Look at countries where they never had it, and you'll see how screwed up it is.
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
Because despite experts, people writing their congressmen and protests, corporate money Trumps all. I’m Canadian, but it’s really quite sad what is happening to America in every area. This is so backwards it’s absurd.
Deregulation only works if there are multiple options available for consumers to choose from. As it stands, most people have very limited viable options. If they are lucky, they might have two services available at their location. The good thing, I guess, is that people will spend less time online if they have to pay more to access social media or MacRumors forums.
IDK, but they can always block VPN. It relies on some L4 protocol that (mostly) nothing else uses, right?
Edit: Nah, I think I'm wrong. The ones I've seen use GRE, but there are TCP ones. But if the ISP uses a whitelist by ipaddr, it's game over.
Last edited:
So you have a case of "I you can't say what you mean how can you ever mean what you say." Show me the basic package in the US allowing you to only access 20 of the most popular sites. Show me a SINGLE internet package allowing that. Most of the push for Net neutrality was based on FUD and not fixing something fundamentally broken. If it breaks, then fix it.
Just one.
Man, I've gotta wonder what Breitbart will say once they discover that most providers aren't going to include access to their site in any of the low-cost tiers. That's gonna be interesting...
You obviously don't understand the issue here. It's not about just having different speed tiers. With Net Neutrality dead, your ISP will be able to say, you need to pay an extra $10 a month on top of whatever speed tier you subscribe to, if you want to access Google. And you need to pay another $5 on top of that to access MacRumors. And another $10 for Facebook. And another $3 for Twitter. And another $5 for YouTube.
This isn't just about limiting your speed but access to the sites you frequent most.
Um, what? The only advantage that service providers gain by removing net neutrality is exactly the ability to restrict access to specific network addresses.
This isn't FUD. This is precisely what net neutrality protects against.
Because you think Obama administration was progress ? Tell that to the little Pakistani and Afghan children who fear playing outside on sunny days because of Obama drones that kill them. They could see them only on cloudy days. Now imagine you are those children under contant threat...given that you are capable of empathy
Facebook is gonna love this. No more having to buy out small companies that threaten them. They love it so much that they've already deployed their own ISP to developing countries that don't protect NN.
In this case:
The Democrats think it's better for most people if we just take it from the people who created it, or tell them how we are willing to allow them to use it, or ultimately nationalize it and have a government agency run it if necessary.
The Republicans think it's better for most people if we leave these things to a free-er market, and, for the most part, allow people to run their businesses, and to compete an that's the way to a better product for the most amount of people.
BOTH sides think that the STANDARD of what's good, and the purpose of government is "to do the most amount of good for the most amount of people." They disagree on how to do it, but they both agree on the goal.
NEITHER side stands up for an individuals RIGHT to OWN his property, and do with it what he sees fit.
So yes, both sides ARE the same, and that's why they're both destroying this country.
I guess they skipped the whole "Standard Oil" thing in your school. Pretending like the will of the people as exercised by competent, thoughtful government has no place in a well ordered society is either purposefully ignorant or willfully misleading. We can reasonably disagree on how the government exercises communal power, but the social contract in general isn't really up for debate these days (the past 200+ years or so).
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.
What's to stop a competitor from coming in and offering an unlimited/unrestricted plan?
Trump and the republicans haven't been making a big deal of it. Honestly seems like they only chose a side for the money and kept it relatively quiet.
Suppose you support this tRUMP position as well:
“(Patrick Martin/The Washington Post)
With Breanne Deppisch and Joanie Greve
THE BIG IDEA: President Trump and his political appointees at the Justice Department insist that the federal government’s lawsuit Monday to block AT&T from acquiring Time Warner is not retribution for CNN’s coverage of the White House. But there are good reasons to be dubious of their denials.”
tRUMP and his flock = Unashamed hypocrisy
Again. Show me a single internet package with that option. Remember NN never really went into effect. Show me just a single plan allowing only FaceBook, Twitter and Huffington Post.
Please share the data prices you were getting from Mama Bell. Or the last unleaded receipt from Standard Oil.
One thing for sure, the CEO's of the cable companies are going to get YUUUUUUGE Christmas bonuses on December 14th after the FCC ruling.
Um, what? The "Internet" was a concept designed and created by DARPA, a government agency. Prior to the Internet, inter-computer-communication networks were privatized collections of dial-up centers across the country (such as AOL).
There was no requirement that businesses or consumers use the Internet. But the concept was so darned good, provided such an improvement in communications speed and access to varied networks, it only made sense for everyone to migrate there.
You want to go back to a world of privatized network access? Where your provider, just like AOL, provides their own web browser and e-mail service (and blocks any others from being used)? Well, that's you're prerogative, but the rest of the world is going to leave us in the dust as we go back to the bad old days...
It's not necessarily going to make the ISPs more expensive, but it'll screw up the internet free market. Everyone is saying this will hurt consumers, but the average non-tech-savvy person probably won't really notice.
I mean, when T-Mobile blatantly violated net neutrality with their preferred video services, everyone loved them, including like 3/4 of the MacRumors commenters.
It certainly is up for debate, and I will accept PROOF of the idea, and not allow your reliance on agreement with a majority of other people as "proof" of your view. You can either validate and prove your ideas against reality, or concede by default, but the response of "for the last 200+ years, everyone knows that 2+2 is really 5," is not an valid means of proving an idea.
They certainly could but how many competing options do you have in your area? Most cities might have 2 options for internet, but they're not evenly matched. Generally one is far better than the other (cable vs DSL for example). The better option is usually a big company like Comcast, who owns that market for the most part.
Are you going to be happy to switch to a much much slower service in order to get access to the same websites you got before?
It's shocking people actually DO believe this taking unsubstantiated hypothetical potential future "what ifs" and "might have beens" and "could bees" and thinking they are the past and present fact and reality. Me, I voted green.