Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FCC Expected to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules in Vote Next Month
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Twitter (the first)
Second - is from a tweet/article indicating what something like the would look like in the US
Oh ok thanks. I was thinking this was already something in place in another country. This is what it's going to look like when Comcast and At&t get free rain. It will be cable all over again for the internet.
it is what exists elsewhere:
Portugal shows an extreme example of what could happen in America.
http://www.businessinsider.com/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-trump-plan-meaning-2017-11
Fantastic . I don't know if this is what could happen, this might be what will happen without Net Neutrality.
Last edited:
Some folks see these regulations as "heavy-handed" because in their mind, it was working just fine before the switch to Title II and the implementation for enforced net neutrality. But a lot has changed even since the early aughts (00'). ISP's like Comcast have become vertically integrated with content providers and have far more incentive to restrict access to content they are not direct beneficiaries of. With the handcuffs permanently off, what is to stop them from taking advantage of that?
They are going to. You can already see signs of it with mobile carries. They will give you free rein on their streaming content, but dock you for others. This is going to be even worse once Net Neutrality is gone.
Nothing. Net neutrality becomes voluntary. New rules: they can do whatever they like, they just have to tell you they're doing it. This is the FCC's version of "consumer protection". Talk about devaluing a phrase.
What really gets me is that this oligarchy-favoring version of the FCC has chosen to ignore all the information that a couple hundred scientists and internet engineering contributors have told them about how damaging this decision of theirs is, and that they don't even understand what "the internet" really is. This country is really being taken to the woodshed by the GOP, and repealing net neutrality is just one more example.
Last edited:
A new opinion piece
http://beta.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-fcc-net-neutrality-vote-20171212-story.html
President Trump's appointee as FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, argues that those rules have "depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks."
They haven't. What they've depressed is the ability of telecom companies to fleece broadband internet customers who have cut the cord on pricey pay-TV packages and switched to streaming-video services.
Happily for the industry, but not so much for consumers, that's about to change.
The rest seems more like a gripe about his cable company in general vs net neutrality... but when consumers have little to no choice, the outcome is obvious.
http://beta.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-fcc-net-neutrality-vote-20171212-story.html
President Trump's appointee as FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, argues that those rules have "depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks."
They haven't. What they've depressed is the ability of telecom companies to fleece broadband internet customers who have cut the cord on pricey pay-TV packages and switched to streaming-video services.
Happily for the industry, but not so much for consumers, that's about to change.
The rest seems more like a gripe about his cable company in general vs net neutrality... but when consumers have little to no choice, the outcome is obvious.
Ohh do tell us how the internet will be without net neutrality oh great and smart one.
Expect no. In 1996 we were all on dial and didn't have youtube, streaming music, or video, or high speed internet. The only isp in 1996 was AOL and tat was a walled garden. Now that we have over the top services that can be throttled by the big providers, Comcast in favor of their own services it will become an issue. It already was a few year ago when Comcast held Netflix hostage.
Not a word of that is true.
The Comcast-Netflix issue was also dealt with and resolved long before Obama's "net neutrality" rules. And if Netflix alone is using up to 40% of network bandwidth, it's only fair they pay ISPs who are the ones investing in infrastructure improvements.
It was the biggest ISP that had dial up, well there was Prodigy, but that really didn't take off. We didn't have broadband or much content on the internet. Sure you could have had a T1 line but those were mega expensive.
Well, subscription prices on my account has gone up to $10.99US
http://mashable.com/2017/10/05/netflix-raising-prices-again/#RUsnGdwjjsqy
No really. Economists estimate that investment by ISPs declined by $3.6 billion after the FCC instituted net neutrality.
https://haljsinger.wordpress.com/20...rvey-tracking-investment-in-the-title-ii-era/
Absolutely love the doomsday scenarios that are being thrown out there because of this.
People saying that stuff like that will start immediately are taking it to an extreme, but that is only because the cable companies want to let it blow over and have people forget about Net neutrality before they start sneaking in extra charges for sites that they don’t get a direct benefit from.
Hmm.. They said the same thing about the airline industry after they were bailed out by the government after 9/11. They started to implement all of these other fees, and saying that they'd be charged fee after fee after fee starting in x months..
THEY WERE RIGHT.
Name a time in which you have not been assessed a fee for baggage, carry on bags, paper tickets, in flight service, or assigned seating on any major US airline except Southwest. UAL did it. USA did it. NWA did it. DAL did it. COA did it. FFT did it. MEP did it. Hell, the ULCCs now have their primary operations built on this, where they charge you for every single thing that you were not charged for prior to 9/11.
Yet you want to call the pro NN people gullible? Yet you're not only complicit in the same thing that the airline industry did, but that complicity equates to condoning their actions as well.
I await to see your train tickets the next time you need to travel.
Wrong. What he said is true, with the exception that the only ISP was not AOL. That was wrong.
I helped to build 3 ISPs in my hometown, and worked for a 4th and 5th in Las Vegas. ISPs were local, not national at that time, with the exception of a few: Level3, Panix, Charter, RoadRunner, as well as AOL.
No, it isn't. Because they shouldn't have to pay for the content they are serving, especially if they already have their own infrastructure, let alone have the bandwidth to support it. The ISPs shouldn't be charging customers for the bandwidth, then charging them again for a particular service. Again, similar to the airline industry, being complicit in this is condoning it. You don't like it when airlines charge you outrageous fees for the same service you've always had, yet you're wanting ISPs to do the same thing here with bandwidth.
Which are you going to chose, or remain with a double standard?
BL.