US court upholds net neutrality laws that make ISPs a utility

>>52253
Leave it the Aussie paper to be covering the American judicial system...

Somehow I think this one is going to be overturned on appeal anyway.

>>52253
I support this.

That's good, right?

>>52275
Not if you like getting fucked in the ass by your money grubbing ISP.

Otherwise it's a win for the consumer.

I'm sure there will be one contrarian in this thread who thinks this is a bad thing. if they were allowed to have their way the ISPs would charge you out the ass for the same old service. I'm just waiting for someone to use the word communism

>>52317
Yeah it sounded really canned to me.

The state of internet is in pretty bad shape in most places in the US.

In many parts of the country you can expect to pay about $50 for a 15/3 Mb connection, inside a city. Move outside a city and it gets worse.

In the few places where there is fiber such as Google offering 1Gb speeds for around $100 or less you quickly see the old competition matching speeds and pricing.

This tells you a few things...

First, the old boy companies have a death grip on services. Making it near impossible for a new company to move in (such as google). In some places they managed to actually get out into law that they be the only provider.

Second, they have the capability to greatly increase their speeds at better prices if needed, but refuse to do so because little to no competition.

Thirdly, many small startup companies have to piggy back on the old boy company backbones, which is nothing but a win for the big companies.

>>52346
The future is now.

>>52253
>Most of the Opposed, "independent" thinktanks have the word "freedom" in them
Top kek

>>52253
Good. Net neutrality is absolutely essential IMO for the Internet to fulfill its primary function of freely sharing information. Restrictions such as tiered pricing/speeds are just a cash grab by corporations that don't need it, in a relatively non-competitive business environment.

>>52515
Having tiered pricing and speeds is a valid business model, faggot. It has nothing to do with net neutrality.

>>52518
Valid, yes. Good for consumers, or for the free flow of information, no.

Inevitably, only those who can afford to pay out the nose would get even decent speeds, while folks who live on a budget get shit for internet.

So no thanks to that tiered shit.

>>52372
>he thinks giving government control of an entire industry is freedom

>>52319
if nintendo were allowed to have their way they would charge you out the ass for the same old consoles. i wonder why they don't though?????!?!??!?!?!!?

>>52520
>Good for consumers, or for the free flow of information, no.
You are absolutely retarded. Tiered pricing is good for consumers because they can get dirt cheap broadband. If you get rid of the tiers, you make Internet access more expensive for everyone on the low tiers, severely hindering the free flow of information. The tiers themselves have nothing to do with the free flow of information, their difference is only the speed. You know why the higher tiers are more expensive? Traffic costs money! With more speed, you can generate more traffic, causing higher costs for the ISP. That's it.

>only those who can afford to pay out the nose would get even decent speeds, while folks who live on a budget get shit for internet
Vote with your wallet or start your own ISP. Getting rid of tiers doesn't magically make everyone's Internet faster as any sane ISP would likely try to play it safe and either impose a data cap (which you really DON'T want) or throttle all traffic indiscriminately (which isn't against net neutrality).

>>52528

You think the monopoly telecoms are going to lower the cost of your internet if they could treat traffic differently? What in Comcast's history makes you think they are going to do anything but fuck you as hard as they can?

Also in terms of "less freedom," lets pretend instead of information we are discussing energy. If I plug in a SONY product and the energy company gave that product preference over say a LG product that'd be some serious bullshit. The energy company cannot reduce my consumer freedom by giving preference to certain brands, otherwise this would greatly limit my freedom as a consumer. Just the same, Comcast cannot limit the quality of my service if I choose to go to 4chan instead of reddit or CNN. And Comcast cannot limit my connection if I choose to play an old Quake game instead of stupid ass Farmville 4.0.

Data caps
http://www.theverge.com/smart-home/2015/11/7/9687976/comcast-data-caps-are-not-about-fixing-network-congestion

>>52532
>You think the monopoly telecoms are going to lower the cost of your internet if they could treat traffic differently?
That's not what I wrote at all.

>What in Comcast's history makes you think they are going to do anything but fuck you as hard as they can?
The fact that they don't provide any service here.

>Comcast cannot limit the quality of my service if I choose to go to 4chan instead of reddit or CNN. And Comcast cannot limit my connection if I choose to play an old Quake game instead of stupid ass Farmville 4.0.
Exactly, you appear to understand net neutrality just fine. However, price and speed tiers have nothing to do with this.

I don't like data caps either, but they do seem somewhat inevitable as bandwidth increases.

>>52542
How are data caps inevitable as bandwidth increases? Allot of countries that have fiber available to the masses don't have caps. Stop spewing shit.

You probably don't even pay the bills. Go fucking shill elsewhere.

>>52524
>Having private businesses having a complete monopoly over an infrastructure with no regulations is freedom

>>52524
>he doesn't know how infrastructure is made

>>52275
>San Francisco's Twitter tweeted on Tuesday

This alone should clue you that it is not.

>>52618
>Allot of countries that have fiber available to the masses don't have caps
They have fair use policies, which is still a cap. It's just not defined exactly where that cap is. Time will tell if these policies remain in place, I do hope for the best.

>You probably don't even pay the bills.
Except I do.

>>52639
Well, to be fair it was regulations that created some of the barrier to entry, even if it is naturally hard to enter

But since both of us know we'll never try pulling it out, a regulation that benefits consumers is alright

>>52525
supply and demand
>services are not goods

>>52275
On one hand, capitalism and the free market as it stands are fucking failing.

On the other hand, giving the government more power over things isn't ideal.

Name your poison. I'm reluctantly picking the one that means maybe we'll see some actual competition among ISPs.

>>55576
That's if your lucky enough to have a competing ISP in your area. There is Verizon Broadband at 300KB/s or Charter Cable at 7MB/s in my area, at a 20$ difference. That really isn't competition. Some places have it worse with only on ISP to choose from, and I live pretty close to some bumfuck no-wheres that suffer that exact problem.

Also you might not understand how the Internet works with the Tier 1-3 carriers. It is neigh on impossible to lay your own line that connects everyone and does not use another's cables, charge a competitive rate and then stay afloat to attract a large enough consumer base where you can finally pay off the initial cost of installation while maintaining labor costs. Simply put, the existing telecom companies need to be a municipality because our own lives are dependent on them and they are too big to fail.

I remember we were supposed to get optic fiber to our area a while back, 12 years ago. They got the funding and the green light and I'm still waiting.

>>52275
Yes

Otherwise your ISP would throttle any services that don't pay them

Netflix would be fast but other shit would get fucked