might be a good time to consider if you want to continue to support him, now that you see actions and not just words..
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
What about those of us from outside the USofA?
Could those inside the US use a VPN to say Canada and get their free (at the ISP level) back again.
Honestly, this move is a great way to make America Not Great.
What in the world are you talking about? Net Neutrality has been in effect from the start of the internet until this vote says otherwise. Currently, ISPs do NOT have the right to slow access to particular sites or block access to them. You are completely incorrect in your assumption.
Here's an ISP in Portugal where there is no net neutrality. Yes, they charge for access to specific sites, just like we're going to see in the US if this change happens.
Dude, I've heard countless complaints from my anti-Trump friends who have no idea what net neutrality is, just that reddit.com or Minecraft said they should vote for it. It's people either being sheep or just not caring on both sides.
Last edited:
Like the US? We never had NN (well for a few months). I have 7 BB options where I live.
Mostly, the "last mile problem". In some other countries, all residences are provided data connections at government expense (and, therefore, are taxed for it); but in the United States, cable and telephone wire is entirely privatized. Therefore, cable companies don't lay wire where they are not likely to receive a profit.
In densely populated urban centers, this may not be a problem. But in suburbs, small towns, and rural areas, there is just no way that individual companies can make a profit, unless they can guarantee years of service from the residents they connect. (Moreover, the idea of laying multiple wires for multiple companies is just silly.)
Therefore, most local municipalities choose a single cable provider, and give them an absolute monopoly. This ensures that only one cable gets laid, and that the company laying the cable will have no competition to deal with, ensuring profitability.
So that is what stops a competitor from coming in and offering a better plan. There are no competitors.
If this happens, they could say you in Canada now have to pay if you want to access certain things on networks within the US. So if Netflix is hosted on a US server, if you want access then you need to also pay them an extra fee. Simply moving everything to be hosted outside the US isn't an option and even if it was, the price to do so would be HUGE. Amazon, Google, and Microsoft, along with many other US-based companies serve up a HUGE percentage of everything on the internet.
That's great, but who came up with the idea says nothing about the people who now OWN the equipment making it possible.
Again, that's great, and if the government develops a technology which allows it to perform it's function better, thats great too, and there's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to benefit from it. What does NOT follow, however, is that since the government came up with the idea, the private companies who acted to implement it into the market, lose their right to control their property. it belongs to them, and they are the ones who have the right to control it.
Again this doesn't follow. Protecting the property rights of the companies who implement this the hardware that makes the internet possible does not mean that the rights violating rest of the world will leave us in the dust, and it has never been demonstrated, and it doesn't even make sense. This law wasn't even passed that long ago, and the Internet is totally fine. Everybody spreading these horror stories of what's going to happen, and nothing ever comes to fruition. Time to recognize reality.
What in the world are you talking about? Net Neutrality has been in effect from the start of the internet until this vote says otherwise. Currently, ISPs do NOT have the right to slow access to particular sites or block access to them. You are completely incorrect in your assumption.
Here's an ISP in Portugal where there is no net neutrality. Yes, they charge for access to specific sites, just like we're going to see in the US if this change happens.
No it hasn't. All this vote basically does is roll back the classification of common carrier. The US only had NN for a few months.
Again, show me a single plan int he US allowing only specific sites being accessed. Just a single plan. Not one in the EU but the US. Just one plan.
There hasn't been an explicit law, but the FCC has always sued and fined companies that violated the principle. Though T-Mobile somehow got away with it recently.
.... I guess I'll ask you what the hell you're talking about as well...
At what point did I even come close to indicating that I supported this?
Here's your straw man back *gives*
All these gloom and doom. 
Things were sooo terrible before 2015. Oh, wait, things just functioned just fine.
What most of you don't get is giving the government control of the internet is fine at first. Then later they will decide that certain content are "unsafe" so they will order their "utilities" to block them. Pooof! No more dissenting voices.
Net Neutrality, Patriot Act, Food Safety Act. All great sounding, but in the end, meant to screw us over.
Things were sooo terrible before 2015. Oh, wait, things just functioned just fine.
What most of you don't get is giving the government control of the internet is fine at first. Then later they will decide that certain content are "unsafe" so they will order their "utilities" to block them. Pooof! No more dissenting voices.
Net Neutrality, Patriot Act, Food Safety Act. All great sounding, but in the end, meant to screw us over.
This would be big hit to business too. My work basically doesn't allow any connection without VPN. Even when I am in our office building.
What "smithrh" wrote was mostly a falsity based on FUD. A potential "this might happen" but we have no evidence it would happen type of thing.
Really? Are you that naive? First, In most places, you only have 1 or 2 ISPs. Second, Do you really think an ISP will leave money on the table? They will all do the same thing. The only difference will be what the actual bundles look like, making it almost impossible to compare the offerings. Today it's easy, speed and data caps. Tomorrow, it will be speed, data caps, what sites can I have access to.
Before 2015, we didn't have Pai as the chairman of the FCC and the federal government in a majority against NN. And ISPs couldn't easily get away with violating it. Many tried and were fined. But it's going to be different this time.All these gloom and doom.
Things were sooo terrible before 2015. Oh, wait, things just functioned just fine.
What most of you don't get is giving the government control of the internet is fine at first. Then later they will decide that certain content are "unsafe" so they will order their "utilities" to block them. Pooof! No more dissenting voices.
Net Neutrality, Patriot Act, Food Safety Act. All great sounding, but in the end, meant to screw us over.
True, now what is the cause of the lack of competition? Is it the case that the people in the area want only a choice between one fast provider, and one slow one? Notice: all 4 main cell carriers (albeit with varying levels of coverage) offer similar speeds on their networks. What stops this kind of service from being provided through ISPs? Is there possible another rights violating law somewhere, which prohibits competition from moving forward?
As part of the contracts companies like Comcast have with the cities they serve, they're required to provide service to everyone. There may be homes that it costs them many times more money to provide service to but they're required to offer it (permits, digging up streets, running tons of cable, etc, all cost more than they'll get from the little $50/month that person will pay). This is an advantage of the current system. With where things are headed, if you live in one of these spots where it's not profitable for them to provide service, sorry but you won't get service.
We don't see direct competition often because it's simply not profitable. Google Fiber is an excellent example. The reason they stopped building it out was because it's simply not profitable. It costs billions to build an ISP in a major metro. To recoup this investment, they have to be able to acquire a substantial portion of the market. If they have to compete with Comcast, they may only get 50% of the market, and that's not enough to pay the bills and justify the money they've invested. So, they stop.
Really? Are you that naive? First, In most places, you only have 1 or 2 ISPs. Second, Do you really think an ISP will leave money on the table? They will all do the same thing. The only difference will be what the actual bundles look like, making it almost impossible to compare the offerings. Today it's easy, speed and data caps. Tomorrow, it will be speed, data caps, what sites can I have access to.
I have 7 BB options in the Phoenix area I live in. Heck, in little Rockford, IL (where I do lots of work) there are 5 loosed options.
My apartment complex only allows Comcast inside of its building, what happens when Comcast is 200 dollars a month?
Check this dude's CV.
Pai was Verizon general counsel, promoted stepwise by the Republican-led Senate and Trump, the twitter nitwit, to his present FCC position, with the directive to dismantle all customer-protections.
Here are some of his latest gems, from Wikipedia:
- Pai wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal in 2014 criticizing a proposed FCC study of the news-gathering practices of media organizations.[20][21]
- In another 2014 letter, Pai criticized Netflix, writing that their Open Connect caching tools effectively secure fast lanes for its traffic.[22]
- In October 2014, Pai wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post criticizing a government-funded research project named "Truthy" at Indiana University which was studying the spread of "false and misleading ideas, hate speech and subversive propaganda" online.[23]
Pai questioned the value of the project, writing "should taxpayer money be used to monitor your speech and evaluate your 'partisanship'?" Truthy researchers defended the project, writing "we do not monitor individual people. The tweets we analyze are public and accessible by anyone."[24] Indiana University issued a press release which said "the Truthy project is a basic computing research project designed to provide analytical insight into the ways in which information is spread across social media networks such as Twitter."[25] U.S. House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith sent a letter to the National Science Foundation announcing a review of the grant.[26]
4. As chairman, Pai scrapped a proposal to open the cable box market to tech companies such as Google and Amazon. The cable-box "rental" is the leading money maker, monthly "money grab" of cable providers at the detriment of all cable subscribers, who live under a city-protected duo-poly.
4. As chairman, Pai scrapped a proposal to open the cable box market to tech companies such as Google and Amazon. The cable-box "rental" is the leading money maker, monthly "money grab" of cable providers at the detriment of all cable subscribers, who live under a city-protected duo-poly.
This sample, alone, disqualifies the man for any government, policy-making post.
But here we are.
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.