U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

[Ben Kenobi]

Are there many indy ISPs in the US? We have many in Canada. The major pipe owners are forced to lease access to them from what I understand.

In 2011, 90 percent of ISP traffic came from 10 providers. 50 percent from just 5.

[Ben Kenobi]

It tends to make the ISPs into de facto utilities and perhaps that's the goal, but that doesn't mean the price is going to go down anytime soon (or service go up) if that's the direction we want to go. In the end, we have to make a decision what we'd rather want.

And of course, if net neutrality is upheld, I have a feeling data caps will finally come to ISPs.

The problem is regulation on data based on the supplier opens up a huge can of worms. Utilities don't get to cut someone off because they don't like that person.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, of course it does. That's why this isn't a clear cut discussion, I don't think. Making them utilities would allow net neutrality, but would also ****** innovation in price/quality. Making them competitors in an "open" market would not allow for net neutrality, but may allow faster advances in price/quality.

The issue, of course, is that ISPs like Comcast directly compete with some of the larger users of bandwidth.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, of course it does. That's why this isn't a clear cut discussion, I don't think. Making them utilities would allow net neutrality, but would also ****** innovation in price/quality. Making them competitors in an "open" market would not allow for net neutrality, but may allow faster advances in price/quality.

The issue, of course, is that ISPs like Comcast directly compete with some of the larger users of bandwidth.

If it's legal for them to restrict access to other ISPs in housing developments, then they are going to be regulated as utilities. I can't see the law saying, "yes they can choose whom they supply their services to, and at the same time, tell people that they cannot get another provider."

They have a choice. If they want to do away with net neutrality, and they cut someone off in a development with such a contract - they are going to face a lawsuit challenging the legality of such agreements. I'd be happier about it with mobile competitors which are available in urban areas (but not rural ones), that don't require the traditional cable connection. The problem is that not all folks have access to them.

[notyoueither]

There are a few. They have very little market share though.

Probably get a lot more if the major providers start doing things that jack up rates for too many people.

[BlackCat]

I'm a bit confused. It sounds like the ISP's gives end users no limit acces for nothing (but wont build the nessecary infrastructure to support this) and then blackmail service providers so they can supply their customers with what they have bought.

Could someone please tell me that I'm wrong, and where.

[Dinner]

Are there many indy ISPs in the US? We have many in Canada. The major pipe owners are forced to lease access to them from what I understand.

Not only do the majors act very aggressive in attempts to shut down minor local players but they even bribe state officials to outlaw communities forming co-ops to get internet service in areas the majors have already refused to extend service to. They're aggressive monopolists who do everything possible to squash or prevent competition.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'm a bit confused. It sounds like the ISP's gives end users no limit acces for nothing (but wont build the nessecary infrastructure to support this) and then blackmail service providers so they can supply their customers with what they have bought.

Could someone please tell me that I'm wrong, and where.

It's actually a bit worse than that because of things like transit agreements. So if the best path between a particular service and user requires crossing networks owned by three different companies, each of those three providers could potentially charge a fee (to both parties, or to peered networks) for access and degrade service if they don't get it. Essentially this means that any small ISP is DOA because the large providers are the ones giving them access and they have been very territorial about new competition.

(in fairness, usually the small ISPs are killed by more civilized weapons like lobbyists and the technological weapons are left for fights between the big dogs.)

[BlackCat]

Thanks for the confirmation Koyaanisqatsi.

It's quite interesting that the country of the free don't mind that companies outside control of the public has the right to control what people may acces. Probalby wet HC pants beyond what is excusable

Strange thing is that such criminal actions probably only is possible in US .

[Dr Strangelove]

It's exactly that sort of thing that gave impetus to the Anti-Trust laws. Remember Ma Bell? If the situation arises again look for the forced break-up of the major ISPs. I'm sure they'll love that much more than Net Neutrality.

[Sava]

HC is a complete moron and lives in a fantasy world.