So now that net neutrality is gone...

  • 2
  • Question
  • Updated 2 years ago
  • Answered
Now that net neutrality is gone how long before i will have to pay a premium to access certain content i'm just curious since i'm stuck in a  2 year contract. 
Photo of Brandon Fisher

Brandon Fisher

  • 92 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes

Posted 2 years ago

  • 2
Photo of VeteranSatUser

VeteranSatUser, Champion

  • 5133 Posts
  • 3175 Reply Likes
People are acting like this is the end of the world. We will be able to survive without "net neutrality".
Photo of Brandon Fisher

Brandon Fisher

  • 92 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
You say that now but what will you say when your being charge 200 bucks extra to get divided content. You'd be the first one to probably complain. Me i don't care if it stops streamers from congesting the internet i'm all for it. Ever since streaming began the internet has Become a congested hell hole. I'll gladly pay 15 extra bucks a month on a low latency ISP to access my school website without issues or play a game online more reliably because streamers don't want to pay a premium to stream. I don't stream so i probably have nothing to lose. But this vote showed that we don't live in a democracy anymore. 
Photo of Brandon Fisher

Brandon Fisher

  • 92 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
SO yet again i ask when can i pay a dang premium to get reliable content.
Photo of privatejordy

privatejordy

  • 163 Posts
  • 58 Reply Likes
My contract doesn't say anything about paying extra for anything, unless I run out of priority data, and then I have the option of purchasing more. The guidelines and rules are pretty clear on their plans. We're already paying for priority access, and it often appears Viasat has their hands full already and I think trying to filter and control access to specific sites and services, is a technical nightmare many providers probably won't have any interest in. My gut tells me that nothing will change for those of us with contracts. I'm also going to predict that customers will bail on any provider that does impose restrictions, as many (not us) do have multiple options, and I think that alone will insure most providers will behave.
Photo of Grumpyoldman

Grumpyoldman

  • 234 Posts
  • 88 Reply Likes
Well that depends on you!  You want to go and they charge then yes. But don't worry there will be plenty of sites pop up that will fill the void.
Photo of Leo George Jr

Leo George Jr

  • 44 Posts
  • 31 Reply Likes
I hope they break the contract, then I can run!
Photo of Brandon Fisher

Brandon Fisher

  • 92 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
I've honestly always wanted to be able to pay for a reliability service with games when the streaming congestion hits. Games need reliable low latency to function properly and this may very well be a good thing for gamers. Ever since the invention of the streaming video i've seen the internet get ever more unreliable during peak hours for data that requires literally no bandwidth. Maybe now during peak hours games can actually get better priority even if its at a premium. And before the comment comes in you cant game on exede let it be known i have a 4g connection to play games over i don't game on exede ,except when i have no more data and even then exede does work pretty well with games except during prime times but thats to be expected its even like that on my 4g connection.
Photo of Grumpyoldman

Grumpyoldman

  • 234 Posts
  • 88 Reply Likes
Brandon, any time you use the internet you are going to run into congestion, just the nature of the beast. You might have to  figure out a way to have an intranet of gaming sites separate from the World Wide Web.
Photo of Brandon Fisher

Brandon Fisher

  • 92 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
This isn't a rant on the fall of net neutrality being a bad thing what i am trying to make people aware of is that this might actually be a good thing if used properly. 90% of the people you see on these posts complaining about data caps and slow internet speeds are who? The ones who stream all day long.
(Edited)
Photo of Bradley

Bradley

  • 1279 Posts
  • 416 Reply Likes
Data cap complainers are usually people who download massive sized games like me. Then I want to stream at the same time. Forgive me for living the American Dream.
Photo of mike barber

mike barber

  • 104 Posts
  • 27 Reply Likes
  I'm paying $60 a month for 12 Gigs and after Microsoft steals there 4 Gigs each month to download their MS10 "updates" I run out each month using email, banking and basic web-browsing. Maybe these potential "restrictions" will reduce my usage so I won't run out....  oh boy, thanks FCC. And I thought you were supposed to protect the public, not help multi million dollar Corporations generate additional revenue for their stockholders.
Photo of privatejordy

privatejordy

  • 163 Posts
  • 58 Reply Likes
I find it's much more affordable and sensible to download updates during the FreeZone. I updated 3 computers, 1 tablet and 14 apps on my phone last night, while streaming the shows I'd missed on my smart tv, surfing the web, paying bills, shopping online & checking in on friends, all without touching my data. I have 12 w/Boost and WiFi and I manage my data carefully.
(Edited)
Photo of mike barber

mike barber

  • 104 Posts
  • 27 Reply Likes
I would love to download the MS10 update files during the FreeZone but so far, and I've done a lot of research and even called Microsoft, there is no way to do it. If you know how please let me know.
Photo of david

david, Champion

  • 557 Posts
  • 395 Reply Likes
If you have a good router you can look up the MS update addresses and block them on your router except during the LNFZ.
Photo of garybartlett01

garybartlett01

  • 5 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
With net Neutrality the government would control content.  The people that brought us "SNOWFLAKES" would be in charge of ALL CONTENT.  I trust the marketplace before people in government.  Let the free market rule.  
Photo of Michael McDowell

Michael McDowell

  • 632 Posts
  • 238 Reply Likes
Just keep feeding those people in Washington the rope.  Eventually, they will figure out what it is for!
Photo of Matt B

Matt B, Viasat Employee

  • 962 Posts
  • 484 Reply Likes
Official Response
Hey all,

We've been just as curious as you as to Viasat's policies moving forward.  The official word from the big offices in Carlsbad is as follows:
The repeal of net neutrality does not change our practices and how we strive to value and treat our customers with respect.
Photo of privatejordy

privatejordy

  • 163 Posts
  • 58 Reply Likes
Good to hear
Photo of Ron D Stricklin

Ron D Stricklin

  • 75 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
Well that suggests your service won't get worse, but as it's a low quality service at a high expense, the question is as its always been, Will it get better?
Photo of EpicCat

EpicCat

  • 7 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I doubt any provider will block things. It would be bad for business.
Photo of mferner

mferner

  • 301 Posts
  • 66 Reply Likes
From what I read about it Internet companies can now charge you like a certain amount to view different websites like Facebook, youtube, twitter, Google Etc kinda like a TV cable package! Hopefully exede keeps things like they are now
Photo of garybartlett01

garybartlett01

  • 5 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Afraid you are misinformed.  You have been lied to by people who live to make laws preventing people from enjoying freedom and curiosity.
Photo of xode0000

xode0000, Champion

  • 497 Posts
  • 167 Reply Likes
Hopefully exede keeps things like they are now.
The official response from Matt B states that things going forward WILL be as they are now.
Photo of privatejordy

privatejordy

  • 163 Posts
  • 58 Reply Likes
I agree.  I think any provider that does start restricting anything, will see a mass exodus!
Photo of Stephen Rice

Stephen Rice, Champion

  • 2689 Posts
  • 1404 Reply Likes
Ten years ago I was paying AT&T less than $35 a month for internet.  The price slowly crawled up to $69 a month.  Even with net neutrality, AT&T still found a way to screw me.

I ditched AT&T a few months ago and now have a three year price lock with Viasat for $60.99 a month, including equipment lease and taxes.  

All of you boo boo's crying about things going bad, don't understand how competition works.  Viasat has a competitor that is going to be putting a low orbit system of satellites in space with low latency and high speeds.  That alone will keep Viasat in line.

 
(Edited)
Photo of privatejordy

privatejordy

  • 163 Posts
  • 58 Reply Likes
Not to mention, as I've said, it would be very bad for business and customers would flee like rats on a sinking ship if their provider implemented any additional charges.
Photo of Stephen Rice

Stephen Rice, Champion

  • 2689 Posts
  • 1404 Reply Likes
Exactly.  Customers are already mad at Viasat as it is.  I couldn't see them doing something else to encourage customers to leave.
Photo of Ron D Stricklin

Ron D Stricklin

  • 75 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
If Viasat was a decent company that would be one thing but it's not. People asking Viasat what they might do is very reasonable.
Photo of privatejordy

privatejordy

  • 163 Posts
  • 58 Reply Likes
It'll be a while before this will affect anyone because it still has to go through the court system. There will be lawsuits and push back.
Photo of Brandon Fisher

Brandon Fisher

  • 92 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
No the whole thing that people are getting in an uproar about isn't that they block content because they cant do that anyway that is censorship. What people are in an uproar about is them setting up different types of traffic in different lanes and sowing down certain services and charging you for faster speed.
Photo of Ron D Stricklin

Ron D Stricklin

  • 75 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
Censorship is actually quite legal. The internet is full of censorship. Net neutrality made that type of censorship illegal to ISPs. An ISP is not the government. The 1st amendment never has and never will offer any protections against ISPs.
Photo of xode0000

xode0000, Champion

  • 497 Posts
  • 167 Reply Likes
From what I have read of the FCC action and of 47 USC 151 et seq (the telecommunications act), the FCC simply said "it's government regulation hands off" and "let the competition in the market take the place of government regulation."

Going forward, I would expect the FCC to insure that, for any location in the U.S., a customer has more than one choice of completely neutral ISP, so a customer could say "go stuff it" to any ISP that did try a censorship stunt.  IIRC, the FCC is also required to insure that ISPs clearly disclose their policies in advance to prospective customers and then stick to those policies.  So, even though the 1st Amendment might not prohibit censorship by ISPs, the contract between an ISP and a customer certainly will.

What I do know is that Exede (now ViaSat) has never blocked access to any website I went to.
Photo of VeteranSatUser

VeteranSatUser, Champion

  • 5133 Posts
  • 3175 Reply Likes
Competition? A free marketplace? Surely you jest.

I thought we need the government nanny state to protect us :)
Photo of Stephen Rice

Stephen Rice, Champion

  • 2687 Posts
  • 1402 Reply Likes
"I thought we need the government nanny state to protect us :)"

That's the responsibility of Smith & Wesson.
(Edited)
Photo of Ron D Stricklin

Ron D Stricklin

  • 75 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
Where is it that you come from were the market is unregulated? Certainly not the United States. Where I am from in the United States we have what is known as a mixed economy. Look at what all of those regulations have done in our old Nanny State. Now the food on average is safe for consumption. Omg how terrible.... The fact is there where a number of historic abusive by ISPs that were both anti-competitive and killed innovation. ATT blocking facetime, Verizon and Comcast degrading netflix service and fixing it only after Netflix paid a recurring fee, att cencoring pearl jam because they spoke out against President Bush, comcast blocking bittorrent, and so much more. This all lead to Net Neutrality in the first place and they all justify it.
Photo of Grumpyoldman

Grumpyoldman

  • 234 Posts
  • 88 Reply Likes
Sorry Ron NOT worth it. Been on the internet since the 90s. Only problem I had was actually getting on the Internet Service Provider. It's all horse hockey! Now we have the ISPs selling our browsing data, browsers collect our  browsing habits and sell it to advertisers. What I do on the internet is my business and with net neutrality it would have gotten worse. The Govt has NO BUSINESS monitoring where I go and what I do on the net, thank you. We have little content blocking in the US because the government does not have their fingers in the pot. Hell even facebook censors posts now. So I watch how I say what I say.
What's the benefit of net neutrality? We still get hacked, viciously. I'll take my chances with the hackers! At least I know they'll screw me the first chance they get and I can recover from them. 
Photo of Ron D Stricklin

Ron D Stricklin

  • 75 Posts
  • 20 Reply Likes
Your not under the delusion that net neutrality is the government watching you on the internet are you? You aren't under the delusion that the government can't watch you and they aren't watching citizens as we speak?  Did you miss where the NSA has been working with companies such as ATT since 2001? There was this whole big thing in the news about it. This is pre-net neutrality and net neutrality does nothing to either promote or stop that practice. Also hackers? What? Where do you get your news from sir? Net neutrality isn't and has never been a means stop stop hackers. The benefits of net neutrality? As said above, many large providers have long slowed internet technologies and especially technologies that directly compete with there own. Verizon and comcast slowing netflix. ATT Censoring customer access to a streaming Pearl Jam concert because the band had spoken out against then president Bush. Windstream Hijacking users search bar to send them to a windstream owned search engine instead of the search engine set up by their browser. Verizon v. FCC Verizon makes clear that in the absence of any net neutrality framework they would establish financial relationships that would favor preferred services,content, and websites. There's no reason to believe that large providers won't go back to slowing services like netflix. But then we must after all keep the government from following your URL history, since net neutrality is obviously a back door into your privacy and not a regulatory scheme to protect consumers and to ensure fair competition.
Photo of Brandon Fisher

Brandon Fisher

  • 92 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
That company your talking about i have done research on its starting speeds will be 1.5mbps. They don't seem to have high capacity. Those low latency sats wont be much competition if you need raw bandwidth but for gamers and people who need low latency  and not so much raw bandwidth, I can see them making the move.
Photo of Bev

Bev, Champion

  • 3287 Posts
  • 1462 Reply Likes
Low bandwidth isn't going to attract gamers, many games need 80 GB or more downloads to install, then regular updates of 10-30 GB per month. If you don't have 100 GB or more, then no point ever getting a new game and  that won't fly.
Photo of James

James

  • 333 Posts
  • 52 Reply Likes
I would take 1.5mbps speed dsl over   "up to 12mbps satellite" any day not sure what game you are referring to 80gb+ I do not even think World Of War craft with expansions is that big yet. when i used to game on dsl I never went  over 5gb useage a month . and that is running 7 game clients 24/7 but phaseing out dsl was the biggest mistake providers have ever made to date. that is because they did not profit much from it.
Photo of Stephen Rice

Stephen Rice, Champion

  • 2689 Posts
  • 1404 Reply Likes
If I remember correctly, Wildblue was only 1.5 mbps when it launched and had heavy data caps.  Give the new company time to catch up.  The technology is there.

I'm happy with Viasat, but if there is something better in two years, I will definitely switch.

I'm not the only person who feels that way.  That alone is enough to keep Viasat in line.  
Photo of david

david, Champion

  • 557 Posts
  • 395 Reply Likes
Try 512kbs. There was three tiers, 512, 1 MBps, and 1.5. We started out at 512 but after a while moved up to 1 MBps. After 10 years of dial-up that was fantastic.
Photo of VeteranSatUser

VeteranSatUser, Champion

  • 5133 Posts
  • 3175 Reply Likes
Yep. My first satellite connection was upload was 21kbps or so and around 200kbps down. That blew away dial up.
Photo of VeteranSatUser

VeteranSatUser, Champion

  • 5133 Posts
  • 3175 Reply Likes
Agreed. Free market competition. The horror!
Photo of david

david, Champion

  • 557 Posts
  • 395 Reply Likes
Ya'll do realize so-called net neutrality (in reality, waaa I want my Netflix but I want other people to help subsidize it) has only been around since  February 26, 2015, Was the internet ruined before then?
Photo of VeteranSatUser

VeteranSatUser, Champion

  • 5133 Posts
  • 3175 Reply Likes
Correct. A bunch of mass hysteria over stuff that may pray not happen.

Some people have way too much time on their hands to panic about the future. We gave enough issues to solve today.
Photo of C0RR0SIVE

C0RR0SIVE

  • 41 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Technically 2010, the 2015 ruling was just a Title II reclassification so that 2010 orders could be enforced after the FCC lost in Verizon Vs. FCC.
Photo of J&J

J&J

  • 1773 Posts
  • 1078 Reply Likes
  
 
Don't fear Viasat.  AT&T sells more than just the Internet, Comsast sells more than just the Internet, same with Verizon.  They have a vested interest in messing with a customer's internet to give their other products preferential treatment and put the competition at a disadvantage.

Viasat only sells Internet.  We have it good (except for the common complaints of congestion which will disappear soon enough). With over 650,000 customers at present, and soon to grow, no company can afford to approach Viasat with a bribe to monkey with our Internet. The very method Viasat connects to the Internet makes us more secure.  Viasat isn't leasing trunk lines from Comcast.  Viasat is on the absolute backbone of the Internet, far removed from the would-be tweakers that will be messing with their customers.  Keep the faith, our Internet will be the envy of many soon enough.
 
Photo of C0RR0SIVE

C0RR0SIVE

  • 41 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Except, Backbone providers have been caught blocking access to websites in the past.  Granted, this is a wild and out there thing...

Cogent was required by Spanish Courts to block access to various Piracy related websites.

Cogent applied the blocks, but it impacted their entire world wide service, that includes here, numerous times they claimed that they knew nothing when it came to Americans being able to access it, and that they hadn't blocked accessibility.

It was later determined that Cogent wasn't actually blocking said websites, but a single node from Cloudfare which impacted service world wide.


While many have cited such a website is illegal, the US Government has yet to actually make it illegal for trackers and/or indexes to exist.  They are akin to someone being able to point you in the direction of a drug dealer, nothing more.  Which means that here, technically speaking, the website never should have been blocked.

That aside, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and even Windstream are large enough that they are too, backbone providers, and backbone providers in the past have been caught warring with one another over prices for inter-connectivity.

Qwest (a backbone provider) was recently bought by Charter.

Level 3 (a backbone provider) was taken over by Charter.

Curious, what backbone provider does Viasat use at their various gateways?
Photo of VeteranSatUser

VeteranSatUser, Champion

  • 5133 Posts
  • 3175 Reply Likes
Level 3
Photo of xode0000

xode0000, Champion

  • 497 Posts
  • 167 Reply Likes
I suspect that, if Level 3 gave ViaSat any crap, ViaSat could switch backbone providers, or go to the FTC, in much the same manner that a customer could switch ISPs if their current ISP were giving them any trouble, although the process is likely a little more complex.
Photo of C0RR0SIVE

C0RR0SIVE

  • 41 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
That's if the FTC would get involved, they very rarely, if ever, get involved between two companies like that.

Highly unlikely Viasat, nor would Hughesnet, switch backend providers.  The costs alone would be astronomical.

It's more likely that Viasat would pay the higher prices for proper access, and pass it onto consumers, just like any other corporate entity would do.

Only time will really tell what will happen, changes wont be overnight, but no good will come from it in the long run.

As far as people being able to freely switch... Ehh, most people don't exactly have an option, and sorry, but Satellite isn't an option to the majority, and never will be.
(Edited)
Photo of xode0000

xode0000, Champion

  • 497 Posts
  • 167 Reply Likes
In essence, the repeal of net neutrality equates to: instead of the FCC bureaucracy regulating ISPs, the market does it instead.  In exchange, the FCC and FTC have committed to insuring there is competition in the market so that the market can regulate ISPs.

It will be up to internet customers as a whole all across the U.S. to make sure the FCC and the FTC keep their commitment.  That includes things like compelling the FTC to "get involved between two companies like that."  Then, there is still the Sherman antitrust act if a backbone provider steps out of line.
As far as people being able to freely switch... Ehh, most people don't exactly have an option,
The FCC and FTC have committed to giving people that option.  They need to be held to that commitment.
Satellite isn't an option to the majority, and never will be.
Actually, satellite has become at least as beefy as your typical AT&T "unlimited" wireless plan and ViaSat2 will improve things further still.  So, I maintain that satellite can definitely become an option to the majority.  In a post on a previous thread on this forum, you also acknowledged this.
Only time will really tell what will happen, changes wont be overnight, but no good will come from it in the long run.
No good has ever come from giving government bureaucrats more power.  They keep demanding over time more power over you and more resources from you, typically in the form of massive hidden taxes and fees.
Photo of C0RR0SIVE

C0RR0SIVE

  • 41 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
The FCC and FTC have committed to giving people that option.  They need to be held to that commitment.

I think you have lived in a wooden shed for a long time, most only have one option because of several state laws that have been wrote to protect large providers.  For instance, in my town, there is only one provider, Spectrum.  There have been attempts to get others to come in, however, state law prohibits that.

Actually, satellite has become at least as beefy as your typical AT&T "unlimited" wireless plan and ViaSat2 will improve things further still.  So, I maintain that satellite can definitely become an option to the majority.  In a post on a previous thread on this forum, you also acknowledged this

Satellite is comparable, only in speed, nothing else.  Sorry, but you need more than raw speed for many activities today.  While I can play a few select games online, throw 2-3 people into that same game.  The lag becomes intolerable.  Even WISP style services are significantly faster in terms of latency.  The only potential option, is if OneWeb or similar can become profitable.

Like I said, MOST do not and/or will not find Satellite to be an option, you, and I, are the minority that can find it useful to some extent.
(Edited)
Photo of xode0000

xode0000, Champion

  • 497 Posts
  • 167 Reply Likes
I think you have lived in a wooden shed for a long time,
That is disrespectful of me as a person and I don't like that type of disrespect.  I'm sure that you can find a way to get your message across without disrespecting me.  Please do.
most only have one option because of several state laws that have been wrote to protect large providers.
The same is not true in California.  There are actually about 4 WISPs where I live.  They all just happen to have non existent customer service and are completely insecure in how they connect you to the internet.  If your state favors one ISP, then I would recommend getting the FCC and the FTC to go after them.  Further, there is the Sherman antitrust act that the FCC and the FTC can use.
Satellite is comparable, only in speed, nothing else.  Sorry, but you need more than raw speed for many activities today.
Actually, only certain games and VPNs don't work well over satellite.  The maintainers of those games and VPNs could make their products work with satellite if they wanted to, but they don't.
Like I said, MOST do not and/or will not find Satellite to be an option, you, and I, are the minority that can find it useful to some extent.
I would say that most people stream video and do internet browsing, and that works just fine with satellite.  For those that want to do highly interactive fast paced games like Dr. Doom, if they had a choice between using an ISP, that plays with their internet access but supports those games, or satellite, that gives open access to the internet but doesn't support those games very well, which do you think they would choose?  Those highly interactive games are anything but essential to have.  Open access to the internet is far more important.
Photo of Stephen Rice

Stephen Rice, Champion

  • 2689 Posts
  • 1404 Reply Likes
Y'all need to come over to my house, get drunk and play Atari. Those fancy games y'all play are way over rated.
Photo of Bradley

Bradley

  • 1279 Posts
  • 416 Reply Likes
I’ll decide what is essential for me. Thanks.