michael2595 Posted December 14, 2017 Report Share Posted December 14, 2017 I am not sure if it will hurt Mexico internet users but just an FYI. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission voted along party lines on Thursday to repeal landmark 2015 rules that intended to ensure a free and open Internet, as protesters gather to oppose the change. The 3-2 ruling sets up a court fight over a move that opponents fear will recast the digital landscape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5180015/Protesters-gather-U-S-regulators-meet-end-net-neutrality.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Saltos Posted December 14, 2017 Report Share Posted December 14, 2017 New York, and other, Attorney General has already filed suit against the Gov't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecoons Posted December 14, 2017 Report Share Posted December 14, 2017 Since this was supposed to regulate U.S. ISPs, I can't imagine why it would affect us here in Mexico. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altair23 Posted December 14, 2017 Report Share Posted December 14, 2017 FYI for anyone concerned NOB we can demand review by Congressional Review Act. I would think it wouldn’t affect Mexico, for now. Luckily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomgates Posted December 14, 2017 Report Share Posted December 14, 2017 Net Neutrality was killing investment in Internet infrastructure. Good riddance. If you drive a car a lot, you pay more for gas. If you use more electricity, you pay more. Why is bandwidth usage any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusMactavish Posted December 14, 2017 Report Share Posted December 14, 2017 38 minutes ago, tomgates said: Why is bandwidth usage any different? I don't see bandwidth usage being the issue. Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ficklepie Posted December 14, 2017 Report Share Posted December 14, 2017 49 minutes ago, tomgates said: Net Neutrality was killing investment in Internet infrastructure. Good riddance. If you drive a car a lot, you pay more for gas. If you use more electricity, you pay more. Why is bandwidth usage any different? This has nothing to do with bandwidth. Now you will have to pay to access certain websites and services. You might not even be able to access this website. It changes the entire internet as we know it. https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/12/14/16776236/net-neutrality-made-internet-awesome-fcc-vote It will affect the entire world, not just the US: https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/23/16693840/net-neutrality-us-fcc-global-effect All this stuff is freely available for y'all to look up, instead of just posting uninformed statements/questions here on this forum. At least for a little while longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johanson Posted December 15, 2017 Report Share Posted December 15, 2017 I saw on a Seattle Channel that the state of WA. will continue to enforce the federal regulation, at least in the state of WA. And they are talking about going to Federal court again. I have no idea whether this was just talk or what it means if the state enforces the regulations in WA State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComputerGuy Posted December 15, 2017 Report Share Posted December 15, 2017 Those comments are correct, but bandwidth is an issue, because while providers won't be allowed to block you from sites, they are allowed to restrict bandwidth to un-favoured sites... whereas the sites they want you to go to instead will be more accessible. It is a highly-desired money grab for big business, as usual. The evil "web" concept will affect any traffic going through the US from anywhere in the world, and will no doubt lead to other self-serving interests attempting to mimic it. And I take exception to Tom's statement. The infrastructure has grown by multiples ever year; it's not just service providers that are in on expansion, it's mega-corporations that depend on the timely transfer of data that are pushing growth, spawning competition, and begetting more and more use. As well as military, governments, and high-tech... and online retail outlets, where megabucks are made. The Internet is not a toy anymore: it is life. Far more so than the telephone. Oh, and don't forget the cell phone that makes use of all this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusMactavish Posted December 15, 2017 Report Share Posted December 15, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecoons Posted December 15, 2017 Report Share Posted December 15, 2017 So exactly where/who in the U.S. has anyone done what yet more regulations are supposed to prevent? If you read the Verge citation it is pretty clear the core issue is lack of competition between ISPs in the U.S Pretty much the same here, Izzicable is hardly serious competition to TelMex and what else is there? I don't see how that core problem was addressed by these regulations. At some point it should become obvious that piling on more regulations and bureaucrats isn't a cure for anything but boosting employment of bureaucrats and lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cedros Posted December 15, 2017 Report Share Posted December 15, 2017 A type of censorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusMactavish Posted December 15, 2017 Report Share Posted December 15, 2017 9 minutes ago, Mainecoons said: At some point it should become obvious that piling on more regulations and bureaucrats isn't a cure for anything but boosting employment of bureaucrats and lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pappysmarket Posted December 15, 2017 Report Share Posted December 15, 2017 At least the healthcare situation improved a lot when the gummint stepped in. I think auto production should be the next step for them starting with abolishing gasoline and diesel engines. Why should corporations build or regulate anything, come to think of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecoons Posted December 15, 2017 Report Share Posted December 15, 2017 15 minutes ago, Mainecoons said: So exactly where/who in the U.S. has anyone done what yet more regulations are supposed to prevent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusMactavish Posted December 15, 2017 Report Share Posted December 15, 2017 21 minutes ago, Mainecoons said: So exactly where/who in the U.S. has anyone done what yet more regulations are supposed to prevent? Just wait for it if you will be able to pay enough for the access. What is the deal? See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq-2Yk5OgKc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael2595 Posted December 15, 2017 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2017 Carlos Slim is basically the person in Mexico that will have the power to bring or nor bring net neutrality here since his company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/América_Móvil owns Telmex with over 20 million subscribers. this article is from 2013.... https://www.wired.com/2013/05/when-it-comes-to-internet-access-and-cost-were-just-like-mexico/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pappysmarket Posted December 15, 2017 Report Share Posted December 15, 2017 I welcome discussion and all points of view, like telmex or hate them. I must also remember that for $389 a month I get a landline and internet that usually averages 9-10 down which enables me to watch streaming video. Where else, other than perhaps somewhere that has decided internet access is akin to a First Amendment right and provides "free" (Ahem) service to it's subjects, can you get that kind of deal? Would I like 30 down so I could watch in 4K? Sure. How much extra would I be willing to pay? Certainly not what the average American pays for internet. So net neutrality didn't bring down the cost. For the average working stiff, what did it do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickS Posted December 15, 2017 Report Share Posted December 15, 2017 3 hours ago, tomgates said: Net Neutrality was killing investment in Internet infrastructure. Good riddance. If you drive a car a lot, you pay more for gas. If you use more electricity, you pay more. Why is bandwidth usage any different? Fake news.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusMactavish Posted December 15, 2017 Report Share Posted December 15, 2017 22 minutes ago, pappysmarket said: So net neutrality didn't bring down the cost. For the average working stiff, what did it do? Forrester Research analyst Susan Bidel points to other countries like Portugal and England where Internet providers offer monthly services with extra fees for social, messaging and video viewing. Companies like AT&T and Verizon “could charge extra here,” says Bidel. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2017/12/14/net-neutrality-rules-dead-my-internet-bills-go-up/952839001/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudgirl Posted December 15, 2017 Report Share Posted December 15, 2017 ‘Today’s new rule would enable ISPs to charge consumers more to access sites like Facebook and Twitter and give them the leverage to degrade high quality of video streaming until and unless somebody pays them more money. Even worse, today’s vote would enable ISPs to favor certain viewpoints over others.’ From a press release from New York's Attorney General's office. The main danger here are internet providers censoring what we can and cannot access online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecoons Posted December 15, 2017 Report Share Posted December 15, 2017 Sorry Angus and Mudgirl, same comment. "Would enable? Could charge extra? Other countries..." They could have done it before 2015? Why didn't they? Because they make more money with the setup they have now. As I noted previously, the real issue here is lack of competition. Address that first. I think it is a fair concern this could become an issue in Mexico given how business works here. Competition is pretty hard to find in this country, TelMex/TelCel being a good example and car dealers being another. Collusion and price fixing is the rule here which is why a lot of things cost a lot more than they should. Like gasoline. More bureaucrats, more lawsuit business for lawyers because of "woulda, coulda?" Maybe we should wait until those become "dida." Just sayin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComputerGuy Posted December 15, 2017 Report Share Posted December 15, 2017 An even greater fear is that, as politicians and their lobbyists gain more control over what we watch and how we get it, they will continue to demand greater censorship powers. History shows us this in so many ways. I don't often agree with mudgirl, but here she is sharing a fact, not an opinion. In particular, because we all know "could" and "would" so quickly becomes "will" and "did". Net neutrality is about far more than is visible to the headline scanners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hud Posted December 15, 2017 Report Share Posted December 15, 2017 6 hours ago, AngusMactavish said: I don't see bandwidth usage being the issue. Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality Kinda like Cable suppliers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hud Posted December 15, 2017 Report Share Posted December 15, 2017 2 hours ago, ComputerGuy said: An even greater fear is that, as politicians and their lobbyists gain more control over what we watch and how we get it, they will continue to demand greater censorship powers. History shows us this in so many ways. I don't often agree with mudgirl, but here she is sharing a fact, not an opinion. In particular, because we all know "could" and "would" so quickly becomes "will" and "did". Net neutrality is about far more than is visible to the headline scanners. I never had any fear before those "controls" were put in by the last administration. Why would I now? Government needs to quit it's regulation of everything and let "the people" decide what is best for them. Those who elected this administration NOB knew EXACTLY what they would get and that is what they wanted. Just more babies crying because they can't have their way. I love it ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.