FCC Expected to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules in Vote Next Month

[chfilm]

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

Maybe it will make you start question who you support. This is just the the tip of the iceberg.

So funny, people ignore every craziness that this guy does, but when he takes their internet, that’s where you draw the line. Lucky you will be long dead when the climate goes to hell right..?!

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

Expect to see something like this. You'll pay more if you want to access Google. Pay more if you want to access YouTube. Pay more if you want to access Reddit.

And this won't just be on your home internet. You're going to pay more on your phone too. Coffee shops and other public wifi won't always have access to everything you want.

If you don't take the time to make a call (don't rely on others to do this because they won't), then don't complain when you have to start paying for every site you want to visit.

 

[mozumder]

Don't blame me. I voted for Hillary, who was supportive of Net Neutrality.

Oh well, maybe abandoning net-neutrality finally gets the Trump voters off of their fake news sites they love.

 

[BigDO]

No we don't. We have different speed packages. Those speeds apply to EVERYTHING on the web.

I should have made my post more clear. Without net neutrality, a "basic" package could allow you to access "20 of the most popular websites" at full speed, while everything else would be throttled or unavailable. A "premium" package could allow you to access all or most of the web, and a "deluxe" package could be required to stream video or play games online. In other words, ISPs will have total control over the speeds you receive and the prices you pay for different parts of the web.

It's shocking that there are people who don't understand this. These are probably the people who voted for Trump, too.

 

[Diorama]

Use your guns, America.

 

[tomtendo]

What has the government ever touched or regulated that helped the consumer? We don't need this in place. We need companies competing versus each other which creates better products and service. You don't need that regulated. Otherwise, it will all be the same. You guys are so worried about the "What if.... they charge $5/mo for Netflix". Guess what? Then the competitor won't charge that forcing the other company to not offer it as well. It's called capitalism! REAL Capitalism that isn't the kind you hear the left always talk about as being "bad". Government is a joke. Private companies and the people are what drives it all.

 

[Dave-Z]

VPN usage will be able to be blocked.

Lots of ways to mask VPN usage. People routinely do it to get past Internet blocks in other even more restrictive countries. Easiest it just to get a small VPS and use something like OpenVPN on TCP port 443 (or any port/protocol combo where traffic is less controlled); I'm pretty sure the ISPs will be too stupid to figure out it's not regular traffic. Heck, you can even get routers that will run your whole Internet connection through a VPN.

Either way, doesn't affect me since I'm not the the USA, but honestly the if this ruling passes it will not be a good thing for consumers. The Internet is different now than it was 15-20 years ago so these guys saying, "It's always worked fine in the past," is just fancy marketing speak to mask an agenda being pushed forward by people who have very little understanding of how technology actually works but a great understanding of how the money they get from lobbyists works.

 

[ls1dreams]

Can someone please explain how this vote is actually going through?

 

[KPOM]

No we don't. We have services packages based on speed and in some places on data use, but not on actual content or websites (the data cap is neutral in regard to what websites use the data). But this is the situation in Portugal, a country with no net neutrality:

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 cable TV. Additionally, 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.

Considering that it never happened during all the years leading up to 2015 it seems unlikely that it would become rampant here.

Net neutrality is a major giveaway to bandwidth hogs like Netflix and Google.

 

[Z400Racer37]

Yeah it's a shame they forced those businesses to serve those pesky coloreds and Jews, right?

Don't pretend the government is inherently bad. Like anything, it's the use that counts. The breakup of AT&T and Standard Oil did great things for America.

What the hell are you even talking about?

Also, where do you get a right to break up my company, or control my networking hardware, just because I was better at it than most other people, and succeed at it?

I don't care what good you might derive from it, you don't have a right to use government to initiate damage against me, and I'll wait to hear evidence proving otherwise. if experience is any indication, I'll be waiting quite a while...

 

[Packers1958]

The end is near for cord cutters. The only way you will be able to get a “cheap” internet connection is to be forced to bundle with a cable subscription. Otherwise, the price for internet alone will be as high as the bundle itself. Also, Say good bye to DirecTV, DISH, DirecTV Now, VUE, etc. No one will pay the ridiculous standalone internet price and then pay for non cable providers separately.

 

[Z400Racer37]

One word: Trump

FCC are doing what Trump ordered.

You win some, you lose some I guess.

 

[DocMultimedia]

Expect to see something like this. You'll pay more if you want to access Google. Pay more if you want to access YouTube. Pay more if you want to access Reddit.

And this won't just be on your home internet. You're going to pay more on your phone too. Coffee shops and other public wifi won't always have access to everything you want.

If you don't take the time to make a call (don't rely on others to do this because they won't), then don't complain when you have to start paying for every site you want to visit.

Ugh. That is brutal. America will probably go even further extreme and separate common things. For $5 you can have Twitter and Skype. For $5 you can have Facebook and last.fm. Etc. Your bill was once $70 for everything, now it will be $85 for a dozen sites that you like.

Trump really is a dinosaur who wants the world to end.

 

[Kabeyun]

Loosen the constraints on Big Businesses doing whatever they want. How could this possibly be bad for us?

“Oh, but if prices become astronomical, fewer people will buy their goods, Corporate will see that and respond by lowering prices again, which will self-correct the system,” goes the republican/libertarian response.

Or... they’ll continue to be profitable off the people who have no problem paying for goods at inflated prices. And Joe Average loses, and the Internet becomes a commodity of the rich.

 

[GeneralChang]

So a conservative approach would be able to provide evidence that last year's changes have failed in some measurable way. It's been a year. No substantial evidence in either direction exists. Changing stuff for the sake of changing it is exactly the reason why Republicans were so upset with Obama's campaign the first time he ran. My how the tables have turned.

 

[TheShadowKnows!]

When people who have been voting Republican lately can get over their hatred of gays, minorities, and immigrants enough to stop voting against the party that doesn't seem to want to interfere with everyone's lives. Look at Alabama as a perfect example. People in some cases will literally put up with ANYTHING in order to "win" and have their political party have a spot in office, and it's a sad thing to see. Reagan Republicans these aren't.

Spot on.

Your example of Alabamians behavior is the synonym of tribalism: "the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one's own tribe or social group"

Nothing else matters to such a group.

 

[Z400Racer37]

The end is near for cord cutters. The only way you will be able to get a “cheap” internet connection is to be forced to bundle with a cable subscription. Otherwise, the price for internet alone will be as high as the bundle itself. Also, Say good bye to DirecTV, DISH, DirecTV Now, VUE, etc. No one will pay the ridiculous standalone internet price and then pay for non cable providers separately.

If we had a free market in this space, instead of a government which forced regional monopolies, and didn't allow competition to entrenched companies, you would have cheap, fast, reliable internet offered by company B, if not from company A. Being "forced" (which is not actually whats happening, you just aren't given another option if you want internet) to buy cable with internet is a feature of government protection of companies who aren't providing what their customers want.

Fix the source of the problem, don't put bandaids on stab wounds.

 

[Hattig]

What has the government ever touched or regulated that helped the consumer? We don't need this in place. We need companies competing versus each other which creates better products and service. You don't need that regulated. Otherwise, it will all be the same. You guys are so worried about the "What if.... they charge $5/mo for Netflix". Guess what? Then the competitor won't charge that forcing the other company to not offer it as well. It's called capitalism! REAL Capitalism that isn't the kind you hear the left always talk about as being "bad". Government is a joke. Private companies and the people are what drives it all.

Sure, there's competition in some areas.

And collusion in others.

And in a few places, where there is actual competition, you'll find localised deals, or maybe legal/political pressure from the big company on the small company to not be allowed to provide a service at all.

The Common Carrier status still allows meaningful competition on the speed and width of the pipe, just not what you the customer chooses to use it for. Once that's gone, it won't take long to enter a corporate nightmare of packages to gain access to things you took for granted before.

Capitalism works when there is competition, and often when all the players aren't so large they dominate and bully the market. Neo-liberal corporatism, however, is bad for everyone.

 

[NoNothing]

No we don't. We have services packages based on speed and in some places on data use, but not on actual content or websites (the data cap is neutral in regard to what websites use the data). But this is the situation in Portugal, a country with no net neutrality:

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 cable TV. Additionally, 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.

So we have [ "basic", "premium" and "deluxe" internet packages.] already.

So again, you are gabbing about what "might happen" or "this could happen" or "what if this were to happen". We have had "basic", "premium" and "deluxe" internet packages for decades. from dial-up, to DSL to cable with multiple tiers in each of those services based on speed (both upload and download).

 

[MrX8503]

There's a reason why ISPs have been diversifying their business (Comcast buying NBC). They want to have the benefits of content providers, while still controlling the internet pipes. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[techwarrior]

'Instead, the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that's best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate."

Ok, so de-regulate service providers, allow consumers to choose between all of the providers instead of the one that does the best job of stuffing the local politicians pockets.

With real competition, at least one carrier will take the TMobile approach and remove the restrictions and complexity and force the big guys to follow suit. Without competition and regulation, our cable companies will have little to hold them back from making life miserable for consumers, something they seem to pride themselves in doing!

 

[gijoeinla]

Yeah it's a shame they forced those businesses to serve those pesky coloreds and Jews, right?

Don't pretend the government is inherently bad. Like anything, it's the use that counts. The breakup of AT&T and Standard Oil did great things for America.

O M G !! “The breakup of AT&T and Standard Oil did great things for America”...???

Really? Really? Right now I pay ATT $700 a month for cell/tv/home phone/internet. Prices are HIGHER for everything telecom. The break up did nothing but build a bigger empire thank you. And who is watching out for YOUR interests and making certain they are good custodians of our information and service?

Who? You? Omg

Gasoline REMAINS at record price levels. I mean dude what in the hell are you smoking???? Seriously.

Oh you left out Airline deregulation. It’s now the worst consumer experience out there where SERVICE is a DISASTER and prices are subject to change upwards in a second.

Deregulation has done nothing more but fatten the pockets of corporate America and drained our workforce and bank accounts.

One more thing. Deregulation gifted us “off shore” jobs galore.

This decision today furthers FACISM in the West.

Let’s give Thanks to deregulation. Yay!!!

 

[Razeus]

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

This is what you voted for. How can you be against this when he clearly said this is what he was going to do?

 

[Ceviche Lover]

Now it's starting to make sense of these Cable/Satellite/Telephone mergers. In order to get unrestricted Internet, they'll force you to get a cable package along with it.

 

[NoNothing]

Reddit $5/month
MacRumors $1/month
ABCTV.com $1/month
Netflix $5/month
FoxNews.com Free
NYT.com $10/month

Can you say "FUD". This is nothing but fear mongering to create more regulation. A case of potentials not based on realities.

 

[MrX8503]

So we have [ "basic", "premium" and "deluxe" internet packages.] already.

So again, you are gabbing about what "might happen" or "this could happen" or "what if this were to happen". We have had "basic", "premium" and "deluxe" internet packages for decades. from dial-up, to DSL to cable with multiple tiers in each of those services based on speed (both upload and download).

We have internet speed packages, but those speeds aren't dictated by the types of content you consume.