Highest Rated Comments

ii-V-I240 karma

Wheeler's recent statement said that last-mile unbundling is off the table. Doesn't that mean that ISPs can still hold their customers over a barrel and charge us a ton without offering fast speeds?

ii-V-I111 karma

there are still other steps the FCC can take to encourage competition for consumers, like examining all the potential harms of mergers or encouraging the deployment of new networks through efforts like municipal broadband.

But doesn't that mean we're right back where we started? Examining harms is fine and dandy, but it leads to no actionable consequences for ISPs. And without the last-mile, muni broadband will be financially out of reach for the majority of small towns in the whole country.

ii-V-I61 karma

Either colluding with competitors to increase prices or leveraging regional monopoly status to extort extra profits out of trapped customers.

Isn't that exactly ISPs current business model?

ii-V-I33 karma

net neutrality is important but doesn't solve every problem

After title II, whats stopping ISPs from basically saying, "You want us to be a utility? Fine, that will be $1 per GB you use."

ii-V-I30 karma

Reclassification of the sort the FCC seems to be planning wouldn't change anything related to that either way.

With title II, ISPs will have to finally invest in infrastructure if they're no longer allowed to throttle and shape traffic for network management. Also, they won't be able to extort companies like Netflix for millions due to peering shenanigans.

Title II will impact ISPs by increasing costs and decreasing revenue. Shareholders will go bananas. Now is their chance to say "well we told you title II was going to increase your bill." And suddenly we're all paying $200/month for Internet.