Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What you are describing is currently capable under Title II as well. However, companies giving preferential treatment to one company over another is against the law already in three different statutes.With the possibility of companies having a way to hinder internet at there will is still not a good feeling.
I dont understand how people think having the government in charge of something could possibly make it better. Historically not the case.
I know the Title II regulations don't hurt them, it hurts market competition and puts up barriers to entry from what I understand of reading the law. Your article also talks about capital spending and investments which has very little to do with telling me how much ISPs have expanded/improved their networks line capabilities. Capital spending and investments literally includes any fixed asset or investment made into future assets. This could mean the companies bought a bunch of new office buildings and spent nothing on expanding networks.I'll admit, I only got halfway through the video, but I don't see how this video clears anything up for the average consumer. In fact, it only muddles the water more. The answer is simple - Anything that is good for the ISPs, is NOT good for you as a consumer. Also, ISPs themselves have even admitted that the title 2 regulations don't actually hurt them.
https://arstechnica.com/information...-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/
Source: I work for a large ISP.
Technically they were never in charge. Secondly, why in the world would you trust an ISP more than the government? The IRS has better customer satisfaction than ISPs!
Let me be very clear: THE ISPS WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOU BECAUSE OF THIS! WE ARE ALREADY PLANNING IT!
You want to do social media? That'll be an extra $10 a month. Streaming video? That'll be an additional $12 a month to give you access to the "fast lanes".
The only people that should be supporting the repel of net neutrality would be people like me that are employed by the large ISPs. We will at least see an increase in our bonuses now that the public is going to let us bend them over.
I'll admit, I only got halfway through the video, but I don't see how this video clears anything up for the average consumer. In fact, it only muddles the water more. The answer is simple - Anything that is good for the ISPs, is NOT good for you as a consumer. Also, ISPs themselves have even admitted that the title 2 regulations don't actually hurt them.
https://arstechnica.com/information...-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/
Source: I work for a large ISP.
And that is why there has and always will be competition. In the end, the consumer makes the choices. I don’t need your business, you need mine as a consumer, ha.
Bottom line, the internet worked fine prior to 2015 and will not change to a system of throttling and pay for play tactics. Those are now, as they have been for years, illegal practices.
Comcast and At&t said the same about my high speed internet. We have the best service. I pay half as much now for Maxxsouth and the service is the same.
My point is no matter which way the government votes in the end it is the consumer that will be the deciding factor. The government can’t change that.
Wrong. Simply wrong. T-mobile offers plans that have 0 data services like Netflix.
https://www.t-mobile.com/?cmpid=ADV_PB_CRAZYLEGS_43700014320516488&mx_ch=ADV_PB&_vsrefdom=658-820-0490&mchxkw=c:671393653,k: t mobile data,m:b,p:1t1,d:c,ai:31740714662,ad:219609122767,s:g
This is why they are creating/expanding the wireless and satellite network. It is true that many of the ISPs share the same lines but this does not mean there is no competition and having a oligopoly because of the geographical location is not necessarily bad either if the company practices fair business and does not extort customers. I have about 5 different ISPs that I know of in my area to choose from but I pick Spectrum because they have faster speeds at lower prices and no bandwidth cap (I've downloaded almost 1TB in a month with zero throttling on a home connection). Title I allows smaller companies willing to take the risk of serving more rural areas to have less operating expenses and lower initial start up fees because of how it is structured. The internet existed under Title I from 1996-2015 and expanded exponentially, past history demonstrates that the internet can thrive under both but may expand better under Title IThere is no competition, it's a complete facade. There never will be either because the the issue is with the last mile. No homeowner wants to spend 20k to run a new, separate line from the street to their residence. With only 1 line running to the location, there is no competition - your choice is six of one or half-dozen of another.
Drama. It's speculation at this point so go ahead and "plan" while we breath. Lol I believe competition is a good thing.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
breath
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Are you threatening to give up the internet? Good luck with that. Even so, you will still a customer of various business that do need the internet.
There is no competition, it's a complete facade. There never will be either because the the issue is with the last mile. No homeowner wants to spend 20k to run a new, separate line from the street to their residence. With only 1 line running to the location, there is no competition - your choice is six of one or half-dozen of another.
Bundling is not illegal, and this was occurring prior to 2015, during Title 2, and will continue after.
Not sure you made a real point there........
Lol I believe competition is a good thing.
You are aware that Maxxsouth is simply re-selling you Comcast service correct? Again, having a choice would mean that ISP would all have to run their own lines - They don't. You are buying the same service simply called something else.
This is why they are creating/expanding the wireless and satellite network. It is true that many of the ISPs share the same lines but this does not mean there is no competition and having a oligopoly because of the geographical location is not necessarily bad either if the company practices fair business and does not extort customers. I have about 5 different ISPs that I know of in my area to choose from but I pick Spectrum because they have faster speeds at lower prices and no bandwidth cap (I've downloaded almost 1TB in a month with zero throttling on a home connection). Title I allows smaller companies willing to take the risk of serving more rural areas to have less operating expenses and lower initial start up fees because of how it is structured. The internet existed under Title I from 1996-2015 and expanded exponentially, past history demonstrates that the internet can thrive under both but may expand better under Title I
Not sure where you got that information from but it's incorrect.
http://communityfirst.maxxsouth.com/maxxsouth-think-local-act-like-national/