the scope of the FCC's mandate.
The FCC is actively going out of their way in an attempt to hurt the consumer with this entire fiasco. I get your point, it's a business choice to do so.
However it does hurt consumers who own devices with higher resolution devices and are paying for subscriptions with 1080P or higher quality. Because they are forcibly denied access to the quality they are subscribed to, by Verizon..
I'm not sure how I really feel about this. Unlike terrestrial carriers, you don't typically pay for an amount of bandwidth from a cellular carrier. Before the unlimited plans, you paid for a data cap plan. You used to be able to burn through that cap as fast as their network would allow with no throttling. Eventually throttling started even on those cap plans. Now with "unlimited" data plans, they are doing what terrestrial carriers have been doing forever - bandwidth caps.
Cox cable used to give me unlimited data at a max rate of 50 Mb/s. Of course, they are now taking a page out of cellular carriers playbooks and capping data.
The Verizon plan is still unlimited data, but at the throughput they rate you at. But that's not even true, because they also have a cap rate 22 GB after which they can lower your throughput to near unusable levels.
I would love to just buy a pipe that is x throughput for an entire billing period, and I just pay y for it. Otherwise get your kids off my lawn.
WTF. Of course you pay for an amount of bandwidth from cellular carriers. Unlimited plans have not existed for years until the recent come back of unlimited but speed capped after a certain amount of usage. it was terrestrial carriers that had no bandwidth caps until recently. Now Comcast has a 1TB cap on throughput and once you hit it you pay overage. On the other hand, Cellular providers now simply throttle you down without charging extra once you hit their cap.You have the option to pay more for high speed again.
The Verizon plan you mention is not "still". It is their new version of unlimited. The old legacy unlimited plans that some people cling to have not been offered in forever.
-
@jaredbusch said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Could they have invested in their infrastructure to accommodate these new users? Why would they? People are going to buy their services regardless.
This part is what the FCC should be looking at and saying. . . well hell it's just good business sense. Also lets allow them to provide faster service for the things we provide in full 4K resolution!
I don't really see that as the FCC's role in this though. They shouldn't mandate investment or good business practices. They should be there specifically to protect the consumer and ensure that companies don't overstep competitive boundaries.
You could argue that not investing in infrastructure hurts the consumer, I would agree with that, but I think that goes outside the scope of the FCC's mandate.
The FCC is actively going out of their way in an attempt to hurt the consumer with this entire fiasco. I get your point, it's a business choice to do so.
However it does hurt consumers who own devices with higher resolution devices and are paying for subscriptions with 1080P or higher quality. Because they are forcibly denied access to the quality they are subscribed to, by Verizon..
I'm not sure how I really feel about this. Unlike terrestrial carriers, you don't typically pay for an amount of bandwidth from a cellular carrier. Before the unlimited plans, you paid for a data cap plan. You used to be able to burn through that cap as fast as their network would allow with no throttling. Eventually throttling started even on those cap plans. Now with "unlimited" data plans, they are doing what terrestrial carriers have been doing forever - bandwidth caps.
Cox cable used to give me unlimited data at a max rate of 50 Mb/s. Of course, they are now taking a page out of cellular carriers playbooks and capping data.
The Verizon plan is still unlimited data, but at the throughput they rate you at. But that's not even true, because they also have a cap rate 22 GB after which they can lower your throughput to near unusable levels.
I would love to just buy a pipe that is x throughput for an entire billing period, and I just pay y for it. Otherwise get your kids off my lawn.
WTF. Of course you pay for an amount of bandwidth from cellular carriers. Unlimited plans have not existed for years until the recent come back of unlimited but speed capped after a certain amount of usage. it was terrestrial carriers that had no bandwidth caps until recently. Now Comcast has a 1TB cap on throughput and once you hit it you pay overage. On the other hand, Cellular providers now simply throttle you down without charging extra once you hit their cap.You have the option to pay more for high speed again.
The Verizon plan you mention is not "still". It is their new version of unlimited. The old legacy unlimited plans that some people cling to have not been offered in forever.
Comcast has been "demoing" data caps for over a decade. But you're right on all other counts.
-
-
Not really FCC related but....
I get that they have other providers in the market. But this just goes to point out how unready wireless broadband is to take over for cable or fiber.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Not really FCC related but....
I get that they have other providers in the market. But this just goes to point out how unready wireless broadband is to take over for cable or fiber.
from article
the article said. "The only good news? Verizon wants to disconnect customers so badly, they are willing to forgive the remaining owed balances for any devices financed through Verizon."
Damn, I guess those roaming data fees must really be high to not care about the remaining device fees.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Not really FCC related but....
I get that they have other providers in the market. But this just goes to point out how unready wireless broadband is to take over for cable or fiber.
I'm not really sure what you mean by this?
And frankly I'm not really sure where Verizon is involved here - ok Verizon got the local company to expand... is the local company the roaming company in question here? Why did Verizon sell service here instead of the local company?
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Not really FCC related but....
I get that they have other providers in the market. But this just goes to point out how unready wireless broadband is to take over for cable or fiber.
I'm not really sure what you mean by this?
And frankly I'm not really sure where Verizon is involved here - ok Verizon got the local company to expand... is the local company the roaming company in question here? Why did Verizon sell service here instead of the local company?
The local customers (you, me, whomever) picked up a contract from Verizon, and moved to a rural area. The area isn't services by Verizon directly, and thus are constantly roaming, using data, minutes, texts while on another carrier.
Verizon is dropping these customers because they aren't making enough money, period.
In terms of FCC involvement, not sure if they should be or not, but why doesn't verizon charge the customer for the roaming charges. . .
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Not really FCC related but....
I get that they have other providers in the market. But this just goes to point out how unready wireless broadband is to take over for cable or fiber.
I'm not really sure what you mean by this?
And frankly I'm not really sure where Verizon is involved here - ok Verizon got the local company to expand... is the local company the roaming company in question here? Why did Verizon sell service here instead of the local company?
I meant to say that the FCC has taken the official stance that wireless broadband (from a cellular provider) is an adequate replacement for wired broadband (fiber or copper). I think this is an instance where that shows not to hold water.
Verizon often sells stuff to "roaming" markets because their maps say they have coverage (even if it is roaming) and their sales people don't know any better (or they do and just want the sale). We have this constantly around here with both AT&T and Verizon. They sell into each others territory (which are basically town and city limits).
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
In terms of FCC involvement, not sure if they should be or not, but why doesn't verizon charge the customer for the roaming charges. . .
As far as I know, cell phone companies have never forced customers to change plans. Changing of the plan would be the only way Verizon would be allowed to start charging them roaming fees, since their current plan says no roaming fees.
Since they can't force them to change plans, their only option is to drop them. It's likely they could attempt to get a new contract, but Verizon might not have a plan that accounts for so much roaming... so they might say no.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
And frankly I'm not really sure where Verizon is involved here - ok Verizon got the local company to expand... is the local company the roaming company in question here? Why did Verizon sell service here instead of the local company?
Verizon was using the towers of whatever the local company was and has a roaming agreement with them. The problem I think is that while the "local" company probably covers a small area but not anything beyond that (which is often the case in rural markets). Whereas Verizon does cover the areas beyond it.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
In terms of FCC involvement, not sure if they should be or not, but why doesn't verizon charge the customer for the roaming charges. . .
As far as I know, cell phone companies have never forced customers to change plans. Changing of the plan would be the only way Verizon would be allowed to start charging them roaming fees, since their current plan says no roaming fees.
Since they can't force them to change plans, their only option is to drop them. It's likely they could attempt to get a new contract, but Verizon might not have a plan that accounts for so much roaming... so they might say no.
Right, not sure what your point is? This does nothing to negate my point and only reinforces it.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
In terms of FCC involvement, not sure if they should be or not, but why doesn't verizon charge the customer for the roaming charges. . .
As far as I know, cell phone companies have never forced customers to change plans. Changing of the plan would be the only way Verizon would be allowed to start charging them roaming fees, since their current plan says no roaming fees.
Since they can't force them to change plans, their only option is to drop them. It's likely they could attempt to get a new contract, but Verizon might not have a plan that accounts for so much roaming... so they might say no.
Right, not sure what your point is? This does nothing to negate my point and only reinforces it.
And what exactly is your point?
