Hey, there! Log in / Register

If you like sites like UHub, you'll hate what the Trump administration wants to do to the Internet

Ed. note: I'm a member of Local Independent Online News Publishers, which explains the problems with the FCC's upcoming vote on repealing net neutrality - the idea that everybody should have equal access to Internet resources:

Repealing Net Neutrality would allow giant chain media to work in concert with internet conglomerates to limit access to independent, alternative, and local news sites, according to LION Publishers.

The FCC is expected to vote on repealing Net Neutrality on Dec. 14.

“Giving a clear go-ahead for a tilted playing field would be the result if the Federal Communications Commission tosses out Net Neutrality,” said Dylan Smith, LION’s chairman and the publisher of TucsonSentinel.com.

Local Independent Online News Publishers is a national nonprofit organization with more than 180 members operating locally focused news sites in 42 states. The group issued a statement on Monday expressing deep concern about the FCC’s proposal to scrap Net Neutrality rules.

“Access to information and local journalism that holds government and other powerful institutions accountable is essential to a functioning democracy, economic well-being, and human rights,” said LION Executive Director Matt DeRienzo. “These pillars are already under severe strain from the dominance of a handful of large tech platforms, and the rapid consolidation of the newspaper and broadcasting industry under the control of a few enormous corporate chains.”

Local independent online news sites are springing up all over the country to fill gaps in local journalism, but they rely on an Internet based on a level playing field for all publishers and readers, regardless of size or resources.

If Net Neutrality goes away, big Internet and wireless providers will be able to charge individual publishers for levels of speed and access, a scenario in which a handful of big companies with deep pockets could squeeze out the kind of small, independent news publishers who are part of LION. This would severely limit citizens’ access to information and could be devastating to local news, which big publishers have whittled to the barest of bones.

Essentially, content from MegaChainNews or CorporateInterestNetwork would be served up as fast as possible, if those corporations paid up. Smaller publishers — including especially local indie outlets — would be shoved aside into a “slow lane.” With studies showing that many readers will abandon slow-loading pages, that means news that isn’t backed by the deepest of pockets would be far less likely to reach the eyes and ears of those who would be purposefully led toward more lowest-common-denominator clickbait.

“The FCC’s proposal would destroy the Internet as we know it by allowing IPSs to limit or block content,” said Charlotte-Anne Lucas, director of NOWCastSA in San Antonio and a founding member of LION’s Board of Directors. “Our news organization streams government meetings and public events, giving people greater access to government. Scuttling the principles of Net Neutrality would undermine our very democracy by allowing cable, phone and other Internet connector companies to throttle our content and limit the public’s access to government.” 

“As a former ISP owner and telecom executive, I concur with the need to have the FCC prevent higher, faster, better service being provided solely to online media that pays huge extra tolls to telecom companies,” said Joe Hyde, the publisher of San Angelo LIVE! in Texas and a member of LION Publishers. “The companies that run the Internet backbone and provide direct customer connections have the ability on the tech end to throttle our small sites — which they can do in an overall or individually targeted way — making real local news less accessible than traffic for a chain media property that pays them. And that would stifle both future innovation and our ability to build sustainable, lasting local news organizations.”

“If you don’t like dealing with your cable company or picking a service package for your cell phone today, imagine what it would be like if all of your Internet activities were affected by what giant media companies were willing to pay extra for, behind the scenes,” Hyde said. “Without Net Neutrality, that’ll be what we all get.”

Added Teresa Wippel, publisher of the My Neighborhood News Network just north of Seattle and a member of LION’s Board of Directors: “This proposal threatens the very nature of open online access to vital news that in many communities is citizens’ only source of information. Any proposal that slows down or blocks to access to news content that people need to become fully informed citizens is unacceptable.”

Internet commerce has grown by leaps and bounds in large part because it has been an equal playing field. ISPs certainly should be able to base their rates on the quantity of data being transmitted, but they should not be in the business of setting rates based on the types of content that they convey to readers, viewers and users. They certainly should not be able to provide favored status to those content creators and data services who pay them more. The proposal to eliminate Net Neutrality rules would create an opaque layer of market manipulation that will serve to enrich the few at the expense of many, and undermine the free flow of news and information that is essential to our democratic society.

Free tagging: 
Ad:

Comments

All of Massachusetts' congressional representation is opposed so it's not like there's any point in calling anyone. As with the tax bill, the current administration is trying as hard as possible to help only the rich and powerful and sadly, these people are either helped or indifferent to net neutrality ending.

It's too late to start a kickstarter with the hopes of raising more lobbying cash then Verizon and Comcast combined. (Which is hundreds of millions.) The rich tech companies are notably being quiet, mostly because Apple/Google/Netflix can pass along any costs they'd incur and would be just as happy to reduce competition.

It's extremely frustrating. I'll do anything possible to preserve Net Neutrality but as I'm not a billionaire it seems there's nothing I can do apart from hoping for divine intervention.

up
Voting closed 0

What can we do? I guess just lube up and prepare for the new gilded age.

up
Voting closed 0

Get behind porn companies. They have alot to lose. And they have the cash to fight this until the bitter end. And have done so since 1972.

People poke fun at porn companies, but they are willing to put up a fight if their business is threatened.

up
Voting closed 0

Isn't porn now mostly free on the internet? How are they making money? A friend from India once sold a lot of porn magazines at his 7-11 but has eliminated them entirely to make more space for other products and lottery.

up
Voting closed 0

And cut the crap, Fish. We know you're on the Hub all day looking at old loops. You know, the kind gents like with the masks and the black socks....?

up
Voting closed 0

It won't be free on the internet for long if net neutrality goes away and PornHub needs to cough up a bunch of dough to get the bandwidth needed to stream their content out to people. Ad revenue will drop when its no longer accessible to millions upon millions of people.

up
Voting closed 5

They were the deciding factor in the Blu-Ray/HD Disc wars back in the day. Most new home vid tech gets tried out in the porn world to work the kinks out, so to speak.

up
Voting closed 0

You're my hero

up
Voting closed 0

they were the reason that Sony's Betamax technology, although superior to VHS in several respects, ultimately failed.

up
Voting closed 0

Someone's seen Tropic Thunder.

up
Voting closed 0

Were you talking to me this whole time?

up
Voting closed 0

They are always on the cusp of anything technology that will bring porn to the end user. They were the first to use streaming services (i.e. real player), and probably some of the first to have graphics and video in the early days of the internet.

I worked for a porn company a while back. We had some issues but as an IT person, I can tell you it was nice to never have to cut corners or order some new toy to play with. If we thought we could use it and make the user experience better. We did it instantly.

up
Voting closed 0

There's an newish podcast called "The Butterfly Effect" by Jon Ronson. It explores unexpected effects of porn moving from a paid model to a free model. I thought it was pretty interesting.

up
Voting closed 4

I have a friend who listens to podcasts...sometimes...for the articles.

In other news....what's Larry Flynt up to? Seems like a cause he could...ahem...get behind.

up
Voting closed 0

This isn't a Congressional thing. This is rulemaking by the FCC. You can do what Gary C suggests, or you can do what the FCC themselves suggests doing.

I'll up and say that I have heard arguments on the other side, but if you think net neutrality is wrong, give your reasons to the FCC. This was stopped during the Obama Administration, so the fight is out there.

up
Voting closed 0

From a Facebook post by one of my friends:

This is important folks. Take 5 minutes to defend your right to full access to the internet. The process is a bit picky, but hang in there. It's worth it.

1. Click on GoFCCYourself.com
2.Then Click EXPRESS (in the drop-down menu at right side of page)
3. Proceeding: 17-108
4. Enter your name (Must hit enter after your name for it to register) & required info
5. You need to enter your 5-digit zip code in one field, and your 4-digit code in the next field. Find your 4-digit code here: https://tools.usps.com/go/ZipLookupAction_input
6. Write:
"I strongly support net neutrality backed by Title 2 oversight of ISPs."
Plus any other message you want to add explaining why you believe all internet traffic should be treated equally (e.g., ensuring all users have equal access to information and resources, protecting freedom of speech (without net neutrality, internet providers can block websites whose political views they disagree with), etc.)
6. You will have a chance to review your information. Be sure to check the small box at the bottom to confirm your email address and click submit. You should then be given a confirmation number along with the date & time you submitted your comment. If this info does not appear on your screen then your comment was not properly submitted.

up
Voting closed 6

How a bot made 1 million comments against net neutrality look genuine

https://qz.com/1138697/net-neutrality-a-spambot-made-over-a-million-anti...

up
Voting closed 0

by @corbett_jessica
FCC Under Fire for Ignoring 'Massive Scheme to Corrupt' Net Neutrality Comment Process
Amid widespread outrage over the agency's proposed internet rule changes, NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's says chairman has refused to cooperate with probe into fake posts
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/11/22/fcc-under-fire-ignoring-mas...

up
Voting closed 0

This is something Bostonians could help with - call Healy's office, pressure her into joining the NY AG's probe and putting pressure onto the investigation.

up
Voting closed 0

GoFCCYourself.com and http://www.gofccyourself.com/ don't seem to be working. I'll check the ACLU, Mozilla, and EFF.org; they might have a good link so I can file a comment in favor of Net Neutrality.

(BTW, that link looks kind of like something else: GoFachyourself.com).

up
Voting closed 9

Internet Society Chapters Webcasting
LibTechNYC - Jay Sulzberger - User Autonomy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRX-afNw8tw

up
Voting closed 0

The internet is about to get slower, more expensive and generally just shittier. So go fuck yourselves, Trump voters, because this is 100% your fault. You are screwing the rest of us over with your stupidity. Billionaires are laughing at how easy you make it for them to rob you.

up
Voting closed 0

Healthcare is about to get slower, more expensive and generally just shittier.

Sounds familiar!

up
Voting closed 0

I didn't turn you in :)

The internet needs to evolve away from the ad driven model. Look how different tv can be if it's not just about keeping your butt in the seat. That's what Facebook is now, keep you clicking so you can be served ads.

The internet sucks now.

up
Voting closed 0

What does this evolution look like? How would the major corporations owning the keys help this evolution? If you personally still see ads on the internet then I don't trust you know anything about tech and what the future should look like. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your position, but this move would be a disaster for innovation. Not what the internet was founded on.

up
Voting closed 23

The internet now is basic cable. Net neutrality has forced everyone to stay at the basic cable level. You can keep getting broadcast tv. Have new internets, why keep this one? The technology is 40 years old.

Net neutrality is just one set of old companies using crybabies to protect the profits of their old business models

up
Voting closed 13

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. These aren't even coherent thoughts.

up
Voting closed 0

Might as well give it a shot

up
Voting closed 0

Touché

up
Voting closed 0

Hell, you might even be President some day!

up
Voting closed 0

Why? The internet is great in it's current state. It is entirely your choice to utilize ad-heavy sites.
I don't understand your argument.
If this was a tongue in cheek joke, just ignore me.

up
Voting closed 0

Huh?

THEY DON'T EVER GET PAID FOR THEIR WORK.

Idiot.

p.s. the only "em painter" I find is a blank facade by the airport. No other information, no web presence, nothing. Hmmmm.

up
Voting closed 0

I see trucks from the company "EM Painting" around Kenmore & Comm Ave often.

up
Voting closed 0

actually the fault of the democratic party running such a poor candidate, but I digress.

Trump was on the ticket. Folks had every right to vote for him. It was up to the other side to convince those voters to vote for her. She failed miserably.

And as I said before, many of those voters voted for Obama:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upshot/the-obama-trump-voters-are-rea...

And please, please stop referring to all Trump supporters as stupid. 1) They are not 2) They are not and 3) They are not. I have Trump supporters in my own family. They are caring individuals who just happen to think differently than you or I. They had valid reasons to vote for Trump even if you don't agree. Insults are not recommended unless you want Trump for another four years.

up
Voting closed 0

Try "caring individuals who can't think critically to save their own lives".

up
Voting closed 0

If Clinton won Net Neutrality wouldn't be going away. If Clinton won there wouldn't a country bankrupting tax plan that raises taxes on most people but gives corporations and the wealthiest people huge tax breaks. (Why should my taxes go up so that Verizon can save money? They aren't going to pass the savings to me.)

Clinton might have sucked but none of these horrible things would have happened under her. Most people who voted from Trump are stupid because a majority of them were voting against the own (and national) interests.

When your taxes and internet bills go up, your consumer protections are further degraded, and the country is broke you'll know who to thank. These things wouldn't have happened to the same extent under Clinton.

up
Voting closed 0

I also have some Trump voters in my family. I can say they are caring, thoughtful people, while at the same time calling them stupid. Stupid refers to intelligence. When a con man stares you in the face and basically lays out the con, and you nod and hand him the money anyway, that is STUPID. plain and simple. Everyone, even the idiots, knew what Trump was when they voted for him. People saying he would pivot and "act presidential" when he got in are even dumber.
He can't even honor Native American vets without adding a few minutes to his fucking blooper reel. Its unbelievable! I feel like Einstein must've when he figured out relativity and knew gravitational waves were a thing but couldn't prove them: I KNOW Trump will somehow top calling Liz Warren Pocahontas in front of decorated Native American War vets, I KNOW he will make an even bigger ass of himself, I just can't see HOW at the moment. Only the future holds those answers.
So these stubborn assholes are now just unwilling to admit they made a mistake, that's fine, a lifetime of invalid opinions and having NO argument against ANY politician for the rest of their lives awaits them. They voted for Trump, argument over. 10 years ago I could agree with your statements, Bush, Romney, McCain, Dole, etc etc....fine. Trump is the line in the sand. He truly exposed how dumb and gullible Americans are. We deserve every single bad thing happening to us.

up
Voting closed 0

that not all Trump voters are just stupid. There's a breakdown; some of them are stupid, and some of them are wicked. But most of them are both.

up
Voting closed 0

This feels like FUD. Has any ISP ever blocked HTTP(S) traffic to a website? Is that what we're worried about?

The underlying issues I've read about are 1) ISPs blocking traffic like torrent and tor 2) throttling HD video 3) prioritizing VoIP. It's not like Uhub is an HD video site that will benefit from net neutrality.

Personally, I work in technology and am on the fence about net neutrality. Partly because I think it's better for the FCC to do a crappy job interpreting how 50-year old rules apply to the Internet, forcing Congress to finally write new rules. Partly because I appreciate how the Internet does run on dollars. In the back end, BGP is sometimes referred to as a "money routing protocol". Meanwhile in the front end, I don't think QoS has been figured out yet. ISPs sell you mbps, wireless carriers sell you gigabytes. outside of Wall Street, nobody sells you microseconds. Those things (bandwidth, usage, latency, cost) have to constantly be engineered.

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

Comcast didn't block Netflix. They throttled Netflix.

up
Voting closed 0

Oh, well that makes me feel a LOT better. They only blocked a portion of their bandwidth.

Hey guys, hackers didn't take down your favorite website, they only DDoS'ed it!

up
Voting closed 7

Completely missing the point that Netflix virtually DOSes the Internet.

If you ran an ISP and 30% of your bandwidth was consumed by Netflix, what would you do?

up
Voting closed 0

Not care, because it's my customers' usage. Are they not paying their bill? Why would I care?

However, the issue here is that Comcast isn't just a virtual monopoly, but that they are also a content provider which is doing these sorts of things to push their customers to their content and away from Netflix' content.

And no, Netflix isn't causing the internet to slow down. That's the bizarre argument that the ISPs are trying to use just to gain more power and extract more money from what should be a public utility.

up
Voting closed 0

If you ran an ISP and 30% of your bandwidth was consumed by Netflix, what would you do?

The bandwidth is not "consumed by Netflix", it's consumed by my customers. Who are presumably paying me for it, unless my business model is broken. So why should I care whether the customers are using the capacity they bought and paid for to reach Netflix as opposed to any other service?

up
Voting closed 5

It dies.

If people can't reliably get their movies to their local machine to stream because Netflix has been choked to the bandwidth of a single YouTube video for every Comcast customer all together, then Netflix is dead. Nobody would use that service *especially* when some competitor pays Comcast (but passes that onto you in higher membership fees) and doesn't get throttled.

The new model won't even necessarily be you paying Comcast more for full-speed access to the sites you want to view. It'll be Comcast charging those sites to get full-speed access to their customers, because they know that cost can be passed on to consumers via those sites and their membership fees and not look like it's coming from Comcast. The perception will be that Netflix raised their charges, not Comcast. What's that? UHub doesn't have a membership fee? Well, it will soon if it wants to use Comcast's network to reach you.

up
Voting closed 7

This is what I've been telling people.

This WILL happen. Comcast will...

1) Charge end users for speedier access to NetFlix. Don't pay? Touch shit, enjoy buffering
2) Charge Netflix for better traffic shaping to their customers.

You can replace Netflix with any big name website and get the same answer. Netflix, Facebook. Uhub, Skype.. you name it.

up
Voting closed 0

Both will happen. Netflix will raise your prices AND Comcast will raise your prices. Comcast will make a lot more money, Netflix stay about the same, and you lose another $5-30/month.

But yes, lets all help poor Comcast and Verizon. Clearly, they're the real victims here.

up
Voting closed 0

I agree that some of the "keep net neutrality" hype is overblown. However I don't perceive the current system as being broken. Broadband should be like electricity; everyone basically gets the same service. What would be better for most people if companies, who are always looking religiously at the bottom line, could make choices about who gets the fastest data stream?

up
Voting closed 0

Electricity is a counterexample. In deregulated markets, you pay a delivery charge and a separate generation charge. Customers are generally better off (lower cost, better service) in regulated markets where there is only ONE generator, and all customers use it.

If "net neutrality" principals were applied to electricity, you get an Enron situation.

Yes, electricity is a lot more of a commodity compared to Internet content. But that's the best you can do with that analogy.

up
Voting closed 0

Electricity is a counterexample. In deregulated markets, you pay a delivery charge and a separate generation charge. Customers are generally better off (lower cost, better service) in regulated markets where there is only ONE generator, and all customers use it.

I think you got that backwards and meant to say that consumers are better served with a single deliverer and multiple suppliers. There are many electricity generators putting power into the grid, but Eversource is the monopoly deliverer for my neighborhood. It would be rather odd the other way around.

up
Voting closed 10

ISPs dictating what should and shouldn't be throttled is bad news for newer startups that want to disrupt monopolies. The bigger companies can just pay off the ISPs to make it next to impossible for smaller companies to survive. How the eff is that good for customers?

up
Voting closed 0

In Portugal (where they have no net neutrality), they are already starting to split the Internet into packages.
https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/92370187109244...
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNGlrABUIAAr9RO.jpg)

up
Voting closed 6

Has any ISP ever blocked HTTP(S) traffic to a website?

Yup! Here's a list of times it's happened:
https://np.reddit.com/r/KeepOurNetFree/comments/7e...

up
Voting closed 0

The only relevant example I see (aside from video/voice/torrent) is Google Wallet. No examples relevant to "sites like UHub". If anything, UHub would probably *benefit* from net neutrality. Throttling Netflix and YouTube traffic makes UHub load faster.

Also keep in mind that we're talking about services that have several layers to them. When you watch a video on your phone there's:

end user
phone OS
phone manufacturer
mobile carrier
backbone/peer
CDN
streaming service
advertiser
content publisher
content creator

and probably more. Every single layer is both trying to optimize their service and make a buck off it, competing and cooperating with the other layers. Enforcing neutrality in one layer oversimplifies the problem.

Besides that, there's way too much focus today on the FCC (which rotates every administration) and this old 1930's telecom law. I get that this is powered by anti-Trump sentiment, but it's gotten absurd.

up
Voting closed 0

If anything, UHub would probably *benefit* from net neutrality. Throttling Netflix and YouTube traffic makes UHub load faster.

I can't figure out if you're a shill or just an idiot. You think giant companies like Netflix and Google would be the ones getting throttled?? They would be the ones that could afford to pay ISPs for fast lanes. Small sites like UHub with less capital would be the ones being throttled.

Also, this is not "powered by anti-Trump sentiment." The importance of net neutrality has been a hot topic for several years at this point. Repealing these regulations is overwhelmingly unpopular among people of all political persuasions as I noted in another comment.

up
Voting closed 0

Not a schill, just a UHub fan. And not opposed to net neutrality. More of a skeptic who think there's a ton of Kool Aid being consumed.

Seriously, what does thottling UHub even mean? The UHub homepage is about 1.5 megabytes. It's site performance is bottlenecked by the gnomes in the webserver.

The topic of net neutrality today is *mostly* relevant to streaming video providers, especially HD and 4k. The entirety of Uhub's webserver traffic is probably less than one SD video stream. The notion that the FCC is somehow threatening your access to Uhub is obscene.

Like most of what Trump does, this Ajit Pai nonsense is merely distraction from larger problems, specifically the special prosecutor the federal budget.

up
Voting closed 0

Seriously, what does thottling UHub even mean? The UHub homepage is about 1.5 megabytes. It's site performance is bottlenecked by the gnomes in the webserver.

The size of the UHub site is irrelevant. If the traffic is prioritized below other traffic, then the user experience will be slow page loads, laggy response, etc.

Or, the "basic" package offered by Comcast might not even include access to UHub *at all*.

up
Voting closed 7

If [UHub] traffic is prioritized below other traffic

To the contrary, with neutrality, each TCP packet from UHub today is forced to compete with a bajillion Netflix and YouTube packets. In an ideal network, most video traffic would be assigned a lower priority by ISPs than UHub traffic.

The mob is complaining that a non-neutral networking will make everything worse. In reality, prioritizing/throttling is an engineering tool, and engineering is all about tradeoffs. Prioritizing makes some stuff worse, other stuff better. I don't think we know yet whether it would be a net positive for consumers or a net negative.

up
Voting closed 0

American dollars says "net negative for anyone who doesn't pay out the ass for it." It will be great for ISPs, though, as they will now be able to handwave every bandwidth issue away with "oh, you just need to upgrade to $WAY_MORE_EXPENSIVE_PLAN, and then your problem will go away."

up
Voting closed 2

If there was real competition (7-10 providers for Broadband) I'd agree the FCC should limit themselves to technical specifications. But since there are only 1-2 ISPs for any service area there needs to be heavy regulation.

The electric utilities aren't a bad model -- charge people for bandwidth (content neutral) between the home and the local office and then let consumers pick from a dozen ISPs for full internet access.

up
Voting closed 0

This is one of the few issues that is essentially not partisan. 77% of Americans oppose this repeal (73% of Republicans, 80% of Democrats, and 76% of Independents) according to a poll in July.
https://www.scribd.com/document/353285485/Freedman-Consulting-Net-Neutra...

There is absolutely no benefit to doing this for anybody except ISPs and the Internet as we know it would be trashed.

up
Voting closed 0

Has anyone tried to buy their own modem / router to avoid the monthly rental fee? Comcast makes it almost impossible. After buying one, I was told it won't work with Comcast (the box had the Comcast "approved" sticker and Comcast originally said it would work). Happened a second time a week later. Now on my third try, the poorly trained technician came out and said "you need the white one" even though my equipment is all black. The nice woman at the office said "Good Luck" because whatever you buy, Comcast will change things every year and your device will be obsolete. Extortion?

up
Voting closed 0

For once, I actually agree with you, Fish! The modem rental fees are a scam.

There's a list buried somewhere of the handful of approved modems. I bought this one a few years ago and it's been working great for me ever since:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00OMDZAV0/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpag...

up
Voting closed 0

I have the black Arris, works ok but intermittent. I think yours is the "white one" the tech recommended. White doesn't go with my other computer stuff but I could hide it. Thanks!

up
Voting closed 0

When something goes wrong with your Comcast service, they're going to blame your modem. If, like me, you're not a networking wizard, you won't be able to convince them it's something on their end, and will have to let them put in one of their rental boxes. Your service will be restored, but was it that your modem was at fault, or did they bugger some setting in their system, then fix that when they started getting your rent?

Normally, I would call this kind of suggestion a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory, but it's Comcast we're talking about here, and they've done this kind of thing before.

up
Voting closed 0

Comcast knows how to deal with their system when it's 100% their hardware. Introduce something that's not theirs, even if it's on their approved list, and they'll blame your box every time. In their defense, when it is their box that has a problem, they are quick to let you swap in a new one of theirs, often a newer model, at no charge.

up
Voting closed 0

I am making it work with a Motorola Surfboard I bought 4 years ago, but I agree wholeheartedly what a joke the monthly rental fee is. This is one of the reasons I support NN - anything that gives Comcast & other ISPs super powers should be tossed out immediately.

up
Voting closed 0

I never had a problem with BYO modem setup. I do agree the $10 rental fee is a scam.

Bigger problem is cable boxes and CableCards. John Oliver summed it up well.

up
Voting closed 0

See, if the FCC (and Congress) cared about consumers and not the telecoms they would mandate that companies couldn't restrict the ability to buy one's own device outright AND that if you rent from them you own it once the box is repaid like a cell phone.

up
Voting closed 0

Just saying.

up
Voting closed 0

RCN doesn't serve a good chunk of the city of boston - they stop three houses short of me, for example. would LOVE to get RCN, but nope.

up
Voting closed 0

Maybe we can just go back to BBS's and we can just dial up directly into Uhub.

I have a copy of Spitfire somewhere...

up
Voting closed 0

This Internet thing is just a fad. Sooner or later everyone will just move on to the next big thing. This World Wide Web is just like my old 8 Track Player with the quadraphonic sound.

I'm holding out for 5G.

up
Voting closed 0

Of all the modems what manufacturer's model is best to get for comcast xfinity?... rather than the monthly charge.

up
Voting closed 0

Unfortunately, it's whatever Comcast is providing at the moment. That's only because they'll replace it if it breaks, but you'll have to pay rent on it every month. You can buy one of your own, which will pay for itself in less than a year, but if something goes wrong with your connection, Comcast will blame your equipment, and you'll have a hard time trying to convince them otherwise. They'll also charge you for a service call, unless you're paying more rent for a service contract. That doesn't apply (so far as I know) if they come to replace their modem. Their latest modems also include a wifi router, so that's one less thing they can blame you for.

I've been a Comcast customer for about thirty years, and have been through all this several times. At the moment, I have their modem. I may buy my own at some point, but it will be with the expectation that they'll play their game again.

up
Voting closed 0

I've been a customer for nearly 20.. most of that having Cable Internet also.

I agree, buying your own model will save you money but Comcast makes it damn sure they won't help you or blame your equipment.

I want to buy my own modem but heard horror stories, and several years ago Comcast kept killing my modem by sending the wrong tftp file to it (config file). It was a rented modem, thankfully so they just replaced it. I'd be pretty pissed off if that was my own modem and I had to replace it a few times in the same year.

Sometimes its best just to rent the modem.. the headache and hassle sometimes are just not worth saving a few bucks each month.

up
Voting closed 15

Least expensive internet services for a desktop computer are...

ideas, hints, tips, pointers please! https://www.reddit.com/r/CambridgeMA/comments/7gmcn4/looking_for_the_lea...

up
Voting closed 0