TH3-D0S3R on 14 December 2017
| EricHiggin said: Why they couldn't change the bill, or write up a new one with the changes or add on's they felt were needed, I don't know, but that would have been better than flat out tossing the bill. Allowing for more freedom and more profits does make sense to me, in the long run and the big picture. I guess I'm one of the few who MIGHT benefit from this, and not because I own their stocks or anything like that. If this truly leads to progress into bringing worthwhile and reliable high speed into rural area's like Pai wants, than it's a huge win. The Conservatives, mostly rural people, did vote for Trump, who apparently put Pai in place to make sure this went through, so using this to better the rural high speed infrastructure would make sense. However, if these Corporations simply pocket the money, or use it to just give urban people even faster speed and more reliable service, than not so good. I don't understand why most people don't see what the FCC MAY be trying to do. Everyone agree's on net neutrality because they want everyone to be able to have equal rights on the internet. Yet there are tens of millions of people who can't even get high speed to be able to use many of these online tools, so what about equality and rights then? I don't see anybody, especially the media, making a stink over how it's not fair that there are still American's with no other choice but dial up. (I don't count satellite because the speed and reliability is mostly crap, is really costly for what you get, and usually has low data caps). While I'm Canadian, this won't directly affect me, other than access to certain websites, maybe, we'll see. Otherwise, since we tend to follow the US a lot of the time, this may help to at least change the rules here to help bring high speed to rural area's. 5MB connection is the best I can get here, and the system is so overloaded, that the only time we ever get that speed is between midnight and 9am. On average, during the day, we get 2MB, and during peak hours we get 1MB. My friend who lives a km away, only has access to wireless 1.5MB and pays more than we do for our 5MB. A km the other way, is a small town/village with 50 homes, and 2km farther is a town of 500 homes with 1GB fiber installed recently. The company that installed the fiber said they will not bring it any farther. The large company who's phone lines we use for DSL, won't upgrade either. They eventually were straight up with us and said it just doesn't make business sense for anyone, so too bad for us, take it or leave it. As far as I'm concerned, if you have a 10MB-25MB connection or better, and believe in net neutrality, you should also be fighting to better the network as a whole. That doesn't seem to be a worry for anyone though. Just as long as they are aloud to continue using their awesome internet speeds to their advantage, that's all that matters apparently. Just imagine if all those rural farmers decided to sell their products from their own farm, instead of selling it to the middle man and taking a huge hit in terms of profits, just so that everyone can purchase that food and benefit with ease. As for the blocking of access or high speed lanes, I don't necessarily agree, but if for some reason a deal can't be made that is a balance between all aspects of the internet, then I would rather drop net neutrality, again, only if the majority of the extra profits are used to bring everyone similar speeds, access, and reliability. Do I think that is really what's going to happen? Probably not, but if you don't give the system another chance, you won't know, unfortunately. If nothing changes over a year or two, then I'm all for net neutrality as it was, if not more regulated. |
I understand what you are saying in the sense of rural areas. Being from a farm state, many parts are isolated and have no great possibilities at a good internet connection.
The only problem I see is that this doesn't encourage big corporations to expand, but rather make big cash deals with internet companies like Google and force their consumers to pay more upfront to get better speeds.
I could be proven wrong and don't have a 100% vision on the topic, but I just don't see how this can benefit anyone but the big ISP's and corporations.
