FCC Expected to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules in Vote Next Month

[Glockworkorange]

I don't understand how people can be okay with this. It's utterly mind-boggling.
[doublepost=1511321452][/doublepost]
It was a thing ... https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/

All of these things have not at all

So to be clear, your argument is that ISPs won’t use all these shady practices, so therefore they should be legally allowed to use these shady practices. Nonsensical.

Also, if you for some reason reject the validity of Portuguese and Mexican examples (?) why don’t you just look at the American pre-Net Neutrality example of Comcast throttling Netflix to squash competition?

You’ve drunk the kool-aid I see. All those industries are interested in profit above all else, which is fine — that’s a corporation’s purpose. But they need to be regulated to protect consumers. I personally don’t want to “let the market decide” about things like airplane safety and banking practices. I want accountability, transparency, and consumer protections.

What I am saying is the horrors the "net neutrality" folks are wringing their hands over haven't come to pass in the past 30 years, so I don't feel high handed and heavy over-regulation is needed. But....but.....but.....EVIL, GREEDY, RICH CORPORATIONS (AND REPUBLICANS AND TRUMP AND USA/'MERICA) so "net neutrality."

I am fine with some regulation--I don't want razor blades ending up in my jar of mayonnaise. I do have concerns over "excessive" regulation, however.
[doublepost=1511375845][/doublepost]

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?

I do believe the market tends to fix most ills (not all; most).

Again, zero complaints with Comcast. I pay $145.00 per month for plenty of channels and 89.49 Mbs down (as of just now). I have a cushy data cap that I don't go over.

You guys are like Alex Jones worried about the Bilderberger bogeymen..."they" (THE EVIL, GREEDY and RICH) are out to get you and COULD do all of these evil things (but really haven't over the past 30 years).

 

[AZ63]

Well market competition has rarely prevented shady business practices in the past, especially in industries dominated by a few huge companies. This is good common sense regulation. It’s an industry with very little competition in the first place because in most areas there’s an almost monopolistic dominance of one or two companies. If the GOP really cared about competition and the market, they’d address THAT instead.

Perhaps this is addressing THAT. Lowering federal regulations creates a lower bar to enter the market. Easier entry into the market creates an environment where competition can thrive and customers benefit. You think regulations increases completion and I see it creating barriers and locking in only a few big players. That is what we have now. I agree with you that we need more competition in the market. Creating barriers doesn't accomplish our agreed upon goal.

 

[jpietrzak8]

Perhaps this is addressing THAT. Lowering federal regulations creates a lower bar to enter the market. Easier entry into the market creates an environment where competition can thrive and customers benefit. You think regulations increases completion and I see it creating barriers and locking in only a few big players. That is what we have now. I agree with you that we need more competition in the market. Creating barriers doesn't accomplish our agreed upon goal.

The current lack of competition is entirely due to the cost of the physical infrastructure. Corporations gain monopoly access to regions of the country in return for providing the physical infrastructure to those regions.

Removing net neutrality does absolutely nothing to reduce the costs of laying down or maintaining physical network infrastructure. All it does is to allow network providers to squeeze more profits out of an existing line, by either charging users more to access certain sites, or by charging providers more to access certain customers.

 

[512ke]

Sorry I'm jumping in late to the convo. But here is my personal reaction:

"Enjoy our 405 Freeway bundle! With our EVERYTHING L.A. PLAN, you'll be able to access ten of the most popular driving destinations, including Staples, Walmart©, LACMA museum, the Staples Center, and Kmart! And if you want to drive anywhere else, no problem! You can drive to additional destinations for only $4.95 each *plus tax, speed restrictions apply."

My point being: Roads are public. You can drive anywhere you want on them, unless they are TOLL roads. But the vast of majority of roads, are FREE and offer UNLIMITED USE and DESTINATIONS.

The internet should be the same. Not EVERYTHING in this life has to be determined by market forces, especially in an oligarchy in which it's just NOT possible for lots of IPS's to pop up and compete! You're stuck with a few choices, meaning, without net neutrality, were are all going to be forced to pay and limited in what we can experience.

 

[oneMadRssn]

I’ve not read through the entire comment section, but Pai was actually appointed by Obama.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_V._Pai

Appointed to the Commission by Obama, in a horse-trade with McConnel. Trump designated him as Chairman, essentially a promotion giving him the reins.

 

[pat500000]

Wouldn’t ending net neutrality cause isp to compete?

 

[jpietrzak8]

Wouldn’t ending net neutrality cause isp to compete?

ISPs do not compete in most areas of the country, because the ISP owns the actual cables connecting to each residence, and it is illogical to go to the extreme cost and labor to lay down multiple wires to a residence that will only be using one.

It would make as much sense as paving two sets of roads between every house.

So most ISPs are monopolies by design.

 

[VulchR]

...
I do believe the market tends to fix most ills (not all; most).

There is a difference between how people actually behave and how economists imagine they behave. Also, believing the markets will fix things is rather like believing evolution will always arrived at the best viable solution for life. There is no guarantee of that whatsoever, just a tendency on average.

 

[LizKat]

Well the markets certainly believe the big ISPs will have a more profitable era after the FCC vote.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...sps-rise-on-net-neutrality-bets-idUSKBN1DM1HL​

 

[Technarchy]

Verizon stooge is now earning his Verizon bonus.

 

[finchna]

We already have that. What is your point? I still feel like Net Neutrality was fixing something not really broken. It was always "this could happen" or "that might happen."

some IP vendors throttled (some information - 1, 2, 3, 4) service to customers (it happened where I live) -- not part of ToU or anything else -- just throttled. The response to such things, and the idea that you can charge for access (like access to a phone line) and you get what you order/pay for without additional charges was at least some of what NN was about. Removing NN allows the IP vendors (most of which are also now content providers) to increase fees on some content (competitors) which is bad for the consumer because frequently there is NO choice of IP vendor -- there is one company that provides access in a given region or city/town. If that vendor wants to slow down service from a competing content vendor it will be easier under the new rules. That is bad for consumers -- for normal people. This also hurts startups as that single vendor can raise fees to deter such development/competition. This is not a good change for consumers. It is a positive for the IP vendors -- making things more expensive for consumers and making the businesses richer -- similar to the tax changes that the current government is trying to make.

 

[Hitrate]

spew.

You have just been too blind, heavily indoctrinated and preoccupied to notice much of this at all, like the general sheep population, on top of that your kind show little to no care for the rest of the planet and it's people. God help us.

 

[LizKat]

Again, zero complaints with Comcast. I pay $145.00 per month for plenty of channels and 89.49 Mbs down (as of just now). I have a cushy data cap that I don't go over.

Translation: "I've got mine, Jack."

Do you have a proposal for the 20% of US population that has zilch service? Because the market solution had demonstrably been [crickets] prior to the 2015 rulings, and will revert to that approach ASAP if the FCC votes as it has said it intends to do.

 

[Dj64Mk7]

From what I understand, it is standard practice to nominate an FCC chair from the opposing party of the current President (i.e. Obama nominated Pai). And it would make sense to me that Trump himself has nothing to do with this vote since it is all under the FCC. Wouldn’t that mean that Pai would be the overseerer on it?

 

[finchna]

From what I understand, it is standard practice to nominate an FCC chair from the opposing party of the current President (i.e. Obama nominated Pai). And it would make sense to me that Trump himself has nothing to do with this vote since it is all under the FCC. Wouldn’t that mean that Pai would be the overseerer on it?

Obama nominated Pai to the board of commissioners, he was appointed chair by the current administration. So, no, what you describe did not happen (though there must be no more than 3 of 5 commissioners from one party). The current administration isn't looking out for the common person -- through a variety of attempts to change many things and executive orders and things that are underway (tax bill) -- the focus is on making the rich richer (more wealthy) and setting up the lower and middle class to fight each other for the scraps, fewer services, fewer opportunities, etc..

 

[Glockworkorange]

Translation: "I've got mine, Jack."

Do you have a proposal for the 20% of US population that has zilch service? Because the market solution had demonstrably been [crickets] prior to the 2015 rulings, and will revert to that approach ASAP if the FCC votes as it has said it intends to do.

I can only go off my own experience. Sorry!
[doublepost=1511400865][/doublepost]

Translation: "I've got mine, Jack."

Do you have a proposal for the 20% of US population that has zilch service? Because the market solution had demonstrably been [crickets] prior to the 2015 rulings, and will revert to that approach ASAP if the FCC votes as it has said it intends to do.

Also, I don't think "net neutrality" has anything to do with households without internet service.
[doublepost=1511400920][/doublepost]

You have just been too blind, heavily indoctrinated and preoccupied to notice much of this at all, like the general sheep population, on top of that your kind show little to no care for the rest of the planet and it's people. God help us.

Yep. You guys sound JUST like Alex Jones. LOL.

 

[LizKat]

Also, I don't think "net neutrality" has anything to do with households without internet service.

The FCC vote expected in December is not just repealing net neutrality, it will also roll back previous policy which stated that internet service in the USA is as essential as water and electricity. Which means that broadband deployment efforts to unserved or underserved areas can promptly be back-burnered again to let "the markets" handle it if and when they feel like it. The precise impact on certain areas may depend on the fine print of rollout arrangements already contracted for, for instance if government grants have been applied to the ISP making the investment.

 

[AsherN]

It really isn't different at all. Blocking, banning, demonetizing and censoring is very common on today's Internet. No reason ISPs should be blocked by law from doing the same. Don't like it? Use another ISP.

"Net neutrality" is stifling innovation and driving up prices. And it's a total double-standard where censorship gets applauded when the big tech monopolies engage in it (another Twitter purge coming in December).

You really don't get it, do you? Don't like what Google does? Don't use Google.

You want Netflix, but your ISP is charging more for you to have access to their servers. What do youo do? in Most of the US, you can't switch ISP.

How is Net Neutrality stifling innovation? If anything, it drives innovation, because the barrier to entry is low. What if I want to launch a new streaming service? right now I need some content, advertising and good pricing or free for a while. Without Net Neutrality, ISPs could simply move my service to a paid tier. How many people would even try my service if they have to pay the ISP to even see what I offer?

 

[unobtainium]

Perhaps this is addressing THAT. Lowering federal regulations creates a lower bar to enter the market. Easier entry into the market creates an environment where competition can thrive and customers benefit. You think regulations increases completion and I see it creating barriers and locking in only a few big players. That is what we have now. I agree with you that we need more competition in the market. Creating barriers doesn't accomplish our agreed upon goal.

Net neutrality isn't a regulatory burden, according to *actual* smaller ISP owners. It's only a burden if you're doing something bad..
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...ory-burden-if-youre-doing-something-bad.shtml

 

[jpietrzak8]

Net neutrality isn't a regulatory burden, according to *actual* smaller ISP owners. It's only a burden if you're doing something bad..
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...ory-burden-if-youre-doing-something-bad.shtml

This! An ISP that doesn't inspect the contents of packets is, by definition, acting in a neutral manner. The ISP actually has to inspect every packet traveling to and from your internet connection to act in a manner that would not be neutral; and that kind of snooping gets pretty uncomfortable pretty quickly.

Even if they say they aren't reading your email or examining your purchasing habits, how can you trust a company once it starts business practices that depend on examining the content of all your on-line data?

 

[AZ63]

Net neutrality isn't a regulatory burden, according to *actual* smaller ISP owners. It's only a burden if you're doing something bad..
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...ory-burden-if-youre-doing-something-bad.shtml

It was an interesting read, opposing opinions. Did you read the comments? Interesting.
Oh, got to go. The government is here to search my house without a warrant. They said it is only a burden if I am doing something bad.
Really, that is the standard you want set for the imposition of government authority/regulation?

 

[adnbek]

Net Neutrality, Patriot Act, Food Safety Act. All great sounding, but in the end, meant to screw us over.

The Clean Air Act seemed to have done its job however...

 

[jpietrzak8]

Oh, got to go. The government is here to search my house without a warrant. They said it is only a burden if I am doing something bad.
Really, that is the standard you want set for the imposition of government authority/regulation?

Hi! I'm here from the electric company. I see that you are powering your TV and your computer with our electricity, which is great! But I'm afraid I'll have to unplug those Christmas lights you've got up; you can't use our electricity for those unless you subscribe to our "holiday" service package. Oh, and that light you have in the back yard can only be powered by our electricity if you subscribe to our "security" package. Have a nice day!


The problem with Internet access in this country is that there is just one company who owns the wires connected to your house, and so if you want to use those wires, you do what that company tells you to do. This is why electricity, water, gas, and other utilities are heavily regulated; it's not like you have a choice of providers.

So yeah, I want the government to impose regulations here. Until any ISP can use the wires connected to my house, I want them treated as the monopoly that they are.

 

[ggibson913]

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

The government is NEVER the answer.

Except most people in the US including me are in a monopoly marketplace

 

[Hitrate]

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

The government is NEVER the answer.”

That’s cause you’ve been conditioned to corruption being okay.......