One Frightening Chart Shows What You Might Pay For Internet Once Net Neutrality Is Gone

[marmar]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/net-neutrality-gone_n_4611477.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037&ir=Politics


A graphic making its rounds on the web this week offered a glimpse of what the Internet might look like if net neutrality disappears. The takeaway? Not good.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down an Federal Communications Commission order that required Internet service providers to abide by the rules of “net neutrality.” ISPs had previously been forced to treat all types of web traffic equally -- meaning providers couldn’t block some sites or speed up loading times for others. Tuesday's decision means corporations can now block or slow down loading times for pages they don’t like, or could charge businesses a fee to have their pages load more quickly -- or at all.

Now, consumers looking to get Internet access might be met with something like this hypothetical set of pricing options like this, pointed out by Buzzfeed earlier this week:



............................(more)

[brooklynite]

1. Bearing in mind that this is completely speculative...

[SamKnause]

5. Net

Do you see them lowering prices, or increasing prices ?

I see it as more of a prediction than speculation.

Monopolies can set any price they want.

We use to have laws to prevent monopolies in this country.

That is no longer the case.

[brooklynite]

10. But they're not monopolies...

Most people seem to assume that their only choices for internet access are the phone company and the cable company. There are in fact dozens of alternatives if you shop around.

[SamKnause]

12. Net

Please explain your post.

I have one phone company in my area that offers a landline with internet access.

I have no access to cable in my area.

I have the choice of one Satellite provider for internet access.

I hope I am wrong and you have lots of new information for me.

[brooklynite]

74. Give me your ZIP Code

[SamKnause]

77. Reply

Thanks

45679

I hope you find loads of great info. for me.

Good luck.

[brooklynite]

79. DSLReports.com:

For your ZIP Code:

Frontier Communications
Cincinnati Bell
Windstream
TDS
AT&T
PHONE POWER
Embarq Now CenturyLink

[SamKnause]

81. Reply

Checking zip codes must not work.

I have Frontier. It bought out Verizon. Verizon cell phone service is even spotty in my area.

Cincinnati Bell=not available in my area.
AT&T=not available in my area.

I will check on your other suggestions.

Have a GREAT weekend and thanks for your help.

[emsimon33]

108. Zip code doesn't always work

I have the same problem that you do: Plenty of options for my zip code but not my particular area. The street number and address are often also necessary. I am only about 1.5 miles off the 101 in central California but even Verizon stopped service (which was terrible anyway). Some kids set up cell towers and we get our Internet (such as it is) now that way. Not cheap, by the way ($79.95 a month), but at least it is reliable which Verizon was not. Satellite is another option but had that once and it was dreadful.

[dembotoz]

120. it sucks to be you--i sell broadband and there is no logic

I can show you places where one side of the street options aplenty and the otherside barren broadband wasteland.

a hint to business owners

BEFORE you sign the lease, or buy the new building,

ALWAYS PREQUAL your telecom options.

[Gman]

122. The problem with assuming shopping around will find a better deal is that

the owners of the backbone of the Internet, AT&T, Time Warner, Verizon and and two or three others, all sell service to the others you mention an the increased costs mentioned in the OP. These resellers will pass along any price increases so that you'll see very little price differences aside from "introductory" pricing.

A group of no more than 4 or 5 companies are the ones fighting Net Neutrality and they control the Internet.

[brooklynite]

124. Every MVNO is using the backbone of a major Call Phone provider...

...but somehow they're offering lower, more competitive rates.

[Gman]

126. I don't know their pricing structures or

Last edited Sat Jan 18, 2014, 06:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Profit margins but they do not have the resources to build their own backbone. And those that own the backbone control it.

The telcos grudgingly sold landline access to resellers. None of the resellers really made good money at the rates they paid. But landlines are regulated and they were forced to sell to resellers.

It's likely that competitive pricing is because the big companies are selling off excess capacity and/or the big companies are reselling in areas where they don't have a big presence, small towns and rural areas. Verizon spends billions for FIOS but they only give lip service to high speed Internet in rural areas.

And why not sell it at a discount? Either that or it lies dark.

So the problem with net neutrality is that whole model of selling off capacity (if that's what they're doing or whatever the reason is) will be subject to new pricing structures. It may or may not be along the lines of the OP. But prices will skyrocket.

[jeff47]

17. Only if you live in NYC or other major cities.

My previous house had Time Warner Cable. And that's it. Phone company had not upgraded past 512k DSL. Cellular companies had not rolled out 4G. Satellite is useless for anything that needs to be remotely real-time (and is massively expensive).

That location had particularly bad service. My new, well connected location has Time Warner Cable and AT&T U-Verse, and AT&T 4G. So I have a whopping 2 options.

So no, there are not alternatives for about 90% of the country.

[sir pball]

51. Even then it's spotty.

I live in NYC, but my building is old and hasn't been fibered up - so no FiOS for me. I have Time Warner, my other options are Verizon DSL which is utterly laughable, and satellite. Well...I could change my wireless plan to unlimited data and get a hotspot; the 4G here is actually faster and lower-latency than the cable. But it would also be something obscene like $400 a month, and it can get a little iffy during busy hours.

[tomp]

115. you mean upscale neighborhoods of nyc. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

20. No there aren't.

I have two possible physical connections to my home: DSL or Cable. That's it. Satellite Cable is crap.

Two local providers, Comcast and CenturyLink have a physical lock on those two cables coming to my house. I can't go to another service provider and use their wires. I have no fiber, etc.

[Swede Atlanta]

21. They are de facto monopolies.....

I live in Atlanta, a major metropolitan area.

The reality is I only have two choices, ATT and Comcast. I work from home and require high speed access to the internet. That reduces my choice to Comcast. ATT DSL simply doesn't come close to the speeds I get on cable.

Yes there are other small providers such as Charter, etc. but their service doesn't even come close to ATT.

So now Comcast will be free to charge me extra if I want to access say a foreign news website or a social media site, etc. Trust me their bean counters are as we speak looking at how they can rape the American consumer even more than they do now.

We need a change in the law to classify internet service as an essential service, a commodity just as we have electricity. People will argue you don't need access to the internet. Bullpucky. Nearly everything you do today requires you provide an e-mail address.

Almost every commercial or government service has reduced their "physical" presence and driven people to the internet. So you are handicapping people without access to the internet for things as basic as submitting a change of address on a driver's license. Online it is done in 5 minutes. In person you have to drive to the ever smaller number of DMV sites and given so much has been pushed to the internet stand in line to speak to the 1 or 2 people working there.

[SoapBox]

33. Ditto.

[Thirties Child]

37. Our Atlanta suburb is even worse

We're in northeastern Gwinnett and have one choice: ATT. The ATT repairman said two areas of the country - South Miami and Buford, Lawrenceville, etc - have outdated equipment that they have no desire to upgrade. We're stuck. The Internet is s-l-o-w at night, when everyone is home and using it. Streaming is next to impossible then.

We spent ten years in rural New Mexico, and were out of sight of the signal on the mountain. Dish Satellite was our one choice for Internet. Expensive and s-l-o-w-e-r. We thought when we got back to Atlanta we'd have lots of choices. We're retired, on a fixed income, and it's frightening to think we'll have to pay for Internet services top of everything else that goes up and up and up.

[Ilsa]

97. Spot on post. The internet is essential for most

School communications, renewing professional licenses, submitting health history before a checkup, etc. Its required for communication.

[RC]

34. They ALL use the SAME backbone.

Every single one. And who owns the backbone? AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc.

[mwooldri]

96. AT&T, Verizon, Level 3, Sprint, Vodafone, CenturyLink...

These companies are classified as Tier 1 providers, as they operate a global network. Deutsche Telekom, NTT, and Cogent also have big enough networks to be considered Tier 1.

Time Warner Cable and Comcast are considered Tier 2. They need to peer with a Tier 1 to have wider access.

[frylock]

35. there's a great big world there outside of your grand city..

how many choices do you suppose someone in Bumfuck, NE might have? I live in San Diego, 8th largest city in the nation, and our options are rather limited.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Boulevard in San Diego county

Or Jacumba Hot Springs, I don't even have to leave the county or the state.

[frylock]

69. what are your choices out there?

Also, are you guys at red flag warning? Thinking of driving out to McCain Valley next weekend for a campout.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. The red flag was extended until six o clock this afternoon

And from what residents have told me, Verizon sometimes works, I know AT&T sucks. And they have only one cable provider, not high speed. A few in the back country plain out use satellite.

I live in San Diego city proper, just get to drive out there to cover things like brush fires or planning boards. Sometimes major stories that go national.

As to the red flag, will not surprise me in the least if day five becomes day six, and the governor has issued a state wide drought declaration.

[magical thyme]

39. really? dozens?

I have one phone company and one cable company to choose from. The phone company wasn't happy, but I switched from landline to tracfone, plus high speed internet from cable, plus netflix, all for less than phone line with slow dial-up internet.

[Dopers_Greed]

56. At my last apartment...

The only option was Verizon. And of course, the minimum plan was $50 a month just for internet. And this was in a fairly populous suburb of a major city.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. You really should get out of your bubble a tad more

Serious.

In San Diego we got three choices, Time Warner, a monopoly in an area of town, another Internet provider, another area of town and the phone company. That means really two choices, three if I add the seldom used satellite

Perhaps in NYC the situation is different. I don't know, being the center of the workd and everything.

Now that is San Diego City, do not try this trick at oh Boulevard, you might have even heard the name of the town, in our Far East county. The options there go down to one. How is that not a monopoly?

There are days...

[jtuck004]

89. Just a note: Those are charges over and above your Internet access - not instead of.

They would be premium prices paid to access the site with the kind of reliability and speed you get now, vs some throttled connection where you share a smaller space with a lot of people, while 50 million or so get a lot more access than you, or me, or us, by paying $5/mo extra for decent ebay, another $5/mo for some newspapers...etc

True, they are not monopolies. You could always go to the other NY Times or ebay...

It gets worse if someone is stuck with DSL, which for many is their only option.

Cable technology is typically up to approximately 30 Mbps, but for most people is around 5-8Mbps. DSL up to 10, but because of the crappy equipment in many areas you may only get the option of 1.5 Mbps. That last category already gets slower access because we haven't made the infrastructure investments to bring everyone up so the country could benefit from it.

Which precisely describes the problem with leaving things up to the private sector. Screw the country if they don't see a profit in it, or if they do.

There is at least one place, Portland, I think, which has information on establishing a more public wireless IP at no cost to many, and I've wondered what the cost would be to spread that out some more.

[Beartracks]

106. "the problem with leaving things up to the private sector... if they don't see a profit in it"

We need a government agency to build out the Internet infrastructure, PRECISELY BECAUSE private enterprise finds it too burdensome to do it. Look what we did with the Rural Electrification Administration (a New Deal agency) in the 1930s:

"The REA was created on May 11, 1935, with the primary goal of promoting rural electrification.[1] In the 1930s, the U.S. lagged significantly behind Europe in providing electricity to rural areas due to the unwillingness of power companies to serve farmsteads.

"Private electric utilities argued that the government had no right to compete with or regulate private enterprise, despite many of these utilities' having refused to extend their lines to rural areas, claiming lack of profitability." (emphasis mine)

[link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Administration|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Administration]

Despite investor-owned utilities complaining loudly about the government "competing with them" in the electric industry, the grid rollout across the heartland actually generated a huge market for electric consumer goods, lighting, machinery, business, urban growth, etc., where none previously existed. And having government generating facilities making power available at-cost in the wholesale market tended to apply downward pressure on electric rates across the industry, increasing a drive for efficiency and competition among the investor-owned utilities. More consumers, more competition, better electric rates.

For a variety of reasons, the US would greatly benefit from this kind of infrastructure rollout for the Internet, too.

And, when you think about, this is another reason why government SHOULD establish a public option for health care: to promote efficiency and effectiveness and competitive pricing in the health care market.

========================

[TBF]

6. True, it could be much higher. nt

[yeoman6987]

31. Are you saying....

So we will have to pay 70 dollars for internet? I am paying that and more now. Or will this be added on to our bill. I pay 150 dollars a month for internet and cable. If I understand you right, it will go up to 220? I mean that stinks but I will still pay because I get a lot of enjoyment out of both.

[robinlynne]

44. not really. They charge every penny they can. consistently.

[Th1onein]

107. Always on the wrong side of the issue, brooklynite.

Why is that?

[Demo_Chris]

2. This is perhaps the single most critical issue we face. You want FREEDOM? nt

[rhett o rick]

100. I think its high but comes in behind free and fair voting. nm

[Demo_Chris]

101. The internet is knowlege and communication...

If the world has any hope it is the internet. If the internet dies, and the powers that own the world want it to do just that, then freedom dies with it. The internet is the death of superstition, the death of nationalism, the death of ignorance and hate. Without the internet they can do anything they like, without the free internet you would have never even heard of the Kock brothers, or the TPP, or the NSA scandal, you would never have heard of our Drone wars, you would have heard and read whatever they wanted you to read.

We would not be talking here today. Most of America would be terrified of China and Russia and Iran, instead of chatting online with their friends in those nations.

It is simply impossible to overstate the importance of the internet to society today and to our hope of something better in the future.

[rhett o rick]

103. I completely agree but if we cant choose who represents us in the government,

they will destroy everything including our internet access. Our only hope is to get government representatives that are sympathetic to us. If we lose that, we will lose all other issues.

[Demo_Chris]

104. I understand, but without the internet you wouldn't even know who that might be...

You support Warren. You would have never even heard her name. THAT'S what they want top take away. Net Neutrality is not about charging end users more, it's about throttling access to sites like DU and putting them offline. It's about shutting down Wikipedia and Wikileaks.

[SamKnause]

3. The Net

I already pay $40.00 per month for slow DSL.

I guess the goal is to get the price so high only the rich will have access to the internet.

The numerous taxes and surcharges are $16.40 for net and phone.

Knowledge is power.

They don't want the worker bees to have knowledge and they will never give up their power to control all aspects of our lives.

[octoberlib]

4. This is an awesome graphic.

I'm posting this on Face book so some of my friends can see why this ruling is so bad.

[Armstead]

15. Likewise -- We all should post it and make it viral

[warrior1]

7. or they could be more competive

In the olden days they use to call it GAS WARS. Could it be called INTERNET WARS? Well it's a thought.

[Veilex]

22. Right... and look where gas prices are today.

I'd rather not follow that trend.

[My Good Babushka]

8. Sadly, when you add it all up

it's the cost of what I'm already paying for Comcast internet service alone, no cable TV and no phone are included in that, either.

[jeff47]

18. It's an old graphic. Add $10 to each number to get today's pricing. (nt)

[shanti]

52. same here

i pay about $75 per month for stand alone internet with comcast, and have been doing so for 12 years.

[JCMach1]

9. Could all those companies listed above block access to any company not following Net Neutrality?

If so, it could be a two-way street... Even worse, a 500lb. gorilla like Google could leverage superior access over say Yahoo.

[Armstead]

61. Umn, there won't BE any companies following Net neutrality

It's good business to screw the public. You think if we hand them the keys with no regulation any of these companies will voluntary NOT gouge us?

Dream on.

[JCMach1]

66. It will be used as a selling point... so yeah, some will... this is largely a cable company play

to kill Netflix, Amazon Prime, and other streaming services...

ISP's not directly involved in that business will be more reluctant to change their model... especially if consumers boycott services not providing neutrality.

[Zorra]

11. This is an obvious attempt by the 1% plutarchs to prevent access to communication among the 99%,

because they know the internet is a fast, easy way for the 99% to expose the crimes and sociopathic inhumanity of the global plutarchy.

It's a control measure instituted by the plutarchy, designed to prevent an effective justice/equality resistance movement from consolidating and challenging the plutonomy and privilege of the 1%.

[Armstead]

14. I disagree. They just want the freedom to rob us.

[Veilex]

23. I'd say you're both right.

[Zorra]

36. Yes. The second is a component of the first. They already have the freedom to rob us;

by limiting our avenues of communication, they are attempting to prevent us from having the tools to take the freedom to rob us away from them.

[freebrew]

26. Because FREEDOM isn't free...

it's expensive.

The revolution is just experiencing inflation.

Yeah, that's it..

If only we had a Free Speech Association to protect our 1st Amendment rights.

[Armstead]

13. Damn straight -- They didn't push this case for the fun of it

the Internet used to be considered a public utility. Now, like broadcasting it is merely a commodity.

[Hugin]

16. K&R

This is exactly what it will look like. Exactly.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. I will be saying buh-bye Internet. Nice knowing ya. Fun while it lasted.

Need to check into yoga, anyway ...

[BarackTheVote]

134. If this happens, I'll be taking to the streets. The internet is too important

to just let slip from our fingertips. The internet has been used to topple regimes; if they think people are just going to let that kind of power go without a fight, they have got another thing coming.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

136. I will not be able to afford the net if the predictions come true.

if they think people are just going to let that kind of power go without a fight

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. Most discussions revolve around charging the content providers, such as Netflix

and letting them pass on the cost in your subscription fees. Because grouping websites by their function (news, retail etc.) is far more work than could possibly be worth it for the ISPs. They're after a share of the profits that other companies make, so they will demand the money from those that are profitable. I don't think the graphic is informed speculation.

[LiberalArkie]

43. That is what they are wanting to do.

SO sites like Google, Youtube and the majors will cough up extra bucks to get their through put. But small sites like DU, and most of the "free" sites that have all the real news, will be getting maybe 100k or less throughput to the home. That is the name of the game.

It happened a long time ago with BBS systems. They were tired of independent people buying the phone lines to hook up to the telco. So the phone companies passed tariffs that any place that had more than 3 phone lines had to pay business rates. That shut down many systems. Some telcos had in their tariffs that if you had a modem or fax machine in a residence, all the phone lines had to be business. Because why would a home need a modem if they were not conducting business there.

I paid $26 a month for each phone line (measured rate) for my BBS, business rate was $125 a month.

It was not about money, it was publishing information that THEY had no control over. They had not problem with AOL paying only $12 a month per line, just did not want an independent group out there doing it.

It still comes down to that, if the telcos and other carriers can do that, then you will see the slow death of independent sites, all those little places where people get their info, where independent business sell things. The Amazon's will be there. The MSNBC, NYTimes and others will be there. The DU, KOS, Reddit, Mother Jones and others will not be here as we know it.

It happened before, I hope it doesn't happen again.

[oldandhappy]

25. Do not pay!

Libraries! I will stop internet to the house and go to the library twice a week and while there are things I will miss, I cannot pay these crazy prices. I have ATT. They went from 19.95 to 46 in one leap. When I complained they came down to 23. Now they want to go up 5. I complained again and pointed out that two of their competitors in my market were advertising 14.95. They agreed to hold the 23 for six months.

I am interested if anyone has any practical ideas for alternatives. But I am preparing to give up the internet at home. It is our choice. Schools and libraries and businesses probably are stuck. We are not stuck.

Strike!!

I have never been a radical but I feel it coming on!

[Demeter]

53. I have a possible scheme

As I live in a condo community, we can establish a community net, get one optic fiber super feed to connect it, which gives each homeowner access and privacy and really reduced costs in one.

It's on my ever expanding list for my community, which is simultaneously an experiment in small business, and representative democracy.

[oldandhappy]

83. Thank you.

Good to think about.

I have noodled on the same idea for mobile home park wi-fi instead of each of us paying for our own.

We have choices!!

[quinnox]

27. hmm, not sure, because if every company started trying to pull this

another company could stick with flat rate unlimited access and steal all those other customers.

[L0oniX]

30. They are contricted by those that own the OC3 lines.

[jsr]

38. Precisely.

[stevenleser]

28. K&R&Bookmarked

Interesting and scary.

[L0oniX]

29. Wait ...the cable co's who won't go alacart with tv will now go alacart with inet?

Not saying I like it but seems that there will be a large backlash if they should try to choke bw for money.

[kcr]

42. That isn't a la cart

That's how channels are bundled, too.

[Armstead]

46. Backlashes don't matter with the Net now a necessity and if they have the law on their side

[enlightenment]

32. It's the FCC that needs to fix this

and they can do it just by clarifying the rule that the judge said wasn't clear enough. Whether they will or not is the question.

The torches and pitchforks need to be aimed at Washington, DC - as usual.

[L0oniX]

41. I blame Bill Clinton for signing away the FCC control over this.

That asshole has fucked up more shit ...it's disgusting that he is even labeled as being a Democrat.

[SamKnause]

78. Hi L0onix

Exactly.

If you do any research on Bill you will find he really fucked up a lot of things.

I don't give a rat's ass about his sex scandals.

This is some of the damage he did;

Ending Glass Steagall
Signing NAFTA
Ending welfare
1996 Telecommunications Act
and the signing away of the FCC's control

Republican, or Democratic; we get the shaft.

It sickens me.

[fadedrose]

111. ++

[Locrian]

40. they will do this in a HEARTBEAT

They are loosing people left and right off cable and phone (att/comcast) and need to boost revenue. I see internet as going thru the roof in places that only have limited options (like mine).

[Enthusiast]

45. It will end my internet days.

If they want to kill the golden egg laying goose let them do it. They will be sorry.

[EC]

47. If they wanted us to stop using the internet

for entertainment, this will do it. If this is what will happen I'll only be using the internet for important stuff that has to be done on line now. Like taxes, looking for work, unemployment...I'll not be shopping or reading newspapers or magazines etc. on line anymore.

[hunter]

48. I'm paying for bandwidth. DU is paying for bandwidth. Google is paying for bandwidth.

There is no fucking reason at all that these fucking telcos and cable companies shouldn't be common carriers treating all traffic equally.

Boo hoo, so their "traditional" business model of making us pay for sewage and other stuff we don't want in package deals doesn't fit the internet,... Adapt or die, isn't that what these corporate fucks are telling ordinary working class people to do? How about the giant corporations adapt or die for a change??? And maybe some of them need to be killed or nationalized. Corporations are not people. Forget a "fair trial" for them, it's a political question. If their activities are harmful to the common good, give them the ax. (Quite a few of our corporate "leaders" actually do deserve criminal trials...)

Frankly, I'd like to see a national free wireless network, and requirements that broadcast television and radio have no more than 7 minutes of syndicated content (including commercials) every hour, so that every radio and television station becomes a local station. Kick Rush Limbaugh and all his ilk out onto the internet or satellites where they have to compete with everyone else on an equal footing.

Frankly the cable and telcos are insane to push for this, not because they should fear the "consumer" or our pudding-willed and corrupt "representatives," what they should fear instead is assimilation by the Borg Google. That's a war that would destroy everything.

[Fumesucker]

80. Of course there's a reason

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[cbdo2007]

49. Internet Service Providers are so 1990's....this is a good thing....we need change!!

You think Apple, Google, Facebook, Netflix, etc. are going to let themselves get bundled?? They'll just build their own networks, like Google is doing in multiple parts of the country now, and put the internet providers out of business.

[naturallyselected]

59. How many cables do you want on the phone poles?

I just don't see this becoming a competitive marketplace. Besides the fact that while Google or whoever will only wire areas that will be profitable for them (leaving out the vast majority of the country), there are restrictions on using the infrastructure that aren't going away.

[OmahaBlueDog]

65. Frankly, I don't care. However, there won't be more cables.

Wireless will simply continue to improve.

[naturallyselected]

71. Maybe

But I don't see much more competition in the wireless world than the wired, and consolidation of the players is still happening. It's all about who controls the infrastructure, no matter what the technology is.

[OmahaBlueDog]

75. True, but the wireless world serves as a competitor to the wired world

There is also the vastly underutilized satellite system.

[Egnever]

87. What?

Google is practically giving away internet in Kansas.

[naturallyselected]

91. Google Fiber is available in only 3 cities

Kansas City, Austin, and Provo,UT. Nowhere else - even with expansion, do you think it will be available throughout rural Kansas, or rural anywhere USA?

As it's currently so limited, I don't know much about Google Fiber - the cost, whether they build out their own fiber cable or rely on existing infrastructure, etc. I certainly hope this becomes a viable option for more than a tiny part of the country.

But it's still peripheral to the net neutrality discussion. I don't have faith that Google will maintain net neutrality if they don't have to, any more than I have faith that Comcast - my one and only non-DSL option here in Maine - will. This can't be left up to those with a profit motive, and I'm really surprised to see so many here that don't see what an important issue this is.

[Egnever]

92. It is brand new!

You expect full market penetration instantly?

[naturallyselected]

128. I'm just looking at the economics

There is a huge difference between corporate desire to wire a city and wire a rural area. Verizon pulled out of Northern New England for just that reason (wired, not wireless - as others have pointed out, if wireless can be developed as a viable delivery plan, things might change). There's just no economic incentive to wire rural areas. Why would Google think differently than Verizon on this?

Until there can be delivery systems that don't rely on infrastructure controlled by corporate interests, net neutrality is vital, as there can be no real competition. Maybe in cities, but not in rural areas.

[Armstead]

60. The old "deregulation will breed competition" argument? Ha! That's 90's Snake Oil

Bullshit. Even if that were to happen, do you really think these Big "Alternatives" won't be just as abusive?

We need to protect an open Internet through Regulation. Pure and Simple.

[cbdo2007]

72. Basically you're fighting to regulate and save a dying industry from 20 years ago.

While you're at it you need to put some regulation on automobile traffic cause the horse and buggy companies are all going out of business.

[hunter]

73. Yes.

This.

[LiberalLovinLug]

50. People have to wake up

This is issue is the most important issue today. Bigger than NSA, Snowden, almost every other issue as everything comes down to information and who controls it.

The age we live in could very well be fondly remembered as the golden age of the internet. And age were you could surf where and when you wanted for a relatively low cost.

Sites like DU will slowly fade away. I think sites like these will still survive for a while, but only the die hards will regularly visit. One reason is that the bandwidth will be squeezed to the point where it will just be too frustrating to even get on here for most people.

But the main reason why it will die is no new subscribers will even find it. Its like when a family drives through the outskirts of any city and all you see is fast food billboards from a few monopolies. "Where should we eat?" to which the kids scream from the back seat "McArby Kings!" or whatever sign they like best. And there they all are nicely lined up along the highway for them to choose from.

They won't be keen to drive off the main road and go searching down single lanes to find a mom and pop cafe, even though its friendlier, and you get more for your money once your there, better food, and definitely better conversation.

Face it, most people are not like us, they do not keep up with politics. News sites are not their biggest reason to peruse the net. It is rapidly simply becoming a shopping mall. And that is how the big conglomerates will shape it, with your governments blessing.

[OmahaBlueDog]

54. Let me give you the flip side - I'd be willing to pay for broadband on this basis IF

...the broadcasters of the world would truly "unbundle" cable /satellite TV and allow us to only pay for the channels we want. All in all, I watch -- at best-- about 12 channels of TV -- and that includes my local channels. If I could simply stream the broadcasts I want via the internet (which I cannot do now -- I've looked into it), then none of this would bother me, because I'd simply discontinue with having a broadcast provider.

[Armstead]

58. The Internet is so much motre than entertainment

It;s become a basic backbone for everything.

Businesses and even government agencies, for example, are doing everything they c an gto forcve people to go onlne for customer service, bill paying and other interactions.

And you're dreaming if you think tghe Big Cable and internet companies are going to giove you a break in one place to get an advantage in another.

If the government allows them to control the Internet like this, they'll just screw you with that while continuing to screw you on cable.

[OmahaBlueDog]

64. Honestly, for most of us, the internet is not much more than entertainment.

OK, e-mail, online banking..pretty low bandwidth stuff. I don't see costs rising too much.

Access to workplace platforms -- cost of doing business. It is what it is, and it gets expensed accordingly.

Just thinking about what everyone else in the house does with the internet: Facebook, Tumblr, online gaming, You Tube, Spotify -- sorry -- it's entertainment.

I'm not dreaming. The cable companies are in competition with the wireless companies and, in a sense, they are already in competition with their own ISPs because of services like Roku, Hulu, Amazon Streaming, and Netflix. Just as wireless companies are destroying the wire phone industry, I see them going after cable. The easiest way to go after cable is to undercut them. The easiest way to undercut them is to offer programming cheaper.

[naturallyselected]

62. Some of those channels you want are only available because of the bundling

Less profitable channels, some of which may be your or my favorites, are only available because they can be bundled with the more profitable channels. This is the vary reason the Internet should not be governed by the cable model. Bundling will occur - and access to sites that cannot generate a profit to the provider will be subject to the provider's whims and "market studies". It stinks that the only way we can get our favorite channels is in a bundle of channels we don't want, but that's the way it has to be if profit is the motivation. Which is why net neutrality should not be compromised in any way.

[JDPriestly]

55. That would close down the internet.

Parents of school children would have to pay so that their children could do homework on the internet. Many families are having enough trouble putting food on the table for their children. Net neutrality would make the internet useless as an educational tool.

Yes. You could make the "educational" sites free. But let's face it. Children need access to a lot of sites that would be too expensive for many families.

We can't have net neutrality. It would set the US back in terms of global competition because many people would not have the economic advantage of, for example, paying bills online or checking prices and products online. That would put the US back into the 1970s in terms of market efficiency. It would hurt the stock market too. It would just make a mess of online interaction between companies and customers because many customers would not be able to pay more for internet services than they already do. There are enough retired people without internet service because of the expense. In addition, the costs to government agencies that communicate with citizens on-line would increase because fewer people would have broad access to the internet.

This would harm our economy in a big way. As I understand it, some nations that compete with us such as South Korea have internet neutrality and easier and cheaper internet access than we do. Internet neutrality is an important economic factor. American can't afford to lose it.

[naturallyselected]

57. Do you mean?

Do you mean "We can't LOSE net neutrality"? From the remainder of your post, I am assuming this is just a typo, but I think it's important to point out because of the huge popular misunderstanding of what net neutrality really is. It's being defined by many on the right as a dangerous takeover of the net by the government. They're saying that "if you want to keep your Internet, you'll keep control where it belongs - in the free market". Of course, like many things they say, the complete opposite of what is really happening.

[liberal N proud]

68. Won't need that smart phone any longer

Tablets? - no need.

We used PC's for word processors before the network, so those might actually have a purpose again.

[dickthegrouch]

76. There's one class missing

There's some speculation as to the exact amount, but the best guess is something like 30% of internet traffic devoted to porn https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/internetmonitor/2013/07/02/is-the-internet-for-porn/ . That's big business.

Something like 90% of all email is still spam - that's big business too.

Before the FCC allows ISPs to charge us, they should require the ISPs to remove all the stuff we don't want (particularly spam). I refuse to pay extra to receive spam. Some ISPs are benefiting massively from allowing spam to be distributed from their servers, they should be paying the massive data-traffic bills, not the recipients.

[truedelphi]

82. I can't even remember what 128 kbps looks like.

Maybe a group of people will run for the higher offices, and pledge to undo this.

A third party calling itself, "Really Wired" or some such.

[Alamuti Lotus]

84. Businesses like squeezing customers, but don't like being squeezed by other businesses

If the broadband providers start putting the screws to big companies like Google/Amazon/etc, expect some backlash. Unlike individual consumers, these companies carry serious weight and can hit back quite hard if their own interests are harmed. I'm not saying that all is going to be OK and big business is our savior (in this or ANY case), but I would be wary about expecting any sudden changes without an equal and opposite reaction from "the market" (a concept I keep quite little faith in, except in terms of "protecting their own&quot .

[Fumesucker]

86. When elephants fight the grass gets trampled -African aphorism

[Warren DeMontague]

85. Or people will say fuck you, and find a way around the ISPs that pull this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_mesh_network

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/how-wireless-mesh-networks-work.htm

[hunter]

93. Tough to do when so much of the radio spectrum is "owned" by big business...

... and then the electronics needs to be mass produced without the support of those technically obsolete big businesses.

I think huge swaths of the radio spectrum need to be clawed back for true public use, with open source commodity sorts of electronics created to utilize it.

If I want to open a local radio or television station, or an open wireless provider, I ought to be able to buy the equipment, set it up, and turn it on. The equipment itself would hunt around for open spots in the radio spectrum, lock them in, and those would be fixed until I quit providing the service. Sort of like a homestead on a near-infinite plain.

But do you think companies like Verizon, AT&T, or Comcast want to see "mesh networks" or a national "free internet super-highway," a cellphone and internet service owned by WE THE PEOPLE that doesn't require any monthly fees? Hell no they don't.

Every highway or road mile marker, and every streetlight, ought to be a free, moderate speed, wireless internet access point, provided as a public service. Where there are no mile markers or streetlights, wherever people are living, public internet access ought to be installed.

But that would destroy too many existing business models. Existing Big Businesses are sacred cows in the U.S.A.. Radical innovation is nearly impossible unless it is underground.

I offer wireless internet service for my house guests and my neighbors. No password. It's not fast enough to watch movies so it doesn't get hit too hard, it's just a way of being friendly. When our latest next door neighbors moved in they used my wireless a few weeks until they got their own. (their's is a rental house, gawds know who actually owns it now...) I was cool with that. Last month's rent and deposit is a squeeze. Been there.

I don't log anything. If I'm using the bandwidth myself then the open channels simply slow down. I lose nothing.

I used to have secure wireless passwords until my kids were teenagers living at home and all their friends were here at every hour with electronic devices. I removed the passwords. If anyone was having trouble connecting I could simply tell them there is no password. Then it was all their problem and I could go back to sleep.

Free wifi, but not like a motel or hotel where anyone can walk in and ask the desk clerk for the wifi password whether they are a "guest" or not. (Try it sometime...)

Someone is going to tell me I'm crazy, even here on DU, but they are the unwitting "Think of the Children!" tools of big business and our National Security apparatus that always wants to know exactly who a person is communicating with or what they are looking at.

Aerogel. The secret is Aerogel.

[MADem]

131. This lawsuit was started when cable was King. People are cutting the cord.

I agree with you that people will tell them to eff themselves, and at the same time, OTHER operators who will substitute economies of scale for usurious pricing will jump into the breach and cough up solutions that are affordable.

Also, now it is becoming more and more common for towns and cities to offer internet access. It's a perk, like a measure of modernity. No need to rely on the "open access" types who knowingly leave their routers open, or the idiots who do so unknowingly. Or even cheat/hack.


And of course, these li'l dataminers are already in the game!

In July 2012, pricing for Google Fiber was announced. The service offers three options. These include a free broadband internet option, a 1 Gbit/s internet option for $70 per month and a version that includes television service for $120 per month. The internet service includes one terabyte of Google Drive service and the television service includes a two terabyte DVR recorder in addition to the Google Drive service. The DVR will record up to eight live television shows simultaneously. The television options also include a Nexus 7 tablet that will act as a remote control for the system. In addition, television service will also stream live program content on iPad and Android tablet computers. Neighborhoods that receive the service will be selected based on demand.[5]

[valerief]

88. Time for books and newspapers and face-to-face clubs. nt

[AsahinaKimi]

90. So what happens to all the other websites..

That are not in a Bundle? DU would not be in a bundle, I am sure the Republicans would love it, if all the political websites were gone, and only FOX NEWS remained. We would never be able to hear the truth again.. Unless.. someone had a pirated "Channel".

This sucks big time.

[ctsnowman]

94. Here's a link to a cool tool to see where your

signal goes through.

http://www.yougetsignal.com/tools/visual-tracert/

There are others of course but it's eye opening for the lay person to see how they get routed to a site. For me my trace to this site went through Europe!

[mwooldri]

99. That Euro hop? Doesn't exist.

Find a ping tool. If you're truly going via Europe, your ping times will be in the 100s of milliseconds. I get the same erroneous trace. The only way this error would exist is if an IP address is assigned to the wrong country. it therefore gives the appearance that your data is criss-crossing the Atlantic. Sometimes this is done deliberately... to make a local computer appear to be somewhere it's not.

However there are times where your traffic will go an unexpected route. Traffic from the USA to the UK may go via Amsterdam, or France, before ending up at the London Internet exchange for onward transit.

[Separation]

118. 15 hops for me to DU

http://tools.pingdom.com/ping/?target=www.democraticunderground.com&o=1&id=7097066

But I am on satellite, which I do not like at all. Limited bandwidth, horrible ping time so no gaming.

[Separation]

116. Yea, mine is totally whacked

My only internet option is Satellite, I live so far out in the boonies I don't get cell reception, and also have to use satellite for phone as well.

[blkmusclmachine]

95. Change You Can Believe In!

[DeSwiss]

98. Wonder how many bank accounts in the Caymans......

...does the judge have?

- Some people assume integrity. I assume corruption. And given politics today, with good reason.

K&R

[madaboutharry]

102. There was once a time

when TV was free. All you had to do was plug a TV set into an outlet. Remember that?

[tofuandbeer]

109. +1

[gerogie2]

105. Well you don't have to buy it

When cable TV prices went up I canceled all the high cost channels and just obtained basic cable that includes broadcast TV and Discover channel for $15 per month. I have a cell phone that is only capable of phone calls and text messages for $10 per month and I have DSL 1.5 MBPs that costs me $10 per month. I gave up my car for public transit. I'm low income because of disability, but even when I was working full time I never paid sky high prices for anything.

Hey kids you don't need a smart phone, a fancy car or 50 MBPs Internet, but you need a good education, health care and a nice family. That is what really counts in life.

[tofuandbeer]

110. Once again, it comes down to the haves and the have-nots.

Everyone here is arguing/discussing what is and isn't available to them...but the haves aren't arguing: they're laughing comfortably now.
This is another lost battle in the class war. And I think it's a huge loss.

A couple years ago, L.A. lost some major carpool lanes to "FastTrack." With this the rich can drive solo in their huge SUV's in what used to be carpool lanes with a fee (passing by the lower-class solo drivers sweating out a 2 hour bumper-to-bumper commute), and then they'll write off the "FastTrack" fees to their business accounts.

[davidpdx]

112. They did something similar to our cable

I'm not inside the US, but we have a cable/phone/internet bundle here in Korea. They took away a bunch of channels and now are charging $5 extra a month. Discovery Channel was one of the ones as well which upset me. There are very few English channels so Discovery Channel and CNN are all I really care about. Now I just don't even bother turning on the television most of the time because I end up flipping the channels and saying "crap, crap, crap". We won't upgrade as our expenses are already high enough (we have a mortgage and I'm working on a doctorate).

[davidpdx]

113. I'm wondering if this is going to push Congress to finally deal with Net Neutrality

If companies head that direction I would think people will start screaming.

I'm outside the US. Not sure if that will affect me or not.

[xchrom]

114. du rec.

[WinkyDink]

117. It will be back to my books!

[Romulox]

119. I am dubious that "all you can eat" pricing is good for consumers. I would *save* money under the

graphic you posted, for example.

[dembotoz]

121. if you give the internet providers to option of bending you over and screwing you---

they will

just that simple

[mwooldri]

135. Too true!

It's easy enough to find out what they are doing... and if it breaks the principle of net neutrality, they will be outed. If it's coupled with big rate hikes, enough people will be outraged and they will protest. Happened here a few years ago and it worked.

[Quantess]

123. K & R

[Donald Ian Rankin]

125. A better title: "here are some imaginary numbers we made up out of thin air". N.T.

[MADem]

127. A "frightening chart" created by "a reddit user." This is pure speculation.

If people are gonna try fucking people over, what's to stop a discounter from coming in and saying "Screw that--here's a better plan" and offering the same or better services for cheaper.

The name of the game is bandwidth. The keyboard king who is on line 18 hours a day playing a video game with pals from Turkey and China is using a lot more "juice" than Granny checking her email and reading the paper, sure, but there's a "happy medium" that can be found in all that.

I don't see this fictional example as realistic. If anything, I see bandwidth caps happening before anything as stupid and structured as this.

Who would believe, for a minute, that AMAZON or others would put up with being shuttled out of the "access" to customers? It's just a dumb construct.

[naturallyselected]

129. Yes, but ...

Yes, the OP is speculation, but it wouldn't be up to Amazon - it would be up to the provider. Amazon might have to decide how much they are willing to pay to get included. Amazon has a streaming service, so does Comcast. Is Comcast going to choose to carry competing services if they don't have to? How could Amazon force carriage if Comcast wasn't legally obliged to pass all services on an equal basis?

A number of contributors to this thread must deal with different ISPs and cable companies than I do. Verizon paid big bucks to get this decision for a reason, and it has nothing to do with being able to offer better service to their customers. They want to be able to implement some sort of unequal footing for different sites. Would it resemble that in the original post? I agree with you; probably not. But Verizon didn't got to the trouble to get this ruling to maintain status quo either.

[MADem]

130. It's just a stupid business model, especially in these times.

The paradigm this speculator is using is that of cable companies--tiered pricing. For a LONG time (probably as long as this lawsuit has been meandering through the system) that worked GREAT. Of course, there was damned little competition way back when, and that's not the case anymore. I can remember, years ago, when it was "cable and nothing else." Then, it became "cable and one satellite company." Then, "cable and two satellite companies." Then "cable, two satellite companies, and FIOS." Now there are other ways to get your TV--Netflix, Hulu Plus, etc. etc. The "cable company" is no longer king. That old paradigm is getting shitloads of pushback from consumers, who either jump from special-to-special, cable/Fios/Dish/Direct TV, in a round robin of "give me a bargain, ya basstids" to people who have just "cut the cord" entirely.

It would take ten minutes for some precocious upstart to sell flat-fee cable, and "tier" their service according to USE, not where a person goes on the net. Buy by the pound, as it were.

Bottom line, Verizon may have gotten this ruling that says corporations CAN bill this way, but the ones that decide to do this are screwing themselves. They will encounter competition from businesses that realize that people don't care for "funnelling" and it will result in reduced traffic to businesses, not more.

It's like putting in a toll road to the mall. For awhile people will gripe and pay the toll, but soon enough, people will do one of three things--they'll find the back roads, or they'll stop going to that mall, or they'll start going to the brand-new mall on that other road that doesn't have a toll.

[naturallyselected]

132. How will the upstart deliver the Internet?

To me, it's all about the infrastructure. If there's a way to deliver the net, someone will do as you say, but how do they get access? There's no competition in most places now - for me, it's Comcast or very slow DSL. In the boonies of Maine, most of the state, there's even less.

I have no doubt that Comcast will try and use the cable model if they can. With television, there is at least the satellite option, but for Internet? They're the only game in town. Someday, I think satellite will be the answer - but that's a long way off.

But again, it doesn't matter - competition or not, net neutrality is needed. It's the only way to assure that the Internet remains open for all.

[MADem]

133. In real rural ME, satellite internet IS the way to go. Not fast enough---YET, but give some upstart

with an attitude the motive, and the Investors Will Come. Already space travel is being commercialized, and eventually it'll be like mailing a package to put a satellite up. In the interim, people will find ways to piggyback on other satellites.

Once the investors come, the competition is on, and the race to a reasonable price will begin.

http://www.skyrange.net/rural-internet/Maine