Intel, IBM, Others Come Out Against Title II Net Neutrality

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Intel, IBM, Others Come Out Against Title II Net Neutrality

Intel Inside 310x

60 companies signed a letter sent to Congress, and the FCC.

The sides in the war over net neutrality solidify evermore, as 60 high-tech companies and vendors have formally come out against broadband reclassification under Title II.

A letter was sent to the FCC, Congress, and various other politicians of note from the TIA (Telecommunications Industry Association), which is the trade group that represents companies in the information and communications technology (ICT) industry. A broad group, indeed, but its members include the likes of Intel, IBM, Qualcomm, Cisco Systems, and D-Link.

The core argument of the letter is similar to that being used by the likes of AT&T: Reclassification will lead to dramatically less capital investment in Internet infrastructure. That infrastructure is two-fold: The network itself (the "pipes," if you will), and the accompanying hardware (routers, switches, etc.). AT&T has already said that it would cease or dramatically slow its fiber network rollout until the issue is settled.

"Based on our experience and business expertise, we believe that our companies and our employees...would be hurt by the reduced capital spend in broadband networks that would occur if broadband is classified under Title II," says the letter. "Such a dramatic reversal in policy is unnecessary to ensure an open Internet."

To minimize confusion, the letter does not come out against net neutrality outright; rather, it's against forcing net neutrality via a reclassification of broadband as a utility under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. These vendors, some of whom are the largest networking hardware makers in the world (Cisco, D-Link), want to see additional alternative methods explored.

The letter goes on to say that the Internet, under current rules and bipartisan oversight, has "been a technological, economic, and social miracle that has boosted economic productivity and enriched lives."

Those companies who want nothing done aside, the two paths forward appear to be reclassification, or the addition of new policy on a federal level. While President Obama has already come out in favor of Title II reclassification, it appears as though his battle will be decidedly uphill.

The lines aren't terribly blurred if you look close enough. Forgetting politicians for a moment, it appears to be coming down to hardware vendors (the Ciscos and Intels of the world) versus content creators and facilitators (Netflix, Amazon, Google, and so on).

Source: Telecommunications Industry Association

Permalink

It's clear the best course of action is a new law specifically designed to protect internet content while simultaneously protecting consumer interests and obligating infrastructure providers to improve what exists currently.

It is a farce that internet providers in the US laud our speeds as "hi-speeds" while less economically powerful nations have average connection speeds hundreds of times faster than ours at a fraction of the cost. The problem is not innovation and capital investment. The problem is no incentive for providers to innovate in the first place.

There must be a law that:
1. Prohibits selectivity in content at the ISP level.
2. Ensure capital is actually spent improving connection speeds so that they become par with other developed countries.
3. Allow for competition in a monopolistic environment so as to keep prices low.
4. Satisfies the corporation's desire to increase profits.

Obama's plan satisfies the first three requirements but fails the fourth. This is likely because he wants to work within existing frameworks as it would likely be easier to pass and take less time given that he only has two years in office left.

I would wager though that unless something is done before Obama's term is over net neutrality will die with the next president who will likely be a Republican that will unconditionally side with corporate protectionism at the cost of the consumer while supposedly looking for our best "interests."

Either way Obama's plan is not perfect and will be highly contended. A better plan would be to draft a bipartisan bill that offers incentives to companies that actually refurbish the ailing american infrastructure while simultaneously protecting consumer's desire for unrestricted content. However, time is not on the president's side.

Perhaps I'm not well versed in how investment occurs in the US, but why would the reclassification cause the effects these companies claim?

shiajun:
Perhaps I'm not well versed in how investment occurs in the US, but why would the reclassification cause the effects these companies claim?

That's the part I can't figure out either. It doesn't make any sense to me. I hear baseless speculation. If there is a corporate ISP takeover, then the US is going to get hurt as a country.

Title 2 or not

I don't want there to be slow lanes & over priced fast lanes.

I don't want to find out that plenty of businesses that go out of business because they can't afford it & thus has a negative impact on unemployment.

I don't want to find out that Patreon has to give ISPs a chunk of other people's money to ISP for content they didn't create.

And I don't want it to be harder for people to be self employed if they want to do so.

Hardware v Software eh?

Sounds like an awesome episode of Reboot.

shiajun:
Perhaps I'm not well versed in how investment occurs in the US, but why would the reclassification cause the effects these companies claim?

I'm not sure myself but my best guess is, that if broadband is reclassified as a utility, it will require the creation of government assistance programs to provide broadband to those who are unable to get it due to location or financial status.

The cost to facilitate these programs or the loss of customers who will meet these standards despite paying for it already (no shortage of the working poor in this country I love) will cause a loss in profits to these businesses.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong anyone.

shiajun:
Perhaps I'm not well versed in how investment occurs in the US, but why would the reclassification cause the effects these companies claim?

Pretty sure it's just a "If you don't let us play the way we want, we'll take our ball and go home!!!" thing on the ISPs part.

vxicepickxv:

shiajun:
Perhaps I'm not well versed in how investment occurs in the US, but why would the reclassification cause the effects these companies claim?

That's the part I can't figure out either. It doesn't make any sense to me. I hear baseless speculation. If there is a corporate ISP takeover, then the US is going to get hurt as a country.

The reclassification would block the telecoms efforts to monetize faster, higher priority internet access. This is what the rest of us want to ensure that access remains free and open. The downside as these companies see it is that they can't reap the profits from the exploitation of internet users, both businesses and consumers. If they can't leverage more lucrative bandwidth allocation, they see a diminished return on investment for building the systems to carry this higher cost, higher priority data.

To me, the solution is municipal broadband. Many of these same companies oppose the establishment of parties who would provide the service without the concern of turning a profit. If these companies are disincentivized by the the utility classification, then why not let local and state government provide the services voters/consumers want?

Classifying broadband as a utility is a genuinely grey area in my opinion. I am firmly for Net Neutrality but this particular solution is really just creating a battle line between the Republicans and Democrats when we make it about government assistance Vs a free American market.

Should it be a utility? I don't know, maybe, but I'd like to see some legislature that defends Net Neutrality directly, rather than a work around that will cause people who would probably otherwise support it (some of whom, are probably mentione in the above article) to rally their voices and money against a free internet.

Right, because companies like Comcast are currently spending soooo much money on infrastructure... [/sarcasm]

Our ISP companies are a joke. How they get away with functioning on a level sub-par to government utilities already is shameful.

If they're going to be monopolies or small oligopolies in every city then they might as well be utilities.

image

Yah, you know what? Until they fix this for me, I'm not going to care if they turn a bigger profit. They barely deserve the one they have for services provided. The whole operation is fixed so they can do the least amount of work possible for the most amount of money garnered, and for that they can enjoy being a utility and having to balance their service equally amongst the masses.

Better still if they start finding themselves fined for under providing what they have been contracted to do.

They do make a good point that ISPs (being the greedy bastards that they are) might not improve their infrastructure as fast. They're already doing a bang up job at letting other countries' ISPs overshadow them in speed, low prices, and customer service, without Title II classification.

I don't want to see the net neutrality fight get any more road blocks. Their really should be some bills going through Congress to fix this (and good luck with that) along with the FCC rulings. Of course, some idiots in Washington will probably see this as an anti-net neutrality stance, when it's really just hardware companies worried about their bread and butter. This is making things a little more complicated, when all the ISPs really need is a kick in the ass to make internet service in the US better and more desirable, thereby making more profit for them and these hardware makers.

I also hope this new turn of events doesn't give Wheeler any more political ammo for his god awful "two-tier" plans.

ryukage_sama:
To me, the solution is municipal broadband. Many of these same companies oppose the establishment of parties who would provide the service without the concern of turning a profit. If these companies are disincentivized by the the utility classification, then why not let local and state government provide the services voters/consumers want?

Yes. Why are these companies working against public funded services in areas they have no current plans to expand to? They're monopolies, that's why. They can't take the fact that if they ever did move to those areas, they would have to put up decent competition against what is already established.

What we need is either the states, that were bribed into making laws banning municipal broadband, to overturn their obviously monopolistic laws they just made, or also a federal law protecting municipal services, along with some sort of incentive programs to get both those public plans going and the private sector to be far more competitive.

Translation : deep packet inspection makes us money (except for AT&T, but they're just full of it).

So yeah, what they say is true. Also utterly irrelevant.

vxicepickxv:

shiajun:
Perhaps I'm not well versed in how investment occurs in the US, but why would the reclassification cause the effects these companies claim?

That's the part I can't figure out either. It doesn't make any sense to me. I hear baseless speculation. If there is a corporate ISP takeover, then the US is going to get hurt as a country.

(warning, I'm going to sound asshole-ish here. This isn't directed to you. It started off as an answer and I just got more upset with the companies as time went on. I just can't stand all this milking bullshit any more)

Idea that if we don't get more money in the future, we can't put money into development processes and the like to make the internet better than it was ever before!

It's a scary sentence that would give people pause.

If you didn't look at the facts, it is.

You know. That companies like Comcast posted free cash flow gains from 6.9 billion to 8.5 billion in 2013.

And they somehow find trouble taking at least... one of those extra billions and investing in making a better service. As we know, Free Cash Flow is the money left over once you've recooped the cost of maintaining what you have and advertising and spreading out to get more of the market share.

8.5 Billion. In 2013. Under Net Neutrality. Somehow, Net Neutrality is hurting their profits and obviously will only serve to hurt them more, the poor things. That's why we have to get rid of it!.

They can't come out and say "Literally, all we want to do is make it government sanctioned that we can fleece and cripple our customers more. And not only that, they will have no where else to turn because the internet is literally a necessary in today's life and we want to do what the pharmaceuticals did with medicine."... So they have to act like Net Neutrality is crippling them somehow.

And luckily, the right people were bought off so it can pass without anyone taking five seconds to look at the numbers and calling them out on trying to make a government sanctioned monopoly.

we are lucky in Northern Ireland, Belfast... we have only just got rid of the horse and cart.

image

crepesack :
It's clear the best course of action is a new law specifically designed to protect internet content while simultaneously protecting consumer interests and obligating infrastructure providers to improve what exists currently.

It is a farce that internet providers in the US laud our speeds as "hi-speeds" while less economically powerful nations have average connection speeds hundreds of times faster than ours at a fraction of the cost. The problem is not innovation and capital investment. The problem is no incentive for providers to innovate in the first place.

There must be a law that:
1. Prohibits selectivity in content at the ISP level.
2. Ensure capital is actually spent improving connection speeds so that they become par with other developed countries.
3. Allow for competition in a monopolistic environment so as to keep prices low.
4. Satisfies the corporation's desire to increase profits.

Obama's plan satisfies the first three requirements but fails the fourth. This is likely because he wants to work within existing frameworks as it would likely be easier to pass and take less time given that he only has two years in office left.

I would wager though that unless something is done before Obama's term is over net neutrality will die with the next president who will likely be a Republican that will unconditionally side with corporate protectionism at the cost of the consumer while supposedly looking for our best "interests."

Either way Obama's plan is not perfect and will be highly contended. A better plan would be to draft a bipartisan bill that offers incentives to companies that actually refurbish the ailing american infrastructure while simultaneously protecting consumer's desire for unrestricted content. However, time is not on the president's side.

Three things;

1. Didn't they already try to use "normal" law already and have the vital part of it struck down by a court, hence the reclassification angle in the first place?

2. Rationally speaking, in the modern age internet access is a utility; for a large and ever growing number of people fast, stable 'net access is more important than having a phone. Corporations have, left to their own devices, horribly mismanaged internet provision in the USA, I see nothing wrong with taking a chunk of the responsibility into the hands of the public and telling the corps to buck the fuck up or face the consequences.

3. Bipartisan bill? In a Washington where both houses are under Republican control and the Republicans are run by a bunch of petulant wankers who's response to anything and everything the President says or does amounts to "ERMAHGERD THAT'S TYRANNY!", or calls to impeach/sue him? Obama has problems, but saying "he has to get a bipartisan bill through by the end of his term" is essentially saying "I don't care about this thing or actively want it to fail".

WarpedLord:

shiajun:
Perhaps I'm not well versed in how investment occurs in the US, but why would the reclassification cause the effects these companies claim?

Pretty sure it's just a "If you don't let us play the way we want, we'll take our ball and go home!!!" thing on the ISPs part.

Oh, so much this. People, particularly clueless politicians, need to grasp the fact that corporations will do or say almost anything to avoid having to adapt their behaviour; it's always more efficient to drive a rival out of business than to compete, to be not the best service but the only service, to extort rather than innovate(the Reacher Gilt school of management :P). If they can take the easy path, the cheap path, they will regardless of whether that's good for their customers, for the economy, or even for their own company in the medium to long term.

You guys need to do something, and since(as always) leaving corporate power to manage themselves has failed utterly, it's time to hit them over the head and tell them to buck up or fuck off. Crikey I get 100mb broadband with 10mb upload, no usage limits, and a landline phone for £40-odd quid, and that package started out with 30mb, they've given customers TWO free upgrades in speed in the last few of years. It doesn't have to suck unless you allow free market dogmatism to bind your hands.

Middle_Index:
we are lucky in Northern Ireland, Belfast... we have only just got rid of the horse and cart.

image

I hate you. True it's only for this image and nothing more, but the fact is as an artist that uses the internet to assist my tiny main paycheck. It's staggering how long it takes to output anything to my customers. How is it that anyone can see the difference in service provided around the world and allow this to continue is beyond me.

Hell, I bounce from the state's capital and it is this bad, with no ability to use a different service.

Reclassification will lead to dramatically less capital investment in Internet infrastructure.

What? Even less investment than there is now already? IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE??? /sarcasm

Edit: I don't know exactly what the situation in the US is but here in my country the telecom giants don't invest shit into the infrastructure but instead squeeze as much as they can out of the existing infrastructure that was put up by the government because investment into infrastructure gives no short term returns to please the shareholders. I'm pretty sure it's the same in the USA.

News like this really gets my revolutionary sympathies going. Now, history has shown, and a good deal of economic theory suggests, that just murdering everyone whose income comes mainly from investments won't make the sun shine always from that day on, but surely we can at least have one more try at cleansing the world of capitalist vultures before we as a species call it quits? Maybe try anarcho-communism instead of Stalinism?

crepesack :
It's clear the best course of action is a new law specifically designed to protect internet content while simultaneously protecting consumer interests and obligating infrastructure providers to improve what exists currently.

It is a farce that internet providers in the US laud our speeds as "hi-speeds" while less economically powerful nations have average connection speeds hundreds of times faster than ours at a fraction of the cost. The problem is not innovation and capital investment. The problem is no incentive for providers to innovate in the first place.

There must be a law that:
1. Prohibits selectivity in content at the ISP level.
2. Ensure capital is actually spent improving connection speeds so that they become par with other developed countries.
3. Allow for competition in a monopolistic environment so as to keep prices low.
4. Satisfies the corporation's desire to increase profits.

Obama's plan satisfies the first three requirements but fails the fourth. This is likely because he wants to work within existing frameworks as it would likely be easier to pass and take less time given that he only has two years in office left.

I would wager though that unless something is done before Obama's term is over net neutrality will die with the next president who will likely be a Republican that will unconditionally side with corporate protectionism at the cost of the consumer while supposedly looking for our best "interests."

Either way Obama's plan is not perfect and will be highly contended. A better plan would be to draft a bipartisan bill that offers incentives to companies that actually refurbish the ailing american infrastructure while simultaneously protecting consumer's desire for unrestricted content. However, time is not on the president's side.

So you want the US deficit to increase to pay for additional infrastructure so that google etc with their aggressive tax avoidance regimes, don't have to pay anything towards upgrading the thing that lets their business make money.

WarpedLord:

shiajun:
Perhaps I'm not well versed in how investment occurs in the US, but why would the reclassification cause the effects these companies claim?

Pretty sure it's just a "If you don't let us play the way we want, we'll take our ball and go home!!!" thing on the ISPs part.

I agree with the statement, but the ISPs are not the corporations referenced in this article. It's the hardware providers and big data corporations. My guess is that they are referencing the stagnation in investment into all other infrastructure in the US, which btw is one of the oldest in modernized nations. For instance, Cleveland's pipe systems are more than 100 years old, and the only reason they upgrade is if something breaks. There is simply not enough spending being done in the utilities sector for these big corporations to have faith in reclassification. I do think that the internet should be reclassified as a utility, but for the big corporations to get on board, there needs to be tangible growth in the utilities sector. As much as i dislike Obama, I hope he can somehow manage to force the issue through.

On a side note, if you're not from the US and don't know squat about the state of the internet here, please say so in your post. I see a lot of posts from people not in the US commenting like they know what's what, when they really don't.

I honestly don't buy the lack of investment following the reclassification. There's always going to be someone out there who's going to provide a better service and is going to kick your ass out of the market if you refuse to get better. Look at Google Fiber, people are lauding it like the second coming of christ. Why because it's finally the service that people want. Companies like Comcast and Time Warner are already dragging their feet when it comes to fixing and improving lines, the whole reclassification thing is just another excuse they can use.

From my own personal experience: My neighborhood has 2 separate lines throughout it, oddly enough I sit between them. We ended up getting a feed from both lines because we wanted to move our modem to a different spot in the house. One line started having odd sorts of problems, we had about 5 different technicians come out, we were told to replace our modem and router. Problem still wasn't fixed after months. Comcast constantly told us the problem was on our end. After a ton of research I found out packets were being lost, ended up talking to neighbors across the way and ended up running the same tests at their place, same problem. I only got wind of the problem because I'd have a lot of problems playing online games, whereas basic users just assumed it was the normal function of the net. On a whim I tried our old line, and ta-dah problem is fixed. So essentially somewhere on one side of my neighborhood there is a problem in the line, and comcast did not give a fuck, and now I have a 100 foot cable running through my house for the internet.

So at the end of the day this is a list of companies I won't be buying products from. Granted I'm sure I didn't have any interaction with a majority of their products in the first place, but the ones that I did, my money is going to their competitors.

Armadox:
image

Yah, you know what? Until they fix this for me, I'm not going to care if they turn a bigger profit. They barely deserve the one they have for services provided. The whole operation is fixed so they can do the least amount of work possible for the most amount of money garnered, and for that they can enjoy being a utility and having to balance their service equally amongst the masses.

Better still if they start finding themselves fined for under providing what they have been contracted to do.

...Given the shit I deal with I hope you're paying alot for this to warrant such outrage because I will HAPPILY take that quality given the shite I deal with.

And am forced to deal with.

But I agree with the sentiment, fuck Internet service providers. They lie, and they get away with lying by coating it in layers and layers of more convoluted lies that a layman is guaranteed to be misled about. And in a world where the internet is so crucial to the success of many other businesses, industries, relationships and such forth, I can't really agree on their point.

image

Even though my results aren't as good as the Irish guys, I don't actually have any problem with the speed of my Internet or Downloading things from it. True, it could and probably should go faster, but it's not as bad as people are making it out.

OT: Great, either way our Internet is screwed here. It's only going to get slower regardless of who owns it.

Charli:

...Given the shit I deal with I hope you're paying alot for this to warrant such outrage because I will HAPPILY take that quality given the shite I deal with.

And am forced to deal with.

But I agree with the sentiment, fuck Internet service providers. They lie, and they get away with lying by coating it in layers and layers of more convoluted lies that a layman is guaranteed to be misled about. And in a world where the internet is so crucial to the success of many other businesses, industries, relationships and such forth, I can't really agree on their point.

Net costs me around $95 USD a month (I only buy net without the rest of the garbage), and I guarantee you it's not even close to what I'm supposed to be at. Though the most infuriating thing about it is that around midnight to 3 am, when I'm working on my projects it'll stop nearly altogether. I've called on it, and they gave a vague "maintenance" reason that didn't actually answer why it's nightly.

I'm sure if you're only using the net for casual browsing it's fine. But trying to send comic pages, or graphics for signs or billboards and the ilk.. It's a slog I set to send and then have to leave alone til it either goes or times out.

The US Government is playing favorites so hard that every other big corporations are starting to complain. That's new... kinda...

Welp, Comcast is my ISP. The stories I could tell the CEOs of Intel, Qualcomm and others about my the quality of my wholesome and family friendly ISP, the one that throttles my Crunchyroll connection, the ISP that sends me the wrong DCMA/Piracy nastygrams because of an account mixup, the same home team that beats Hulu with a crowbar. My friendly neighbor, Comcast.

Well then. I know what CPU goes into my build next year. HInt: its not IBM. Is NVIDIA pro or contra net neutrality reclassification? cause if they are Pro, than I shall use their GPUs, as per the original plan.

Edit: Or INtel. They can suck on a tailpipe. But then again I live in Canada, where theres no big issue yet.

albino boo:
So you want the US deficit to increase to pay for additional infrastructure so that google etc with their aggressive tax avoidance regimes, don't have to pay anything towards upgrading the thing that lets their business make money.

The deficit barely matters in the long and short term. Ignorin it completely and goin absolutely bonkers is a bad idea obviously, but not spendin money at all is an even bigger problem. Its why the U.S. economy is havin so much damn trouble gettin back on track. Cutting spendin in almost all cases directly leads to less revenue in the market place. This leads to less people spendin money, which leads to less profits for companies, which leads to less jobs, which leads to economies stagnating.

Its been shown time and time again that deficit hawks are actively damaging the country by refusing to allow any spending without taking money from the pockets of working people.

On topic!

Honestly, AT&T and the likes barely spend money on infrastructure improvements as is. AT&T is about the only one that actually is tryin, but their track record of followin through is spotty at best. Its like the reverse of how crazies in the US talk about how the fastest growin industry in the country is survival equipment sales. My response is always that of course its the fastest growin industry, if you go from 4 crazies buildin bomb shelters to 12 crazies buildin bomb shelters you've increased it by 300%. Likewise if Comcast reduces its spendin on infrastructure from (made up numbers) 12 million to 11 million, yeah it'll make a difference, but average people wont notice it worth a damn anyway.

The Hungry Samurai:
I am firmly for Net Neutrality but this particular solution is really just creating a battle line between the Republicans and Democrats when we make it about government assistance Vs a free American market.

Since when have republicans been for "American free market," the only thing that republicans are for is corporate monopoly.

I pay 89 a month for 10MB and less than 3 up.
---
Either make it title 2 or nationalize all the land lines and take away their wireless spectrums if they misbehave and try and price gouge....

shiajun:
Perhaps I'm not well versed in how investment occurs in the US, but why would the reclassification cause the effects these companies claim?

It's kind of like protection money. "Nice internets ya gots there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it."

MorganL4:
Hardware v Software eh?

Sounds like an awesome episode of Reboot.

"I come from the Net. From systems, peoples, and cities, to this place. The slow lane."

Mr.Mattress:
image

Even though my results aren't as good as the Irish guys, I don't actually have any problem with the speed of my Internet or Downloading things from it. True, it could and probably should go faster, but it's not as bad as people are making it out.

OT: Great, either way our Internet is screwed here. It's only going to get slower regardless of who owns it.

I don't know about you, but while I technically get faster speeds than you:

image

My internet slows to a craaaaaawl the minute I try and do something crazy like stream video, download a game, or anything upwards of buying an MP3 album. Hell, since the decision that the FCC couldn't regulate the internet or however the wording went, even gaming online has been impacted. Also, I'm faster than 2/3s of the US, which is scary in and of itself.

The speeds themselves aren't bad, but the fact that ISPs can throttle you if they don't like the traffic in question is problematic at the best of times. It's worse when you consider we're paying more for an inferior service.

Zachary Amaranth:

Mr.Mattress:
image

Even though my results aren't as good as the Irish guys, I don't actually have any problem with the speed of my Internet or Downloading things from it. True, it could and probably should go faster, but it's not as bad as people are making it out.

OT: Great, either way our Internet is screwed here. It's only going to get slower regardless of who owns it.

I don't know about you, but while I technically get faster speeds than you:

image

My internet slows to a craaaaaawl the minute I try and do something crazy like stream video, download a game, or anything upwards of buying an MP3 album. Hell, since the decision that the FCC couldn't regulate the internet or however the wording went, even gaming online has been impacted. Also, I'm faster than 2/3s of the US, which is scary in and of itself.

The speeds themselves aren't bad, but the fact that ISPs can throttle you if they don't like the traffic in question is problematic at the best of times. It's worse when you consider we're paying more for an inferior service.

Huh, that's very strange. Even when I had Comcast I never had the Crawls. The main problem with the internet I've always had was what I called "Dropping", where the Internet would just die for minutes or hours. I always attributed it with terrible routers or the computer, although it might have just been Comcast. I haven't had too many "Droppings" since I switched to Wow.

But I do agree, Internet Companies should not be able to throttle you or websites for whatever reason they want. I just don't support the Government or an agency of the Government, especially the FCC, becoming the main ruler over the internet itself.

Mr.Mattress:

Huh, that's very strange. Even when I had Comcast I never had the Crawls. The main problem with the internet I've always had was what I called "Dropping", where the Internet would just die for minutes or hours. I always attributed it with terrible routers or the computer, although it might have just been Comcast. I haven't had too many "Droppings" since I switched to Wow.

But I do agree, Internet Companies should not be able to throttle you or websites for whatever reason they want. I just don't support the Government or an agency of the Government, especially the FCC, becoming the main ruler over the internet itself.

How long ago did you have Comcast? It's only within the last year that they gained the "right" to do this. Previously, they had throttled torrent traffic, but that was pre-internet data cap. Now they have both a cap and throttling. They were one of the companies that strongarmed Netflix into a financial deal to stop throttling their traffic, something I'm not completely sure they really did.

I'd switch, but my broadband options where I live are Comcast and...well, Comcast. Even the places that say they serve this town in their ads say they don't when you try and actually set up service. It's a really screwed up scenario. Even better is that Comcast has just nagged me into a new DOCSIS 3 modem, saying it was the problem with my slow speeds. Yeah, I'm very slightly faster than I used to be. Less than 1 MB/sec. Totally the modem's fault.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here