I find this a little odd because ISP’s don’t come up that much when we talk about what’s wrong with the Internet. There is a lot of discussion about what should be allowed on the Internet but it...
I find this a little odd because ISP’s don’t come up that much when we talk about what’s wrong with the Internet. There is a lot of discussion about what should be allowed on the Internet but it centers around big tech, app stores, moderation policies, and so on. Net neutrality hardly registers as a problem.
The Internet has become a worse place but it seems like the FCC has little to do with that?
We could talk about cell carriers being allowed to give deals for certain content providers where they get preferred and don’t incur data costs on limited plans. Didn’t that start under Pai’s FCC...
We could talk about cell carriers being allowed to give deals for certain content providers where they get preferred and don’t incur data costs on limited plans. Didn’t that start under Pai’s FCC and their lack of net neutrality regulation? The whole point is that infrastructure providers can’t discriminate delivering content and that’s something worth fighting for.
I do agree with net neutrality, but it seems like a YouTube or Zoom competitor would have many other problems and ISP's or phone carriers discriminating against them would be pretty far down the...
I do agree with net neutrality, but it seems like a YouTube or Zoom competitor would have many other problems and ISP's or phone carriers discriminating against them would be pretty far down the list. Zoom itself seems like a new company that should really care about net neutrality to get quality video, but aren't they doing pretty well? Maybe I'm out of touch.
@skybrian I find your comment interesting (and with no offense, i don't mean that in good nor bad way, truthfully just interested in this)...But for now, i will focus only on your first statement...
I find this a little odd because ISP’s don’t come up that much when we talk about what’s wrong with the Internet.
@skybrian I find your comment interesting (and with no offense, i don't mean that in good nor bad way, truthfully just interested in this)...But for now, i will focus only on your first statement there bout ISPs' involvement. I wonder if a response to your first point there would differ depending on what era it was asked? Here's what i'm getting at...Nowadays, there seems to be so little in the way of competition with respect to American internet connectivity (not in every place of course but many regions). As is most often cited, many U.S. consumers have maximum 1 choice for their ISP - at best. So, the biggest ISPs have much sway over and control of content over the pipes. And citizens (or consumers?) have little recourse to vote - by this i mean vote with their wallet. Their choice is to connect with one of the few big player ISPs or be disconnected and suffer. Contrast this to several years ago - i'm talking about the earlier days of internet connectivity - and it feels like people had more options to choose their internet connectivity back then. Maybe those numerous, and small ISP players of the past were a mixed bag of quality but it at least felt like choice - the kind of choice that is often referenced when promoting American capitalism. (I'm no expert, but with so few players in the ISP market, it just doesn't taste like good capitalism to me. But that's a separate convo.) That difference alone (i.e. the sheer numbers of ISPs in America )- in my opinion - greatly changes the response to your fair question about ISP involvement. I, for one, wish for much more diversity in ISP options, as i feel more diversity isn't only good for genetic defense against illness, but also for our access to utilities. With more choice also comes mass consumers increased option of voting to support better behaving ISPs (or punishing misbehaving ISPs), which could avoid heavy handed legislation. If the FCC - and any other governing body - would help support more diversity in ISPs, then maybe ISPs might come up more in discussions.
(My god, have i just talked myself into reminiscing a previous world where the older days of slower internet felt freer!?! lol)
I do remember the world of dial-up ISP's where you could pick the one you wanted, and I thought I picked pretty good ones that I was happy with. I did wait a long time while downloading software,...
I do remember the world of dial-up ISP's where you could pick the one you wanted, and I thought I picked pretty good ones that I was happy with. I did wait a long time while downloading software, though, and didn't watch any videos.
We have much faster speeds now and can do a lot more. I think as long as your Internet connection is working and you can afford the bill, you don't really interact with ISP's much, and it doesn't seem like they are all that controlling?
It's important to separate day-to-day experience from governance issues. Not that governance isn't important, but day to day it seems like most of our interaction is with other users and that's where we run into problems.
I find this a little odd because ISP’s don’t come up that much when we talk about what’s wrong with the Internet. There is a lot of discussion about what should be allowed on the Internet but it centers around big tech, app stores, moderation policies, and so on. Net neutrality hardly registers as a problem.
The Internet has become a worse place but it seems like the FCC has little to do with that?
We could talk about cell carriers being allowed to give deals for certain content providers where they get preferred and don’t incur data costs on limited plans. Didn’t that start under Pai’s FCC and their lack of net neutrality regulation? The whole point is that infrastructure providers can’t discriminate delivering content and that’s something worth fighting for.
I do agree with net neutrality, but it seems like a YouTube or Zoom competitor would have many other problems and ISP's or phone carriers discriminating against them would be pretty far down the list. Zoom itself seems like a new company that should really care about net neutrality to get quality video, but aren't they doing pretty well? Maybe I'm out of touch.
@skybrian I find your comment interesting (and with no offense, i don't mean that in good nor bad way, truthfully just interested in this)...But for now, i will focus only on your first statement there bout ISPs' involvement. I wonder if a response to your first point there would differ depending on what era it was asked? Here's what i'm getting at...Nowadays, there seems to be so little in the way of competition with respect to American internet connectivity (not in every place of course but many regions). As is most often cited, many U.S. consumers have maximum 1 choice for their ISP - at best. So, the biggest ISPs have much sway over and control of content over the pipes. And citizens (or consumers?) have little recourse to vote - by this i mean vote with their wallet. Their choice is to connect with one of the few big player ISPs or be disconnected and suffer. Contrast this to several years ago - i'm talking about the earlier days of internet connectivity - and it feels like people had more options to choose their internet connectivity back then. Maybe those numerous, and small ISP players of the past were a mixed bag of quality but it at least felt like choice - the kind of choice that is often referenced when promoting American capitalism. (I'm no expert, but with so few players in the ISP market, it just doesn't taste like good capitalism to me. But that's a separate convo.) That difference alone (i.e. the sheer numbers of ISPs in America )- in my opinion - greatly changes the response to your fair question about ISP involvement. I, for one, wish for much more diversity in ISP options, as i feel more diversity isn't only good for genetic defense against illness, but also for our access to utilities. With more choice also comes mass consumers increased option of voting to support better behaving ISPs (or punishing misbehaving ISPs), which could avoid heavy handed legislation. If the FCC - and any other governing body - would help support more diversity in ISPs, then maybe ISPs might come up more in discussions.
(My god, have i just talked myself into reminiscing a previous world where the older days of slower internet felt freer!?! lol)
I do remember the world of dial-up ISP's where you could pick the one you wanted, and I thought I picked pretty good ones that I was happy with. I did wait a long time while downloading software, though, and didn't watch any videos.
We have much faster speeds now and can do a lot more. I think as long as your Internet connection is working and you can afford the bill, you don't really interact with ISP's much, and it doesn't seem like they are all that controlling?
It's important to separate day-to-day experience from governance issues. Not that governance isn't important, but day to day it seems like most of our interaction is with other users and that's where we run into problems.
Related: Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel replaces Ajit Pai, is now acting FCC chairwoman