FCC Expected to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules in Vote Next Month

[dtich]

No we don't. We have service packages based on speed and, in some places, on data use, but not on actual content or specific websites (and even when there is a data cap, it is neutral in regard to what websites use the data). Now consider this carrier in Portugal, which does not have net neutrality regulations:

I do not ever want to see something like this in the U.S. In other words, what websites you can access depend on your plan, and they are grouped into packages like channels in a cable TV plan. In addition to implementing a scheme like this, a provider could theoretically slow down a competitor's streaming service and speed up their own. This is especially problematic in rural areas where they may only be one ISP to choose from.

thank you! how is it that people don't understand this???? this vote will pave the way for the 'netflix surcharge' and the 'gaming package surcharge', etc, etc... without a doubt.

but what is simply INFURIATING here is that millions of people - as in, 'the PEOPLE' - commented on this, through proper channels during the mandated comment phase, and expressed a clear NO vote on it; and yet and still FCC and trump admin and industry shills like PAI are going to push it through anyway!! even most major tech co's have come out against this. the ONLY entities who want this are the few ISPs who stand to gain some fees...!!! and they should rightly be utilities anyway and have profit ceilings, for the good of.. the PEOPLE. WE PAY FOR ALL THIS!!! don't forget that. the .gov WORKS for us, we pay their salaries, we elect them! this is insanity in this country right now. this is rapidly, and i mean RAPIDLY, becoming a plutocracy -- the way mrs. trump clonks around in her $30,000 clothes on the whitehouse lawn, and trump just lies and lies and LIES... you could cut and paste them onto the front of steps of the KREMLIN and they'd fit right in. this is absolutely insane what is happening. hear me now and believe me later. things are crumbling in this country before our eyes. this administration has succeeded in turning the whole thing into a reality tv show. and in this episode the people lose. our money. our dignity. our morals. our respect. our standing. our class. our rights. our fundamental human decency. ... and, no, i'm not exaggerating. THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING. RIGHT NOW.

 

[Gasu E.]

I'm a Trump supporter through and through, but this is ridiculous. I'm very much against this.

By next week, either you'll be telling us how great it is, or you'll be claiming it's some Democrat's fault.

 

[fairuz]

Sheep how? Repealing net neutrality is bad for everyone except the ISPs. It takes the fundamental idea that the internet is and should be free and accessible to all and destroys that idea. What citizens of the United States would be for this? The non-sheep? It's a crap deal, and it's a direct result of the Trump administration. There's no dancing around that.

Sheep cause they're voting, or rather just posting on Facebook, to support net neutrality without even knowing what it is. I totally agree it needs to be defended. But realize that companies can violate it right under most people's noses or even in a way that appears consumer-friendly, e.g. T-Mobile's preferred streaming services, which I've only heard praise for.
[doublepost=1511342599][/doublepost]

This actually might bring internet to people who only can afford internet essentials right now. Which is something like 5mbps. I’m all for a free internet but I don’t think these changes would be as damaging as people think they will be.

Also, remember the market decides. If you don’t want it, don’t pay for it.

Agreed, I doubt it's going to increase costs overall. The real issue is that whoever gets the deals with the ISPs becomes unstoppable, and nobody can start small. In many countries, WhatsApp is popular only because it's the only thing that doesn't cost a fortune to use. Facebook brought free internet to developing nations with the caveat that they can only use certain sites... "65% of Nigerians, and 61% of Indonesians agree with the statement that "Facebook is the Internet" compared with only 5% in the US."

The only redeeming thing for them is that all their services came from the more competitive USA, so there's quality. Kill that, and it's going to be crap everywhere, or maybe we start using European services.
[doublepost=1511342953][/doublepost]

Net neutrality is pretty much the only policy I support from the Obama administration. Not very much for eight years in office.

lol same
But there are also plenty of things he didn't do that I'm glad he didn't do.
[doublepost=1511343622][/doublepost]

I'm a Trump supporter through and through, but this is ridiculous. I'm very much against this.

Eh, I saw some value in the guy when he got elected despite him really not being what I wanted (reluctant Clinton voter here), but he's disappointed on nearly every front. I was only glad the time he blew up Assad's airbase like he promised instead of letting him cross the "red line" again. Obama seriously screwed that up last time.

 

[MrX8503]

I have Comcast. Zero issues with Netflix, throttling, cost, etc., etc. If that is the best you have to justify the hysteria, okay then.

Because Netflix paid off Comcast.

So you trust an unregulated monopolistic company like Comcast to charge a fair price and deliver what you paid for? What’s Comcast’s incentive to deliver on that promise to consumers?

 

[jthesssin]

Like the US? We never had NN (well for a few months). I have 7 BB options where I live.

Must be nice for you...I have one option. Charter. FIOS and ATT are not allowed in my area due to Windstream. You see because ATT and Verizon both offer telephone service, they are not allowed in Windstreams territory. Google fiber is just now being laid in Charlotte NC and it will be 15-20 years before they branch into surrounding cities. windstreams DSL is capped at 1.5MBps so not fast enough for any streaming service. No other cable BB service provider would be allowed to use existing cabling to deliver their services, and being another competitors territory, I doubt they would be allowed to install their own cabling...

 

[TsMkLg068426]

If FCC is not on our side than what is the point of having the FCC still? Dismantle the the FCC and no trillion dollar debt.

 

[MrNomNoms]

To those playing the game of false equivalency: Do you really think this would have happened under President Hillary Clinton along with he appointment of a super ultra conservative judge? Maybe next time you vote you might want to think about the bigger picture beside being a special snowflake raging against the 'liberal elites' when heading into the voting booth.

 

[Judo]

Did you read what you posted?

That was not a NN-issue, in that someone was prioritizing services over others. It was because Netflix was using up so much bandwidth, and it relied on free "peering" agreements to get their content places. This caused them to actually invest in infrastructure to support their dramatic usage of bandwidth.

Heck, the article even says at the bottom that it was not a NN issue!!

The bottom of the article says "the issue of peering was not covered by the recently gutted net neutrality rules."
It's doesn't say it's not a Net neutrality issue (excuse the double negative).

 

[Newtons Apple]

Anything our government touches dos not fair well. I would rather they keep their greedy hands off the Internet.

 

[Judo]

Anything our government touches dos not fair well. I would rather they keep their greedy hands off the Internet.

How do you think the internet started, and who do you think played a vital part in managing necessary parts of the internet for the last 20 years (well the 20 years before Oct 1 2016 when it was passed on to ICANN)?

 

[jpietrzak8]

Anything our government touches dos not fair well. I would rather they keep their greedy hands off the Internet.

Um, you do realize that our government created the Internet, right? The very concept of a level network that treats all packets as equal and all routes from sender to receiver in a neutral manner was designed and implemented by ARPA.

 

[tubular]

Truly terrible news from an administration apparently incapable of anyth8ng else.

 

[VulchR]

The end result will be to make channels of communication open and affordable for the rich. Those who can afford unlimited everything will get it; those who can't will suffer through whatever they can afford.

I thought this was an interesting idea:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7x4y8a/net-neutrality-fcc-community-networks

Yep - in some places in the UK they have created local companies to provide internet services to local towns. Also, many town centres in the UK are offering free internet. Of course, in these systems it is first-come-first-served, but that's net neutrality in a nutshell.

This whole thing reminds me of the discussion of toll lanes in Northern Virginia. These were installed at enormous cost and disruption to the people living closer to DC so that the wealthy living in the Appalachian foothills could drive their gas-guzzling 4x4's into the city. Of course, in spite of the propaganda to the contrary, only rich people actually can afford the tool lanes, so they zoom by while the average peon languishes in traffic.

This is America in the 2010's: some political freedom embedded in an economic caste system. Mark my words: this will result in poor people having expensive service that is effectively throttled. Rich people will also have to pay more, but as usual they'll cut their way to the head of the line. And this will have knock-on effects on everything from education to simply communicating with loved ones. Remember how expensive long-distance phone calls used to be? Wait until the communicating companies start throttling or charging more for VOIP. The days of affordable FaceTime/Skype/etc. in the US might very well be over....
[doublepost=1511353357][/doublepost]

Um, you do realize that our government created the Internet, right? The very concept of a level network that treats all packets as equal and all routes from sender to receiver in a neutral manner was designed and implemented by ARPA.

As I recall, the 'internet' used to be called 'DARPANET' (back in the days before the concept of the WWW was even invented). It was designed for military purposes to provide a communications network that would degrade gracefully if attacked.

 

[AZ63]

I don't really understanding this 'trusting' attitude you have. Why do you think ISPs and cable companies are lobbying like hell to get net neutrality repealed. You don't think they plan to profit from its repeal? And next you suggest that legislation will be introduced to prevent companies from taking advantage in the way I described. Guess what, that legislation already exists and is being repealed..

I "trust" that as long as there is competition in the market your fears won't happen. You bring up profit like it is a bad thing. The amount of profit should not be included in a list of worries. Your concern is a perceived limiting of future access to the Internet. As long as open competition exists in the market place I don't see tiered access, as you have described it, happening. I think the society/public should be shown to be harmed by the actions of the ISPs before governments act against the people and the exchange of goods and services.

 

[827538]

I think this could really be the end of a free, fair and open America.

Also it will destroy competition, Google, Netflix, Amazon and Facebook would not exist in 2017 without Net Neutrality. The financial damage this will do is enormous, all so some Comcast and Verizon executives can get a bigger bonus and pay their shareholders more.

This is beyond disgusting. They put a Verizon exec/lawyer in charge of the body that regulates them. What in God’s name were you thinking America?
[doublepost=1511357769][/doublepost]

I "trust" that as long as there is competition in the market your fears won't happen. You bring up profit like it is a bad thing. The amount of profit should not be included in a list of worries. Your concern is a perceived limiting of future access to the Internet. As long as open competition exists in the market place I don't see tiered access, as you have described it, happening. I think the society/public should be shown to be harmed by the actions of the ISPs before governments act against the people and the exchange of goods and services.

But there is little to zero competition of ISP’s in America? That’s the problem. They are a cartel all operating in their own monopoly spheres.

You can’t say the market will fix things when there is one option on the market that bribes and bullies to maintain a complete monopoly.

I remember that subhuman Ajit Pai said we should use wireless instead of fixed lines - clearly has no understanding of physics and the limits of bandwidth.

 

[oneMadRssn]

I hope this is just a case of you simply not doing any research rather than trying to deliberately mislead people. Of course if that was your goal most people aren't going to bother checking and will go away believing your misinformation; my post being so far down the comments won't be seen so mission accomplished to you.

Little bit of column a, little bit of column b.

Joking aside, you're explanations don't make it any better. These plans are still prioritizing certain sites over others, and playing favorites. It's still not a good thing.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

So are you saying access is restricted to those sites in the plan ?

Can you explain this page? All the iPhones basic functions need internet and are not covered by any of these .

I went and looked at both pages last night and they are being totally misrepresented. (I posted above about it) I've now seen one of them show up on twitter this morning. I guess I should copy/paste my post over to a Snopes submission. Crazy how these things can circulate without anyone questioning. (present company excepted of course, thank you MH01 )

 

[ggibson913]

I have already written my congressman and both Senators. I am not hopeful that anything will be done, we are slowly handing the country over to giant corporations.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

The page is a group of internet add-ons that you can bundle together with a basic internet package (that presumably allows you access to most other websites). It's like adding channels to basic cable. These popular websites and apps are grouped by category and you pay more depending on which ones you want access to.

No, still not quite there. You can access ANY site on ANY of their base packages. These add-ons give you 10GB of additional data for those specific sites that won't eat into your primary cap. So for example you can buy their cheap 500MB/mo plan and if you use a lot of streaming video get 10GB of streaming on top of that plan for 4.99. You do not need to pay anything extra to access any site if you won't want additional data cap.

 

[ggibson913]

Anything our government touches dos not fair well. I would rather they keep their greedy hands off the Internet.

When you can no longer stream your favorite Netflix, Hulu, or other streaming service because your ISP decided that you should use their approved web sites see if you feel the same way.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

thank you! how is it that people don't understand this???? this vote will pave the way for the 'netflix surcharge' and the 'gaming package surcharge', etc, etc... without a doubt.

but what is simply INFURIATING here is that millions of people - as in, 'the PEOPLE' - commented on this, through proper channels during the mandated comment phase, and expressed a clear NO vote on it; and yet and still FCC and trump admin and industry shills like PAI are going to push it through anyway!! even most major tech co's have come out against this. the ONLY entities who want this are the few ISPs who stand to gain some fees...!!! and they should rightly be utilities anyway and have profit ceilings, for the good of.. the PEOPLE. WE PAY FOR ALL THIS!!! don't forget that. the .gov WORKS for us, we pay their salaries, we elect them! this is insanity in this country right now. this is rapidly, and i mean RAPIDLY, becoming a plutocracy -- the way mrs. trump clonks around in her $30,000 clothes on the whitehouse lawn, and trump just lies and lies and LIES... you could cut and paste them onto the front of steps of the KREMLIN and they'd fit right in. this is absolutely insane what is happening. hear me now and believe me later. things are crumbling in this country before our eyes. this administration has succeeded in turning the whole thing into a reality tv show. and in this episode the people lose. our money. our dignity. our morals. our respect. our standing. our class. our rights. our fundamental human decency. ... and, no, i'm not exaggerating. THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING. RIGHT NOW.

I feel like I'm playing whack a mole. That image is totally out of context and does not say what people seem to want it to. Please refer to my earlier post that correctly explains both the PT and MX mobile plan images.

 

[ggibson913]

Oh yeah and supposedly another piece of this rule means that if your state government decides that Net Neutrality is a good thing, the rule specifically blocks state and local governments from enacting Net Neutrality rules of their own.

 

[Newtons Apple]

When you can no longer stream your favorite Netflix, Hulu, or other streaming service because your ISP decided that you should use their approved web sites see if you feel the same way.

If I find that my ISP is not doing what I like, I move to one that does.

The government is NEVER the answer.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Little bit of column a, little bit of column b.

Joking aside, you're explanations don't make it any better. These plans are still prioritizing certain sites over others, and playing favorites. It's still not a good thing.

I see a need for some prioritization. Let's say we make every packet absolutely equal in weight, no exceptions ever. During peak usage times 70% of internet traffic is video (Netflix, Hulu, Twitch, etc...). As a result the Internet does get saturated in some areas (definitely at a local level but also at higher levels too). At that same time about 18% of traffic is social media, web browsing, and e-commerce. If Mary is on a VoIP call at that time (which requires sufficient bandwidth real time and no lag or the conversation becomes very difficult) then I want QoS (quality of service) prioritization for her packets over Bob who is doing some web browsing. If Bob's image download gets time shifted 500 milliseconds so Mary's call doesn't break up that's a better outcome (and some day it will be Bob's call getting priority over Mary's Facebook post). This happens in home routers all the time, there are built in QoS preferences so you can make that phone call while your teenage son is saturating your bandwidth with cat videos (OK, I'm the one watching cat videos, I'll admit it). I don't see that as a bad thing at all but absolutists on the neutrality side do.

Likewise I don't have a problem with packaging promotions in a way that's not anticompetitive. T-Mobile's Binge On plan violates net neutrality (according to EFF anyway, I'm not sure if any legal/regulatory action was taken) but if T-Mobile is working with any video provider that wants to come forward to get them included in that plan rather than zero rating their own service to attempt to steer customers away from competitors I'm fine with that. It benefits customers by having access to video without impact to their monthly data cap and it benefits T-Mobile by getting more usage out of finite infrastructure as the consumer trend is to consume more more more. This is very similar to Power Companies (also a regulated industry) offering discounts or rebates for energy efficient products. A watt is a watt is a watt right? But they have finite energy generation capacity and if you pick up that nice energy star appliance rather than the cheap inefficient appliance you'll draw less load for a given activity. That's a behavior they want to incentivize and there's nothing wrong with that.

Most of the comments in this thread have been steadfast and firmly in a pure position on one side or the other. Either every packet must be free no exceptions or zero regulation of anything there's never a problem. I'm somewhere in the middle where I like most of the provisions of net neutrality but I see a real need for QoS prioritization and a way to rapidly adjust those prioritization for new technologies without getting bogged down in bureaucracy to amend them. It's not black and white to me.

 

[oneMadRssn]

f I find that my ISP is not doing what I like, I move to one that does.

The government is NEVER the answer.

Something like 90% of the US population has only one choice of broadband ISP.

When it comes to utilities, government is the answer - it's the government's job. I don't want 10 different wires running down my street for 10 different ISPs, just like I don't want 10 different power companies all delivering 10 different voltages and frequencies. I'm fine with there being only one choice, or two choices maybe. It's the government's job to balance the monopoly or duopolies against what is best for consumers.
[doublepost=1511361462][/doublepost]I think we mostly agree.

I see a need for some prioritization. Let's say we make every packet absolutely equal in weight, no exceptions ever. During peak usage times 70% of internet traffic is video (Netflix, Hulu, Twitch, etc...). As a result the Internet does get saturated in some areas (definitely at a local level but also at higher levels too). At that same time about 18% of traffic is social media, web browsing, and e-commerce. If Mary is on a VoIP call at that time (which requires sufficient bandwidth real time and no lag or the conversation becomes very difficult) then I want QoS (quality of service) prioritization for her packets over Bob who is doing some web browsing. If Bob's image download gets time shifted 500 milliseconds so Mary's call doesn't break up that's a better outcome (and some day it will be Bob's call getting priority over Mary's Facebook post). This happens in home routers all the time, there are built in QoS preferences so you can make that phone call while your teenage son is saturating your bandwidth with cat videos (OK, I'm the one watching cat videos, I'll admit it). I don't see that as a bad thing at all but absolutists on the neutrality side do.

The Net Neutrality regulations as they exist today allow load balancing and what you describe. Nobody is arguing against that. The issue isn't that Mary's VoIP call gets prioritized over Bob's image download, the issue is when Verizon's VoIP service get's prioritized over a WhatsApp voice call. Both are VoIP, but Verizon as the ISP can play favorites with their own service to the detriment of their competitor. This is what people are mostly concerned with.

Likewise I don't have a problem with packaging promotions in a way that's not anticompetitive. T-Mobile's Binge On plan violates net neutrality (according to EFF anyway, I'm not sure if any legal/regulatory action was taken) but if T-Mobile is working with any video provider that wants to come forward to get them included in that plan rather than zero rating their own service to attempt to steer customers away from competitors I'm fine with that. It benefits customers by having access to video without impact to their monthly data cap and it benefits T-Mobile by getting more usage out of finite infrastructure as the consumer trend is to consume more more more. This is very similar to Power Companies (also a regulated industry) offering discounts or rebates for energy efficient products. A watt is a watt is a watt right? But they have finite energy generation capacity and if you pick up that nice energy star appliance rather than the cheap inefficient appliance you'll draw less load for a given activity. That's a behavior they want to incentivize and there's nothing wrong with that.

T-Mobile is certainly testing the limits of what is acceptable. The problem is they aren't transparent about how to get approved. There isn't a public API or anything like that, which if you stream video using this API then it will be zero rated. They say they welcome any service, but that isn't really how it happens in practice.

I am certainly for anything that incentivizes efficiency, but there is a way to do it without letting ISPs essentially pick favorites and punish users of their competitors. You hit the nail on the head with comparing it to electricity - make internet a pay per unit service. Pay for every MB you download and upload, and people and apps will be very incentivized to become efficient.

Giving one service a zero-rating for streaming in 480p while counting another newcomer service against usage caps is not the best way to get efficiency.

Most of the comments in this thread have been steadfast and firmly in a pure position on one side or the other. Either every packet must be free no exceptions or zero regulation of anything there's never a problem. I'm somewhere in the middle where I like most of the provisions of net neutrality but I see a real need for QoS prioritization and a way to rapidly adjust those prioritization for new technologies without getting bogged down in bureaucracy to amend them. It's not black and white to me.

As I said above, the current Net Neutrality regulations allow QoS prioritization based on loads and real-world needs. They prohibit paid or anti-competetive prioritization. For very bad reasons, Trump's FCC want's to get rid of that.