U.S. Internet Service Providers accused of deliberately slowing internet speeds

[Djuntas]

I get more than I pay for with my ISP, dunno if thats normal for Denmark, but Im happy with it.

[Grummgug]

And this is why you don't let private organizations control the utilities.

Yes because the government is never corrupt. Hell, we should just let the perfect government run everything with no checks and balances.

[Pitkanen]

I mean, I could have told them this like ten years ago.

Yup, remember when major provider was choking wow transmissions because they looked like torrents (they were choking torrents)... that was awesome.

If cable companies are unhappy with the raw amount of data going through their lines to individuals, perhaps they should charge/gb rather than arbitrary maximum speeds that are completely unobtainable from 6-11pm.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Yes because the government is never corrupt. Hell, we should just let the perfect government run everything with no checks and balances.

Holy fuck strawman from hell.

[Pitkanen]

Yes because the government is never corrupt.

'100% chance at profiteering off a monopoly and destroying net neutrality'
vs
'less than 100% chance at profiteering of a monopoly and destroying net neutrality'

Gov wins!

[Ahhdurr]

But they get to intercept and monitor the traffic for free.

You're not helping things.

[Orlong]

And this is why you don't let private organizations control the utilities.

Actually Its why you dont let a Single (monopoly) private organization control the utilities. If they would allow more companies to build infrastructure and offer service to customers, there would be competition and prices and service would improve

[Ahhdurr]

Actually Its why you dont let a Single (monopoly) private organization control the utilities. If they would allow more companies to build infrastructure and offer service to customers, there would be competition and prices and service would improve

Except they don't do that unless the government gives them the money, because it hurts their profits. It's the same exact problem with the cell phone companies.

[Orlong]

You're honestly telling me the government wouldn't do the same thing to save money on building more servers to handle more traffic?

If anything, this is why the fine print should be analyzed regarding what exactly you're buying from these providers. I'm willing to bet there's a clause buried in there that internet speeds may vary and that you are actually purchasing a ceiling of internet speed, not a guarantee.

You do, but if the provider intentionally never tries to actually reach that ceiling because they throttle your speed to spread service around (much like government run healthcare throttles procedures so everyone gets some) to avoid paying to build infrastructure, why not just sell you "up to" 1GBps and only give you 1 MB. They need to be held accountable for their lies

- - - Updated - - -

Except they don't do that unless the government gives them the money, because it hurts their profits. It's the same exact problem with the cell phone companies.

I can choose between about 5 different cell providers. I can only choose ONE cable company, only other choice most people in the US has is DSL and DSL sucks. A few lucky ones can choose fiber

[Ahhdurr]

I can choose between about 5 different cell providers. I can only choose ONE cable company, only other choice most people in the US has is DSL and DSL sucks. A few lucky ones can choose fiber

How is it the governments fault that you live in a crap area? Grab those boot straps and move to an area with better internet.

[Daelak]

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/major-u-s...924844214.html

I mean, I could have told them this like ten years ago.

Jokes aside (or is it?), I bet I could name most of the companies, despite going unnamed. Except I guess for the one EU company. At least Level 3 is doing the right thing.

The federal government should make internet a free public telecommunication. It is a basic human right to have access to the internet. Close the private businesses down, run it like a utility.

[Solidito]

Would really love to know which British company is doing it. Murdoch owned BSkyB or BT who are pretty much still a monopoly. (Looking at you Openreach)

Virgin, has to be.

[Reeve]

Did the Supreme Court recently rule that that was totally ok?

The FCC ruled it's OK, for now. They indicated they're still mulling over Net Neutrality decisions.

I think it's critical that we maintain Net Neutrality.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

The FCC ruled it's OK, for now. They indicated they're still mulling over Net Neutrality decisions.

I think it's critical that we maintain Net Neutrality.

Obviously yes but you know how the political folks think.











Hint: They don't.

[Reeve]

Here's hoping Google keeps pushing their agenda. So retarded to have our bandwidth choked by the horrible monopolies in most of the U.S.

A lot of that is because the FCC decided the internet is not a phone some time in the early 2000s. If they regulated it the way they regulate telephones, they could have forced the carriers to share their pipes with smaller companies, just like telephone companies and in some states like Texas energy utilities do. In the UK, carriers are forced to share their pipes, which results in a lot more options for the consumer.

The reasoning the FCC gave at the time, which isn't totally unreasonable, was that allowing the carriers to only carry for themselves would mean that other companies wanting in on the action would build new pipes, better pipes, faster, or wireless, or fiber, or whatever. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions (hello, Google Fiber!), that never materialized. Podcast on the topic: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/...-the-last-mile

At least we're not Canada.

[Sinyc]

The federal government should make internet a free public telecommunication. It is a basic human right to have access to the internet. Close the private businesses down, run it like a utility.

Its not classified as a right AFAIK, but I'm not disagreeing with you. I would love to see a utility style pay-for-what-you-use scheme.

[Reeve]

Actually Its why you dont let a Single (monopoly) private organization control the utilities. If they would allow more companies to build infrastructure and offer service to customers, there would be competition and prices and service would improve

They are allowed. It just costs a fortune to do it. Competitors building new pipes is what the FCC was hoping would happen when they made the rules.

[Woceip]

How is it the governments fault that you live in a crap area? Grab those boot straps and move to an area with better internet.

There are major metropolitan cities that have a smorgasboard of choice of cable providers. To the tune of like... two.

[Daelak]

Its not classified as a right AFAIK, but I'm not disagreeing with you. I would love to see a utility style pay-for-what-you-use scheme.

There is no reason why we shouldn't be there now, it is the lobbying efforts by these companies that delay progress.

[Breccia]

Did the Supreme Court recently rule that that was totally ok?

Yep. 100% legal now.